HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils reportHuddleston -Berry
Engineering & Testing, LLC
u
GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
INVESTIGATION
LOT 4 STRONG SUBDIVISION
PARACHUTE, COLORADO
PROTECT#01082-0003
SUMMIT AE
2764 COMPASS DRIVE, SUITE 230
GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81506
OCTOBER 27, 2011
Huddleston -Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC
640 White Avenue, Unit B
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A geologic hazards and geotechnical investigation was conducted at Lot 4 of the
Strong Subdivision in Parachute, Colorado. The project location is shown on Figure 1 —
Site Location Map. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the surface and
subsurface conditions at the site with respect to geologic hazards, foundation design,
ISDS design, pavement design, and earthwork for the proposed construction. This
summary has been prepared to include the information required by civil engineers,
structural engineers, and contractors involved in the project.
Subsurface Conditions (p. 2)
The subsurface investigation consisted of four test pits, excavated on October
18th, 2011. The locations of the test pits are shown on Figure 2 — Site Plan. The test pits
generally encountered topsoil and/or fill materials above native lean clay with sand soils.
Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits at the time of the investigation. The
native clay soils are slightly plastic and slightly collapsible.
Geologic Hazards (p. 3)
The primary geologic hazard at the site is the presence of moisture sensitive soils.
Summary of Foundation Recommendations
• Foundation Type — Spread Footings or Monolithic Structural Slabs (p. 4)
• Structural Fill — Minimum of 24 -inches below foundations. The existing
native clay soils are suitable for reuse as structural fill. Imported structural fill
should consist of pit -run, CDOT Class 6 base course, or other granular
material approved by the engineer.(p. 4)
• Maximum Allowable Bearing Capacity — 1,500 psf. (p. 4)
• Subgrade Modulus — 150 pci for native clay soils. 250 pci for pit -run, crusher
fines, or base course. (p. 4)
• Lateral Earth Pressure — 55 pcf (p. 5)
Summary of Pavement Recommendations (p. 5)
Automobile Parking Areas
EDLA = 5, Structural Number = 2.75
ALTERNATIVE
PAVEMENT SECTION (Inches)
Hot -Mix
Asphalt
Pavement
CDOT Class 6
Base Course
CDOT Class 3
Subbase
Course
Rigid
Pavement
TOTAL
Full Depth HMA
7.0
7.0
A
3.0
10.0
13.0
13
4.0
7.0
. 11.0
C
3.0
6.0
6.0
15.0
Full Depth RP
6.0
6.0
12.0
Truck Traffic Areas
EDLA = 30. Structural Number = 330
ALTERNATIVE
PAVEMENT SECTION Inches)
Hot -Mix
Asphalt
Pavement
CDOT Class 6
Base Course
CDOT Class 3
Subbase
Course
Rigid
Pavement
TOTAL
Full Depth HMA
9.0
9.0
A
3.0
17.0
20.0
B
4.0
14.0
18.0
C
3.0
6.0
16.0
25.0
Full Depth RP
6.0
8.0
14.0
Gravel pavements should be a minimum of 12 -inches in thickness.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Scope 1
1.2 Site Location and Description 1
1.3 Proposed Construction 1
2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 2
2.1 Soils 2
2.2 Geology 2
2.3 Groundwater 2
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION 2
3.1 Subsurface Investigation 2
3.2 Field Reconnaissance 3
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING 3
5.0 GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION 3
5.1 Geologic Hazards 3
5.2 Geologic Constraints 3
5.3 Water Resources 3
6.0 CONCLUSIONS 3
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4
7.1 Foundations 4
7.2 Non -Structural Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork 5
7.3 Lateral Earth Pressures 5
7.4 Drainage 5
7.5 Excavations 5
7.6 Pavements 5
8.0 ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL 7
9.0 GENERAL 7
FIGURES
Figure 1 — Site Location Map
Figure 2 — Site Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B —
Appendix C —
Appendix D
— UDSA NRCS Soil Survey Data
Typed Test Pit Logs
Laboratory Testing Results
— Percolation Testing Data
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Huddleston -Berry
As part of extensive development in Western Colorado, new
commercial/industrial construction is proposed at Lot 4 of the Strong Subdivision in
Parachute. As part of the development process, Huddleston -Berry Engineering and
Testing, LLC (HBET) was retained by Summit AE to conduct a geologic hazards and
geotechnical investigation at the site.
1.1 Scope
As discussed above, a geologic hazards and geotechnical investigation was
conducted at Lot 4 of the Strong Subdivision in Parachute, Colorado. The scope of the
investigation included the following components:
• Conducting a subsurface investigation to evaluate the subsurface conditions at
the site.
■ Collecting soil samples and conducting laboratory testing to determine the
engineering properties of the soils at the site.
• Providing recommendations for foundation type and subgrade preparation.
• Providing recommendations for bearing capacity.
■ Providing recommendations for lateral earth pressure.
• Providing recommendations for drainage, grading, and general earthwork.
• Providing recommendations for pavements.
• Evaluating the suitability of the native soils for on-site sewage disposal.
• Evaluating potential geologic hazards at the site.
The investigation and report were completed by a Colorado registered
professional engineer in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical and geological
engineering practices. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Summit AE
and the Owner,
1.2 Site Location and Description
The site is located along Bud's Way on Lot 4 of the Strong Subdivision in
Parachute, Colorado. The project location is shown on Figure 1 — Site Location Map.
At the time of the investigation, the site was generally open with very slight
slopes down to the boundaries of the lot. Vegetation consisted of short to medium sized
weeds and sparse brush located along the railroad tracks to the north. Gravel fill was
observed covering the western third of the site. The property was bordered to the north
by railroad tracks and old US Highway 6, to the west by a vacant lot, to the south by a
gravel access road, and to the west by an existing business.
1.3 Proposed Construction
The proposed construction is anticipated to include a new metal building, utility
installation, ISDS installation, and pavements. The proposed structure is anticipated to
be constructed over a reinforced concrete foundation.
W:\2008 ALL PROJECTS\01062 - Summit AE01082-0003 George Strong's Sub\200-Geo101082-0003 RI02711.doc 1
2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING
2.1 Soils
Huddleston -Berry
Soils data was obtained from the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey. The data indicates that the soils at the site consist of Arvada loam, 1 to
6 percent slopes. Soil survey data, including a description of the soil unit, is included in
Appendix A.
Commercial construction is described as very limited in the Arvada soils due to
shrink -swell. Septic tank absorption fields in the Arvada soils are described as very
limited due to slow water movement. The Arvada soils are indicated to have a low
potential for frost action, high risk of corrosion of steel, and low risk of corrosion of
concrete.
2.2 Geology
According to the Geologic Map of Colorado by Ogden Tweto (1979), the site is
underlain by Quaternary alluvium. The alluvium is underlain by bedrock of the Wasatch
Formation and Ohio Creek Formation.
2.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits at the time of the investigation.
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
3.1 Subsurface Investigation
The subsurface investigation was conducted on October 18th, 2011 and consisted
of four test pits, excavated to depths of between 4.0 and 10.0 feet below the existing
ground surface. The locations of the test pits are shown on Figure 2 — Site Plan. The test
pits were located in the field relative to existing site features. Typed test pit logs are
included in Appendix B. Samples of the native soils were collected using hand drive
samplers and bulk sampling methods at the locations shown on the logs.
As indicated on the logs, the subsurface conditions at the site were slightly
variable. However, the test pits generally encountered 1.5 feet of topsoil or fill materials
above reddish brown, dry to moist, soft to stiff lean clay with sand to the bottoms of the
excavations. As discussed previously, groundwater was not encountered in the test pits at
the time of the investigation.
W:12008 ALL pROJECTS\01082 - Summit AE101.082-0003 George Strong's Su61200 - Ged.01082-0001 810271 I.doc 2
3.2 Field Reconnaissance
Huddleston -Berry
rqiiterthq.le
The field reconnaissance included walking the site during the subsurface
investigation. In general, the site was fairly level and no evidence of landslides, debris
flows, rockfalls, etc. was observed.
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING
Selected native soil samples collected from the test pits were tested in the
Huddleston -Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC geotechnical laboratory for natural
moisture and density, grain size analysis, maximum dry density and optimum moisture
(Proctor), Atterberg limits, swell/consolidation, and soluble sulfates content. The
laboratory testing results are included in Appendix C.
The laboratory testing results indicate that the native clay soils are slightly plastic.
In addition, the native soils were shown to be slightly collapsible at their existing density
with up to approximately 0.9% collapse measured in the laboratory. Water soluble
sulfates were detected in the site soils in a concentration of 0.4%.
5.0 GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION
5.1 Geologic Hazards
The primary geologic hazard at the site is the presence of moisture sensitive soils.
5.2 Geologic Constraints
The primary geologic constraint to construction at the site is the presence of
moisture sensitive soils.
5.3 Water Resources
No water supply wells were observed on the property. The nearest surface water
body is the Colorado River, approximately 0.4 miles east of the site. As discussed
previously, shallow groundwater was not encountered during the subsurface
investigation. In general, the proposed construction at the site is not anticipated to
adversely affect surface water or groundwater.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the available data sources, field investigation, and nature of the
proposed construction, HBET does not believe that there are any geologic conditions
which should preclude construction at the site.
W:12008 ALL PROJECT$10]082 - Summit AE101D32-0003 George Strong's Su b400 - Geo`:01082-0003 RID2711.doc 3
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Foundations
Huddleston -Berry
LLC
Based upon the results of the subsurface investigation and nature of the proposed
construction, shallow foundations are recommended. Spread footings and monolithic
(turndown) structural slabs are both appropriate alternatives. However, as discussed
previously, the native soils were shown to be slightly collapsible at their existing density.
Therefore, to limit the potential for excessive differential movements, it is recommended
that the foundations be constructed above a minimum of 24 -inches of structural fill.
The existing topsoil and fill materials are not suitable for reuse as structural fill.
The native clay soils are suitable for reuse as structural fill. Imported structural fill
should consist of a granular, non -expansive, non -free draining material such as pit run,
crusher fines, or CDOT Class 6 base course. However, if pit -run is used as structural fill,
a minimum of six inches of Class 6 base course or crusher fines should be placed on top
of the pit -run to prevent large point stresses on the bottoms of the foundations due to
large particles in the pit -run.
Prior to placement of structural fill, it is recommended that the bottoms of the
foundation excavations be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 -inches, moisture conditioned, and
re -compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density, within
±2% of the optimum moisture content as determined in accordance with ASTM D698.
Structural fill should extend laterally beyond the edges of the foundation a distance equal
to the thickness of structural fill. Structural fill should be moisture conditioned, placed in
maximum 8 -inch loose lifts, and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor
maximum dry density for fine grained soils or modified Proctor maximum dry density for
coarse grained soils, within ±2% of the optimum moisture content as determined in
accordance with ASTM D698 or D1557C, respectively. Pit -run materials should be
proofrolled to the Engineer's satisfaction.
For foundation building pads prepared as recommended with structural fill
consisting of the native soils or imported granular materials, a maximum allowable
bearing capacity of 1,500 psf may be used. In addition, a modulus of subgrade reaction of
150 pci may be used for structural fill consisting of the native clay soils. A modulus of
250 pci may be used for structural fill consisting of pit -run, crusher fines, or base course.
It is recommended that the bottoms of exterior foundations be at least 36 -inches below
the final grade for frost protection.
As discussed previously, water soluble sulfates were detected in the site soils in a
concentration of 0.4%. This concentration represents a severe degree of potential sulfate
attack on concrete exposed to these materials. Therefore, Type V sulfate resistant cement
is recommended for construction at this site in accordance with the International Building
Code (IBC). However, Type V cement can be difficult to obtain in Western Colorado.
Where Type V cement is unavailable, a minimum of Type I-II cement is recommended.
4V:1200S ALL PROJECTSI010S2 - Summit AE101082-9003 George Strong's Su65200 - Geo'.O1082-0003 R102711 doe
4
'FL4�3�'] y Huddleston -Berry
li/E F:1,;,:O:,k rclin:. L LC
7.2 Non -Structural Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork
In order to limit the potential for movement of non-structural floor slabs and
exterior flatwork, it is recommended that non-structural slabs -on -grade be constructed
above subgrade soils, below the topsoil and/or fill, that have been scarified to a depth of
12 -inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard
Proctor maximum dry density, within ±2% of the optimum moisture content as
determined in accordance with ASTM D698.
7.3 Lateral Earth Pressures
Stemwalls and/or retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth
pressures. For backfill consisting of the native soils or imported granular, non -free
draining, non -expansive material, we recommend that the walls be designed for an
equivalent fluid unit weight of 55 pcf in areas where no surcharge loads are present.
Lateral earth pressures should be increased as necessary to reflect any surcharge loading
behind the walls.
7.4 Drainage
In order to improve the long-term performance of the foundations and slabs -on -
grade, grading around the structure should be designed to carry precipitation and runoff
away from the structure. It is recommended that the finished ground surface drop at least
twelve inches within the first ten feet away from the structure. However, where
impermeable surfaces (i.e. pavements) are adjacent to the structure, the grade can be
reduced to three inches within the first ten feet away from the structure. Downspouts
should empty beyond the backfill zone. It is recommended that landscaping within five
feet of the structure include primarily desert plants with low water requirements. In
addition, it is recommended that automatic irrigation within ten feet of foundations be
minimized or controlled with automatic shut off valves.
7.5 Excavations
Excavations in the soils at the site may stand for short periods of time but should
not be considered to be stable. Trenching and excavations should be sloped back, shored,
or shielded for worker protection in accordance with applicable OSHA standards. The
soils generally classify as Type C soil with regard to OSHA's Construction Standards for
Excavations. For Type C soils, the maximum allowable slope in temporary cuts is
1.5H:1V.
7.6 Pavements
The proposed construction may include paved automobile parking areas and truck
traffic areas. As discussed previously, the pavement subgrade materials consist primarily
of lean clay soils. Based upon our experience with similar soils in the vicinity of the
subject site, a Resilient Modulus of 3,000 psi was used for the pavement design.
W:12008 ALL PROJECTS 01082 - Summit AE101082-0003 George Strong's Sub\200 - Geo101082-0003 R10271 Ldoc 5
Iuddlestnn-Berry
Based upon the subgrade conditions and anticipated traffic Ioading, pavement
section alternatives were developed in accordance with the Guideline for the Design and
Use of Asphalt Pavements for Colorado Roadways by the Colorado Asphalt Pavement
Association and CDOT 2009 Pavement Design Manual. The following minimum
pavement section alternatives are recommended:
Automobile Parking Areas
EDLA - 5, Structural Number = 235
ALTERNATIVE
PAVEMENT SECTION (Inches)
Hot -Mix
Asphalt
Pavement
CDOT Class 6
Base Course
CDOT Class 3 1
Subbase
Course
Rigid
Pavement
TOTAL
Full Depth HMA
7.0
7.0
A
3.0
10.0
13.0
B
4.0
7.0
11.0
C
3.0
6.0
6:0
15.0
Full Depth RP
6.0
6.0
12.0
Truck Traffic Areas
EDLA - 30, Structural Number = 3.70
ALTERNATIVE
PAVEMENT SECTION (Inches)
Hot -Mix
Asphalt
Pavement
CDOT Class 6
Base Course
CDOT Class 3
Subbase
Course
Rigid
Pavement
TOTAL
Full Depth HMA
9.0
9.0
A
3.0
17.0
20.0
B
4.0
14.0
18.0
C
3.0
6.0
16.0
25.0
Full Depth RP
6.0
8.0
14.0
Gravel pavements should be a minimum of 12 -inches in thickness.
Prior to pavement placement, areas to be paved should be stripped of all topsoil,
fill, or other unsuitable materials. It is recommended that the subgrade soils be scarified
to a depth of 12 -inches; moisture conditioned, and recompacted to a minimum of 95% of
the standard Proctor maximum dry density, within ±2% of optimum moisture content as
determined by AASHTO T-99.
Aggregate base course and subbase course should be placed in maximum 9 -inch
loose lifts, moisture conditioned, and compacted to a minimum of 95% and 93% of the
maximum dry density, respectively, at -2% to +3% of optimum moisture content as
determined by AASHTO T-180. In addition to density testing, base course should be
proofrolled to verify subgrade stability.
It is recommended that Hot -Mix Asphaltic (HMA) pavement conform to CDOT
grading SX or S specifications and consist of an approved 75 gyration Superpave method
mix design. HMA pavement should be compacted to between 92% and 96% of the
maximum theoretical density. An end point stress of 50 psi should be used, It is
recommended that rigid pavements consist of CDOT Class P concrete or alternative
approved by the Engineer. In addition, pavements should conform to local specifications.
W:\2008 ALL PROJECTS',01082 - Summit AE101032-0003 George Strong's Sub\200 - Geo101082-0003 R10271l-doe
6
Huddleston -Berry
ran::,., i zC
The long-term performance of the pavements is dependent on positive drainage
away from the pavements. Ditches, culverts, and inlet structures in the vicinity of paved
areas must be maintained to prevent ponding of water on the pavement.
8.0 ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL
As discussed previously, an Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) is
proposed as part of the construction. In order to evaluate the suitability of the subsurface
materials for on-site sewage disposal, percolation testing was conducted in the vicinity of
the proposed absorption field in TP -2, TP -3, and TP -4. The percolation rate in the native
soils ranged from 8 and 40 minutes -per -inch with an average of 18 minutes -per -inch.
The percolation testing data are included in Appendix D.
Generally, percolation rates of between 5 and 60 minutes -per -inch are acceptable.
Therefore, the native soils are generally suitable for on-site sewage disposal. However,
the seasonal high groundwater elevation is an important factor in determining the
suitability of the site for Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. For ISDS suitability, the
seasonal high groundwater elevation should be at least four feet below the bottom of the
proposed absorption bed. As discussed previously, groundwater was not encountered in
the test pits at the time of the investigation. In general, based upon the time of the year
that the subsurface investigation was completed, HBET anticipates that the seasonal high
groundwater elevation is deeper than 10.0 feet below the existing ground surface.
9.0 GENERAL
The recommendations included above are based upon the results of the subsurface
investigation and on our local experience. These conclusions and recommendations are
valid only for the proposed construction.
It is important to note that the recommendations provided in this report are
intended to reduce, but not eliminate, the potential for structural movement as a result of
collapse of the native soils. While the recommendations are consistent with generally
accepted engineering practices in areas of moisture sensitive subgrade materials, HBET
cannot predict long-term changes in subsurface moisture conditions and/or the precise
magnitude or extent of volume change. Although the potential for movement still exists,
HBET believes that with proper application of the recommendations in this report, any
structural movements will be within acceptable levels.
As discussed previously, the subsurface conditions at the site were slightly
variable. However, the precise nature and extent of subsurface variability may not
become evident until construction. Therefore, it is recommended that a representative of
HBET be retained to provide engineering oversight and construction materials testing
services during the foundation and earthwork phases of the construction. This is to verify
compliance with the recommendations included in this report or permit identification of
significant variations in the subsurface conditions which may require modification of the
recommendations.
W:,2008 ALL PROJECTSV01082 • Summit AE'01082-0003 George Strong's Sub \200 - Geo10I082-0001 810271 ].doc
7
Huddleston•Bcrry
..; s newt. { IC
Huddleston -Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC is pleased to be of service to
your project. Please contact us if you have any questions or comments regarding the
contents of this report.
Respectfully Submitted:
Hudcllestsn-Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC
Michael A. Berry, P.E.
Vice President of Engineering
W'',2008 ALL'PROJECT5.01082 - Summit AE101082-0003 George Strong's Sub1200 - Geol0J082-0003 R102711 doc 8
FIGURES
.i2
Li.
Site Location
•
•
/1 sots
•
53l2
USGS Parachute, Colorado Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series, 1962
5
\:4"4:76/.;'"'"
5544;
1l"
•
f
ti
FIGURE 1
Site Location Map
•
S
APPENDIX A
Soil Survey Data
39° 24' 14"
39° 24 7"
Soil Map—Rifle Area, Colorado, Paris of Garfield and Mesa Counties
m• N Meters
o p 0 10 20 40 60
Map Scale: 1:1,140 8 printed on A s¢e (8.5" x 11") sheet.
0 40 80
USDA Natural Resources
160
Feet
240
Web Soil Survey
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
Sp
O
10/26/2011
Page 1 of 3
39° 24' 14"
39° 24' 6"
Soil Map—Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI}
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Units
Special Point Features
V Blowout
•
}
a
0
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
1f)' Very Stony Spot
Ir Wet Spot
i Other
Special Line Features
Gully
Short Steep Slope
.• Other
Political Features
O Cities
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
+-M. Rails
r Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
fy Local Roads
MAP INFORMATION
Map Scale: 1:1,140 if printed ort A size (8.5" x 11") sheet.
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http:ffwebsoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12N NAD83
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa
Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 6, Mar 25, 2008
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 8/8/2005
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Natural Resources
"2111. Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/26/2011
Page 2 of 3
Soil Map—Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Map Unit Legend
Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties (CO683)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AO1
3
Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes
3.8
100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
3.8
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/26/2011
Page 3 of 3
Map Unit Description—Rifle Area, Colorado, Paris of Garfield and Mesa
Counties
Map Unit Description
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions in this
report, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and
properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into Iandforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
. Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/26/2011
Page 1 of 3
Map Unit Description—Rifle Area, Colorado, Paris of Garfield and Mesa
Counties
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. All the soils of
a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and
arrangement. Soils of a given series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope,
stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use.
On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of
the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of
a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For
example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Additional information about the map units described in this report is available in
other soil reports, which give properties of the soils and the limitations, capabilities,
and potentials for many uses. Also, the narratives that accompany the soil reports
define some of the properties included in the map unit descriptions.
Report—Map Unit Description
Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa
Counties
3—Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 5,100 to 6,200 feet
Map Unit Composition
Arvada and similar soils: 80 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/26/2011
Page 2 of 3
Map Unit Description—Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa
Counties
Description of Arvada
Setting
Landform: Terraces, fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Convex, linear
Across -slope shape: Convex, linear
Parent material: Highly saline alluvium derived from sandstone and
shale
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water
(Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 2 percent
Maximum salinity: Very slightly saline to moderately saline (4.0 to
16.0 mmhoslcm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 30.0
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 7s
Land capability (nonirrigated): 7s
Ecological site: Salt Flats (R048AY261 C0)
Typical profile
0 to 3 inches: Loam
3 to 17 inches: Silty clay loam
17 to 60 inches: Silty clay loam
Minor Components
Wann
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Data Source information
Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 6, Mar 25, 2008
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10126/2011
Page 3 of 3
Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings—Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of
Garfield and Mesa Counties
Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings
Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the selection
of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction,
and maintenance. This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect
dwellings and small commercial buildings.
The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate
the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect building
site development. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are very
favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can
be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are
moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or
minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and
moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has
one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations
generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or
expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can
be expected.
Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The
ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate
gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative
impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation
(0.00).
Dwellings are single-family houses of three stories or Tess. For dwellings without
basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced
concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum
frost penetration, whichever is deeper. For dwellings with basements, the
foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on
undisturbed soil at a depth of about 7 feet. The ratings for dwellings are based on
the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without
movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The
properties that affect the load -supporting capacity include depth to a water table,
ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), and
compressibility. Compressibility is inferred from the Unified classification. The
properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include depth to a water
table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of
bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments.
Small commercial buildings are structures that are less than three stories high and
do not have basements. The foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings
of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth
of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. The ratings are based on the
soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement
and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties
that affect the load -supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding,
flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), and
compressibility (which is inferred from the Unified classification). The properties that
affect the ease and amount of excavation include flooding, depth to a water table,
ponding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a
cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments.
u5DA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/26/2011
Page 1 of 2
Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings–Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of
Garfield and Mesa Counties
Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use
alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction.
The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data
generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to
7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included
within the mapped areas of a specific soil.
The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite
investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the
design and construction of engineering works.
Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose
specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table.
Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site
selection, and in design,
Report—Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings
[Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and
to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns
range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation.
The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have
additional limitations]
Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings– Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Map symbol and soil
name
Pct. of
map
unit
Dwellings without basements
Dwellings with basements
Small commercial buildings
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
3—Arvada loam, 1 to 6
percent slopes
Arvada
80
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Shrink -swell
1.00
Shrink -swell
1.00
Shrink -swell
1.00
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 6, Mar 25, 2008
USim Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/26/2011
r Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2
Sewage Disposal—Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Sewage Disposal
This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect septic tank
absorption fields and sewage lagoons. The ratings are both verbal and numerical.
Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil
features that affect these uses. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that
are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low
maintenance can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has
features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be
overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair
performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates
that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use.
The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation,
special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high
maintenance can be expected.
Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The
ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate
gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative
impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation
(0.00).
Septic tank absorption fields are areas in which effluent from a septic tank is
distributed into the soil through subsurface tiles or perforated pipe. Only that part
of the soil between depths of 24 and 72 inches or between a depth of 24 inches
and a restrictive layer is evaluated. The ratings are based on the soil properties that
affect absorption of the effluent, construction and maintenance of the system, and
public health. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table,
ponding, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, and flooding affect absorption of the
effluent. Stones and boulders, ice, and bedrock or a cemented pan interfere with
installation. Subsidence interferes with installation and maintenance. Excessive
slope may cause lateral seepage and surfacing of the effluent in downslope areas.
Some soils are underlain by loose sand and gravel or fractured bedrock at a depth
of less than 4 feet below the distribution lines. In these soils the absorption field
may not adequately filter the effluent, particularly when the system is new. As a
result, the ground water may become contaminated.
Sewage lagoons are shallow ponds constructed to hold sewage while aerobic
bacteria decompose the solid and liquid wastes. Lagoons should have a nearly
level floor surrounded by cut slopes or embankments of compacted soil. Nearly
impervious soil material for the lagoon floor and sides is required to minimize
seepage and contamination of ground water. Considered in the ratings are slope,
saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, depth to
bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, large stones, and content of organic matter.
Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) is a critical property affecting the suitability
for sewage lagoons. Most porous soils eventually become sealed when they are
used as sites for sewage lagoons. Until sealing occurs, however, the hazard of
pollution is severe. Soils that have a Ksat rate of more than 14 micrometers per
second are too porous for the proper functioning of sewage lagoons. In these soils,
seepage of the effluent can result in contamination of the ground water. Ground-
water contamination is also a hazard if fractured bedrock is within a depth of 40
inches, if the water table is high enough to raise the level of sewage in the lagoon,
or if floodwater overtops the lagoon.
uSDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/26/2011
Page 1 of 2
Sewage disposal—Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
A high content of organic matter is detrimental to proper functioning of the lagoon
because it inhibits aerobic activity. Slope, bedrock, and cemented pans can cause
construction problems, and large stones can hinder compaction of the lagoon floor.
If the lagoon is to be uniformly deep throughout, the slope must be gentle enough
and the soil material must be thick enough over bedrock ora cemented pan to make
land smoothing practical.
Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use
alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction.
The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data
generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to
7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included
within the mapped areas of a specific soil.
The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite
investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the
design and construction of engineering works.
Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose
specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table.
Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site
selection, and in design.
Report—Sewage Disposal
[Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and
to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns
range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation.
The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have
additional limitations]
Sewage Disposal— Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Map symbol and soli name
Pct. of
map unit
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
3—Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent
slopes
Arvada
80
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Slow water movement
1,00
Slope
0.32
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 6, Mar 25, 2008
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/26/2011
Page 2 of 2
Soil Features—Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Soil Features
This table gives estimates of various soil features. The estimates are used in land
use planning that involves engineering considerations.
A restrictive layer is a nearly continuous layer that has one or more physical,
chemical, or thermal properties that significantly impede the movement of water
and air through the soil or that restrict roots or otherwise provide an unfavorable
root environment. Examples are bedrock, cemented layers, dense layers, and
frozen layers. The table indicates the hardness and thickness of the restrictive layer,
both of which significantly affect the ease of excavation. Depth to top is the vertical
distance from the soil surface to the upper boundary of the restrictive layer.
Subsidence is the settlement of organic soils or of saturated mineral soils of very
low density. Subsidence generally results from either desiccation and shrinkage,
or oxidation of organic material, or both, following drainage. Subsidence takes place
gradually, usually over a period of several years. The table shows the expected
initial subsidence, which usually is a result of drainage, and total subsidence, which
results from a combination of factors.
Potential for frost action is the likelihood of upward or lateral expansion of the soil
caused by the formation of segregated ice lenses (frost heave) and the subsequent
collapse of the soil and loss of strength on thawing. Frost action occurs when
moisture moves into the freezing zone of the soil. Temperature, texture, density,
saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), content of organic matter, and depth to the
water table are the most important factors considered in evaluating the potential for
frost action. It is assumed that the soil is not insulated by vegetation or snow and
is not artificially drained. Silty and highly structured, clayey soils that have a high
water table in winter are the most susceptible to frost action. Well drained, very
gravelly, or very sandy soils are the least susceptible. Frost heave and low soil
strength during thawing cause damage to pavements and other rigid structures.
Risk of corrosion pertains to potential soil -induced electrochemical or chemical
action that corrodes or weakens uncoated steel or concrete. The rate of corrosion
of uncoated steel is related to such factors as soil moisture, particle -size
distribution, acidity, and electrical conductivity of the soil. The rate of corrosion of
concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium content, texture, moisture
content, and acidity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed
if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The steel or
concrete in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more
susceptible to corrosion than the steel or concrete in installations that are entirely
within one kind of soil or within one soil layer.
For uncoated steel, the risk of corrosion, expressed as low, moderate, or high, is
based on soil drainage class, total acidity, electrical resistivity near field capacity,
and electrical conductivity of the saturation extract.
For concrete, the risk of corrosion also is expressed as low, moderate, or high. It
is based on soil texture, acidity, and amount of sulfates in the saturation extract.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/26/2011
Page 1 of 2
Soil Features—Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Report—Soil Features
Soil Features— Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Map symbol and
soil name
Restrictive Layer
Subsidence
Potential for frost
action
Risk of corrosion
Kind
Depth to
top
Thickness
Hardness
Initial
Total
Uncoated steel
Concrete
In
In
In
In
3—Arvada loam, 1
to 6 percent
slopes
Arvada
—
—
0
—
Low
High
Low
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 6, Mar 25, 2008
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/26/2011
Page 2of2
APPENDIX B
Typed Test Pit Logs
0
0
afi
z
a
o
0
0
V
2
1-
0
W
0
0
0
W
0
0
0
9
N
0
O
0
z
2
0
Z
glk
_,, , •Tco
CLIENT
PROJECT
EFR Huddleston -Berry Engineering & Testing, LLC
"°; 640 White Avenue, Unit B
1 ' Grand Junction, CO 81501
1 9 70-255-8005
'J 970-255-6818
Summit AE PROJECT
NAME
LOCATION
TEST PIT NUMBER TP -1
PAGE 1 OF 1
Lot 4 Strong Subdivision
NUMBER 01082-0003 PROJECT
Parachute, CO
DATE
EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION
LOGGED
NOTES
STARTED
BY
10/18/11 COMPLETED 10/18/11 GROUND
ELEVATION
WATER
TIME OF
END OF
EXCAVATION
TEST PIT SIZE
CONTRACTOR Client GROUND
LEVELS:
EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION
dry
METHOD Backhoe AT
AS CHECKED BY MAB AT
dry
AFTER
---
o DEPTH
a (k)
GRAPHIC
LOG
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
I
SAMPLE TYPE
NUMBER
RECOVERY %
(ROD)
BLOW
COUNTS
(N VALUE)
POCKET PEN.
(tsf)
DRY UNIT WT.
(pcf)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
FINES CONTENT
(%)
LIQUID
LIMIT
PLASTIC
LIMIT
PLASTICITY
INDEX
' ='
I./.?i-l;'
L
I' 'i 7
LEAN CLAY with Sand and Organics (TOPSOIL), reddish brown,
dry
2.5
.
LEAN CLAY with Sand (CL), with sand lenses, reddish brown, dry
to moist, soft to stiff, abundant sulfates
GB1: Lab Classified
NMC
1
92
7
_
5.0
,r3GB
5
28
15
13
81
7.5
Y
Y
Jl _
10.0
Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet.
1-
0
7
Z
0
O
0
ao
0
0
0w
0
O
lfJ
N
W
O
O
0
z
2
0
0
U
S
0]
2
1
0
w
0
0
w
0
��(¢NEFq„y
=.toy'
CLIENT
PROJECT
Huddleston -Berry Engineering & Testing, LLC
640 White Avenue, Unit B
' Grand Junction, CO 81501
0.970-255-8005
970-255-6818
Summit AE PROJECT
NAME
LOCATION
TEST PIT NUMBER TP -2
PAGE 1 OF 1
Lot 4 Strong Subdivision
NUMBER 01082-0003 PROJECT
Parachute, CO
DATE
EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION
LOGGED
NOTES
STARTED
BY
10/18/11 COMPLETED 10/18/11 GROUND
ELEVATION
WATER LEVELS:
TIME OF EXCAVATION
END OF EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION
TEST PIT SIZE
CONTRACTOR Client GROUND
dry
METHOD Backhoe AT
AS CHECKED BY MAB AT
dry
AFTER
---
o DEPTH
(ft)
GRAPHIC
LOG
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPE
NUMBER
RECOVERY %
(ROD)
BLOW
COUNTS
(N VALUE)
POCKET PEN.
(tsf)
DRY UNIT WT.
(pcf)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
FINES CONTENT
(%)
LIQUID
LIMIT
PLASTIC
LIMIT
— w
ci z
a
$•4++
:•:•.+
Clayey SAND and GRAVEL with Organics (FILL), trace cobbles,
brown, dry to moist, medium dense
_
2.5
f
•
•
•
/45
LEAN CLAY with Sand (el), with sand lenses, reddish brown, dry
to moist, soft to stiff, abundant sulfates
5.0
H
mc1
�tvs�
l.T
GIB
_ :>/7/7
7.5r
Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet.
ti
1-
0
5
1-
z
z
0
a
7
0
z
0
0
N
w
0
w
a
0
9
wac.ts
i
`'1. -c
CLIENT
PROJECT
EofHc Huddleston -Berry Engineering & Testing, LLC
640 White Avenue, Unit B
Grand Junction, CO 81501
s 970-255-8005
0 970-255-6818
Summit AE PROJECT
NAME
LOCATION
TEST PIT NUMBER TP -3
PAGE 1 OF 1
Lot 4 Strong Subdivision
NUMBER 01082-0003 PROJECT
Parachute, CO
DATE
EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION
LOGGED
NOTES
STARTED
BY
10/18/11 COMPLETED 10/18/11 GROUND
ELEVATION
WATER
TIME OF
END OF
EXCAVATION
TEST PIT SIZE
CONTRACTOR Client GROUND
LEVELS:
EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION
dry
METHOD Backhoe AT
AS CHECKED BY MAB AT
dry
AFTER
---
o DEPTH
(ft)
GRAPHIC
LOG
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPE
NUMBER
RECOVERY %
(ROD)
BLOW
COUNTS
(N VALUE)
POCKET PEN.
(tsf)
DRY UNIT WT.
(pcf)
rMOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
FINES CONTENT
(%)
LIQUID
LIMIT
PLASTIC
LIMIT
U w
Q
z
g—
a
1
+:•'*:
i�i���
O:'i'
•app•
••iii
Clayey SAND and GRAVEL with Organics (FILL), trace cobbles,
brown, dry to moist, medium dense
2
LEAN CLAY with Sand (cl), with sand lenses, reddish brown, dry,
soft to medium stiff, abundant sulfates
3
7r7/F
/
4
Bottom of test pit at 4.0 feet.
NT US LAB.GDT 10/27/11
HG,�E,
`�' .
%c-
-•-
CLIENT
PROJECT
Huddleston -Berry Engineering & Testing, LLC
640 White Avenue, Unit B
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970--
,S
eoN 970-255255-80056818
Summit AE PROJECT
NAME
LOCATION
TEST PIT NUMBER TP -4
PAGE 1 OF 1
Lot 4 Strong Subdivision
NUMBER 01082-0003 PROJECT
Parachute, CO
DATE
EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION
LOGGED
NOTES
STARTED
BY
10/18/11 COMPLETED 10/18/11 GROUND
ELEVATION
WATER
TIME OF
END OF
EXCAVATION
TEST PIT SIZE
CONTRACTOR Client GROUND
LEVELS:
EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION
dry
METHOD Backhoe AT
AS CHECKED BY MAB AT
dry
AFTER
---
DEPTH
(ft)
GRAPHIC
LOG
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPE
NUMBER
RECOVERY %
(RQD)
BLOW
COUNTS
(N VALUE)
POCKET PEN.
(tsf)
DRY UNIT WT.
(pct)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
FINES CONTENT
(%)
LIQUID
LIMIT
PLASTIC
LIMIT
PLASTICITY
INDEX
_
1
•••••V
.•i
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Results
0
0
ai0)
Z
m
2 Z
0
1-
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
tu0
N
2
0
C7
CLIENT
,Waecyti
`"
'
°
,
,
c'S
Summit
Huddleston -Berry Engineering
640 White Avenue, Unit B
cy & Testing, LLC GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-255-8005
970-255 6818
AE PROJECT NAME Lot 4 Strong Subdivision
PROJECT NUMBER 01082-0003 PROJECT LOCATION Parachute, CO
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN NCHES
6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2
1 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 1 HYDROMETER
: 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200
100
1
i
1
IflN
90
$5
$0
75
70
65
1—
s
(9 60
-
ui
55
>-
m
o'
I-0 50
-
z
ti
45
1—
z
Li!
40
a
Lu
n.
35
30
25
-
20
15
10
5
0
100
10 1
GRAIN SIZE
IN MILLIMETERS
0 1
0.01 0.001
GRAVEL
SAND
COBBLES
coarse
fine
coarse
medium
fine
SILT OR CLAY
Specimen Identification
Classification
LL
PL
PI
Cc
Cu
•
TP -1, GB1 10/11
LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)
28
15
13
Specimen Identification
D100
D60
D30
D10
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
%Clay
•
TP -1, GB1 10/11
9.5
0.5
18.7
80.8
;E� 64Huddleston-Berr0White Avenueyingineering&TestingitB,LLC ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS
69 Un
,‘:11I1 Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-255-$005
�' cot'y° 970-255-6$I$
CLIENT Summit AE PROJECT NAME Lot 4 Strong Subdivision
PROJECT NUMBER 01082-0003 PROJECT LOCATION Parachute, CO
60
50
CL
CH
P
L
A
40
s
T
I
C
T ,0
Y
I
N 20
D
E
X
10
•
CL -ML
7
Ci
10
0
20 40 60 80 100
LIQUID LIMIT
Specimen Identification
LL
PL
PI
#200
Classification
•
TP -1, GB1 10118/201/
28
15
13
81
LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)
a
com
0
D
y
0
N
0
z
0
1-
0
w
0
0
0
w
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
Z
co
0
0
0
Z
0
0
y:JGrandJuncdon.
CLIENT
o7NEE,t
Huddlesson-Berry Engineering & Testing, LLC CONSOLIDATION TEST
"s, 640 White Avenue, Unit B
CO 81501
970-255-6818
Summit AE PROJECT NAME Lot 4 Strong Subdivision
PROJECT NUMBER 01082-0003 PROJECT LOCATION Parachute, CO
0.0
1
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0
z
ll
74 2.5
CC
r
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
100 1,000 10,000
STRESS, psf
Specimen Identification
Classification
Yd
MC%
1
TP -1 2.0
92
7
�-
0
0
Cd
z
Z
0
0
0,
co
0
z
0
O
co
co
w
0
0
0
W
0
m
00
Z
0
1-
U
0
0
U
aglNEkW,
,
-
CLIENT
PROJECT
c Huddleston -Berry Engineering & Testing, LLC
640 White Avenue, Unit B
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-255-8005
0 970-255-6818
Summit AE
MOISTURE
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATION
-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Lot 4 Strong Subdivision
NUMBER 01082-0003
Parachute, CO
DRY DENSITY, pcf
1 _.. 1 _1 _? 1 _1 J1
co co a a s s iV N co co .A A cn
r, a (n a (n a cn a cn a cn _ a (n a
\
Sample
Sample
Source
Description
Test
Maximum
Optimum
of
Method:
Date:
No.:
Material:
of
Material:
Dry
Water
TEST
Density
Content
GRADATION
#200
10/18/2011
\\
GB1
TP -1
LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)
ASTM D698A
RESULTS
ATTERBERG
RESULTS
117.3 PCF
PASSING)
PI
13
Saturation
314"
to:
14.0
#4
99
(%
LIMITS
100%
Gravity
2.80
2.70
2.60
81
100
Equal
LL
for
PL
\
\\1111.
28
15
Specific
of
\\\,urves
5 10 15 20 25 30
WATER CONTENT, %
APPENDIX D
Percolation Testing Data
PERCOLATION TESTING
Project Name: Lot 4 Strong Subdivision Location: Parachute, CO
Testing Conducted By: A. Sigler
Pit Dimensions: Length
Water Level Depth:
SOIL PROFILE
Depth Description
Project No. 01082 0003
Test Pit No. TP -2
Date: 10/18/2011
Supervising Engineer: M. Berry
; Width
Not Encountered X
; Depth 8.0 ft
Remarks
0-1.5
Clayey SAND and GRAVEL with Organics (FILL), trace cobbles,
brown, dry to moist, medium dense
Change
(in.)
1.5-8
LEAN CLAY with Sand (cl), with sand lenses, reddish brown, dry to
moist, soft to stiff, abundant sulfates
5
3.6875
1.9375
10
5.0000
1.3125
15
6.0000
1.0000
Test Number: 1
Top of Hole Depth: 3.5 ft
Diameter of Hole: 4.5 in
Depth of Hole: 18.5 in
Time
(min.)
Water
Depth
(in.)
Change
(in.)
0
1.7500
5
3.6875
1.9375
10
5.0000
1.3125
15
6.0000
1.0000
20
7.6250
1.6250
25
8.5000
0.8750
30
9.3750
0.8750
35
10.2500
0.8750
40
10.8125
0.5625
45
11.5000
0.6875
50
12.1250
0.6250
55
12.5625
0.4375
60
13.1875
0.6250
Rate (min/in):
Average Percolation Rate (min/in):
Test Number: 2
Top of Hole Depth: 6.5 in
Diameter of Hole: 4.5 in
Depth of Hole: 18.5 in
Time
(min.)
Water
Depth
(in.)
Change
(in.)
0
2.1250
5
3.5000
1.3750
10
4.7500
1.2500
15
5.9375
1.1875
20
6.8750
0.9375
25
7.7500
0.8750
30
8.4375
0.6875
35
9.1250
0.6875
40
9.9375
0.8125
45
10.5625
0.6250
50
11.1250
0.5625
55
11.7500
0.6250
60
12.3125
0.5625
Rate (min/in):
Test Number:
Top of Hole Depth:
Diameter of Hole:
Depth of Hole:
PERCOLATION TESTING
Project Name: Lot 4 Strong Subdivision Location: Parachute, CO
Testing Conducted By: A. Sigler
Pit Dimensions: Length
Water Level Depth:
SOIL PROFILE
Depth Description
Supervising Engineer:
; Width
Not Encountered X
Project No. 01082 0003
Test Pit No. TP -3
Date: 10/18/2011
M. Berry
; Depth 4.0 ft
Remarks
0-1.5
Clayey SAND and GRAVEL with Organics (FILL), trace cobbles,
brown, dry to moist, medium dense
Change
(in.)
1.5-4
LEAN CLAY with Sand (ci), with sand lenses, reddish brown, dry, soft
to medium stiff, abundant sulfates
5
1.8750
0.5625
10
2.3750
0.5000
15
2.6875
0.3125
Test Number: 1
Top of Hole Depth: 0 ft
Diameter of Hole: 7.0 in
Depth of Hole: 14.0 in
Time
(min.)
Water
Depth
(in.)
Change
(in.)
0
1.3125
5
1.8750
0.5625
10
2.3750
0.5000
15
2.6875
0.3125
20
3.0000
0.3125
25
3.2500
0.2500
30
3.6250
0.3750
35
3.8750
0.2500
40
4.2500
0.3750
45
4,5625
0.3125
50
4.8125
0.2500
55
5.2500
0.4375
60
5.3750
0.1250
Rate (min/in):17 1
Average Percolation Rate (min/in):
Test Number: 2
Top of Hole Depth: 4.0 ft
Diameter of Hole: 5.0 in
Depth of Hole: 16.0 in
Time
(min.)
Water
Depth
(in.)
Change
(in.)
0
2.5000
5
3.5000
1.0000
10
3.7500
0.2500
15
4.0000
0.2500
20
4.2500
0.2500
25
4.3750
0.1250
30
4.4375
0.0625
35
4.6250
0.1875
40
4.7500
0.1250
45
4.8750
0.1250
50
4.9375
0.0625
55
5.1250
0.1875
60
5.2500
0.1250
Rate (min/in):40 �
Test Number:
Top of Hole Depth:
Diameter of Hole:
Depth of Hole:
Time
(min.)
Water
Depth
(in.)
Change
(in.)
Rate (min/in):
PERCOLATION TESTING
Project Name: Lot 4 Strong Subdivision Location:
Parachute, CO
Project No. 01082 0003
Test Pit No. TP -4
Date: 10/18/2011
Testing Conducted By: A. Sigler Supervising Engineer: M. Berry
Pit Dimensions: Length
Water Level Depth:
SOIL PROFILE
Depth Description
; Width
Not Encountered X
; Depth 4.0 ft
Remarks
0-1.5
Clayey SAND and GRAVEL with Organics (FILL), trace cobbles,
brown, dry to moist, medium dense
Change
(in.)
1.5-4
LEAN CLAY with Sand (cl), with sand lenses, reddish brown, dry, soft
to medium stiff, abundant sulfates
5
1.8750
0.6875
10
2.5000
0.6250
15
3.2500
0.7500
Test Number: 1
Top of Hole Depth: 4.0 ft
Diameter of Hole: 4.5 in
Depth of Hole: 16.5 in
Time
(min.)
- Water
Depth
(in.)
Change
(in.)
0
1.1875
5
1.8750
0.6875
10
2.5000
0.6250
15
3.2500
0.7500
20
3.7500
0.5000
25
4.2500
0.5000
30
4.9375
0.6875
35
5.3125
0.3750
40
5.8125
0.5000
45
6.1875
0.3750
50
6.5625
0.3750
55
6.8750
0.3125
60
7.1250
0.2500
Rate (min/in): I 14 �
Average Percolation Rate (min/in):
Test Number:
Top of Hole Depth:
Diameter of Hole:
Depth of Hole:
Time
(min.)
Water
Depth
(in.)
Change
(in.)
Rate (min/in):
Test Number:
Top of Hole Depth:
Diameter of Hole:
Depth of Hole:
Time
(min.)
Water
Depth
(in.)
Change
(in.)
Rate (min/in):