HomeMy WebLinkAboutEngineer's OWTS DesignAMERICAN
GEOSERVICES
CEOTECHNICAL & MATERIA1S
EN\4RONMENTAL
SIRUCTURAL
CN4L
ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE
88a276 4027
February 28,2024
PROJECT NO: 01 21 -D24-SEPTIC
CLIENT: Mr. Mark Stieber
Reference: Septic Feasibility Report, 751 Miller Ln, Silt, CO
Reference: Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (OWTS) Report, 751 Miller Ln,
silt, co
Dear Mr. Mark Stieber,
At your request, we have completed the design of OWTS for the referenced project in general
accordance with USEPA's "On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual" and the most
current Garfield County, Colorado Health Department's regulatory standards. Results of our 'site
evaluation' and'design' are attached.
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
The site is located as shown in Figure 1. Legal description is as shown in Figure 1. There are no
existing structures at the site. Based on our review of available USGS topographic map and site
visit, the site is gently sloping downwards to the north with a slope of approximately 3-6%.
The soiltreatment area (STA) is estimated to be approximately 960 sq.ft as noted in Data Sheet
1. STA is not located within any easements, flood plain, or wetlands. At present, there are no
physical features on-site and off-site that will require setbacks from the proposed septic field
location.
RECONNAISSANCE
The proposed septic field as noted in Figure 2 is not located in a depression or in the area where
there will be significant surface water run-off and accumulation towards the field. ln any case, it
is the owner's responsibility to make sure all the surface water will be diverted away from the
septic field area so that surface water run-off does not accumulate at or near the proposed septic
www. a merican geoservices. com
sma @a merica ngeoservices.com
Ph: (8BB) 276 4027
Fxt (877) 471 0369
field. Perched water table and springs were not noted during the reconnaissance and during field
exploration.
SITE INVESTIGATION
Site is generally covered with natural grass and no wetland vegetation. There are no natural or
known cultural features of concern at the site. There is no current or historic land use at the site
that is of concern for the proposed septic system.
Two test pits (TP2 and TP3) were performed at location shown in Figure 2. Groundwaterwas not
noted in the profile hole. Results of profile hole investigation are illustrated in Design Data Sheet
No. 2. Based on our site investigation, we have used the following Long-term Acceptance Rate
(LrAR).
Long-term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) for soil Type 2 = 0.60 gpd/sq.ft.a
a
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
We make following recommendations in regard to construction and maintenance
o The installer must be licensed through Garfield County Health Department.
In addition to the recommendations given in attached drawings, construction must occur in
accordance with Garfield County Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Regulations and the
installation permit provided by governing authorities.
Construction equipment or trucks should be kept off the soil treatment area, so construction
must happen from the side and ends.
The surface of the soil treatment area shall be planted with a suitable vegetative cover that
does not require irrigation. A good quality topsoil capable of supporting re-vegetation shall be
placed over the entire disturbed area. Native grass seeds that can stabilize soil cover without
taproots should be used. Any trees or shrubs requiring irigation should be avoided. The
owner should maintain the OWTS area with proper vegetation cover.
Mechanical components shall be installed in a properly vented location and all vents, air
intakes, and air hoses shall be protected from snow, ice, or water vapor accumulations.
Fnr nt tmne air ralaaca rralrrao anz{ rrraan halao aha. rlll hn ;6-+All^.1 {a {a^ili+^+^ lia^^ f^I vr t/vrrr]zer qrr rvrvsee YsrYee qrrv YYesy rrvrs0 Jrtwutv wg ItJlqilgtt lv tq\,ilttqlg PulllP llll(iD Lv
drain in order to minimize risk of freezing.
All systems shall be installed to include protection of openings against entry of insects,
rodents, other vectors and unauthorized people.
Livestock should not be allowed to graze in the soiltreatment area.
Project No:0121-D24
Page 2 of 4
a
a
a
a
o
a
a Following construction, the soiltreatment area shall be protected against erosion and frost.
The owners of property shall obtain and maintain all necessary operating permits.
The owners of property shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the entire
OWTS system. All water wells should be located at least 100 ft away from the soil treatment
areas.
Septic system maintenance shalltake place every six months.
The owners of property should check plumbing fixtures (such as leaky or running taps) in the
house regularly to make sure no excessive water is being discharged to OWTS.
Every two years, the owners of property should pump the septic tank or as needed based on
the measurements of solids in the tank.
Garbage disposal should be kept to a minimum and non-biodegradable materials should not
be discharged into the OWTS. Grease should not be placed in the drains in the house and
loading from water softener and any hazardous materials should not be discharged into the
OWTS. lt should be noted that the designed OWTS is for domestic use only.
INSTALLATION MONITORING
We recommend that a representative AGS should observe OWTS installation during construction
to assure proper installation in accordance with our design and construction recommendations.
We request a 24-hour notice for site visits for monitoring purposes. Field inspection costs are not
included in the cost of the preparation of this report.
LIMITATIONS
Design Data/Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and
subsurface explorations, limited site evaluation, and our present knowledge of the proposed
construction as described by you. lt is possible that soil conditions could vary between or beyond
the points explored. lf soil conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those
described herein, we should be notified so that we can review and make any supplemental
recommendations necessary. lf the scope of the proposed construction, including the proposed
use, number of occupants, or structural locations changes from that described in this repoft, our
recommendations should also be reviewed and revised by AGS.
Flood hazards evaluation of the site, surveying of on-site and surrounding well locations was
beyond our scope of services. Our scope of work for this project did not include research, testing,
or assessment relative to past or present contamination of the site by any source. lf such
contamination were present, it is very likely that the exploration and testing conducted for this
Project No: 0121-D24
Page 3 of4
a
a
a
a
o
a
report would not reveal its existence. lf the Owner is concerned about the potential for such
contamination, additional studies should be undertaken. We are available to discuss the scope of
such studies with you. No tests were performed to detect the existence of mold or other
environmental hazards as it was beyond Scope of Work.
Local regulations regarding land or facility use, on and off-site conditions, or other factors may
change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Based on the
intended use of the report within one year from the date of report preparation, AGS may
recommend additionalwork and report updates. Non-compliance with any of these requirements
by the client or anyone else will release AGS from any liability resulting from the use of this report
by any unauthorized party. Client agrees to defend, indemniflT, and hold harmless AGS from any
claim or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance.
ln this report, we have presented judgments based partly on our understanding of the proposed
construction and partly on the data we have obtained. This report meets professional standards
expected for reports of this type in this area. Our company is not responsible for the conclusions,
opinions or recommendations made by others based on the data we have presented.
This report has been prepared exclusively for the client, its' engineers and subcontractors for the
purpose of design and construction of the proposed structure. No other engineer, consultant, or
contractor shall be entitled to rely on information, conclusions or recommendations presented in
this document without the prior written approval of AGS.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. lf we can provide additional
assistance or observation and testing services during design and construction phases, please call
usat 1 8882764027.
Sincerely,
Sam Adettiwar, MS, PE, GE, P.Eng, M.ASCE
Attachments
Project No: 0121-D24
Page 4 of 4
HCB GROUP.ATTEBURY. BOUNDARY LINE ADJASTMENT MAP
A parcel oJ Land Sttuare iil the NEI/4 of the SE t./4 oJSedion 6 and A Parce! of ktnd Situdfe in the SWI/ 4 ol the NWI/4 of"Seaion .5
'lbwtrship 6 South, Range 92 West af the 6tft P.M. Counly ofGarfield, S'tate af Colomdo
a.t'l:lTsil..r_
ItI
EJ
I
_t""rEtEtt--:
SITE LOCATION
A&
I
.,.....J
i,
: li
j'
!t ttf;
"I
1b4tud& ?16---"' _" r.1,if. - ._: :::i ::_-t.RTiVIIiW
i ii i.t
i t._:. -1 r' tj: :; 1
i
SITE
LOCATION ..,:,'
N
Zoomt 15
Scclo:18056
!ts]J:t-Jl,:: !nr;trirn.rr!e;r,*,r,.!r.::
r\Ml ltl( r\N (;t:OSLllVlL l.S
0,3 mi
i30',3e.564S1 1
:,V FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION MAP
NOTE:
SCHEMATIC PLAN TO SHOWAPPROXIMATE SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOCATION ONLy; NOT SURVEYED.
LEGEND:
DESIGNATES SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOCATION, BYAMERICAN GEOSERVICES, LLC. ,FEBRUARY 2024
SEE EXPLORATION LOG IN APPENDIX FOR FURTHER DETAILS"
N
REFERENCE:
GARFIELD COUNTY
COLORADO GIS
r\MF 11 ICA N C F.OSEIIV I CTS
ll+l:i6.,ll€r. rrriijq..rl*h L\*<e-X/FIGURE 2: SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN
e Wire Fence
PROPOSED
BUILDING
LOCATION
tJ
(!
D"
122,5'
0'60'120',
NOTE:
SCHEMATIC PLAN TO SHOWAPPROXIMATE ELEVATIONS ONLY; NOT SURVEYED. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE
APPROXIMATE-MUST BE CONFIRMED OR MODIFIED BYA SURVEYOR.
Found #5 Rebar and
1- I / 4" Yellow Plctstic Cap
Stamped "lS I35OJ "
(2,000 GALLON TOP
SEAM THREE
COMPARTMENT
SEPTTC TANK)
i\Mt" ll lt.AN Ct'tlSLRVIC.t-S
Found #5 Rebar and
1-1/ 4" Orange Pla.stic Cap
Stamped "LS 37935"
3.9'
5750'
(TNFTLTRATORS;
e60 SQ.FT; SEE
FIGURES FOR
DETATLS)
456.6'
5725',
N
REFERENCE:SITE
PLAN BY CLIENT tuliri.lit:: :nr:nrru.nrx1,ir..(:.:l
Hag Barn
iV FIGURE 2A: SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN
GENERAL & DESIGN NOTES
751 MILLER LN, SILT, COAMERICAN CEOSERVICES
8&1,2?6.4G1? . mduqo.nieam\v
A8 SHOWN SHEET 1
GENERAL NOTES:
THE SEPT]C SYSTEM IS DESIGNED AND INTENDED FOR THE GIVEN WASTEWATER LOAD. THE OWNER MUST ASSUME RESPONSIBIL]rY FOR ONGOING
MAINTENANCE TO ASSURE LONETERITI PERFORMANCE. SITE FEAruRE LOCATIONS ARE APPROXMATE AND NOT SURVEYED. THE PROPERTY OWNER
SHOULD ASSURE PROPER SURVEY IS DONE AITID PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS LOCATED WTHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. THE OWNER/
CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY ALL D$TANCES AND SETBACI(S DURING CONSTRUCTION.
ALL UTILITIES SHOULD BE LOCATED AND DAII'AGED PREVENTED DURING CONSTRUCTION.
DE\/IATION FROM THESE PIAI.IS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED WTHOUT APPROVAL OF AMERICAN GEOSERVICES, LLC (AGS). A SET OF PLANS APPROVED
BY LOCAL COUNTY MUST BE AVAII.AELE ONSITE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
AN EXFERIENCED CONTRACTOR SHOULD NSTALL THE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND ASSURE THAT AtL COMPONENTS MEET LOCAL COUNTY STANDARDS. ANY
UNSPECIFIED REQUIREMENTS SHOULD ALSO BE MET.
AGS SHOULD OBSERVE THE INSTALTATION OF THE REOOMMENDED SYSTEM. AS A MINIMUM, OBSERVATION OF EXCAVATIONS, FIML PRE€OVER, AND
FINAL GRADE POST-COVER MUST BE PERFORMED.
SEPTIC SYSTEM SHOULD BE LOCATED AT LEAST 1OO FEET AWAY FROM ONSITE OR NEIGHBORING WATER WELLS TO AVOID DEEP WELL GROUTING.
THERE ARE NO ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION REI.ATED ISSUES,
fiERE ARE NO FORESEEABLE I.AND USE CHANG}ES WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY IMPACT THE PROPOSED SYSTEM PERFORMANCE.
NO DIFFICULTIES WERE ENCOUNTERED DURING SITE VISIT. THE SITE CONDIT]ONS WERE WALUATED BY THE FOLLOWNG INDIVIDUAL:
SAMADETTIWAR, MS, PE, GE
AMERTCAN GEOSERVTCES, LLC (AGS)
MAILING ADDRESS:3862 HODGEN POND CT, COLORADO SFRINGS, CO
PHONE:303961 7598
EirlAlL: SltlA@Ntl ERICANGEOSERVICES.COM
REGISTERED PROFESSIOML CIVIL ENGINEER
STATE OF COLORADO, PE NO- 41370
DESIGN: THE SEPTIC SY$TEM 1S DESIGNED TO SERVE A FAttllLY, UP TO 6 BEDROOMS, UP TO I PERSONS, USING REGUIATIONS OF THE PARK COUNry,
coLoMDo.
ESTIMATED FLOW = 7$€ = 676 GALLONS PER DAY (GPD); USe DESIGN FLOW Q = 675 GPD.
SEPTIC TANK MINIMUM REQUIRED TAI.IK CAPACITY = 1 ,750. FIR$T COMPARTMENT CAPAC|IY MNIMUM lS 17ffi I 2 = 875 @LLONS. USE 2,fiX!€ALLON
TOTALVOLUME PRECAST CONCRETE SEPTIC TANKIEECIUIVALENIIAS ILLUSTRATED rN ATTACHED FIGURES. SEPTTC TAI{K SHOULD BE LTSTED AS
'ACCEPTED FOR USE tN COLORADO ON€ITE WASTEWATER TREATTTIENT SYSTEMS.' lN PIACE OF ILLUSTRATED TAl,lK ANY OTHER TAIIK MAY BE USED
AS LONG ASALLTHE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.
DESIGN SOIL PROFILE = SILT LOAII{ = TYPE 2.
AT THE TIME OF FIELD EXPLORATION, WEAT}IER CONDITIONS WERE PARTIALLY CLOUDY AND NO RAIN. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY CHANGE FROM
LOCATION TO LOCATION. IF THIS IS NOTED DURING CONSTRUCTION, AGS MUST BE CONTACTED TO EVALUATE WHETHER THE ENCOUNTERED S]TE
CONDMONS DURING CONSTRUCTION ARE ADEQUATE FOR THE DESIGNED SYSTEM. IF NECESSARY, WE WILL REI/ISE THE DESIGN TO ACCOMMODATE
VARIATIONS ]N S]TE CONDITIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION.
LONG TERM ACCEPTANCE RATE (LTAR) CONSIDERED = 0-60 GPD/SQ.FT.
MINIMUM SOIL TREATMENT AREA REQUIRED (STA) = (Q/|-TAR) = (67d0.60) = 1,125.0 SQ.FT
ADJUSTMENT FACTOR FOR INFILTRATORS, 0.7; FOR BED, 12. REQUIRED STA = 1,125 X 0.7 X1.2 = 945 SQ.FT.
NUMBER OF QUIGIG+ STAI{DARD CHAMBER WTH 12 SCI.FTruNIT ABSORFTION AREA 9I45,/h2 = 79 CI{AIUBERS. USE TWO LEACH FIELDS wlTH 40
CHAMBERS EACH.
MN(MUM BED WDTH = 12Ft, SO USE FOUR ROWS OF 3FT wDE CHAIIIBERS GMING 40 / 4 = 10 CI-IAMBERS PER ROW
MN(IMUM REQUIRED BED LENGiTH = l0 X 4 FT LONG CHAITIBERS = /|{) FT AS SHOWII| lN ATTACHED FIGURES.
0121-D21
SITE AND SOIL EVALUATION
AMI l{lt nN (,lrrS[RVlt lS
8Sl{.l t Sn rila."^.jr{ro*Frrr*rd'nV
lnB--t-
ASSHOWN I SHEET2 I I
Depth
(lnches)USCS Classification
USDA Soil
Texture
Soil
Type
Structure-
Shape
Structure-
Grade
0"-96"sirt (ML)$ilt loam 2 Granular Moderate
TP3
O I2I.Dz4.SEPTICProjecl Numbsr
G@logrsuEnqinmr sMA Grond Elevation Str Fioures
B Feet
Not EncNteredDepth te tirdq
tt!
3
,c
a€
o
Descrlptlon, Llthology
o
!
ootf
Iq
Eo6
5orJ
Io
dl
Fr
"q
Fo
ooot.
F
o
I
.9*
oa
(1o
s
Jo-
s
JJ
s
o
9ut
osolr
Eoo
ML
sllt lo!n, gnnuloa nod€rut!:
Soil Typc 2
{L.3t thnn l2% rochrtp.bblr! !i4>2mm}
.-,1
;Y:
Eod at Explorauon
Grcurdmler was ral enrqunte.ed
dunng or nt the complslbn of erplorotion.
At compl€tion, explornlim wos bnckflled
with sgil culirngs.
Pnge 1f/' \\li lil! \\r.l\\:lli\l! l:
TP2
Sm
Ex6vnloa
Ground Elsviltim
TotalDeDth of Erplontbn B F@t
lo
ooJ
o
a
et,
D6scrlption, Llthology
oo
E
eoc}
go
E6rh
EJo
c,!
.9
!0
Fo.6
*
Bo
ouo
oa
*
o
J
.pdI
oo
oo
EJB
j
€I
*
o]6
o
oo
Eo(-t
ML
slh lo!m, ghnulrr, modrrrt!:
goll lypo 9
(Lc!s lhcn l?% rocls/pibblcs shc>?mm)
5
:,:'
l.*.'
Erd ql Erplorition.
L-imrnlwrbr wls rbl GntoLtrrlEted
duf,ng or ot tha mpletion of explomtion.
At cgmFlstion, oxploration wns bocklrllod
wih soil cuttngs.
Pnge IP \)1r Ir\ .\\ i.r \\il$ k l \
SOIL TREATMENT AREA DETAILS
751 MILLER LN, SILT, CO
AS SHOWN
CREATESWALETO
DIRECT SURFACE
WATER RUNOFF
AROUND THE SOIL
TREATMENTAREA
-l----'=-L-S r()F
=
:v
FORTY FT
{1,o
e(,:5
o\
sv
INSPECTION PORTS / VENT PORTS
I
't2'
't
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ILI
=-uro
to
ul
o6
!oo
lrJJJ
Eoo
uJJoI
@
BED'B'
6'MIN.
12'
EFFLUENT
FROM
SEPTIC
TANK
FORTY
TOTAL SOIL TREATTENT AREA
40 CHAMBERS PER BED X 12 SQ.FT. X 2 BEDS = 960 SQ.FT
NOTES:
X ISAPPROXIMATELY 1m-125 FT LF OF EFFLUENT PIPELINE FROM SEPTIC TAI{KTO LEACH FIELD: ALL PIPES:4" SDR35 FryC @ 2% SLOPE MlN.
PRIMER& GLUE ALL FITTINGS WELL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL CODE & REGUI.ATIONS. PROVIDE ADEQUATE FROST PROTECTION.
NtJ I I U I'UALtr. SJUFIEMA I IU F'I.AN I U i'I.IUW Af'PKOXIMATE LOGATIONS.
SEPTIC TANK MADE BYANY OTHER MANUFACTURER MAY BE USED AS LONG AS IT tS EQUIVALENT TO THE SPECIFIED TANK.
AMERICAN GEOSERVICES
DBOXIN
CONCRETE
BED(FLOW
-SPLITTERBASIN
IA.$EFTN \_
TANK
N
88tl?6.,102t . .mdmrBffiircn
3FT WIDE CHAMBERS. FORTY FT LONG
INFITRATOR CHAMBER SYSTEM
USE QUICI(4 PLUS
STANDARD INFILTRATOR CI-IAII,BERS
3FT wlDE CHAMBERS FORWFT LONG
INFITRATOR CHAMBER SYSTEM
USE QUICI(/I PLI.JS
STANDARD INFILTRATOR CHATTIBERS
3 021$D20
SOIL TREATMENT AREA DETAILS
751 MILLER LN, SILT, CO
AS SHOWN 4
AMERICAN CEOSERVICES
888276.{2?. ffiicmtc(Mvict@V
0213-D20
SOIL BACKFILL
DO NOT COMPACT
FINISHEDGRADE
(DO NOT PTANTBUFFALO GRASS)
SURFACE)
1? NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL
DO NOT COMPACT
CONTINUOUS GEO
FABRIC, OPTIOML
*cnusneolwRsnEo
GRAVEL 2'
ABOVE PANELS, OPTIONAL
il
*SCARIFY SOIL 12'BELOW LEVEL & RAXE
DO NOT COMPACT OR SMEARTRENCH
BOTTOM
NOTES:
sotl TREATMENT AREA (STA) MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AT LOCATTON SHOWN ON THE SITE PUN.
STA AREA SHOULD BE LEVELED AND SCARIFIED. NO COMPACTION.
STA SHOULD BE INSTALLED ALONG THE GROUND CONTOURS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN EXCAVATION DEPTHS CONSISTENT ALONG THE UPHILL AND
DOWNHILL SIDES.
IN ORDER TO AVOID WATER INFILTRATION INTO THE SYSTEM, ALL CONNECTIONS IN P]PING SHOULD BE SECURELY
FASTENED.
IN ADDITION, REDIRECT SURFACE WATER AWAY FROM STA BY GRADING.
EXCAVATED AREA SHOI'LD BE RE-VEGETATED WTH ONLY MTIVE SPECIES. CONTACT AGS FOR RECOTilMENDATIONS.
STA AREAS SHOULD BE FREE FROM ANY SNOW STORAGE.
OFF-SITE FILTERING MATERIAL tF USED, SHOULD BE CLEAN COURSE CONCRETE SAND MEETING ASTM CS' SPECIFICATIONS, CONTAINING <5% PASSING
THE 2OO SIEVE.
ALL ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCE ELEVATIONS ONLY.
=-l
!.-.,/-a!--l1ct
12" TALL INFILTRATOR
CHAMBERS/PANELS i+
TANK DETAILS
751 MILLER LN, SILT, CO
{5OO Gallon Top Eeam - gCPlbtrrt
Itoorccp
(2OOO Grllon Totrl Volumr|
l)E5l(;N lY{)TF5
r Design per perfcrmance :esr Fer
A.jTM CI??/
. Top surfoce oretr 87.75 l:'
r +'c S ?8 doys; c$nireie = 6,()fi0
litil Min.
lr ntnllqticn".
r Tonk to bc set on 5- min. sord
berJ cr petr grovelr Tonk to bt bsckfilled unrfcrn:ly cn
qll sides in lifts lelr thon ?4"' ond
rnechonicully ccmpocle<lr Excovqtecl nno:eriol nncy be used .or
bocktill, proddeC lorge siores ore
removedr Excovctior shorrld tJe clewoterecl orrd
tsnk lilled with woter prior to behrg
put in service +ur instolloiicr wlth
r,tuter :uble lesri thr:n 2' belc,*
gr otler Llee;s ilE44-t.)6 fcr resrller:t
con ne ctorsr lnlet ond ilirtlet ider.tifieil ohcra
[]ipEr Delivered cornplate with rrterrnl
prping
r 4' Morimum bury deptl.
ALLfiWANLE -I-IqY
(3osed on Woter lcble)
WATER TAFLE ALL$WALiL!,
ETRTH F[ I
o'-c"J'- C"
| - it 5'- C'
?'-$"4' - t)"
l'-c 4'- C'
$RY 4'- O'
nt-..:-- ----_: lrl(rt-lll I(,J .)[ri:t"ii
15" Lorg x I' Wido
. 5{i" below inlet
Itrvel I
Width Height,lrlet $ide, lJiddle
, 78"' I s8" ,'.il16 gol 5ob golj
Top View
Section Mew
t,{ er vYelgn r
Totql Lid Tonh , To'tr:l
,i!
!crl8 gcl 5420 lb*: 1$2aQ bs'2iti60 lbs:
r7r
Boot
Oullst Length
5J 'bl
Rhm b Gndr
r\er r,qpqctfy
Cutlnt
5Or gol
e r
s $r F
5t)
il
..,' I
f\|,d\. ..,1
\..,,/
ID
/Zf OcrAm
TAII(
:T:r-:.
.i, ...
l.[lx
.L_,
tl
'f 'f
R5F
Sdrnt
AMERICAN CEOSERVICES
888.2?6.402? - rrurioqosdielsmv
AS SHOWN 5 0213-D20
t2'
3rl'l--
atr
EFFECTIVE LEf{GIH
QUICK4 PLUS STANDARD CHAMBER
Fn$Sil.rllZEl PIFE imLL
Fdhrrs Loc{rl{1i{3
FPLACEBI It'
I
I
$N'EF[
FHONT VIEW SIDE VIEW
QUICK4 PLUSALL.IN.ONE 12 ENDCAP
NOTES:
1. BRING EFFLUENT PIPE ONLY IN TOP OF CFIAMBER END
CAP.
dlutcl(4 FLI#!
ALL.IN€NE
ISSUSWWELI
2. AS A SPI.ASH PLATE, INSTALL I.ARGE GMNITE OR
DUMBLE CERAMIC TILE UNDERNEATH INLET.
3. VENTITATE THE ENDS OF EVERY LEACH FIELD PIPE RUN
OR SET OF CHAMBERS. THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
ll_7. lFll,Etrr4. DO NOT COMPACT OR DENSIFY SOIL IN BASE OF THE
TRENCH.
SGARIFY THE SUBGRADE SO]L TO 'LOOSEN'AT LEAST ONE
FOOT IN BASE OFTRENCH BEFORE BACKFILLING.
5. ADD GRAVEL INTO BASE OF TRENCH AND ATOP
CHAMBERS IN ORDERTO IMPROVE DESIGN LIFE,
6. INSTALL GEOTEXNLE FABRIC TO PREVENT SOIL
INTRUSION INTO GRAVEL FROM ABOVE & SIDES. DO NOT
INSTALL GEOFABRIC IN THE BOTTOM OFTHE TRENCH OR
SEPTIC LE^ACH FIELD.
7. MAKE SURE THE LEACH FIELD IS 2(F FEETAWAY FROM
TREES. DO NOT PLANT BUSHES OR DEEP-ROOTING FESCUE,
DICHONDRA BROME, OR RYE ATOP.l*"-l
8. DO NOT DRIVE OVER A SEPTIC TANK OR TEACH FIELD IN
PARALLEL.
{
\
QUICK4 PLUS ALL-IN.ONE PERISCOPE
AMERICAN
88E.276.,1127 - rm.riongorcckc.m
021rD20
V
$HOWN
TYPICAL INFILTRATOR DETAILS
751 MILLER LN, SILT, CO
AMERICAN
CEOSERYICES
Septic Feasibility Report
751 Miller Ln, Rifle, CO 81650
Date: February 28,2024; Project No: 0121-WS24
V AMERICAN
CTOSERVICES
GEOTECHNICAL & ]!{ATERIAIS
EN\4RONMENTAL
STRUCTUR^L
CIVL
ENGINEER]NG AND SCIENCE
aaa276-4f27
February 28,2024
PROJECT NO: 0121-D241-SEPTIC
CLIENT: Mr. Mark Stieber
Reference: Septic Feasibility Report, 751 Miller Ln, Silt, CO
At your request, we have completed the septic feasibility report for the referenced project in
accordance with the American GeoServices, LLC (AGS) proposal. Results of our evaluation and
design recommendations are described below.
Soils profile: Silt loam extending to a depth of at least 8 feet
Groundwater: Not encountered; not present within at least I feet of the ground surface
Soil type: 2
Design Long Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR), Treatment Level 1: 0.60
Conclusion: Site is suitable for on-site waste treatment as per the most current Garfield County,
CO, On-site Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) Regulations, provided adequate setbacks
are provided for all the components of OWTS.
SITE INVESTIGATION
ln January 2024, two explorations (TP1 and TPZ) were performed. All soil samples were identified
:^ aL^ ti^ll ^-l .-.^-^ -l^^^l l- ^^^l^J -^-l^:-^-^ ^-l r---^^^J^l 1^ 4L^ t-L^-^a^-. t^- t .JL^-ilr r.iln ilrrru .lr]q welE Prausu l1 r bsillEu uuilralilEru atllu lrailuPuil,ttu r.(J Utt' tarJutat(Jty tut lultltt t
testing and classification. Groundwater level measurements were taken during drilling and after
the completion of drilling. Laboratory analysis included soil classification by visual evaluation.
After the completion of subsurface exploration, all exploration locations were backfilled with soil
cuttings.
www.americang@services.com
sma@americangeoservices,com
Ph: (BBB) 276 4027
Fxt (877) 47t 0369
ln addition, we reviewed following available soils literature and public domain websites on the site
area:
. Soil Survey of Garfield County, USDA, SCS
. Geology of Colorado, USGS
. Geologic Maps, Garfield County, and Colorado Geologic Survey
. USGS Topographic Map,
. U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Reports
o Garfield County, GIS
Data obtained from site observations, subsurface exploration, laboratory evaluation, and previous
experience in the area was used to perform engineering analyses. Results of engineering
analyses were then used to reach conclusions and recommendations presented in this report.
SURFACE CONDITIONS
The site is as shown in Figure 1 through Figure 4. There are no existing structures at the site near
the proposed explorations- Based on our review of available USGS topographic map and
site visit, the site is gently sloping downwards towards north in the site-specific area with a
slope of approximately 3-60/o in the immediate vicinity of the proposed leach field area.
However, it is owners/contractor's responsibility to hire the services of a surveyor and
evaluate site grades to assure adequate downward gradients for the installation of the
proposed septic system. There are no natural or known cultural features of concern at the site.
There is no current or historic land use at the site that is of concern for the proposed septic
system.
Based on the site reconnaissance, in our opinion, there will be surface water run-off and
accumulation if proper stormwater management is not implemented. lt is the
owner's responsibility to make sure all the surface water will be diverted away from the septic
fleld area so that surface water run-off does not accumulate at or near the proposed septic field.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Available NRCS soil survey map data (Web Soil Survey) revealed that site is underlain by Potts
Loam. Following soil classification and identification is based on commonly accepted
methods employed in the practice of civil and septic engineering. lt should be recognized
that subsurface conditions often vary both with depth and laterally between individual boring
locations.
The following is a summary of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site:
Project No: 01 21 -D24-SEPTIC
Page No: 2 of 5
Depth
(lnches)USCS Classification
USDA Soil
Texture
Soil
Type
Structure-
Shape
Structure-
Grade
0'-96"sirt (ML)
Silt loam 2 Granular Moderate
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater table or perched groundwater was not encountered during explorations within 8 feet
below the ground surface, and based on our local experience, groundwater is not anticipated to
be present within 8 feet of the ground surface. This observation may not be indicative of other
times or at locations other than the site. Some variations in the groundwater level may be
experienced in the future. Seasonal perched groundwater conditions may be encountered at
higher depths during rainy season. The magnitude of the variation will largely depend upon the
duration and intensity of precipitation, temperature and the surface and subsurface drainage
characteristics of the surrounding area.
CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the results of our On site Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) feasibility study, in
our opinion, the site is suitable for OWTS to be designed and constructed in accordance with
current Garfield County OWTS regulations and Colorado Department of Health guidelines,
provided following recommendations are followed :
Adequate stormwater management should be designed and implemented because there will
be surface water run-off and accumulation if proper stormwater management is not
implemented. lt is the owner's responsibility to make sure all the surface waterwill be diverted
away from the septic field area so that surface water run-off does not accumulate at or near
the proposed septic field.
a
a
a
a
Depending upon the site grading, proposed house location, number of bedrooms, and the
proposed soil treatment area (STA) or leach field or drain fleld location, a properly designed
septic system alono with proper setbacks should be used to satisfy local and state regulations.
The STA or leach field or drain field can be located on site without encroaching easements,
flood plain, any lake, or any wetlands.
Project No: 01 21 -D24-SEPTIC
Page No: 3 of 5
More than six bedrooms should not be planned
a We recommend that AGS services are retained to design the septic system in accordance
with the most current Garfield County OWTS regulations.
Above recommendation may be modified based on further investigation and analyses
LIMITATIONS
Design Data/Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and
subsurface explorations, limited site evaluation, and our present knowledge of the proposed
construction as described by you. lt is possible that soil conditions could vary between or beyond
the points explored. lf soil conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those
described herein, we should be notified so that we can review and make any supplemental
recommendations necessary. lf the scope of the proposed construction, including the proposed
use, number of occupants, or structural locations changes from that described in this report, our
recommendations should also be reviewed and revised by AGS.
Our scope of work did not include any investigation or evaluation of any kind related to the flood
hazard evaluation, wetlands evaluation and mitigation, and any evaluation of any kind related to
floods, creeks, hydrology, wetlands, and stormwater management. Our Scope of Work for this
project did not include research, testing, or assessment relative to past or present contamination
of the site by any source. lf such contamination were present, it is very likely that the exploration
and testing conducted for this report would not reveal its existence. lf the Owner is concerned
about the potential for such contamination, additional studies should be undertaken. We are
available to discuss the scope of such studies with you. No tests were performed to detect the
existence of mold or other environmental hazards as it was beyond Scope of Work.
Local regulations regarding land or facility use, on and off-site conditions, or other factors may
change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Based on the
intended use of the report within one year from the date of report preparation, AGS may
recommend additionalwork and report updates. Non-compliance with any of these requirements
by the client or anyone else will release AGS from any liability resulting from the use of this report
by any unauthorized party. Client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless AGS from any
claim or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance.
ln this report, we have presented judgments based partly on our understanding of the proposed
construction and partly on the data we have obtained. This report meets professional standards
expected for reports of this type in this area. Our company is not responsible for the conclusions,
opinions or recommendations made by others based on the data we have presented.
0121-D24-SEPTtC
Page No: 4 of 5
Projebl $lp:
i i'r'
This report has been prepared exclusively for the client, its' engineers and subcontractors for the
purpose of design and construction of the proposed structure. No other engineer, consultant, or
contractor shall be entitled to rely on information, conclusions or recommendations presented in
this document without the prior written approval of AGS.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If we can provide additional
assistance or observation and testing services during design and construction phases, please call
us at 1 888 276 4027.
Sincerely,
Sam Adettiwar, MS, PE, GE, P.Eng, M.ASCE
Senior Engineer
Attachments
Project No: 01 21 -D24-SEPTIC
Page No: 5 of 5
FIGURES
F
g
cJ
oedFE
c
L
I zsel
@1 gilt M€$eRd
Cactus Valtey
Chelewski Fipe &
Ljcru) vdr*y
Rd sin Mesa Rd
5
E{
El
c
O
=
=
cJ
0
?_$ATEllo0Ftr6O&,'n.Q
N Mesdowor
s
Holy Corv Packin
Summit
Asph€|l lv
Antonell ln
*d
ar"t"'Q crrro* vloadwsrk""r*..s-.Fi6l ._
N
@
t
o
Lal!t t?q
e
il
it
$'
f{?Fl
F{
ct
etJ
*
*
.Y
d-.'l(
SITE LOCATION .\' --(
:^u f
$
TEFERENCE:
SOOGLE MAPS
AMEILICAN CECISERYICE5
Zoom:15
Seab:18056
0.3 mi
130', 39.564Si 1.
ISGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS
-+tlFl lTa{ri?] " rnd(ilsx.rnits rr n FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION MAP
NOTE:
SCHEMATIC PLAN TO SHOWAPPROXIMATE SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOCATION ONLY; NOT SURVEYED
LEGEND:
DESIGNATES SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOCATION, BYAMERICAN GEOSERVICES, LLC. ,FEBRUARY2024
SEE EXPLORATION LOG IN APPENDIX FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
N
REFERENCE:
GARFIELD COUNTY
COLORADO GIS
AM I r{ tL.A N C tr)Srl{Vrc FSltrv*ol:tf Jlrlr - rro!ria!(t.!*.a! ic'<'.b FIGUBE 2: SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN
5
US
#'
[;l
4(b
i
I
dst
qw
ri''r t'Jt l:
f
rl
''l '{
1
Ib
:..
.i:
ll
I
{,
:
I
C
ri
<f.
{t
,t
T,
0*
tl .
i:
" t'
..I
v
-1,"t1
a:'J.f-
"t , j
1 * -li!.L..-
LEGEND
N
i- ;-j tIto Erd tllitrr Fr asr Ea+srt
f-;-l Enek *,*!'i@dr. g1.rucrn)
[ ; I c."*rt"".l*udnd&Plrtsre]
| :_J 0dcrs'cilutun(adcPlartcsr|
BEDROCI( UNTT$
t ; I uhdrhmrmn{hcruncnonody}Fmohlm}
t_il srrnr.'d?Fmd
I srdrunrrdt
q!
L Ahi{rn.d co*rutn urdril&d frldmr ad bc fthcsrl
a hdrildrpd(rigrPlnocmd
A.\.'IIRILAN (-;t .CISt" ttvl(.t 5
ArlrruAl AND COttWr,AL OEPOSTTS
Ysr{ir fr}&dun dd ffitr0or deo*s 0totsr ad br* Plrhcau}
fr t{o&t lLttbtt lbctl;l
h AInI O5r nBtfs ftr ur nen m|f {FrLmte}
tucarhHc*|dlu{
REFERENCE:
U.S. GEOLOGICAL MAPS
rc$ ;l_ri{xrr .,:r..i.'rrJr,ril.i.rrr,lil
L
I
t
I
IT€
I t,:
./l
{hJDlo.
"'I
Fby
v FIGURE 3: GEOLOGIC MAP
LEGEND
Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa
Counties (CO683)
Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfleld 0
and Mesa Counties (CO583)
FfiHi', Map unit Name ,1T31 Percent of
54 Potts loam, 1 18.9 38,60lo
to 3 percent
slopes
55 Potts loam, 3 4.9 10.00/o
to 6 percent
slopes
55 Potts loam, 6 25.2 5l.4CI1o
to 12 percent
slopes
Totals for Area of 48.9 1OO.Oolo
fnterest
AM [jUCAt{ C LSSERV tr_ t-S
N
REFERENCE:
WEB SOIL SURVEY *ftv EB l:r.lllll rmrrirrrlrrrq* itr<rm FIGURE 4: SOIL SURVEY MAP
SITE LOCATION
Legend
Col la psab le-Soi ls-withMeeker
EG-1 4 Eollan (wind-blown) deposits
FG-14 Dune arrci sheet satrd dep:osits
:::tl.;,
EC-14 Cretac*ous and Tertiary Fsrrnations
...j ,1.
EG-l 4 Eva porite Forrlations
r\,|!tl- lt ICA N C [.OSt--ltV lil US
N
?EFERENCE
3OLORADO GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY
*"'1L/.ini !. fr * {: . r-r rii tnlrrrt di,t*rr:r,
FIGURE 5: COLLAPSIBLE SOILS MAP
,r-Uoortii 0 t,RltLFab&-,
l.a.lI
Colorado-la ndsl ide*inventory_new
compi led_landslid es;fromJiDAR3nd*other_mapsI
compiled_l andslides_from_24K_maps
compiled_landslides_from_48- 1 00K_mapsI
compiled*landsl{des_frer,_FtB 1 04 1 _mepsr
cempilecl_l andsi i,J es_frrm_250K_maprI
GeologicOu adslndex
n
lltlle'ltg+l
{iq)ll !1)ut'r.:
I?
n
Rin€
r'it ii
sirt
',,J i. i. i; t;_qf,.
s tll
dln
F3
,' ii
ll
,.r ii r,fii
+i:,i
.1I
Hurdar Mesc
lr i,',r,' ; I r" li l: .i; I
r\'\.{[:lt I t-r\ N Li [trlql : RV I t.. ffi
tr
FIGURE 6: COLORADO LANDSLIDES.
INVENTORY
l t:,
\
N
?EFERENCE:
SOLORADO LANDSLIDES
NVENTORY
$\.1 'f, * {l_ . ., ".!.i rft$,:irf \ir\.{*rrl
Legend
l)
a
+
.jtfj..,ij i ..ltrl
;V
5 t
I /
3 L l"
Jt
Pcrlchula
A,\{trR t{:AN I;EOSERV lCl-S
lEFERENCE:
SARFIELD COUNTY GIS
Legend
{t Communilies
F Deoris Ftow
S Londslide
t.B Rocklotl
'V )tti ltt +.€? - ,t$1ktiB.(rK\i111+at
FIGURE 7: LANDSLIDES HAZARD
N
APPENDIX
TPl
Proiect Number 0121-D24-SEPTIG Exploration: Excavator
GeologisUEngineer SMA Ground Elevation See Figures
Date Explored 02-06-2024 Total Depth of Exploration 8 Feet
Depth to Water Not Encountered
ct)oJ
.9E
CL(!Lo
Description / Lithology
*aoorts
g*rctoo
o
CL
E
(Eo
c5oo!
.9
m
Fo-
at
t
-o
ooo
fr,
s
oL
.2oE
oIL
oo
;s
Jo.
;s
JJ
s
o
=o
co
oa
Eoo
ML
Silt loam, granular, moderate:
SoilType 2
(Less than 12% rocks/pcbblcs size>2mm)
5
1
15
\<'
End of Exploration.
Groundwater was not encountered
during or at the completion of exploration
At completion, exploration was backfilled
with soilcuttings.
,k *yll.:_1;1I..:.-o:"RV rcLS Page 1
TP2
Number 0121-D24-SEPTTC Exploration: Excavator
ineer SMA Ground Elevation See Figures
Date Explored 02-06-2A24 Total Depth of Exploration 8 Feet
Depth to Water Not Encountered
cDoJ
.9.c
CL
Gl-o
Description / Lithology
{.rooll-
-c{.4
CLoo
o
CL
E
TEo
tr
oo
3g
o
Fo-a
sto
o(,oE
:s
oL
=+r
.!2o
=
IF(,
ct
ao
bs
J
o-
s
JJ
:s
o
3.n
co
o
CL
Eo
C)
ML
Silt loam, granular, moderate:
SoilType 2
(Less than 12o/o rockslpebbles size>2mm)
5
End of Exploration.
Groundwater was not encountered
during or at the completion of exploration.1
At completion, exploration was backfilled
with soilcuttings.
1
"-\
AMLRIC]AN CI.OSI.RVICLS.V St\ :_6,1r)li nd\iirio*rDf
^a\jjur Page 1
TP3
Proioct Number 0121-D24-SEPTTC Fxploration: Excavator
GeologisUEngineer SMA Ground Elevation See Figures
Total Depth of Exploration B FeetDate Explored 02-06-2024
Depth to Water Not Encountered
EtoJ
.9
.C
CL(!
o
Description / Lithology
ooll-
.C+,ctoo
o
CL
E
(Eo
oo!o
El-o-a
:s
ao
o(,ot.
s
oL
=*ao'6
=
l-o
CL
oo
s
Jo-
s
JJ
;s
o
=o
tro
o
CL
Eoo
Silt loam, granular, moderate:
SoilType 2
(Less than 12T" rockslpebbles size>2mm)
ML
5
End of Exploration.
Groundwater was not encountered
during or at the completion of exploration 1
At completion, exploration was backfilled
with soilcuttings.
15
AMI-I(ICAN CLOSTIIVIC-IsVd*\ :-a.lr!'..!nrn.rn$..!L6rr.i(.{l Page 1
v AMERICAN
CEOSERVICES
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AI{D SYTBOL C}IART
COARSE.GRAINED SOILS
(moro than S)% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.)
Clean Gravels than 5%
GW Wellgraded grav€ls, gravel-sand
mixtures, little or no fines
ORAVELS
More than 50%
of coerre
fraclion lerger
than No.4
eieve size
GP
Gravels with fines than 12%
Poorly-graded gravels, gnvel-sand
mixtures, littl€ or no lines
GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtur€s
GC Clayey gravels, graveLsand-chy
mixtur€s
SANDS
50% or mors
of coarse
frection smallsr
than No.4
sieve aize
Clean Sands than 5%
SW Wellgraded sands, gravelly sands,
litlle or no fines
Poorly gmded sands, gravelly sands,
little or no fnes
Sande with lines than 1
SM Silty sands, sand-$ilt mixtirss
sc Clayey sands, sand-clay mixturas
SP
FINE.GRAINED SOILS
(50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.)
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
Liquid limit
less lhan
50%
ML
lnorganic silts and very line sands, roc*
flour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayay
silb with slight plasticity
CL
lnorganic clays of low to medium
placticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,
silty clays, lean clays
OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of
low plasticity
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
Liquid limit
50%
or greater
MH
lnorganic silb, micacsous or
diatomaceousfine sandy or silty soils,
elastic silts
CH lnorganic clays of high plasticity, fat
clays
OH Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity, organic silb
HIGHLY
ORGAtrllC
solLs
:!.!
PT P€at and other highly organic soils
LABORATORY CLASSIHCATIoil CRITERIA
GW ", = #
gr€atsr than 4; a" = o.,o *u-!*o
betureen 1 and g
GP Not meeling all gradation requiremenls tu GW
GM Atterberg
line or P.l.
limits below "A'
less than 4 Above'A'line with P.l. betutteen
4 and 7 arc borderline cases
requiring use of dual symbolsGCAtterberg limite above'ff
line with P.l. greater than 7
SW
c, = *ffi sreaterthan4;"" =
EHobetwe€n
1and3
Sp Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
SM Atterberg limits below "rr*
line or P.l. less than 4
Limits plotling in shaded zone
with P.l. between 4 and 7 are
borderline cases requiring use
of dual symbols.sc Atterberg limits above'A"
line with P.l. greater than 7
Dotermina percentages of sand
on percenhge of fines (fraction
coalse{rained soih are clasoified as follows:
Less than 5 percent ,
More than 12 p€rcont
5to 12 percont .....
and gravel from grain-siza curve- Depending
smalbr than l,lo. 200 sieve size),
GW GP, SWSP
GM, GC, SM, SC
Borderline cases requidng dual symbols
PLASTICNTYCHART
60
9uo
Ex40ulo
=30
820Fu,
110!.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 s0 100
LTQUTD Lrurr (LL) (%)
/
CH
./t
Z AIINE:
11 = g.7g(U.-20)
CL ruH&oH
I
ML8 )L;LITL
0
DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY & SOIL CLASSIFICATION
LABOMTORY/FIELD TESTING DEFINITIONS FOR
EXPLORATION LOGS
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
DD
WD
MC
PL
LL
PI
oc
s
SG
c
o
QU
#200
CBR
VS
PP
DP
SPT
BPF
SH
GW
ROD
TP
B
HA
DRY DENSTTY (PCF)
wET DENSTTY (PCF)
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
PLASTTC LrMtT (%)
LTQUTD LrMrT (%)
PLASTICITY INDEX
oRGANTC CONTENT (%)
SATURATTON PERCENT (%)
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
COHESION
ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
STRENGTH
PERCENT PASSING THE #2OO SIEVE
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO
VANE SHEAR
POCKET PENETROMETER
DRIVE PROBE
STANDARD PENETMTION TEST
BLOWS PER FOOT (N VALUE)
SHELBY TUBE SAMPLE
GROUNDWATER
ROCK OUALITY DESIDNATION
TEST PIT
BORING
HANDAUGER
REI.ATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS
DENSITY
VERY LOOSE
LOOSE
MEDIUM DENSE
DENSE
VERY DENSE
PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION
NAME
CONSISTENCY
VERY SOFT
SOF'T
MEDIUM STIFF
STIFF
VERY STIFF
HARD
STP (BPF)
0-1
2-4
5-8
9-15
16-30
30+
DIAMETER
(rNcHES)
>120
12-120
3-12
3t4 -3
1t4 -3t4
4.75 MM
2.OMM
.425 MM
.075 MM
<0.005 MM
PP (TSF)
LESS THAN 0.25
0.25 - 0.5
0.5 - 1.0
1.0 -2.0
2.0 - 4.0
OVER4.O
sPT (BPF)
0-4
5-10
11-30
31 -50
50+
ROCK BLOCK
BOULDER
COBBLE
GRAVEL
COURSE
FINE
SAND
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
SILT
CI.AY
SIEVE NO.
NO.4
NO. 10
NO.40
NO.200
V
-
GRoUNDWATERLEVEUSEEPAGE
ENCOUNTERED DURING EXPLORATION
V
-
STATICGRoUNDWATERLEVELWTH
DATE MEASURED
GRAIN SIZE
FINE
GRAINED
trEnil tti
GRAINED
coARSE 0.04-0.2 |NCH
GRAINED
<0.04 tNcH FEWGMINSARE
DISTINGUISHABLE IN THE
FIELD ORWITH HAND LENS,
n n, n t lalr-lJ nE Att\te AoEv.va-v,4 iltvt I vtntltv nt\L
DISTINGUISHABLE WITH THE
AID OF A HAND LENS.
MOST GMINSARE
DISTINGUISHABLE WITH THE
NAKED EYE.
DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY & SOIL CLASSIFICATION
ANGULARITY OF GRAVEL & COBBLESSPT EXPLORATIONS:
STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING IS
PERFORMED BY DRIVING A 2 - INCH O.D. SPLIT-
SPOON INTO THE UNDISTURBED FORMATION AT
THE BOfiOM OF THE BORING WTH REPEATED
BLOWS OF A 140 - POUND PIN GUIDED HAMMER
FALLING 30 INCHES. NUMBER OF BLOWS (N
VALUE) REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE SAMPLERA
GIVEN DISTANCE WAS CONSIDERED A MEASURE
OF SOIL CONSISTENCY.
SH SAMPLING:
SHELBY TUBE SAMPLING IS PERFORMED WITH A
THIN WALLED SAMPLER PUSHED INTO THE
UNDISTURBED SOIL TO SAMPLE 2.0 FEET OF
SOIL.
AIRTRACK EXPLOMTION:
TESTING IS PERFORMED BY MEASURING RATE
OF ADVANCEMENTAND SAMPLES ARE
RETRIEVED FROM CUTTINGS.
HAND AUGUR EXPLORATION:
TESTING IS PREFORMED USING A 3.25'
DIAMETER AUGUR TO ADVANCE INTO THE EARTH
AND RETRIEVE SAMPLES.
DRIVE PROBE EXPLORATIONS:
THIS'RELATIVE DENSITY' EXPLOMTION DEVICE
IS USED TO DETERMINE THE DISTRIBUTION AND
ESTIMATE STRENGTH OFTHE SUBSURFACE SOIL
AND DECOMPRESSED ROCK UNITS. THE
RESISTANCE TO PENETRATION IS MEASURED IN
BLOWS-PER-1 12 FOOT OF AN 1 l.POUND HAMMER
WHICH FREE FALLS ROUGHLY 3.5 FEET DRIVING
THE 0.5 INCH DIAMETER PIPE INTO THE GROUND.
FOR A MORE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THIS
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION METHOD, THE
SLOPE STABILITY REFERENCE GUIDE FOR
NATIONAL FORESTS IN THE UNITED STATES,
VOLUME I, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICU LTU RE, EM-7'17 O-1 3, AUG UST 1 994, P. 317.
321.
CPT EXPLOMTION:
CONE PENETROMETER EXPLORATIONS CONSIST
OF PUSHING A PROBE CONE INTO THE EARTH
USING THE REACTION OF A 2O-TON TRUCK, THE
coNE RESTSTANCE (OC) AND SLEEVE FRICTION
(FS) ARE MEASURED AS THE PROBEWAS
PUSHED INTO THE EARTH. THE VALUES OF QC
AND FS (lN TSF)ARE NOTED AS THE LOCALIZED
INDEX OF SOIL STRENGTH.
ANGULAR COARSE PARTICLES HAVE SHARP
EDGESAND REI-ATIVELY PLANE SIDES
W|TH UNPOLISHED SURFACES.
SUBANGULAR COARSE GRAINED PARTICLES ARE
SIMILAR TO ANGULAR BUT HAVE
ROUNDED EDGES.
SUBROUNDED COARSE GMINED PARTICLES HAVE
NEARLY PLANE SIDES BUT HAVEWELL
ROUNDED CORNERS AND EDGES.
ROUNDED COARSE GRAINED PARTICLES HAVE
SMOOTHLY CURVED SIDES AND NO
EDGES.
SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIER
DRY ABSENCEOFMOISTURE; DUSTY, DRY
TO TOUCH
MOIST DAMP BUT NOVISIBLEWATER
WET VISIBLE FREE WATER
WEATHERED STATE
FRESH NO VISIBLE SIGN OF ROCK MATERL\L
WEATHERING; PERFTAPS SLIGHT
DISCOLORATION IN MAJOR
DISCONTINUITY SURFACES.
SLIGHTLY
WEATHERED
MODERATELY
WEATHERED
HIGHLY
WEATHERED
COMPLETELY
WEATHERED
DISCOLORATION INDICATES
WEATHERING OF ROCK MATERIALAND
DISCONTINUITY SURFACES. ALL THE
ROCK MATERIAL MAY BE DISCOLORED
BYWEATHERINGAND MAY BE
SOMEWHAT WEAKER EXTERNALLY
THAN ITS FRESH CONDITION.
LESS THAN HALF OF THE ROCK
MATERIAL IS DECOMPOSED AND/OR
DISINTEGMTED TO SOIL. FRESH OR
DISCOLORED ROCK IS PRESENT EITHER
AS A CONTINUOUS FMMEWORK OR AS
CORE STONES.
MORE THAN HALF OF THE ROCK
MATERIAL IS DECOMPOSED AND/OR
DISINTEGMTED TO SOIL. FRESH OR
DISCOLORED ROCK IS PRESENT EITHER
AS DISCONTINUOUS FMMEWORK OR
AS CORE STONE.
ALL ROCK MATERIAL IS DECOMPOSED
AND/OR DISINTEGMTED TO SOIL. THE
ORIGINAL MASS STRUCTURE IS STILL
LARGELY INTACT.
ALL ROCK IVIATERIAL IS CONVERTED TO
SOIL. THE MASS STRUCTURE AND
MATERIAL FABRIC IS DESTROYED.
THERE IS A LARGE CHANGE IN VOLUME,
BUT THE SOIL HAS NOT BEEN
SIGNIFICANTLY TRANSPORTED.
RESIDUAL SOIL
Map Unit Description: Potts loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes--Rifle Area, colorado, parts of
Garfield and Mesa Counties
Rifle Area, Golorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa
Counties
S4-Potts loam, I to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jnyq
Elevation: 5,000 to /,000 feet
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Potts and similarso/s: 85 percent
Esfmafes are based on obseruationg descnpfions, and fransecfs of
the mapunit.
Description of Potts
Setting
Landform: Valley sides, benches, mesas
Down-slope shape: Convex, linear
Across-s/op e shape: Convex, linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium
derived from sandstone and shale
Typical profile
Hl -0to4inches: loam
H2 - 4 to 28 inches: clay loam
H3 - 28 to 60 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
S/ope:lto3percent
Depth to restictive feature: More than B0 inches
Drainage c/ass: Well drained
Runoffclass; Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water
(Ksat): Moderatety high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to watertable: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calci u m ca tbonate, maxim u m content: 1 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slighily saline (0.0 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water suppty, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.3 inches)
lnterpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated); 3e
Land capability classiftcation (noninigated): 3c
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecologicalsfe: R048AY306UT - Uptand Loam (\Arloming Big
Sagebrush)
USDA
-
Natural Resources
Gonservatlon Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3t3t2024
Page 1 ot 2
Map Unit Description: Potts loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes--Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of
Garfield and Mesa Counties
Hydric sorT rafing.' No
Data Source lnformation
Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Aug 22,2023
USD{I Natural Resources
GonscwaUon Servica
tthb Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
a3r2a24
Page2ot2
Map Unit Description: Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes--Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of
Garfteld and Mesa Counties
Rifle Area, Golorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa
Counties
S5-Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jnyr
Elevation: 5,000 to 7,000 feet
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Potts and simr/arsoi/s: 85 percent
Esfimafes are based on obseruations, descriptions, and fransecfs of
the mapunit.
Description of Potts
Setting
Landform: Valley sides, benches, mesas
Down-slope shape: Convex, linear
Across-s/ope shape: Convex, linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium
derived from sandstone and shale
Typical profile
H1 -0to4inches: loam
H2 - 4 to 28 inches: clay loam
H3 - 28 to 60 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
S/ope;3to6percent
Depth to restictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class; Well drained
Runoffclass: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water
(Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to watertable: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Freq uency of pondrng: None
Calciu m carb onate, m axi m um content: 1 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.3 inches)
lnterpretive groups
Land capability classification (irigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
. Ecologicalsite: R048AY306UT - Upland Loam (V1ffoming Big
Sagebrush)
USDA
-
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3t3t2024
Page 1 ol 2
Map Unit Descrlption: Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes*-Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of
Garfield and Mesa Counties
Hydic soil raf,ngj No
Data Source lnformation
$oil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Aug 22,2023
USDAil Natural Rcsources
Conservation Service
tVeb Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3t3t2024
Page2ol2
Map Unit Description: Potts loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes--Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of
Garfield and Mesa Counties
Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa
Counties
56-Potts loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Nationalmap unit symbol: jnys
Elevation: 5,000 to 7,000 feet
Farmland classification; Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Potts and similar soils: 85 percent
Esfimafes are based on observatians, descriptions, and fransecfs of
the mapunit.
Description of Potts
Sefting
Landform: Valley sides, benches, mesas
Down-slope shape: Convex, linear
Acnrss-s/op e shape: Convex, linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium
derived from sandstone and shale
Typicalprofile
H1 -0to4inches: loam
H2 - 4 to 28 inches; clay loam
H3 - 28 fo 60 rnches; loam
Properties and qualities
S/ope:6 to 12 percent
Depth to restictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage c/ass: Well drained
Runoff class; High
Capacity of the most limiting layerto transmit water
(Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to water fable: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of pondrng; None
Calci u m carbon ate, maxim um content: 1 5 percent
Maximurn salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.3 inches)
lnterpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecologicalsife; R048AY306UT - Upland Loam (V}loming Big
Sagebrush)
USDA
-
Natural Flcsourccs
Conservation Scrvice
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3t3t2024
Page 1 ot2
Map Unit Description: Potts loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes*-Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of
Garfield and Mesa Counties
Hydic soil rating: No
Data Source lnformation
Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Aug 22,2023'
USDA
-
Natural Resources
Conservation Servlae
ll\leb Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3t3t2024
Page2ol2
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR
GEOTECHNICAL ENGI NEERI NG REPORT
As the client of a consulting geotechnical
engineer, you should know that site subsurface
conditions cause more construction problems than
any other factor. ASFE/the Association of
Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences
offers the following suggestions and observations
to help you manage your risks.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENG.NEERING REPORT IS
BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT.
SPEGIFIC FACTORS Your geotechnical
engineering report is based on a subsurface
exploration plan designed to consider a unique set
of project-specific factors. These factors typically
include: the general nature of the structure
involved, its size, and configuration; the location of
the structure on the site; other improvements, such
as access roads, parking lots, and underground
utilities; and the additional risk created by scope.
of-service limitations imposed by the client. To
help avoid costly problems, ask your geotechnical
engineer to evaluate how factors that change
subsequent to the date of the report may affect the
report's recommendations.
Unless your geotechnical engineer indicates
otherwise, do not use your geotechnical
engineering report:
MOST GEOTECHNIGAL FINDINGS ARE
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS
Site exploration identifies actual subsurface
conditions only at those points where samples are
taken. The data were extrapolated by your
geotechnical engineer who then applied judgment
to render an opinion about overall subsurface
conditions. The actual interface between materials
may be far more gradual or abrupt than your
report indicates, Actual conditions in areas not
sampled may differ from those predicted in your
report. While nothing can be done to prevent such
situations. you and your geotechnical engineer
can work together to help minimize their impact.
Retaining your geotechnical engineer to observe
construction can be particularly beneficial in this
respect.
r when the nature of the proposed structure is
changed. for example, if an office building will
be erected instead of a parking garage, or a
refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of
an unrefrigerated one;. when the size, elevation. or configuration of the
proposed structure is altered;
o when the location or orientation of the proposed
structure is modified;
o when there is a change of ownership; or .for
application to an adjacent site.
Geotechnical engineers carltot accept
resportsibility for problents tltal nlay occur if they
are'not consulted after factors considered in their
report's development have changed.
A REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS CAN ONLY
BE PRELIMINARY
The construction recommendations included in
your geotechnical engineer's report are
irrelifiinary, because-they must'b9 pa.sed on the
bssumption that conditions revealed through
selective exploratory sampling are indicative of
actual conditions throughout a site.
Because actualsubsurface conditions can be
discerned only during earthwork, you should retain
vour oeo- technical ehoineer to observe actual
Londitions and to finaliZe recommendations. only
the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report
is fuTly familiar with the backgroirnd information'
need6d to determine whether or not the report's
recommendations are valid and whether or not the
contractor is abiding by applicable
recommendations. The geotechnical engineer who
developed your report cannot assume
respon.sibility or liability for the adequacy of the
repbrt's recommendations if another party is
retained to observe construction.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE A
geotechnicalengineering report is based on condi-
tions that existed at the time of subsurface
exoloration. Do not base construction decisions on
a leotechnical engineering report whose
ad-equacy may have been affected by time. Speak
with youf geotechnical consult- ant to learn if
additional-tests are advisable before construction
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED
FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS
Consu lting geotechnical engineers prepare reportg
to meet th-e specific needs of specific individuals. A
report prepared for a civil engineer may not be
adeouate for a construction contractor or even
another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise,
your geotechnical engineer prepared your report
expressly for you and expressly for purposes you
indicated. No one other than you should apply this
report for its intended purpose without first
conferring with the geotechnical engineer. No
party shouici appiy this repori ior any purpose
btheir than that originally contemplated without first
conferring with the geotechnical engineer.
GEOENVIRONMENTAL GONCERNS ARE NOT
AT ISSUE
Your geotechnical engineering report is not likely
to relate any findings, conclusions, or
recommendations
o
about the potential for hazardous materials
existing atthe site. The equipment, techniques,
and oelsonnel used to perform a
oeodnvironmental expl6ration differ substantially
fiom those applied i n' geotech n ica I engineerin g'
Contamination can create major risks. lf you have
no information about the potentialfor your site
being contaminated. you-are advised to speak with
vouioeotechnical consultant for information
iehtitg to geoenvironmental issues.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS
SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION Costlv
problems can occur when other design profes-
bionals develop their plans based on
misinterpretatibns of i geotechn ical engineering
report. To help avoid misinterpretations, retain
vour oeotechnical enqineer to work with other
broieEt desiqn profesiionals who are affected by
ine geotechiicbl report. Have your geotechnical
enqineer explain rebort implications to design
prdfessionais affectbd by them. and then review
those design professionals' plans and
specificatidns'to see how they have incorporated
o'eotechnical factors. Although certain other design
irofessionals may be fam- ili-ar with geotechnical
boncerns, none khows'as much about them as a
competent geotechnical engineer.
BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED
FROM THE REPORT Geotechnical engineers
develop final boring logs based upon their
interpr6tation of the field logs
(assbmbled bv site personnel) and laboratory
ivaluation of field sbmples. G'eotechnical
enqineers customarily include only final boring
log! in their reports. Finalboring logs should not
ui'der any circlmstances be redrawn for inclusion
in architebtural or other design drawings. because
drafters may commit errors or omissions in the
transfer pro-cess. Although photographic.
reoroduition eliminates this problem, it does
n<jtninq to minimize the posdibility of contractors
misintdrpreting the logs during bid preparation.
When this occurs. delays. disputes. and
unanticipated costs a ra the al l-too-frequent result.
To minimize the likelihood of boring log
misinterpretation, give contractors ready access to
the comblete geotechnical engineering report
prepared or authorized for their use. (lf access is
ilroviOeO only to the report p,repared for you, you
Should advise contractors of the report's
limitations. assuming that a contractor was not one
of the specific persohs for whom the report was
prepared and that develoPing
construction cost estimates was not one of the
specific purposes for which it was prepared. ln
other words.. while a contractor may gain important
knowledge from a report prepared for another
oartv, the contractor would be well-advised to
biscir'ss the report with your geotechnical engineer
and to perform the additionalor alternative work
that the contractor believes may be needed to
obtain the data specifically appropriate for
construction cosf estimating purposes.) Some
clients believe that it is unwise or unnecessary to
give contractors access to their geo- technical
engineering reports because they hold the
miitaken impression that simply disclaiming
responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface
infdrmation ilways insulates ihem from attendant
liability. Providing the best available information to
contrdctors helpi prevent costly conslructio n
problems. lt alio helps reduce the adversarial
bttitudes that can aggravate problems to
disproportionate scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY
Because geotechnical engineering is based
extensively on judgment and opinion it is far less
exact than othdr design disciplines. This situation
has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being
lodged against geotechnical engineers. To help
prevent this problem, geotechnical engineers have
ileveloped a'number of clauses for use in their
contracts, reports, and other documents.
Responsibilify clauses are not exculpatory clauses
designed to tiansfer geotechnical engineers'
liabilities to other parties. lnstead, they are
defi nitive clauses ihat identify where geotechnical
engineers' responsibilities begin and end. Their
use helps all parties involved recognize their
individdal resbonsibilities and take appropriate
action. Some'of these definitive clauses are likely
to appear in your geotechnical engineering.report.
Read' them closely. Your geotechnical engineer
will be pleased to give full and frank answers to
any questions.
RELY ON THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
FOR ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE
Most ASFE-member consulting geotechnical
enqineering firms are familiar with a variety of
teihniqueiand approaches that can be uied to
help re'duce risks f6r all parties to a construction
projecl, from design thrciugh construction. Speak
irvith your geotechhical engineer not only about
qeotalchnical issues, but others as well, to learn
SUout approaches that may be of genuine benefit.
You may'also wish to obtain certain ASFE
oublications. Contact a member of ASFE of ASFE
ior a complimentary directory of ASFE
publications.
ASFE
8811 Colesville Road/Suite Gl06lSilver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: 301 I 565-2733 Facsimile: 30 1 /589 -2017
Subsurfoce Ixplorolions
Soil Tesling
Eorlhwork
Gootech
Foundotion
Rork
lorthquoke t
Geoph
Retoining
Geoslrructu tgn
Povemenl Design
Droinoge Ivoluotions
Groundwoter Sludies
Environmenlol Assets
Building Assessments
I
I
I
I
l
AMERI CAN GEOSERVICES.COM