HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoils Report 02.18.2014SOILS REPORT
FOR
PLUS FIVE LLC.
PARACHUTE, COLORADO
FORD CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC.
560 25 Rd / Grand Junction / Colorado 181505
Ph. (970) 245-93431 Fax (970) 245-5090
Huddleston -Berry
Engineering & Testing, 1.1..('
GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
INVESTIGATION
TWO IN THE LOOP
PARACHUTE, COLORADO
PROJECT#00972-0002
FORD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
560 25 ROAD
GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81505
FEBRUARY 18, 2014
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 for the Two in the
Loop site near 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, 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 five test pits, excavated on January 27th, 2014.
The locations of the test pits are shown on Figure 2 -- Site Plan. The test pits generally
encountered fill materials above native clayey sand soils. Groundwater was not encountered in
the test pits at the time of the investigation. The native soils are moderately plastic and range
from collapsible to expansive.
Geologic Hazards (p. 3)
The primary geologic hazard at the site is the presence of moisture sensitive soils.
Summary of Foundation Recommendations
• Foundation Type -Monolithic (turndown) Structural Slab (p. 3)
• Structural Fill - Minimum of 24 -inches below foundations. The native soils are not
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 - 250 pci for pit -run, crusher fines, or base course. (p. 4)
• Lateral Earth Pressure - 60 pcf (p. 5)
Summary of Pavement Recommendations (p. 5)
Automobile Parking and other Light Traffic Areas
EDLA = 5. Structural Number = 2.75
ALTERNATIVE
PAVEMENT SECTION (Inches)
Ilnt-,1112
Asphalt
Pavement
CDOT Class 6
Vase Course
CDOTCIass3
Subbase
Course
Concrete
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 Rigid
6.0
6.0
12.0
Truck Traffic Arens
EDLA = 30, Structural Number = 3.70
ALTERNATIVE
PAVEMENT SECTION (Inches)
Hot -Mix
Asphalt
Paventent
CDOT Class 6
nose Course
CDOT Class 3
Subbase
Course
Concrete
Pavement
TOTAI.
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 Rigid
6.0
8.0
14.0
ravel pavements should be a minimum of 12 -inches in thickness.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.I 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 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 2
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING 2
5.0 GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION 3
5.1 Geologic Hazards 3
5.2 Geologic Constraints 3
5.3 Water Resources 3
5.4 Mineral Resources 3
6.0 CONCLUSIONS 3
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3
7.1 Foundations 3
7.2 Water Soluble Sulfates 4
7.3 Exterior Flatwork 4
7.4 Lateral Earth Pressures 5
7.5 Drainage 5
7.6 Excavations 5
7.7 Pavements 5
8.0 GENERAL 7
FIGURES
Figure 1 — Site Location Map
Figure 2 -- Site Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A — UDSA NRCS Soil Survey Data
Appendix B -- Typed Test pit Logs
Appendix C — Laboratory Testing Results
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Huddleston -Berry
f l.^.F. }
As part of extensive development in Western Colorado, Two in the Loop
proposes to construct a new facility near Parachute, Colorado. As part of the
development process, Huddleston -Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC (HBET) was
retained by Ford Construction 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 for the new Two in the Loop facility near 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.
• EvaIuating 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 Ford
Construction and Two in the Loop.
1.2 Site Location and Description
The site is located off of old US Highway 6 between DeBeque and 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 a slight slope
down to the southwest. Vegetation was limited as the site was covered with gravel
pavement. The site was bordered to the west by a vacant lot, to the south and east by
existing commercial/industrial facilities, and to the north by Interstate 70.
1.3 Proposed Construction
The proposed construction is anticipated to include a new structure with a shop
and office space, utility installation, and pavements. The proposed structure may be
wood framed, steel framed, or masonry and constructed above a reinforced concrete
foundation.
►12003 ALL PROJECT 00972 . ford Construction Co 1ne00972.0002 Two In the Loop1200 - Geo'00972.000Z R021314.doc
2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING
2.1 Soils
liuddleston.aem•
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, I to
6 percent slopes and Arvada loam, 6 to 20 percent slopes. Soil survey data, including
descriptions of the soil units, is included in Appendix A.
Structure construction in the site soils is described as being very limited due to
shrink -swell and/or slope. Excavation in the site soils is described as being somewhat
limited due to unstable excavation walls, dust, and/or slope. The site soils are indicated
to have a Iow potential for frost action, high risk of corrosion of uncoated steel, and high
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 gravels and alluvium.
2.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits at the time of the investigation.
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
The subsurface investigation was conducted on January 27, 2014 and consisted of
five test pits excavated to depths of between 3.0 and 10.0 feet below the existing ground
surface. The locations of the test pits are shown on Figure 2 — Site Flan. 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 driven sample
tubes and bulk sampling methods at the locations shown on the logs.
As indicated on the logs, the subsurface conditions at the site were fairly
consistent. The test pits generally encountered 1.0 foot of clayey sand and gravel fill
above brown, moist, medium dense clayey sand with trace gravel to the bottoms of the
excavations. As discussed previously, groundwater was not encountered in the test pits at
the time of the investigation.
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, Atterberg limits, swell/consolidation, maximum dry
density and optimum moisture (Proctor), water soluble sulfates content determination,
and California Bearing Ratio (CBR). The laboratory testing results are included in
Appendix C.
W 12009 ALL PROJECTS'00912 • Ford Construction Co Inc'A0472.0002 Two In the Loop1200- Gco'0097240002 R021314 doc
lluddlestnn•Rerry
The laboratory testing results indicate that the native clayey sand soils are
moderately plastic. In addition, the native soils were shown to range from being slightly
collapsible to being slightly expansive with between 1.2% collapse and 1.5% expansion
measured in the laboratory. Water soluble sulfates were detected in the site soils in a
concentration of 0.5%.
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 soils.
5.3 Water Resources
No water supply wells were observed on the property. In addition, shallow
groundwater was not encountered at the site. In general, the proposed construction at the
site is not anticipated to adversely affect surface water or groundwater.
5.4 Mineral Resources
Potential mineral resources in Western Colorado generally include gravel,
uranium ore, and commercial rock products such as flagstone. As discussed previously,
sand soils were encountered in the subsurface at the site. In general, based upon the size
of the property and surrounding land use, HBET does not believe that any economically
recoverable resources exist at the site.
6M 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. However, the construction will have to
consider the presence of moisture sensitive soils.
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Foundations
Based upon information provided to HBET, a monolithic structural slab with
turndown edges is proposed for construction at this site. In general, a turndown slab is
appropriate for the subsurface conditions at the site and anticipated construction.
However, as discussed previously, moisture sensitive soils were encountered at the site.
Therefore, to limit the potential for excessive differential movements, it is recommended
11' 12006 ALL PROTECrS'00972 • Ford Caramel/on Co!nc'OO972.0002 Two In the Loop1200. Geo'00973.0002 R021314 doe
3
Huddlesion.Bern
that the turndown edges and interior portions of the slab be constructed above a minimum
of 24 -inches of structural fill.
Due to their potential for expansion, the native clayey sand soils are not suitable
for reuse as structural fill. Imported structural fill should consist of a granular, non -
expansive, non -free draining material such as pit run with high fines content, 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 9 to 12 -inches, moisture conditioned,
and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density,
within f2% of 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 the 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 12% 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 imported granular materials, a maximum allowable bearing capacity of
1,500 psf may be used. In addition, a modulus of subgrade reaction 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.
7.2 Water Soluble Sulfates
As discussed previously, water soluble sulfates were detected in the site soils in a
concentration of 0.5%. This concentration of sulfates represents a severe degree of
potential sulfate attack on concrete. For this concentration of sulfates, the International
Building Code (IBC) specifies Type V cement. However, Type V cement can be difficult
to obtain in Western Colorado. Where Type V cement is unavailable, Type 1-I1 sulfate
resistant cement is recommended.
7.3 Exterior Flatwork
In order to reduce the potential for and/or magnitude of movement of slabs -on -
grade, it is recommended that exterior flatwork be constructed above a minimum of 12 -
inches of structural fill with subgrade preparation and fill placement in accordance with
the Foundations section of this report. Exterior slabs -on -grade should not be tied into or
otherwise connected to the foundations in any manner.
W 1200E ALL PRO1CCTS'00972 • Ford CanNnrctian Co 1nc'00972.0002 Tao In die Loop\200 - Geo'00972.0002 X021714 don
4
7.4 Lateral Earth Pressures
Huddleston Bury
Any 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 60 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.
7.5 Drainage
Grading and drainage are critical to the performance of the foundations and
flatwork. 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. sidewalks, pavements, etc.) 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.
HBET understands that floor drains and a wash pad are proposed at the site. In
order to reduce the potential for excessive differential movetnents, careful construction of
the drains is essential to keep water in the drains from leaching into the subsurface at the
site and causing differential structural movements.
7.6 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 OSI -IA's Canslruclfon Standards for
Excavations. For Type C soils, the maximum allowable slope in temporary cuts is
1.5H:1V.
7.7 Pavements
The proposed construction may include gravel, asphalt, and/or concrete
pavements. As discussed previously, the pavement subgrade materials consist primarily
of clayey sand soils. The design CBR was determined in the laboratory to be less than
2.0. Therefore, the minimum recommended Resilient Modulus of 3,000 psi was used for
the pavement design.
�L' 12008 ALL FROJEC1S'.00972 - Fold Coneuuoion Co Inct00972.0002 Tea In the Loopl200 - Gta'00972.0002 R021 J 14.doc 5
HuddlesIon-Busy
4,,..,a,a Tr 4I. 'IL
Based upon the subgrade conditions and anticipated traffic loading, 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 Pavement Design Manual. The following minimum pavement
section alternatives are recommended for new pavements:
Automobile Parking and other Light Traffic Areas
EDLA = 5, Structural Number = 2.75
ALTERNATIVE
PAVEMENT SECTION (Inches)
Hot -Mix
Asphalt
Pavement
CDOT Class 6
BRSC Course
CDOT Gass3
Subbase
Course
Concrete
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 Rigid
6.0
6.0
12.0
Truck Traffic Areas
EDLA = 30, Structural Number= 3.70
ALTERNATIVE
PAVEMENT SECTION (Inches)
Hot -Mix
Asphalt
Pavement
CDOT CIRss 6
]lase Course
CDOT Class 3
Subbase
Course
Concrete
Pavement
TOTAL
Full Depth HMA
9.0
9,0
A
3.0
17.0
20.0
13
4.0
14.0
18.0
C
3.0
6.0
16.0
25.0
Full Depth Rigid
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,
debris, 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 0 to -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 12008 ALL PROEECTS' 00972 - Ford Construction Co Ine.00972.0002 Tao In the Loap1200 - Gro!06072.0002 R021) I a doc (-1
I{¢JJlesten.BertV
rr
The Tong -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 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.
As discussed previously, the subsurface conditions at the site were fairly
consistent. 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 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.
As discussed previously, moisture sensitive soils are present at the site. The
recommendations contained herein are designed to reduce the potential for excessive
differential movement; however, HBET cannot predict long-term changes in subsurface
moisture conditions and/or the precise magnitude or extent of volume change. Where
significant increases in subsurface moisture occur due to poor grading, improper
stormwater management, utility line failure, excess irrigation, or other cause either during
construction or the result of actions of the property owner, significant movements are
possible.
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;
Huddleston- R erg Engineering and Testing, LLC
Michael A. Berry, P.E.
Vice President of Engineering
W L2003 ALL PROJECTS 00972 - Ford Conuruction Co Ine'00972.O002 T.,o In the LoopV200Geo'00972.0002 8021314 Ja. 7
FIGURES
;i
Fr
r
fJ
).
°• kr•re.:4
•
\\,74:::•\
1
• • 7•4
' -- "2""•\
1
1ijpt
„)pi ;k' •,( )
f-,-r:rt-- s' ...l'i,...e<.1z7*•.-,,,,
(
77kL • '?..---"i,,•'-;.,i:-J-.7.:1..,21)"7,-11-i--.'.-'.'--•.6I. .,'-,:',' %<,-:- _\)\ \'.11 .
ru.,\1 - ii s fe•
.......6..„1.. ,, : is-- c.7--"i""i
"1 c" '. I./ -:, ............s...._. -:..-‘ • . ,,
--0, ..".: .'"11.1--":";/•%C10 yr,74---': .:'Fi'''.7.
) 1
5,.,‘ )1 ('-j•-"*"4.1 $ .....z ,,I ---....,/it '.)ItAi .1....
__.• r"-
________=....,, '-,,:ii...—•"A -....c. ,t... \ .,,,,-.3...
.•;•\., . 77._ ,- ....:,_,_,.,:e , ., ,, ..:,.....z!'„:\
..• ---..., ......,s.:' -';'"j'----'= 1 ,3' '..-••••..ea,\:- -"•"---", -±.(''
1` 3a,,-----,---.--..-:',11;.6".,...,
-.-.-41.-_,
i......;,::,...2.. i :,....J1,‘,.. -=_„•-•-l... • '''' .. -- r.-:: •!..?:,::"..,..--:',1,...-,....,
,..- * 1
..,k\i
i & ..
& ‘,..,....!..k.7%...,'• •-•--1'.- 7-2 \-\ .t.----5.---'...;./,:::,,....1..."
-r2,,y-----,2_,, .riS'-'-=' , ›.---'1,72.:Ai-,,;.,.---..;1‘...,i-T..,,.(1) ......' '
11....„.„_....:.,........____„
911 '''' --I—,`-_-..,‘..‘‘ •••_-,:-....".:-. t*
-7-7--. •••••••. .1. --C\......--o- .0 :
L,' 0 .• ''.i/ '' 1,241.,
"‘ .. ' . _ / • •
-.14% o'• ;"" •----5.) -,,,..)) --,. 1 '
......7-•••"=-,-------.__.:s..:2:17.:,,.-7iL''''''%'---:14:-..n,-7.--::::-'1 :-....,
,..,) , , i. .. __..•......, -----• ,ri :....../
r- C,.....---, -.----,:r.,.._....1...,..-:•-)..„.-LL--,..1..-\01-..,,,,,„....i./.,,:.;;;.3.---___,...1_,;:,_ _,_, ,,,,....„...._-.; • __ r" o4 '
1.\ 5:7- -•
„ .
a .
,:j.,,...L:: ••1...„
, , -..,_"......,
, ihilZ:
'
, -..---,
: -:-'•:.:'/' ":•-
•:.-..7F--,_.,.......,1„,;_--",,,,-,
.•.%-.2
. ......_ - 1 \ ysi 44
S
....scw..trt -;
:-.--.T...., 4...
ctzt,'"c• C. ? 5, .f.'
5
. ._ f.s.'..-t.V!'Ni's. I . — •
...t.7-' .
I (.:
-,,,, ...:-,;,-, \it,/ :,,:•:,.,..-.., ,_...,-.
----:' 171L.1 ;1•)-7.: .3'.'7.-: :- i .- :
, ......„ _...,..,,,_..0„,„ .....„ .:„...........t,-„,....)) ..,„:„---...
../....---z....„ --.
..., .. -........-„,
:„ t-\ ,..7.._.,.._._... ...
I 5 I IL: •:.1.::::, I'so--,-
S-rii•V 11U
.‘,. - An-- i ve i„....,..-ri or -1.-‘,....---- t••• '-' .--.-'1" w.------ ".1,-.„...- -.- .
.„:1),/ , r., -----i ...el v",..,‘ 1,-1/ ,/,-.:_-;:...--v.-•-,. ) ). '',7".--------c--, ...: ---t---) • 2 7
7.-f.•,::,i,1 , ):;:i• Z. .V1/&-- 1. »1,---Lj111., C f;\ -7---' ,) ,, v'" .., )
,r).1f (r ,,. / •., , , (,,i.aff.,.- • . )1)
• ,.... •- • • .
\
,,---,7--
)/
/ -
: 7:::r11:ji \ :
)11
;..I! II(I'd
r...
,..)
-- \ —I': --"—'
t )7,7 J
- - L
•
-•••••• )2", "
- ;
• 5/14
• ; ;
0
1..55
/-14-
i iHri 4 11
11" r.3
5,0_ j
I•10
•
S\ I
soi„,
1
Site Location
4,
-7 •
:-77 •
:0•9 ••••••
04;
II •
#
1
1.0.°
"...)'°#i
: .02
1•'
;'(.4,
/.9fl
34!
504('
roc.
SIS0
."-.•••"
-4-• `
t
\ t
5( ;I,/ „.., ...\.,, „ ,....
--------- /
,„....,---,, -7 1 (
"-...... '...%
5'23
000 4.
te
•
, • • •-
• -7
• , r
- •••••,:•.
•
r
f,1;1
• . > USGS Parachute, Colorado Quadrangle,7.5 Minute Series, 1962.
4 /
___ ,;.
' c-Zq '. „ (
._ \ \%, — -,.1.,,--.•
N ,.' r
1 i
ck."(
../.
'
,
"....
:,,
.(‘'' $ .--•.\
Sp tng
\ FIGURE 1
r- Site Location Map
0
APPENDIX A
Soil Survey Data
M"K9 •8OT
Soil Map—Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
z
b
08659Eb 05659Eb k0d�k,90Eb 09£59£b
1• 1 1 I I
kO/ N. y
r
CSF 00E59E17
� I
4
j
r
09E59f6
MOM OOES'9Eb
11 2
5
s
u
. CC d3
� C
• ItQ z C.1
- z
M -T49 •80T
1
Soil Map—Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
MAP INFORMATION
MAP LEGEND
r
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may nol be valid at this scale.
C Q1 ° ea
!n ® N c
c a> N _ _
fp/l O ° r u as . G Up( `� t
N, L! C d r m W 10 C I 3 C
o 'c °ry' Urn g o L CS d a CO 13 W G 0- c_
cce0 u u E6 ca N •0 a .N m° ' et N c 0, E
Z o� = 5 E 10 en _ii °
a e0 `1 N C co -0 W o N co O E > al y N
6 'O 13 ar z T M 0 a N C U u, 8 L L ..:
C — 'C al 61 (D O t Q1 N -a d' 7
o E `o a �a ma wti d 2 Q r' u o m
ay E U H� m c y Cr ,,:k
O°' t 7cn:
m— co '^ o a c a H co u eau p `l �' W
E W 6f l0 �' L C N O 0 pl o.:.,8 maV7 j
N w 0 C N o «. p L l0 o f0a W
" t=ii o c o N d d C C eu ; U n o ° E �' ea Ol
a 'E t ° m a •a .9 ae E 0 ed C 0 L0. ar y E.a
c 0 eo d7 0C L =0060 p y `! O l0 u, -a as >`
ap, c c 0 r ai N m eu 4.o d m ° o H 10
re dv° a°ii rou `� h.0
¢ Eti
d ZE 0 C `° 10 0 ° m
E rnE ° m m n; coin m m cc
�? ar ea �._��
C L L ?.... L d p 'a 41 d eta O C! 01 C
o'vLv c a°1 i, u en en co d O ep E o 8 0
c (5 I- 03 0 m `u �� e."' 3a (7," uoi -6-a Q ey — To �y na
N C y E 2 N a) E C e6 g p a 0 m �, 7 0 p V C
E p a, p ' m o -Q 0 p 0 ._. o Z Ue Q fit.6 eo L a
°Cil' = es E L h vel c8' N v m 7 C D) 3 C W fn y rn H o c w m
CO a a IA co ca gip a„4 m u 1n � — � Z — 1u 00 o E eao E
° 0 0 ma- - r o .ca)
Ew
WEa1°n aE tn''1U cL6 H_ (00(0 (1)`0 acv H$._p
10
rn o
>. en
C Za
01 O
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
0
Special Line Features
Special Point Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
417
K
Interstate Highways
v
0
CC
N
Major Roads
_
b o a a o
a.
O y 0 0 L 0
p0 l0 O 10 1` C 7
CO m C) 0 C7 CO J
Local Roads
Background
Aenal Photography
9E1 X o
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
0.
0
N CO
U C C
0
d' co co
Severely Eroded Spot
W
O
Y
0.
N
0
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
3
4
Totals for Area of Interest
Map Unit Name
Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent
slopes
Arvada loam, 6 to 20 percent
slopes
Acres in AO1
Percent of AOI
0.9
2.4
3.2
27.3%
72.7%
100.0%
USIA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/13/2014
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3
Map Unit Description—Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts 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 landforms 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 2/13/2014
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4
Map Unit Description ---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts 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 2/1312014
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4
Map Unit Description—Rine 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 mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 30.0
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Land capability classification (irrigated): 7s
Land capability (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Salt Flats (R048AY261 CO)
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
4—Arvada loam, 6 to 20 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 5,100 to 6,200 feet
Map Unit Composition
Arvada and similar soils: 85 percent
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/13/2014
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4
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: 6 to 20 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
Farmland classification Not prime farmland
Land capability classification (irrigated): 7s
Land capability (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Typical profile
0 to 3 inches: Loam
3 to 17 inches.: Silty clay loam
17 to 60 inches; Silty clay loam
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 7, Dec 23, 2013
LSOW Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/13/2014
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4
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 less. 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 Toad -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 sail 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.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/13/2014
Inn Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 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
Very limited
Shrink -swell
1.00
Very limited
Shrink -swell 1.00
Very limited
Shrink -swell 1.00
Very limited
Shrink -swell
Very limited
Shrink -swell
Slope I
1.00
1.00
1.00
Arvada
80
4—Arvada loam, 6 to
20 percent slopes
Arvada 85
Very limited
Shrink -swell
1.00
Slope
0.84
Slope
0.84
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 7, Dec 23, 2013
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/13/2014
Page 2 of 2
Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping—Rifle Area, Colorado,
Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and
Landscaping
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
local roads and streets, shallow excavations, and lawns and landscaping.
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).
Local roads and streets have an all-weather surface and carry automobile and light
truck traffic all year, They have a subgrade of cut or fill soil material; a base of gravel,
crushed rock. or soil material stabilized by lime or cement, and a surface of flexible
material (asphalt), rigid material (concrete), or gravel with a binder. The ratings are
based on the soil properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading and the
traffic -supporting capacity. The properties that affect the ease of excavation and
grading are depth to bedrock or a cemented pan. hardness of bedrock or a
cemented pan, depth to a water table. ponding. flooding, the amount of Targe
stones. and slope. The properties that affect the traffic -supporting capacity are soil
strength (as inferred from the AASHTO group index number), subsidence, linear
extensibility (shrink -swell potential), the potential for frost action, depth to a water
table, and ponding.
Shallow excavations are trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet
for graves, utility lines, open ditches, or other purposes. The ratings are based on
the soil properties that influence the ease of digging and the resistance to sloughing.
Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, the
amount of large stones, and dense layers influence the ease of digging, filling, and
compacting. Depth to the seasonal high water table. flooding, and ponding may
restrict the period when excavations can be made. Slope influences the ease of
using machinery. Soil texture, depth to the water table, and linear extensibility
(shrink -swell potential) influence the resistance to sloughing.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/13/2014
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3
Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping ---Rifle Area, Colorado.
Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Lawns and landscaping require soils on which turf and ornamental trees and shrubs
can be established and maintained. Irrigation is not considered in the ratings. The
ratings are based on the soil properties that affect plant growth and trafficability
after vegetation is established. The properties that affect plant growth are reaction,
depth to a water table; ponding; depth to bedrock or a cemented pan; the available
water capacity in the upper 40 inches; the content of salts, sodium, or calcium
carbonate; and sulfidic materials. The properties that affect trafficability are
flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, stoniness, and the amount of sand,
clay, or organic matter in the surface layer.
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—Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns
and Landscaping
[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]
Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping–Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa
Counties
Map symbol and soil
name
Pct. of
map
unit
Local roads and streets
Shallow excavations
Lawns and landscaping
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
3—Arvada loam, l to 6
percent slopes
Arvada I 80
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Very limited
Shrink -swell
1.00
Unstable excavation
walls
Dusty
0.51
0.50
Sodium content
1.00
Low strength
1.00
Dusty I 0.50
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
Web Soil Survey
2/13/2014
Page 2 of 3
Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping—Rifle Area. Colorado,
Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa
Counties
Map symbol and soil
name
Pct. of
map
unit
Local roads and streets
Shallow excavations
Lawns and landscaping
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
4—Arvada loam, 6 to
20 percent slopes
Very limited
Shrink -swell 1.00
Low strength 1.00
Slope 0.84
Somewhat limited
Slope
0.84
Very limited
Sodium content 1.00
Arvada
85
Unstable excavation
walls
0.51
Slope
0.84
Dusty
0.50
Dusty I 0.50
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 7, Dec 23, 2013
SNatural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/13/2014
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3
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 sod 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 2/13/2014
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2
ail Features—Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
O
0
Uncoated steel
u
u
0
3
u
m
a
H
0
Q
0)
n
Ti c — sO
0
.0E `9 C W
O O U
(5
M0Aa yIA O N d E O R
O. N C to O. 2 N G0
Data Source Information
APPENDIX B
Typed Test pit Logs
Huddleston -Bevy Engineering & Testing, LLC
640 White Avenue, Unil 13
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-255-8005
970-255.6818
CLIENT Ford Construction
PROJECT NUMBER 00972-0002
TEST PIT NUMBER TP -1
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME Two in the LooD
PROJECT LOCATION Parachute CO
DATE STARTED 1/27/14 COMPLETED 1/27/14
EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client
EXCAVATION METHOD Backhoe
LOGGED BY NWB CHECKED BY MAB
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
AT TIME OF EXCAVATION dry
TEST PIT SIZE
AT END OF EXCAVATION dry
AFTER EXCAVATION ---
111
0
U_
=f?
ao
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Clayey SAND and GRAVEL (gw), brownish gray, moist, medium
dense
Clayey SAND (SC) with traces of Gravel, brown, moist, medium
dense
"" Lab Classified GB1 "•
Bottom of test pit at 3.5 feet.
w
O.w
aD
Z
sit GB
lT 1
tu
Oce
U
w
Z
a
G
w
z
oz
2Q
U
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
O�
E
U
aJ
z
w
Z
V e
N
w
z
u..
11
31
18
13
40
„y
CLIENT
PROJECT
lluddlestau-Berry Engineering &Testing,LLC
I 640 White Avenue, Unit B
Grand Junction, CO 81501
470-255-8005
970-255-6818
Ford Construction PROJECT
NAME
LOCATION
TEST PIT NUMBER TP -2
PAGE 1 OF 1
Two In the Loop
NUMBER 00972-0002 PROJECT
Parachute. CO
DATE
EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION
LOGGED
NOTES
STARTED
BY
1/27/14 COMPLETED 1/27/14 GROUND
ELEVATION
WATER LEVELS:
TIME OF EXCAVATION
END OF EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION
TEST PIT SIZE
CONTRACTOR Client GROUND
dry
METHOD Backhoe AT
NWB CHECKED BY MAB AT
dry
AFTER
---
la DEPTH
(ft)
I GRAPHIC
LOG
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPE
NUMBER
RECOVERY %
(RQD)
BLOW
COUNTS
(N VALUE)
z
w
n.
f
C.
DRY UNIT WT.
(per
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
FINES CONTENT
(%)
Q F.
PLASTIC
LIMIT
PLASTICITY
INDEX
�'�'r
jdense
- 4...6!
fi •i:
•'w
- -.Li
tr .i7
''a•
.4
- -0i..b■
01-
Clayey SAND and GRAVEL (gw), brownish gray, moist, medium
•
_ J'•'
2 ' :-
Clayey SAND (so) with traces of Gravel, brown, moist, medium
dense
_
3 4
>
Bottom of test pit at 3.0 feet.
,
',
''�,
CLIENT
PROJECT
t9—
a
' i°,
'
Ford
Huddleston -Berry Engineering &Testing, LIC
640 White Avenue, Unit B
'Grand Junction, CO 81501
%970-255-8005
970-255-6818
Construction PROJECT
NAME
LOCATION
TEST PIT NUMBER TP -3
PAGE 1 OF 1
Two in the Loop
NUMBER 00972-0002 PROJECT
Parachute, CO
DATE
EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION
LOGGED
NOTES
STARTED
BY
1127/14 COMPLETED 1/27/14 GROUND
ELEVATION
WATER LEVELS:
TIME OF EXCAVATION
END OF EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION
TEST PIT SIZE
CONTRACTOR Client GROUND
dry
METHOD Backhoe AT
NWB CHECKED BY MAB AT
dry
AFTER
---
E s 0-o
1111
0.0
v
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPE
NUMBER
RECOVERY %
(ROD)
BLOW
COUNTS
(N VALUE)
POCKET PEN.
(tst)
DRY UNIT Wi.
(Pd)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
FINES CONTE
(%)
LIQUID
LIMIT
PLASTIC
LIMIT
PLASTICITY
INDEX
- -
'VII
''. j
.•b.
4,41/0
Clayey SAND and GRAVEL (gw), brownish gray, moist, medium
dense
'
2.5
Clayey SAND (sc) with traces of Gravel, brown, moist, medium
dense
5.0
0
:41
-
7.5
:Jj
10.0
Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feat.
1t
'''
4.7
-;=
CLIENT
PROJECT
.,. Huddleston -Berry Engineering R. Testing, LLC
640\Vh€te Avenue, Unit B
iis Grand Junction, CO 81501
m 970-2554005
: 970-255-6818
Ford Construction PROJECT
NAME
LOCATION
TEST PIT NUMBER TP -4
PAGE 1 OF 1
Two in the Loop
NUMBER 00972-0002 PROJECT
Parachute. CO
DATE
EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION
LOGGED
NOTES
STARTED
BY
1127114 COMPLETED 1127/14 GROUND
ELEVATION
WATER LEVELS:
TIME OF EXCAVATION
END OF EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION
TEST PIT SIZE
CONTRACTOR Client GROUND
dry
METHOD Backhoe AT
NWB CHECKED BY MAB AT
dry
AFTER
---
E Z
0.0
GRAPHIC
LOG
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
1 SAMPLE TYPE
NUMBER
RECOVERY %
(RQD)
BLOW
COUNTS
(N VALUE)
POCKET PEN.
(tsf)
5
I -
z
re
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
FINES CONTENT
(%)
LIQUID
LIMIT
PLASTIC
LIMIT
PLASTICITY
INDEX
lam..
''�.
oil
Clayey SAND and GRAVEL (gw), brownish gray, moist, medium
dense
_
Clayey SAND (SC) with traces of Gravel, brown, most, medium
dense
2.5
"" Lab Classified GB1 '
•MC
•
f
111-
7
5.0
/
if
SOL
GB
1
fi
30
17
13
50
+ 7.5
10.0A..
Bottom of lest pit al 10.0 feet.
, i
`�.= �a
„,�
\°,
1,
0-
Huddleston -Bevy Engineering &-testing, LLC
610 White Avenue, Unit B
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-255-8005
970-255-68I8
Construction PROJECT
LOCATION
NAME
TEST PIT NUMBER TP -5
PAGE 1 OF 1
Two in the Loop
CLIENT
PROJECT
Ford
NUMBER 00972-0002 PROJECT
Parachute, CO
DATE
EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION
LOGGED
NOTES
STARTED
BY
1127/14 COMPLETED 1127/14 GROUND
ELEVATION
WATER
TIME
END
LEVELS:
OF EXCAVATION
OF EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION
TEST PIT SIZE
CONTRACTOR Client GROUND
dry
METHOD Backhoe AT
NWB CHECKED BY MAB AT
dry
AFTER
--•
o_ I
ill
o
0.0
GRAPHIC
LOG
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPE
NUMBER
RECOVERY %
(ROD)
BLOW
COUNTS
(N VALUE)
POCKET PEN.
(1st)
DRY UNIT WT.
(Pc)
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
FINES CONTENT
(%)
O�
a5
F 1—
5n
U
¶ z
a.
r
Vr1'111
�� d
4;4:
011
Clayey SAND and GRAVEL (gw), brownish gray, moist, medium
dense
_
_
2.5
Clayey SAND (se) with traces of Gravel, brown, moist, medium
dense
7
MC
100
11
5.0
>l
3
GB
-tom.
7.5 _/4
+ 10.0�'
Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet.
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Results
Huddleston -Bevy Engineering & Testing, LLC
640 White Avenue, Unit B
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970.255-8005
970-255.6818
CLIENT Ford Coustruclicn
PROJECT NUMBER 00972.0042
:rrr
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
PROJECT NAME Two la t#te Loop
PROJECT LOCATION Parachute, CO
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 1 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
6 4 3 2 1.5 1123'3 3 4 8 810 14 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200
Ir
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
HYGROMETER
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
100
COBBLES
Specimen Identification
10
GRAVEL
coarse
fine
1 0.1
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SAND
coarse medium
Classification
fine
0.01
SILT OR CLAY
LL
PL
PI
Cc
0.001
Cu
•
TP -1, GB1 1/2014
CLAYEY SAND(SC)
31
18
13
1�
TP -4, GB1 1/2014
CLAYEY SAND(SC)
30
17
13
Specimen Identification
D100
D60
D30
D10
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt
%Clay
•
TP -1, GB1 112014
19
0.225
9.7
50.3
39.9
TP -4, GB1 1/2014
25
0.145
8.3
41.8
49.9
,w
B31
CLIENT Ford
Huddleston -Berry Engineering & Testing, LLC ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS
640 White Avenue, Unit a
1Grnnd97D-255 Junction -8005, CO 81501
970.255.6818
Construction PROJECT NAME Two in the Loop
PROJECT NUMBER 00972-0002
PROJECT LOCATION Parachute, CO
60
50
CL
CH
• '—
P
L
A
40
s
T
I
C
•. 30
Y
I
N 20
D
E
X
10
Id
CL -ML
,
ML
MH
0
0
20 40 60 80 100
LIQUID LIMIT
Specimen Identification
LL
PL
PI
#200
Classification
•
TP -1, GB1 1/2014
31
18
13
40
CLAYEY SAND(SC)
CC
TP -4, GB1 1/2014
30
17
13
50
CLAYEY SAND(SC)
Huddleston -Berry Engineering & Testing, LLC
640 White Avenue, Unit 13
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-255-8005
970-255-6818
CONSOLIDATION TEST
CLIENT Ford Construction PROJECT NAME Two in the Loop
PROJECT NUMBER 00972-0002 PROJECT LOCATION Parachute. CO
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
i_
41)
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
16
100 1,000
•
STRESS, psf
10,000
Specimen Identification
Classification
MC%
•
TP -4 2.0
111
7
Huddleston -Berry Engineering & Testing, LLC
640 White Avenue, Unit B
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-255-8005
970-255-6818
CLIENT Ford Construction
PROJECT NUMBER 00972.0002
CONSOLIDATION TEST
PROJECT NAME Two in the Loop
PROJECT LOCATION _ Parachute CO
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
65
100 1,000
•
STRESS, psi
10,000
Specimen Identification
Classification
Ya
MC%
•
TP -5 2.0
100
11
I Iuddleston-Berry Engineering & Testing, LLC
640 White Avenue, Unit 13
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-255-8005
970-255-6818
CLIENT Ford Construction
MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
PROJECT NAME Two In the Loop
PROJECT NUMBER 00972-0002 PROJECT LOCATION Parachute, CO
151.1
�:�1���.b�il'1
145
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
Sample Date:
Sample No.:
Source of Material:
Description of Material:
Test Method:
1/27/2014
1
TP -4
CLAYEY SAND(SC)
ASTM D698A
TEST RESULTS
Maximum Dry Density 118.5 PCF
Optimum Water Content 13.5 %
GRADATION RESULTS (% PASSING)
#200 #4 3/4"
50 92 99
ATTERBERG LIMITS
LL PL PI
30 17 13
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:
2.80
2.70
2.60
90
0
5
10
15
WATER CONTENT, %
20
25
30
Huddleston -Berm.
Engineering C Twang, i..t.t
Project No.:
Project Nante:
Client Name:
00972-0002
Two in the Loop
Ford Construction
Sample Number:14-0039 Location: TP -4, GB1
Compaction Methor ASTM D698, Method A
Maximum Dry Density (pcf):
118.5
Opt. Moisture Content (%):
13.5
Sample Condition:
Soaked
Remarks:
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
ASTM DI883
Authorized By: Client
Sampled By: NB
Submitted By: NB
Reviewed By: MAB
Dater 01/27/14
Dale: 01/27/14
Date: 02/10/I4
Date: 02/17/14
Sample Data
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Blows per Compacted Lift:
15
25
56
Surcharge Weight (lbs):
10.0
10.0
10.0
Dry Density Before Soak (pcf):
106.2
112.7
117.0
Dry Density After Soak (pct}:
104.6
115.6
C o
o 0
V
Bottom Pre -Test
13.1
13.0
13.3
Top Pre -Test
13.1
12.4
13.3
Top 1" After Test
19.8
17.7
18.1
Average After Soak:
19.2
16.5
17.3
Percent Swell After Soak:
1.5
1.4
1.2
Load Penlrntlon Cun'e(s)
-0- Point I
-^-0--- Point 2
-*- Point 3
.S
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
t3 2.0
1.0
0.0
oxo aloo
Pe.e11a1he(IQ
Dry Density v3 CDR
0450
E
MIiII= MIinn nal .r-a---!-..rl r r
0.2 In.
r ere
VAMP
F4
s11 In r. -
....... ....Lee rs. ..rrr..u...11MI
ram
0.1 In.
imarmommmtvisr-'llimilmt ..
-L.---.i,.....rr-....a.....-....=
100 105 1 0
Dry Density (pcf)
115
120
Penetration Data
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Dist.
(in)
Load
(Ibs)
Stress
(psi)
Dist.
(in)
Load
(Ibs)
Stress
(psi)
Dist.
(in)
Load
(lbs)
Stress
(psi)
0.000
0
0
0.000
0
0
0.000
0
0
0.025
19
6
0.025
35
12
0.025
37
13
0.050
25
8
0.050
58
20
0.050
74
25
0.075
30 ^
10
0.075
72
24
0.075
100
34
0.100
35
12
0.100
87
29
0.100
128
43
0.125
40
14
0.125
101
34
0.125
156
53
0.150
43
15
0.150
110
37
0.150
177
60
0.175
47
16
0.175
119
40
0.175
196
66
0,200
50
17
0.200
128
43
0.200
216
73
0.225
53
18
0.225
135
46
0.225
233
79
0.250
56
19
0.250
142
48
0.250
248
84
0,275
59
20
0.275
149
50
0.275
262
89
0.300
60
20
0.300
155
52
0.300
278
94
0.325
63
21
0.325
160
54
0.325
289
98
0.350
66
22
0.350
166
56
0.350
303
103
0.375
68
23
0.375
171
58
0.375
_
315
107
0.400
70
24
0.400
174
59
0.400
323
109
0.425
73
25
0.425
180
61
0.425
335
113
0.450
74
25
0.450
185
63
0.450
347
117
0.500
79
27
0.500
194
66
0.500
365
123
Penetration Distance Correction (in)
0.000
0.000
0.000
Figure:
Form L20a CDR Report
Corrected CBR @ 0.1"
1.2
I 2.9 I
4.6
Corrected CBR @ 0.2"
1.1
1 2.9 1
4.9
Penetration Distance Correction (in)
0.000
0.000
0.000
Figure:
Form L20a CDR Report