Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.17 Soils & foundation investigationch en and ass·o,ciates 5080 !'It .15( GLENWOOD SPRINGS,COl.ORADO 61601 303/945.745~ PRELIJV'.t.INARY SOIL AND FOUNDl'.TION TI\IVESTIGlITION, PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DE\7ELOP~1ENT, PARCEL 5-1, Bf'.'ITLEMENT MESA, HID, GllRFIELD COUNTY, COLDRADO Prepared For: Battlement Mesa, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Grand Junction, CO 81501 Attn: Stew Gilib:::lns Job No. 24,015 June 8, 1982 OfFICES: CASPER. COLOfiJ...DO SPRINGS it' DENVER. SAL 1" LAKE CITY TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION PROPOSED CONSTRUcrION SITE CONDITIONS GEOUX:;IC SEITING SUBSOIL CONDITIONS PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Drainage Considerations Excavation and Site Grading Foundation Recorrmendations Floor Slabs Corrosion Potential Pavement Recorrmendations LIMITATIONS FIGURE 1 -VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 -LOCATION OF EXPLORA'IORY HOLES AND SURFICIAL GEDIJ:X;Y FIGURE 3 -r,o::;S OF EXPlDRA'IORY HOLES FIGURE 4 -LEGEND & NarES FIGURES 5-7 -SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I -SUMJl1ARY OF LABORA'IDRY TEST RESULTS 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 OJNCLUSIONS (1) The subsoil conditions vary with respect to type, depth and engineering characteristics. Generally, they consist of an upper sandy to silty clay with scattered gravelS extending from nil to about 15 feet in depth. The fine-grained soils overlie a dense granular deposit of gravel, cobbles and boulders in a sandy clay matrix. Nominal arrounts of manplaced fill were encountered. (2) The projXlsed buildings can be founded with spread footing placed on the natural fine-grained soils or lower gravels and designed for soil bearing pressures in the range of 1,000 psf to 3,000 psf. Footings placed entirely on the underlying coarse granular deposit can be designed for soil bearing pressures ranging from 3, 000 to 6, 000 psf. (3) The upper clays are generally of relatively low density and contain porous zones. These soils are susceptible to erosion and may possess a high settlerrPJlt jXltential upon wetting. Surface drainage recorrmendations and diversion measures as described in the body of this report are considered necessary to the satisfactory performance of the structures. Observation and testing of the site grading procedures should be performed by a representative of the soil engineer. Design details and precautions are discussed in the report. -2-SCOPE TIlls report presents the results of a soil and fOW1dation investigation for the proposed residential development to be located on Parcel 5-1, BattlerrBI1t Mesa Developnent, Garfield CoW1ty, Colorado. A vicinity l1I3p showing the general location of the proposed development is presented on Figure 1. The report presents the general subsoil conditions, recanmended type fOW1dations and ranges of allowable bearing pressures, pavement recorrmendations and other soil related design and construction details. PREVIOUS INVESTI~TION Chen and Associates previously conducted several engineering reports for devel9Jpnent and structures adjacent tc the property. These reports are listed as folIows: (1) Seil and FOW1dation Investigation, Proposed Fire Station, Job No. 22,490 dated July 17, 1981. (2) Soil and FOW1dation Investigation, Proposed Water Storage Reservoir and Pump Station, Job No. 20,304 dated May 29, 1980. (3) Seil and FOW1dation Investigation, Proposed Zone B Burrp.8tation, Job No. 22,733 dated April 1, 1981. (4) Geotechnical and Geological Evaluation, Battlement Mesa Development, Job No. 11,833 dated January 16, 1975. The information contained within the above referenced reports was utilized in preparation of this report. -,5-proPOSED CONSTRUCI'ION The proposed development will consist of medium density residential lIDits located throughout the central portion of the parcel. The far eastern 1/3 of the parcel ~Qll be utilized for an elementary school and church site. IlpprO}:imately the western 1/3 of the parcel has not been designated for development at the time of this report preparation and no specific design info~1Uation ooncerning type of construction for the residential lIDits has been provided. We assume the development to consist primarily of light residential wood frame s~-uctures with minor excavation required. SITE CONDITIONS ~~~~~~~~~---::At-the-time-of tJ1e field illvest~gatlon, the parcel was generally undeveloped and covered with a variety of grasses, weeds and sage. Several scattered areas of stockpiled boulders or waste material were located across the site. Previous site use oonsisted of pasture land. Sorre areas, primarily adjacent to the existing public safety building (fire station) and pump station and a north-south oonstruction road bisecting the parcel have been stripped of vegetation. Topographically, the area is relatively flat and slopes IlDderately down to the west with approxiJnately 50 to 60 feet of elevation difference existing across the proposed development. A snall drainage separates the proposed development from the existing public safety building and Cerne~-y Gulch is located to the southwest. Both the public safety building and the Zone B pump station to the south were under oonstruction at the time of the field investigation. South Battlement Parkway b~rders the north edge of the site and county Road 302 borders the south. -4-GEDU::X:;IC SETTING The general site geology at the Battlement Mesa Project Area was observed and described in a preliminary subsoil and geologic study reported under our Job No. 11,833 dated January 16, 1975. A geologic reconnaissance was also conducted for the present investigation of Parcel 5-1. The parcel is situated on the western portion of the Battlerrent Creek Alluvial fan which is =nfOsed of interlayered mud flow and alluvial sediments. Deposition of the fan began during late Quaternary time. During this time, climatic conditions were quite varied resulting in alluvial deposition along the historic drainages during fairly dry periods and mudflow depositions during wet periods. The mudfIow ClepJSIts--are--charaeteF-.ize€l--sy-a-l:l eterogeneolls mixt~ur~e~ _ _ of gravels, cobbles and boulders embedded in a sandy clay matrix. The alluvial sediments are generally oore stratified and usually show some degree of sorting. Based on the subsoils encountered during this investigation, it appears that primarily mudflow sediments were encountered. The upper clays are alluvial soils derived from reworking of the mudflow deposits by recent and Holocene streams. Bedrock underlying this site is the Ebcene Hasatch Formation. Bedrock was not encountered in any of the test holes drilled during this investigation and is deeper than 100 feet in other parts of the developnent. In our opinion, the geologic conditions of the site do not present a major hazard to the proposed development. He do not anticipate unusual problems associated with the site geology or soil conditions provided -5-that g'::X)[1 s'1gineermg prac~i::es are: followed. :8}~cavation po.....netrating the lower g'.canular soils may en::OU'1ter b::Julders and require special excavation considerations. The upper fiI1e-g'.cained soils are m:derately to highly susceptible to surface and s~~surface erosion. The erosion potential and ree:::>rrmended drainage considerations are discussed in a later section of this report. SUBSOIL CONDITIONS The general subsoil conditions throughout Parcel 5-1 were investigated by drilling a total of 9 holes at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. The test holes were advanced using a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger that allowed for disturbed and relatively undisturbed sarrpling of the subsoils. These sarrples were returned to our laboratory for testing and review by the project engineer. As indicated by the subsurface profiles, presented on Figure 3, the subsoil conditions varied with respect to soil types, depths and engineering characteristics. In general, the profile consisted of a surficial topsoil layer or nominal depths of fill overlying a natural deposit of silty to sandy clays to a maximum depth of 15 feet at Test Hole 9. Fill was encountered in Test Hole 6 only and was about 2 1/2 feet thick. The natural fine-grained soils contained scattered amounts of gravel and in general, became !!Dre granular with depth. The deposit was medium stiff to stiff in consistency and contained PJrous and slightly to highly calcare:::>us zones. A very dense deposit of clayey sands and gravels with numerous cobbles and boulders v;as found to underlie the clay soils -6-and 8}.'tended to the rraximum depth explored, 19 1/2 feet. Practical drill rig refusal was encountered at several locations due to material size and relative density. Free water was not encountered at any test hole location at the time of the field investigation or when the holes were checked several days after drilling. The soils were generally rroist to slightly moist. Sarrples obtained during the exploration program were subjected to various laboratory tests to determine their standard properties, strength and oonsolidation characteristics. The results of consolidation tests, presented on Figures 5, 6 and 7, indicate the near surface fine-grained seils to possess low settlement potential under existing low moisture oonditions and moderate to high settlerrent potential when subjected to wetting and increased applied load. Some of these soils alse exhibit moderate oollapse potential when wetted. A sumnary of laboratory test results is presented on Table 1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Drainage Considerations: The subsoils encountered throughout the parcel are moderately to highly susceptible to erosion from surface runoff. The upper fine-grained soils are also highly susceptible to subsurface erosion (piping). Considering the vegetative oover and gently to IlDderately sloping ground surface, past erosion at the site has not been severe. The most extensive erosion features observed were associated with irrigation ditches where localized gully erosion and piping was noted. The piping observed appeared to be associated with animal burrows adjacent to the ditch. The subsurface profiles obta~~ed during this investigation -/-indicate the subs:)ils susceptible to piping occurre::: typically to depths less than 8 feet. Considering the conditions observed, erosion features and information obtainea in necrrby crreas, we recommend the following drair~ge details be obsellTea for planning and preliminaIJ' design: (1) surface runoff should be collected and contained in lined drainage ways. Flows across unprotected soils should be kept to less than 2.5 feet per second. Drainages or other flow paths ,,':i. th water velocities above 2.5 feet jJC-x second should be provided with erosion resistant liners such as asphalt or concrete. Concrete liners should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and should be reinforced. Hiprap lined ditches may be used in areas where the drainage gradient does not exceed 5%. (2) A rodent control program should be initiated to reduce the number of burrows adjacent to drainages which could provide paths for piping. (3) Erosion protection should be provided for local drainage swales at discharge points into natural drainages. (4) A periodic inspection of the drainage system should be conducted and the system repaired as required. Some settlement and cracking of concrete lined ditches should be anticipated. Excavation and Site Grading: Excavation within the upper clays should be possible with conventional equipment. More difficult conditions should be expected for confined excavations penetrating the underlying clayey gravels or gravelly clays due to boulder content and size. Some overexcavation and vcrriable amounts of oversized material should be anticipated. Based on information obtained in nearby studies, we estilnate that approximately 5% to 25% of the material ezcavated from the deeper -8-gravelly clays will be oversized and not be suitable for reuse in trench tackfill. Excavations penetration the clayey coarse granular soils may encounter about 20% to 40% oversized material. 'Ihese values are estimated and probably will vary over short reaches. At shallow excavation depth, less than about 2 to 4 feet, very little oversized material is anticipated and the majority of resulting rnaterial should be suitable for use during overlot filling. 'Ihroughout the central portion of the parcel, numerous cobbles and boulders were observed at ground surface and rnay inhibit the use of self loading scrapers. Excavations for buildings, etc. rnade within the upper natural soils should stand on tempJrary slopes of approximately 1:1. Utility trenches should stand on near vertical slopes for a sufficient time to install bracing systems if needed. Sorre sloughing of the trench excavation should be anticipated where granular soils are encountered. Excavated slopes should not be subjected to adverse conditions such as uncontrolled drainage, surcharge loading from excavated spoil or heavy equipment traffic. Fill placed as trench backfill beneath pavement sections should be comeacted to at least 95% standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Hiscellaneous overlot fill outside buildings and roadways should be compacted to at least 90% standard Proctor density. Prior to fill placetrel1t, all vegetation, topsoil, miscellaneous debris or disturbed soils should be completely removed to firm subgrade. Foundation Recommendations: Spread footing type foundations placed at minimum depth on the upper natural clays below existing topsoil or fill should be feasible for support of lightly loaded structures provided -0-SC:>I1lS di::::erential m:wement can be tolerated. We anticipate that shallow spread fc:>c:>tings can be designed fc:>r a maximLllT1 soil bearing pressure ranging from 1, 000 to 3, 000 psf. Fwtings placed entirely on the underlying coarse granular soils can be designed for ITB!ldmurn'D2aring pressures between 3,000 to 6,000 psf, de]Y'Jlding on the fOW1dation depth and ccnfiguration. low density surface soils which e):hibit high settlement p::Jtential when subjected to conditions of loading and wetting were encoW1tered in scattered areas of the site. De]Y'Jlding on the structure type and tolerable settlement, overexcavation or eAi:ending the footings to lower competent bearing IlEterial could be used to increase bearing capacity and reduce settlement p::Jtential. Good surface drainage and restriction of irrigation on slopes adjacent to buildings will be essential to prevent wetting of bearing soils and to reduce probability of fOW1dation settlement. Considering the variable bearing conditions and probable structural requirements, additional investigation should be conducted for a specific building site once building type and grading plans have been developed. Floor Slabs: The upper natural soils other than topsoil, disturbed soils or existing fill should be suitable to Sllpp::Jrt lightly loaded floor slabs. Sc:>rne settlement of the near surface silty clays could oc= if subjected to wetting. To reduce the effect of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from bearing members with a p::Jsitive e},.'pansion joint and be adequately reinforced. A rninirnLllT1 4-inch layer of gravel should be provided imrediately beneath floor slabs to distribute loading and facilitate concrete placement. -10-corrosion Potential: water soluble sulfate tests were performed on a soil sample obtained from Hole 9 at 1 foot to evaluate the corrosion potential of the near surface soils. The results are presented on Table 1. Based on these results and previous work conducted in nearby projects, the soils generally appear to be noncorrosive under existing low moisture oondi tions. However, when wetted, the oorrosion potential could increase significantly. Protective coatings or use of approved nonmetalic pipes should be oonsidered in buried utilities to extend the life expectancy. He recomnend the use of Type II or Type II modified cerrent with a C3A content less than 5% in concrete exposed to the natural soils. Pavement Reoommendations: The subsoil oonditions encountered at shallow depth across the site oonsist primarily of slightly sandy and silty clays and gravelly clays. These soils have AASHTO Classifications of A-4 to A-7-6 with group indices of about 7 to 22 and are considered to be poor subgrade for support of pavement sections. COnsidering the general subsoil oonditions and assumed light traffic loadings, the following pavement sections are indicated: Street Classification Pavement Section COllector (30 EDIA) IDeal Services (5 EDIA) CUl-de-sac & Parking Lot Drives (2 EDIA)· AutoIrDbile Parking Lots Asphaltic concrete (inches) 3 2 2 2 Base COurse (inches) 10-13 8-10 6-8 4-6 Prior to pla2~~-Dt of pav~~t rraterials, the subgrade should J:>2 cleared of all vegetation and debris and the 8.posed surface sh::lUld be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moistened and compacted to at least 95% standard Proctor density. Required fill should also be compacted tc at least 95% standard Pro2tor density at a moisture content near optimum. The above pavement sections are preliminary and a final analysis should be conducted once rough grading has been performed. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this area for use by the client for preliminary design purposes. The conclusions and reccmmendations presented in this repcrt are based on the data obtained from the exploratory holes drilled at the locations indicated on the exploratory hole plan, Figure 2. Subsoils encountered in ehploratory holes indicate the general conditions across the site. Variations with respect to depth, type and engineering characteristics oould occur. Additional subsurface studies should be oonducted for individual structures once grading plans and building requirerrents have been determined. CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. BY~-,o-~~~~~~~~ Ronald J. Vasquez, E.I.T. Reviewed By ~~~~~~~-=~---2}P:/~ick Dickens Bill Wilde Bill Bli'l"k Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. r-· I '4.0 AC. i . HI.G_H. _S.C_H.O_O.LJ! _.-.-.-.-._. __ ., I ! JR. HIGH ------___ 111 SCHOOL 15.0 AC . TOWN CENTER TOWN CENTER RECREATION CENTER 5-2 3-6 5-4 ................... .. o •••••••••••• !-, ._._._._._._._._.-._._._., 4-5 6-1 ... ::~~~ SR. HIGH ~ SCHOOL ~ 40.0 AC. ~ I Scale: 1" = 1,000' Location of Proposed Residential Developmen ( see." .1 9. "" ) PEDESTRIAN TRAIL ..•• .......... .. ........ "'1. '0, I \. i. : I .~ L._._._._._._._._ I -::c: "-j .. __ . • o £ \ e. " oj: -,. v. 0_ ;::!.!.l c• _' ;::c..: c ·0 ,~. " -:~L:::;::: :. i·~~~,ji: L', lit ,C;" '~,' ,',' ,'7, " 'lgW~l-1--c:. ". r I . a. -'" 'Z r.c I. ~ I· ",~.::;..,.-__ ." " ::; "II ...... ~~§"ijZ: r, E5}-Z\;g;}I;'~,*:@-~ o. N::": :0N m _ C " II -<',....: -r-I ....: ~ 1---1-N -"0., ,. ,.e. <', .,,:; ..... a; ~. _" " ~:'::i § "_" I.'..".. 'fc"r . ...... II Ir cr.:.; :;. ..... :=-;:;:: e, :0-;:; W'?, " " ''3:' 11£i):'i'@k%!@~Ji$!J-1-~ ~ ·0 .;::"ro "_"v_:J _e lcl. "I".l.'"--.... II ,. C " II ~ ~ §",' iZ ~ o II ~ 1-..oOI.ll ..... -..0 II II NN...J ..... .-I"":::'" 00 ..... . 0-, _'" r., 0<:::G: CII 1.._. ._., .c...;.. ...... II It 0 II II ?i~§'ij;;: r r 133d c HlJ30 Ed C]fJ~' (eL) , sjJty tel sand.\" and gT8\,fJJ:' v:jth depTh, stjff to veT:' sTjff: POYOUS, slightly to highlY ca'lcareous, sl ightl)' moist, light bro,,",-Sand and Grave] (GC) h'i"th cobbles and boulders in cJa)'ey matrix, ca]caTeous, dense to veT)' dense, moist, .1 j.ght brown Undisturbed Drive Sample; The symbol 29/12 indicates that 29 blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling ::;0 inches were required to drive the sampler 12' inches. Standard Penetration Test Sample: ASTM 01586 ~ Practical Rig Refusal. Where shown above bottom of log it indicates ___________ I ___ ~m~u~l~t~i~p~l~e~a~t~t~e~m~p~t~s~w~e~r~e~m~a~d~e~t~o~a~d~v~a~n~c~e~h~o~l~e~. _____________________________ __ 24,0.15 Notes 1. Holes were drilled on April 21 and 22, 1982, with a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Elevations are approximate and were estimated from contours on plan provided by client (see Fig. 1). 3. No free water was encountered at the time of drilling. 4. WC ~ Water Content U,) DD Dry Density (pcf) -200 PeTcent Passing No. 200 Sieve LL ~ Liquid Limit (9,) PI ~ Pl asti,ci ty Index U,) WSS Water Soluble Sul fate (9, ) Legend and Notes hg. 4 0 ."~ 1 Vl Vl "... sp . 2 o u 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.1 ,,-0 0 I 0" 'M 1 Vl Vl .".. !t 2 0 U 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.1 #24,015 --MOI~iU rE-Content :: 7.1 percent Dry Uni: Weight:: 88.0 pet Sample of: silty clay I II From: Hole 1 at 4 feet ~ "'-~ "'--, "" r-~ \ '-~ 1\ '" "-\ ~ \ I"dditio lna1 om r 5 ipJ pnder c onst nt p e s~:f~ ~ue to wett ng. \ 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf Moisture Content :: 12.9 percent I~ C-Ory Unit Weight :: 92.5 pef Sample of: sanCl)TC1 ay -l-e-From: Hole 4 at 5 feet D , , "-.~ ~ ~ . ~ '''-. , . . \ i', dditio hal om y 5 i \ ndey' C bnst nt p e s tE ue to wett ng \ 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FI. g.5-__ ch en and associa tes~ inc. I , Iii I i Mois\ure-Content :0 I , E.~ Der~e n; , I ! II I Dry Uni: Weiph: = 9f,. c· D~f I Samp!~ 01: sand~' c12~-I , I , I I, I From: Hole S at ~ feet 0'° U I , 1-1 1'1 1/I I , tis 1 T .r< I II "-~ I I If> 'h'"" I p., E: 2 0 ~ u ~ 3 \ '" N 4 ~ \ '"", f'\ 5 h , /\ " 6 Additi na1 cor fDr Ies 0 \ under ons i an1 plre/s ft due to wett inl . 7 , \ 8 9 1\ \ 10 ; . D., 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -kst #24,015 6 SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fiq. _______ _ 0\0 0 I ..<0.=. 1 til til Q) h P< "' 2 0 u 3 4 5 6 0.1 #24,015 chen and associates, inc. .....:.. r-----.. ~ '--.... r.... ~ "" ~ 1\ 1.0 Moisture Content = 7.9 Dry Unit Weight: 96,3 Sample of: silty clay From: Hole 8 at 1.5 feet ~ 1't--I~ percent pc! Addffi< nal f:oTIlPr s 0 under (onst n p e u due to wettinl I--10 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf , . 100 SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig .. __7_ ____ SUMMARY SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL MOISTURE DRY HOLE DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY (FEET) {%J (PCF) 1 4 7.1 88.0 2 4 3 1 15,8 100.4 4 5 12.9 92.5 5 2 4 8.7 96.3 7 1 20.9 98.3 8 1.5 7.9 96.3 9 1 7.6 CHEN ANDIASSOCIATES OF T A \B L E LABOiATORY , GRADATION I TEST 1j"ERCENT ATTERBERG LIMITS rSSING GRAVEL SAND 0.2:00 uaU1D \ PLAS"CITY (%J (%) SIEVE LIMIT INDEX ("!oJ (%) 197. ~1 10 174 56 17 87 33 12 I 1 96 27 9 192 41 17 I 192 54 18 1 1 1 1 , I .Job No. 21.015 RESULTS .. .. ------AASHTO Water Classifi-Soluble SClIL Dn flF.:DI"lOCI'. Ti'TF: cation Sulfate. ('61 A"4 (l01 silty clay --~-,,-"-.------_ ..•. " --A-7-5(15) . sand L51i'Y __ . __ ........ ,_ ... "--.-'--.,-" -~--A-6.ilQJ saniL..cJ.ay __ .. __ ........ --_._--_ .... -sanliy cl..§.y A-4 01 silt y c .@}_' _____ .... sandy claJ~. ___ ........ ---_._--_ ..• ~.-IA ~7 -:.hll8.l .s_Ut.:x: _ c.la)_' . ____ . "._. ._._--_._---_. ---A 7-5i.2ll si Lt.Y_cJ.ay_. _ .. ._ ._-_._-----,.,---0.0 04 s and.L..c:) a ''-_00'''_' _ .. _ ... •. --_ •.. -.. ... _ .......... ----------,---.-. --'-... _-, .. --.' ._-----... ------_ .• _-_ .... ' ---------_ .. _---_._----,--. ,--,.-----,-------,,----_ .'---- ch en and associa tes 8:JNSULTII>JG GE:JTECHI~ICAL EI~GI"!EERS 5080 Ru.15( GLENWOOD SPRINGS,COLORADO B16D"i 303/94[ •. 7451 PRELIMINARY SOIL AND FOUNDATION llWESTlGATION, PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELClPMENT, PARCEL 5-2, RIiTTLEMENT JvlESA PUD, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLDRAW Prepared For: Battlement Mesa, Inc. P.O. Box 308 Grand Junction, CO 81502 Attn: Stew Gibbons Job No. 24,014 June 8, 1982 OFFICES: CJ....SPER II COLORADO SPF,JNGS • DENVER". SALT LAKE CITY TABLE OF CONTENTS CONCLUSIONS SCOPE PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION PROPOSED CONSTRUcrION SITE CONDITIONS GEOLOGIC SETIING SUBSOIL CONDITIONS PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATICNS Drainage COnsiderations Excavation and site Grading Foundation Recommendations Floor Slabs Corrosion Potential Pavement Recommendations 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 7 8 8 9 9 ~TICN~S--------------------________________ ~lO~ ___ ___ FIGURE 1 -VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 -LOCATION OF EXPIDRATORY HOLES FIGURE 3 -LOGS OF EXPIDRATORY HOLES FIGURE 4 -LOGS OF EXPIDRATORY HOLES, LEGEND & NOI'ES FIGURES 5-9 -SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I -SUMMARY OF lABORATORY TEST RESULTS CONCLUSIONS (1) The subsoil c::lDditions vary with respect to type, depth and engineering characteristics. C?--nerall 0', they consist of an upper sandy to silty clay with scattered 9"~avels extending from nil to ab:::>ut 13 1/2 feet in depth and overlie a dense granular dep:::>sit of gravel, cobbles and boulders in a sandy clay rratrix. (2) The pro]Xlsed buildings can be founded with spread footings placed on the natural fine-grai11ed soils or lower gravels and designed for soil bearing pressures in the range of 1,000 to 3,000 psf. Footings placed entirely on the underlying coarse granular soils can be designed for bearing pressures ranging from 3,000 psf to 6,000 psf. (3) The upper clays are generally of relatively low density and contain --------~J55retJS_Zenes_;_______'I'he3e__3oi-ls__are_suscept:i:bte-w--erosioll and may possess a high settle.'Tl2l1t p:::>tential up:::>n wetting. Surface drainage reccmmendations and diversion mp~sures as described herein are e:::>nsidered essential to the satisfactory performance of the structures. Observation and testing of site grading procedures should be performed by a representative of the soil engineer. Ree:::>mmended design details precautions are discussed in the body of this rep:::>rt. -2-SCOPE TIlls re]Xlrt presents the results of a preliminary soil and foundation investigation for the proposed residential development to be located on Parcel 5-2, Battlement Mesa Development, Garfield County, Colorado. A vicinity map showing the location of the proposed developnent is presented on Figure 1. The re]Xlrt presents the general subsoil conditions, re=mrnended type foundation and ranges of allowable bearing pressures, pavement recommendations and other soil related design and construction details. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION Chen and Associates previously conducted a geotechnical and geological ---------------,evaltla~Bn_fgr~e_Battlement Mesa Development reported under our Job No. 11,833 and dated January 16, 1975. Information contained within that report has been reviewed and utilized in preparation of this report. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The pro]Xlsed development will consist of low density residential units throughout the parcel. No specific design information concerning type of construction for the residential units has been provided at the time of this report preparation. However, we expected development to consist primarily of light residential wood frame structures with minor excavations required. SITE CJNDITIONS At the time of me field investigation, me parcel was relatively lh'1developed. Construction equiprrent and trailers wwe stored along the s::lUm central and sout.l-Jeast portions of the parcel. The remainder of me area waS covered in native grasses and weeds and appeared to have been used previously for grazing. Several scattered areas of stockpiled boulders or waste rraterial were additionally located throughout the site. The general area slopes gradually to me west with an elevation difference across me site from east to west of approyJIrately 110 feet. Studt Gulch borders the nOl-th and was dry at the time of the field investigation and Soum Battlement Parkway borders to me normwest aJld county Roads 302 and 308 borders me soum and east, respectively. GEDLOGIC SEITING The general site geology at me Battlement Mesa Project area was observed and described in me preliminary Subsoil and Geologic Study reported under our Job No. 11,833 dated January 16, 1975. A geologic reconnaissance Vias also conducted for me present investigation of Parcel 5-2. The parcel is located on me western portion of me Battlement Creek alluvial fan. which is ,oomposed of interlayered mudflow and alluvial secli.rTPJ1ts. Deposition of me fan began during late Quaternary time. During this ti~e, climatic conditions were quite varied resulting in alluvial deposition along historic drainages during fairly dry periods and mudflow dep:: £i tion during wet periods. -4-The mudflow deposits are characterized by heterogeneous miAtures of gravel, cobbles and boulders embedded in a sandy clay rratrix. The alluvial sediments are generally m::>re stratified and usually show some degree of sorting. Based on the subsoils encountered during this investigation, it appears that primarily mudflow sediments were encountered. 1he upper clays or alluvial soils were derived from reworking of the underlying mudflow deposits and silts by Holocene and recent streams. Bedrock underlying this site is the Eocene Wasatch Formation. Bedrock was not encountered in any of the test holes drilled during this investigation and is deeper than 100 feet in other parts of the development. In our opinion, the geclogic conditions of the site do not present a major hazard to the proposed development. We do not anticipate any unusual problems associated with the site geology or soil conditions, provided that good engineering practices are followed. Excavations penetrating the lower granular soils may encounter boulders which may require special excavation considerations. 1he upper fine-grained soils are moderately to highly susceptible to surface and subsurface erosion. Erosion potential and recommended drainage considerations are discussed in a later section of this report. SUBSOIL CONDITIONS The general subsoil conditions throughout Parcel 5-2 were investigated by drilling a total of 12 holes.at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. 1he test holes were advanced using a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger which allowed for disturbed and relatively undisturbed sampling of the subsoils. 1he samples were then returned to our laboratory for testing and review by the project engineer. -5-P£ indicate::3. by "dl.e subsur::ace profiles, presB'1ted on Figures 3 and 4, the subsoil c:Jndi tions vary v.'i th respect to soil types, depths and engineering characteristics. In ge~eral, the profile consisted of a surficial topsoil layer overlying a natural deposit of silty to sandy and gravelly clays. The clays frequently were of relatively low density with some porous zones and became calcareous and llDre granular with depth. These soils extended to a may.imurn depth encountered of 13 1/2 feet at Test Holes 7 and 10. A very dense deposit of sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders in a sandy clay matrix was found to underlie the upper fine-grained soils and e},.tend to the maximum depth eA'Plored, 20 feet. The granular deposit contained numerous vesicular cobbles and boulders. Practical drill rig refusal was encountered at several locations due to material size and relatively density. Free water was not encountered -----------eldt:ir±ng-the-fie-ld--±nvesti-gation and the s\.lbsolls m general were sllghtly rroist to rroist. Sarrples obtained during the eA'Ploration program were subjected to various laboratory tests to determine their standard properties, strength and consolidation characteristics. The results of swell-consolidation tests, presented on Figure 5 through 9, indicate the near surface finegrained soils to possess low settlement potential under existing low llDisture conditions and rroderate to high settlement potential when subj ected to wetting and increased applied load. Some of these soils also exhibit rroderate collapse potential when wetted. A summary of laJXlratory test results is presented on Table 1. PRELIl1INARY DESIGN REJ:n'lMENDATIONS Drair0ge Considerations: The subsoils encountered throughout the parcel are moderately to highly susceptible to erosion from surface lCL~off. -6-'!:he upper fine-grained soils are also highly susceptible to subsurface erosion (piping). Considering the vegetative cover and gently to rroderately Sloping ground surface, past erosion at the site does not appear to have been severe. The rrPst extensive erosion features observed were associated with irrigation ditches and localized gully erosion and piping, observed wi thin Studt Gulch to the inmediate north. The piping observed appeared to be associated with animal burrows adjacent to the ditch. Subsurface profiles obtained during this investigation, indicate the soils susceptible to piping occurred typically to depths less than 8 feet. Considering the subsoil oonditions observed, erosion features and inforrration obtained in nearby areas, we recorrmend the following drainage details be observed for planning and preliminary design. (1) Surface runoff should be collected and contained in lined drainageways. Flows across unprotected soils should be kept to less than 2.5 feet per second. Drainages or other flow paths with water velocities above 2.5 feet per second should be provided with erosion resistant liners such as asphalt or concrete. Concrete liners should have a min:inrum thickness of 4 inches and should be reinforced. Riprap lined ditches may be used in areas where the drainage gradient does not exceed 5%. (2) A rodent oontrolled program should be initiated to reduce the number of burrows adjacent to drainages which could provide paths for piping. (3) Erosion protection should be provided for local drainage swales at discharge points into natural drainages. (4) A periodic inspection of the drainage system should be conducted o~ c:Jrr:ret.e lL."'12:::1 di t::hes shJuld ~J2 a..Dticipa::'eCi. Excavat.ion an:} Site G:::a2.L11g: Ex::avat.ion v?i tJill1 t.:.f1E: u~~?2r clays sh:::nlld be pssible V\~ith onventional eguiprrent. Ivt)re di::ficult conditions sh:)uld be expected for confined excavati:ms p2.:.'1etrating the 1.rr.d.erlying coarse go.cained soils due to boulder c::mtent ru"ld size. Some overexcavation and variable aJTDunts of oversized material should be anticipated. Based on the information obtaL'1ed in nearby stUdies, we estiKated that approximately 5% to 25% of the material excavated fmm the deepc..x gravelly clays will be oversized and not suitable fore reuse in trench bacl:fil1. Excavations penetrating the clayey coarse go.canular soils may encounter about 20% to 40% oversized material. These values are estimated and probably will vary over short reaches. ----------------------~At Shallow excavation depth, less fj,an abOut 2 to 4 feet, very little oversized material is anticipated and the majority of the resulting material should be suitable for use during overlot filling. Throughout the central portion of the parcel and ,,>ithin the proPJsed development, numerous cobbles and roulders were observed at grOlmd surface which may inhibit the use of self-loading scrapo..xs. Excavations for buildings etc. made within the upper natural soils should stand on tempJrary slopes of approximately 1:1. Utility trenches should stand on near vertical slopes for a sufficient time to install bracing systems if needed. SJme sloughing of the trench excavation should be anticipated where granular sJEs are encountered. Excavated slopes should not be subjected to adverse conditions such as uncontrolled drainage, surcharge loading fcom excavated spoil or heavy equip.'118nt traffic. Fill placed as trench b3cJ:fill b2l1eath pavercent sections should be rompacted "cO at least 95% st~-j::::'c..rd Proctor de..'Jsi ty G.t a m'Jisture content :lEar -8-optimum. !Vl:Lscellili'1eous over lot ::::'11 outside builci.."Jg-s and roadways should be cOTITt'acted to at least 90% sta'1dard Proctor dellsity. Prior to fill placement, all vegetation, topsoil and miscella'1eous debris or disturbed soils should be completely removed to firm subgrade. FOW1dation Recol!1lT2ndations: Spread footing type fOW1dations placed at a minimum depth in the upper natural clays below any existing fill or topsoil should be feasible for support of lightly loaded structures provided some differential lIDvement can be tolerated. We anticipate that shallow spread footings can be designed for J1BxirrnJIll soil bearing pressures ranging froIll 1,000 to 3,000 psf. Footings placed entirely on the underlying coarse granular soils can be designed for a rnaxirnurn bearing pressure between 3,000 and 6,000 psf depending on fOW1dation depth and configuration. Low density surface soils which exhibit high settlement potential when ---------ssuJ;,~ect.eil to conditions of loading and wetting, were encountered in scattered areas of the site. Depo...nding on the structural type and tolerable settlerrent, overexcavation or extending the footings to lower conpetent bearing materials can be used to increase bearing capacity and reduce settlement potential. Good surface drainage and restriction of irrigation on slopes adjacent to buildings will be essential to prevent wetting of bearing soils and to reduce probability of foundation settlement. Considering the variable bearing conditions and probable structural requirements, additional investigations should be conducted for specific building sites once building type and grading plans have been developed. Flcor Slabs: The upper natural soils other than topsoil, disturbed soils or existing fill should be suitable to support lightly loaded flcor slabs. Some settlement of the near surface silty clays could oc= if -0-subjecte:::1 to wetting. To re::1u8E thE: e££e~t of sorre differential ITOverrent , flOClr slabs sh:JUld be separated from b=aring rrembers with a p::>sitive e}~lJansion joint and be adequately reinforced. A minir1U.lm 4-inch layer of gravel smuld be provided immediately lx,neath floor slabs to distribute loading and facilitate concrete placement. Corrosion Potential: Water soluble sulfate tests were perfoL1Th2d on soil sarrples obtained fmID Hole 1 at 4 feet and Hole 4 at 5 feet to evaluate the ooLTosion potential of the near surface soils. Results are presented on Table I. Based on these results and previous work conducted on nearby projects, these soils generally appear to be noncorrosive under existing low IlDisture conditions. However, when wetted the corrosion potential would increase significantly . Protective ooatings or use of approved nonmetallic pipes should be considered in buried utilities to extend the life 2-'''pectancy. We recoIm1end the use of Type II or Type II IlDdified cement having a C3A content less than 5% in concrete exposed to the natural soils. Pavement Recommendations: The subsoil conditions encountered at shallow depth across the site consist primarily of slightly sandy to silty clays and gravelly clays. These soils have A~HTO classification of A-4 to A-7-6 with group indices of about 7 to 15 and are considered to be relatively poor subgrade for support of pavement sections. Considering the subsoil conditions and the assumed light traffic loadings, the following preliminary pavement sections are indicated: Street Classification Asphaltic Concrete Base Course (Inches) (Inches) Collector (30 EDlA) 3 10-13 IDeal Services (5 EDlA) 2 8-10 Cul-de-Sac & Parking IDt 2 6-8 Drives (2 EDlA) ~"'utormbile Park:L'1g lot 2 4-6 -10-Prior to place~~t of pavement materials, the subgrade should be cleared of all vegetation, debris and the e).posed surface should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, IIDistened and corrpacted to at least 95% standard Proctor density. Required fill should also be corrpacted to at least 95% standard Proctor density at a roisture content near optimum. The above paveITP-nt sections are preliminary and a final analysis should be conducted once rough grading has been po-rformed. LJMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this area for use by the client for preliminary design purposes. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the data obtained from the exploratory hOlestlr±tlBdc-at-the--leeatdGBs-:illdicatecLi.n the exploratory hole plan, Figure 2. Subsoils encountered in the exploratory holes indicate the general conditions across the site. variations with respect to depth, type and engineering characteristics could oc=. Additional subsurface study should be conducted for individual structures once grading plans and building requirerrents have been determined. RJV/dc cc: Dick Dickens Bill Wilde Bill Black CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. By~~~~~----~~~ ROnald J. Vasquez, E.I.T. Reviewed By~~~~-,~~~~~ _ _ Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. r I~ .:/7.9 AC. 3-6 TOWN CENTER TOWN CENTER RECREATION CENTER ........ 4-3 3-7 3-6 5-3 ~~~.-.-.-.-.-.-.. 4-5 6-1 i I I ! ,~._._._._._.L._.J._._._._._._ [ ~ I Scale: 1" ~ 1,000' 2-6 PropDsed .opmen-r (see ?j& .. ?) 2-5 ,~,o AC. '. ' . .......... r·-··J1J·_·_·_·_·_·_· __ ·., i I '. '. '. "I '. ..... 5 -4 "., ••••.•••• . 0.········ ·".0 ••••• , PEDESTRIAN TRAil .... '" ..... ,' ......... . .\ South Battlement Parh,a), • • lioJ e J \ \ Locatj on of E:-:.p] oratory Holes .--/," Appyo~j"m~t~ S:~:JE": J!! ::: ~(I(:' Fig. 2 = = ~ "-. ~ ~ C_I 5', ~-= 0-='--' I-II " ( ,.', I" II', '-J~L{.;t'"yg:-<.F~i%:;q'j8jkoot<-!--I~ 1-''", Jr._ o"cT rJ ~:;. " ~,:: ~~:l'.=r,_ ,_ " II =-" II ~~3<','j;: = ~-! ! liole 9 Hole 10 Hole 11 El. 5560 5 El, 5596,0 El" 5629.0 0 36112 22/12 ~16/12 "" " T 12/12 5 ~F2II12 WC=8,2 WC"3.3 00=77.6 00=97.9 ., -200=95 T:;' LL=33 " ~ PI=12 --If' •• ~ ,10 t 22/12 '~" F • " -1, 20 H24,014 831 0 VI" " .. , ,. j ~ 10 " ~ l 1, 20 ~: G1 TOpsoil Ed Clay lCL) , sjlty to saud}' !Iud gT::I\'~\ly Idth <'1C)'th, :<tiff ',r> 1'("':: "'1 irr. pOrous, Slightly to highly CfI I e.llrE-Oll!" , ''''lightl.'' moi",t, lil';ll\' hro1\'II. 9 Stilnd lind Grllvel {GeJ, with ('ohhlE'.'" lITld hOlllde'l"s ill ("lnyC')' m:1!,-iy .• B calcarE"ous, dens!;' to very dE'n."E', moi."t, light hro,~n. p ~ t Undisturbed DrjvE' SflmplE': The s)'mhol '!.f,!12 11I<1i<:;11('0; t1,.~, .~(, hl",.'r "r a 1110 lb. hammE'T f<'lllillg 30 illch('.<; ,'!('r", re'l"ir"d II:' ,.11 ; "co 11\" :-,1ml' 1-:-, 12 inches. SUnd!lrd PE'nE'tration TE'.<;t !;rlmr1e !\S'I~j 1.11S~(; PracticfI\ Rig Refu,<;:\l Where ."'hol,'n :1hQI'(' hO\"1QnI Qf log it ;n,\iI;-:ll""" tit,,, multiple attempt,<; "'erE' mndE' tQ :;d"I'1[1(·.(, \101['. ~: 1. Holes WE're dri1IE'c1 on !\pril 22 find 23, I~R2. "";1'11;1 1\.;1\0;-11 ,1;,'1111"1(', continuous f1:i ght r(lI~er ::Inger. 2. Elevations are appro:'timflte f1l1d were E'.<:tim;1t€'(l from ("0111(1111'<:; nil plan provided by client (,<;ee Pig. 21. 3. No free w::Iter \~llS encQl1ntE'rE'n;'lt thc tim(' of 'hilli1lg. 4. we 1'I::Iter Conte>nt l",) 00 Dry DE'n.<:i ty (ref) -200 Percent ra~.<:ing No. 200 SievE' LL Ljqttld Limj t (\1 PI rlll."'tjc-itv Inde>x l ':;) WSS '" WIlt:er Sol;!hIE' St11f;1t(" ("'I I.og~ {If F.xplorlltory 110112'<:. 1.['/'.('11(\ :'lIp1 Not".", rip. en en and associa tes. inc. i I I : ' , , I I I i i i MOtEtuff Conlen; = , per::; eni I , --. '-" I I : i I Dry Uni: Weiph'. : 9(;.~ p-' I I ! I I I "' , I I Sampl€.' o~. Sand;' Eilt,~· :::12)' I I I I ' : I ,I I ' I i i i ! I FrOrTJ Test Holt 1 aT: fOOT I i ~ ! ! I !I ! ! I 0,0 (l i k+-H-U1 I I i I I I I , I , T I i I I I I I I c: I I I I I I 1 I .~ I I ~~ I I , I e, I if, (i) I H ! I , Co.; " I ~ -~ I is u \ ~. I I 5 \ '\ "-~ ", ~I~ 4 \ , , 5 '. \ I '. 6 Additi ~nal co ~p e ;Oi~ 1\ under F;ons an r'ss ;1"p "'r "pt 7 8 '-~ f--9 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf SWELL-cor,SOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig ._-,,-5 ___ --#24,014 chen ana aSSOCIales, HIt.:. Moisture Content = 6.7 perce nf Dry Unit Weight = 93.6 pel Sample of: Sandy clay From: Test hole 3 at 4 feet 0,0 o~ I .."0.. . I ~ Vl "-.. Vl "f.< 1'-i' p., 2 5 u t> 3 4 ~ 5 ~ 6 ~ ~ 7 \ "-'1'. 8 \ , \ -9 \ Additi bna1 co p ef~i under r::ons an r~'s 10 " i\ 11 \ 12 1\ 13 \ 14 1\ 15 16 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ks! # 24,014 SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig .. _--'6>--__ -- ell e n ~ n d 2. SS OCt2. ! es. in C. : I ! , MOISlL'rt :;o:.ten: ::: , . i Dt-;r:; en", : ; , : i I Dr~' Un I: W~lpn: ::: SJ (! . :-p-' , ! I , : ! ! SerrlPl~ 0:. , S~l 7:" cla~' I ! , , I I ; I i i ! I I F rOrT, Yes: holE--at 1 IOO! I ' , I , I I I ! \ I , [: I j ; I ! I i , II I , I i ' I I , 0'0 I . I I I , I I , I ! ! I Inti> I I i ~ I I (; 1 I Ilj~1 I I 'rl I ' I if' ."'' III~ l~ I I I -. I ! " it -I I ~ y.q I I 0 u I I 3 f'\ , I/" I , I ;'clditiLal '. =0' T <; , I r. 4 1 under ( t/an1 I ~I ons p e due to wett 'TI! 5 ~ 6 I I -n ---0.1 1.0 10 lOa APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf #24,014 E'WELL-COI\'SOLIDATION TEST RESUL is Fig, __ 7'--___ _ Moisture Content = 8.2 ~re enf Dr)' Unit Wei~ht;; 77 .6 pef Sample of: Silty clay , I From Test Hole 10 at 4 fe et 0,0 ° I '0" 1 • ..< I~~ if> if> (lJ h P< 2 u5 \ "K 3 \ "'-1',,-'" 4 \ " , Additi nal co pr~sJS }( n under ons an PIr,s flT I~ 5 . 6 \ 7 \ 8 i--f---9 10 \ 11 \ 12 13 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf 100 '. #24,014 SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig ._--'8'---__ -- cben and associates.. mc. i ) : ~ i i ~ I MOisturE C;onten: !: ..'. . .:.-Der:: en. , : I I i ! i ! j I i Dr~_ Uni'. Welgn', = 9~ .9 poe i, I! i, .j I' II I I SamplE o! Sand)' c.la~· I I I I , I I, I I ) I I I I I ; II I ::=rorr. Test hole 11 at 4 :::"e.et ! , 0 +-I l ~rW~ , I I II i I i I T I I I I 1 I I , ' , I I " I I I I I -0 "-" 1\ 3 I \ ~ " '--4 1\ "~" 1'" " s ~ 6 1\ -, Addit' onal co tnp e i 7 UJW"L ICUJJ~ c . I~ due tc wet jtir ~, ) ~ 1-1-0,1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf #24,014 SWELL-CO:"SOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig, 9 SUMMARY SA J.4 PlE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL MOISTURE DRY HOLE DEpTH CONTENT DEN SITY (FEET) (%) (pc F) 1 1 11.3 90 3 4 3 4 6.2 93~ 4 S 7 1 9.8 . 90.7 10 4 8.2 77 .6 11 4 3.3 97.9 CHEN AND I ASSOCIATES OF T AlB L E LABO i ATORY TEST GRADATION PERCENT ATTERBERG LIMITS PASSING GRAVEL SAND NO. 200 LlOUID I PLASTICITY (%) (%) SIEVE LIJ..4IT INDEX (%) ("!oj I 84 29 10 I I p,q 7R q I I fl.1 43 18 97 34 14 I I 95 :n 1 ? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ RESULTS Water AASHTO Soluble SOIL OR Classifi-Sulfa.tes BEDROCK T YPE cation (%) A -4 (71 I S"ndv ,,; 1 tv -1 0.050 San<!Y. dar A -4 (71 ls.a.nillc ..claY_ A-7-6(]S 0.019 Sandy clay A-6 (14 I SiliY....d=-A =.6..fl.2' ~-San~ .. ~ HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL INC. MOl\'THLY 'I'E!\'I)OR ACCOUNTING RECORD MOl\'TH: FEBRGARY -MARCH 2005 FROl\'T RANGE VENDOR I DATE I AMOUl\'T Il\'VOICE NO. DATE RECEIVED DUE DUE Absolute Solutions 03/24/05 $3.466.80 4800 3/9105 Comeast 03/29105 $95.00 Statement 04119105 CRMCA 3/24/050 $255.00 15006 4115/05 Dex Media. Inc. 03122/05 $38.80 719-633-5562 3/30105 Dex Media, Inc. 03/24/05 $76.40 970-468-1989 4/8/05 FedEx 03129105 $43.23 5-438-38293 4/25/05 Independent Testing & Inspection Services 03115/05 $550.00 7786 417105 Independent Testing & Inspection Services 03115/05 $1,210.00 7787 417105 Independent Testing & Inspection Services 03115/05 $360.00 7788 04/07/05 Independent Testing & Inspection Services 03115105 $420.00 7789 4/8/05 Independent Testing & Inspection Services 03115/05 $390.00 7792 4110105 Independent Testing & Inspection Services 03122/05 $360.00 7793 4114/05 Independent Testing & Inspection Services 03/22/05 $360.00 7794 4114/05 Independent Testing & Inspection Services 03/24/05 $580.00 7795 4114/05 Independent Testing & Inspection Services 03/24/05 $605.00 7796 4114/05 .idependent Testing & Inspection Services 03124/05 $490.00 7797 4114/05 Independent--+e-sting-&-Inspe&tioi1---S@fV-i ";lW'"'' <t71" "" 72", "4tJ-$t~ Independent Testing & Inspection Services 03/28/05 $490.00 7802 4122/05 Independent Testing & Inspection Services 03/29105 $360.00 7804 4122/05 Independent Testing & Inspection Services 03/28/05 $605.00 7805 4/22/05 Independent Testing & Inspection Services 03/29105 $360.00 7807 4/22/05 Independent Testing & Inspection Services 03/29105 $720.00 7808 4/22/05 Independent Testing & Inspection Services 03/28/05 $490.00 7809 4122/05 Mountain Meadow Development 03115/05 $570.00 949 3124/05 Mountain Meadow Development 03/15/05 $285.00 955 4/9105 Mountain Meadow Development 03128/05 $380.00 958 4/21105 Mountain Meadow Development 03128/05 $285.00 961 4122/05 Mountain Meadow Development 03128/05 $285.00 962 4/22/05 Offiee Max 03/29105 $236.56 Statement 4110105 Pitney Bowes 03115/05 $169.00 Statement 3123/05 Qwest 03/29105 ($35.76) 719-633-5562 4113/05 "erizon Wireless 03/24/05 ($204.08) 1931047997 3/31105 '" aste Management 03115/05 $127.62 Statement 411105 Xcel Energy 03115105 $506.80 Statement 3116/05 Xeel Energy 03115/05 $125.71 Statement 3116/05 OH PT DATE PAID X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X v X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X