geotechnical and geologic hazards investigation 22 road …

GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS INVESTIGATION

22 ROAD IMPROVEMENTSI ROAD TO J ROAD

GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADOPROJECT#01042-0012

ROLLAND ENGINEERING405 RIDGES BOULEVARD

GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81507

MARCH 5, 2019

Huddleston-Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC640 White Avenue

Grand Junction, Colorado 81501

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A geologic hazards and geotechnical investigation was conducted for the 22 Road, I Road to J Road improvements project in Grand Junction, 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, pavements, 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 twelve borings, drilled in January and February 2019. The borings in the southern portion of the site generally encountered native clay soils. Dense gravel and cobble soils were encountered below the clays at the Grand Valley Mainline Canal. The borings at the northern end of the site generally encountered native clay soils above weathered shale bedrock. Groundwater was encountered at depths of between 7.0 and 19.0 feet in the southern portion of the site. The native soils are slightly to moderately plastic and range from tending to consolidate at their existing density to being slightly expansive when compacted and introduced to excess moisture. The shale bedrock is moderately plastic and is anticipated to be slightly to moderately expansive.

Geologic Hazards and Constraints (p. 4)

No geologic hazards were identified which would preclude construction. However, construction should consider the risks of flooding of the Grand Valley Mainline Canal, Copeco Drain, and Stockert Drain. In addition, the presence of moisture sensitive soils and bedrock may impact the construction.

Summary of Foundation Recommendations

Recommended Foundation Alternative – Spread Footings. (p. 5) Nominal Bearing Resistance at Strength Limit State – qult = 450*Effective

footing width + 1,750 psf. (p. 6) Reduction Factor – 0.45. (p. 6) Nominal Bearing Resistance at Service Limit State – See Appendix D.

Other Foundation Criteria Seismic Site Class – Site Class E (p. 7)

Summary of Pavement Recommendations (p. 7)

New pavements should match existing pavement section of 7-inches of asphalt above 11-inches of CDOT Class 6 base course.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................11.1 Scope ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site Location and Description .......................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Construction ..................................................................................... 2

2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING ....................................................................22.1 Soils ................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Geology ........................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Groundwater .................................................................................................... 2

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ...............................................................23.1 Subsurface Investigation .................................................................................. 2 3.2 Field Reconnaissance ....................................................................................... 3

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING .............................................................35.0 GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION .................................................4

5.1 Geologic Hazards ............................................................................................. 4 5.2 Geologic Constraints ........................................................................................ 4 5.3 Water Resources .............................................................................................. 4 5.4 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................... 4

6.0 CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................47.0 CONSIDERATION OF FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVES .........5

7.1 Drilled Piers ..................................................................................................... 5 7.2 Driven Piles ..................................................................................................... 5 7.3 Shallow Foundations ........................................................................................ 5

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................58.1 Shallow Foundations ........................................................................................ 5 8.2 Corrosion of Steel and Concrete ....................................................................... 6 8.3 Lateral Earth Pressures ..................................................................................... 7 8.4 Seismic Site Classification ............................................................................... 7 8.5 Earthwork ........................................................................................................ 7 8.6 Pavements ........................................................................................................ 8

9.0 GENERAL ........................................................................................9

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Site Plan

APPENDICES

Appendix A – UDSA NRCS Soil Survey Data Appendix B – Typed Boring Logs Appendix C – Laboratory Testing Results Appendix D – Nominal Bearing Resistance for Service Limit State Appendix E – ESAL Calculations

X:\2008 ALL PROJECTS\01042 - Rolland Engineering\01042-0012 22 Road\200 - Geo\01042-0012 R030519.doc 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

As part of continued infrastructure improvements in Western Colorado, Mesa County proposes to improve 22 Road between I Road and J Road. As part of the design process, Huddleston-Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC (HBET) was retained by Rolland Engineering 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 22 Road, I to J improvements project. The scope of the investigation included the following components:

Conducting a subsurface investigation to evaluate the subsurface conditions atthe site.

Collecting soil and bedrock samples and conducting laboratory testing todetermine the engineering properties of the soils and bedrock at the site.

Providing recommendations for foundation type. Providing recommendations for bearing capacity. Providing recommendations for lateral earth pressure. Providing recommendations for drainage, grading, and general earthwork. Providing recommendations for roadway pavements. Evaluating potential geologic hazards at the site.

The investigation and report were completed by a Colorado registered professional engineer in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical and geological engineering practices. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Rolland Engineering and Mesa County.

1.2 Site Location and Description

The project area includes 22 Road between I Road and J Road in Grand Junction, Colorado. The project location is shown on Figure 1 – Site Location Map.

At the time of the investigation, the project area consisted primarily of rural residential properties. 22 Road consisted of one lane in each direction. The Grand Valley Mainline Canal crossed 22 Road in the northern portion of the site. In addition, the Copeco Drain and Stockert Drain crossed 22 Road in the project area. The roadway generally rose gently towards the north; however, the roadway rose moderately to the north for approximately 500 feet beyond the Grand Valley Mainline Canal.


1.3 Proposed Construction

The proposed construction may include reconstruction, rehabilitation, and/or realignment of 22 Road in the project area. In addition, a new structure is proposed at the Grand Valley Mainline Canal. New structures may also be constructed at the Copeco Drain and Stockert Drain.

2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING

2.1 Soils

Soils data was obtained from the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. The data indicates that several soil types are present along 22 Road in the project area. Soil survey data is included in Appendix A.

Road construction in the site soils is described as being very limited due to slope, low strength, frost action, shrink-swell, depth to saturated zone, and/or subsidence risk. Shallow excavation in the site soils is described as being somewhat limited to very limited due to dust, slope, unstable excavation walls, clay content, depth to saturated zone, and/or depth to soft bedrock. The site soils are indicated to have a low to moderate potential for frost action, moderate to high risk of corrosion of steel, and low to high risk of corrosion of concrete.

2.2 Geology

According to the Geologic Map of the Fruita Quadrangle, Mesa County, Colorado (2009), the southern portion of the project area is underlain by alluvial mudflow and fan valley fill deposits. The northern portion of the project area is underlain by the Smokey Hill member of the Mancos shale and tributary alluvium one.

2.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered in in most of the borings conducted in most of the borings at, and south of, the Grand Valley Mainline Canal at depths of between 7.0 and 19.0 feet at the time of the investigation. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the north end of the site.

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION

3.1 Subsurface Investigation

The subsurface investigation was conducted on January 29th and 30th, and February 11th, 2019. The subsurface investigation included twelve borings drilled to depths of between 14.5 and 68.0 feet below the existing ground surface. The locations of the borings are shown on Figures 2 and 3. The borings were located in the field relative to existing site features. Typed boring logs are included in Appendix B. Samples of the native soils were collected during Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) and using bulk sampling methods at the locations shown on the logs.


As shown on the logs, the subsurface conditions were variable. However, Borings B-1 through B-9 generally encountered 7.0-inches of asphalt pavement above granular base course to depths of between 1.5 and 2.5 feet. In B-1, B-2, and B-9, fill materials were encountered to depths of between approximately 3.5 and 7.0 feet. Below the pavement section and/or fill materials, these borings encountered brown, moist to wet, very stiff to very soft lean clay with sand to lean clay soils. The clay extended to the bottoms of borings B-1 through B-7. In Borings B-8 and B-9 at the Grand Valley Mainline Canal, the clays extended to depths of between 62.5 and 66.0 feet and were underlain by brown, wet, dense sandy gravel and cobbles to the bottoms of the borings. As discussed previously, groundwater was encountered in most of these borings at depths of between 7.0 and 19.0 feet at the time of the investigation.

Boring B-10, conducted just up the hill from the Grand Valley Mainline Canal,

encountered 7.0-inches of asphalt pavement above granular base course to a depth of 1.5 feet. The base course was underlain by brown, moist, stiff lean clay with sand to a depth of 6.0 feet. The clay was underlain by brown, moist, medium dense sandy gravel to a depth of 11.0 feet. Below the gravel, brown, moist, medium stiff lean clay with sand extended to the bottom of the boring. Groundwater was not encountered in B-10 at the time of the investigation.

Borings B-11 and B-2, conducted in the northern portion of the project area,

encountered 7.0-inches of asphalt pavement above granular base course to a depth of 1.5 feet. Below the base course, brown, moist, medium stiff lean clay with sand extended to depths of between 6.0 and 7.0 feet. The clay was underlain by tan to gray, soft to medium hard, completely to highly weathered shale bedrock to the bottoms of the borings. Groundwater was not encountered in B-11 or B-12 at the time of the investigation.

3.2 Field Reconnaissance

The field reconnaissance included walking the site during the subsurface investigation. As discussed previously, the existing bridge crosses the Grand Valley Mainline Canal, Copeco Drain, and Stockert Drain. Therefore, flooding of these facilities could impact the project area.

Also as discussed previously, the roadway grade rose to the north. However, no

evidence of mass earth movements were observed.

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Selected native soil and bedrock samples collected from the borings were tested in the Huddleston-Berry Engineering and Testing LLC geotechnical laboratory for natural moisture content, grain size analysis, Atterberg limits, maximum dry density and optimum moisture (Proctor), water soluble sulfates content, and California Bearing Ratio (CBR). The laboratory testing results are included in Appendix C.


The laboratory testing results indicate that the native clay soils are slightly to moderately plastic. In general, the native clay soils are anticipated to tend to consolidate under loading at their existing density. However, the CBR results indicate that the native clay have a slight potential for expansion when compacted and introduced to excess moisture with up to approximately 1.6% expansion measured in the laboratory. Water soluble sulfates were detected in the site soils in a concentration of 0.38%.

The shale bedrock was indicated to be moderately plastic. Based upon our

experience with the Mancos shale in the vicinity of the subject site, the shale bedrock at this site is anticipated to be slightly to moderately expansive.

5.0 GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION

5.1 Geologic Hazards

The most critical geologic hazard identified on the site is the risk of flooding of the canal and/or drains. However, moisture sensitive soils and bedrock are also present at the site.

5.2 Geologic Constraints

In general, the primary geologic constraint to construction at the site is the surface water of the Grand Valley Mainline Canal. However, HBET anticipates that construction will be completed outside of the irrigation season. Moisture sensitive soils and bedrock are also present at the site.

5.3 Water Resources

No water supply wells were observed in the project area. As discussed previously, the Grand Valley Mainline Canal, Copeco Drain, and Stockert Drain run through the project area and these are the primary water features in the project area.

5.4 Mineral Resources

Potential mineral resources in western Colorado generally include gravel, uranium ore, and commercial rock products such as flagstone. No significant gravel, uranium bearing bedrock, or other mineable bedrock units were encountered on the subject site at the time of the investigation, nor was any literary or cartographic information discovered that indicate the existence or potential existence of commercial quality mineral deposits.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the available data sources, field investigation, and nature of the proposed construction, HBET does not believe that there are any geologic conditions which should preclude reconstruction, realignment, or rehabilitation of 22 Road between I Road and J Road. However, the design and construction will have to consider the impacts of potential flooding of the canal/drains and presence of moisture sensitive soils and bedrock.


7.0 CONSIDERATION OF FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVES

As discussed previously, the construction is anticipated to include a new crossing at the Grand Valley Mainline Canal. New infrastructure may also be constructed at the Copeco Drain and/or Stockert Drain. Foundation alternatives evaluated include drilled piers, driven piles, and shallow foundations. The following factors were considered in the foundation alternative analysis:

• Depth to suitable bearing stratum • Condition of bearing stratum • Constructability • Cost effectiveness

7.1 Drilled Piers

Drilled piers would provide adequate structural support. However, the presence of groundwater could make drilled pier construction difficult, time consuming, and costly. In addition, the bearing stratum is deep. For these reasons, drilled piers are not considered to be the preferred foundation alternative at this site.

7.2 Driven Piles

As for drilled piers, driven steel piles will provide adequate structural support. In addition, the groundwater will not impact driven pile installation. However, the bearing stratum was deep. Therefore, driven piles would likely be costly. As a result, driven piles are not considered to be the preferred foundation alternative at this site.

7.3 Shallow Foundations

As discussed above the gravel bearing stratum was deep. Although soft soil conditions may exist, HBET believes that shallow founded structures, such as box culverts, will be the most cost effective. As a result, shallow foundations are recommended for proposed structures within the project area.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Shallow Foundations

As discussed previously, HBET believes that shallow foundations are appropriate for new structures in the project area. Specifically, box culverts are the recommended shallow foundation alternatives. However, to provide a uniform bearing stratum, it is recommended that the foundations be constructed above a minimum of 24-inches of structural fill.


As discussed previously, the native clay soils have a slight potential for expansion when compacted and introduced to excess moisture. Therefore, the native clay 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 crusher fines or CDOT Class 6 base course. Pit-run materials can also be used as structural fill, provided they contain an appreciable quantity of fines such that they are not free-draining.

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 ± 2% of the optimum moisture content as determined in accordance with ASTM D698. However, soft soil conditions may exist in the subgrade and it may be necessary to utilize geotextile and/or geogrid in conjunction with up to 30-inches of additional granular fill to stabilize the subgrade. HBET should be contacted to provide specific recommendations for subgrade stabilization based upon the actual conditions encountered during construction.

Structural fill should extend laterally beyond the edges of the foundation a

distance equal to the thickness of structural fill. Structural fill should be moisture conditioned, placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts, and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density for fine grained soils and modified Proctor maximum dry density for coarse grained soils, within ± 2% of the optimum moisture content as determined in accordance with ASTM D698 and D1557, respectively.

In accordance with LRFD design methodology, for foundation preparation as recommended, a nominal bearing resistance for the strength limit state of qult = 450*Effective footing width + 1,750 psf may be used. A resistance factor of 0.45 is recommended. Nominal bearing resistance for the service limit state should be in accordance with the attached plot of Bearing Stress versus Effective Footing Width for a maximum total settlement of 1.0-inch included in Appendix D. Foundations subject to frost should be at least 24-inches below the finished grade.

8.2 Corrosion of Steel and Concrete

Based upon information provided in the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, the soils at the site have a moderate to high risk of corrosion of uncoated steel. However, the risk of corrosion may be increased where flooding or groundwater fluctuations result in periods of wetting and drying. Therefore, it is recommended that the structural engineer consider corrosion in the design of steel utilities or steel structure elements at the crossings.

With regard to soil corrosivity to concrete, based upon the Soil Survey data, the

native soils have a low to high risk of corrosion of concrete. In addition, water soluble sulfates were detected in the site soils in a concentration of 0.38%. Type V cement is specified by the International Building Code (IBC) for this concentration of sulfates; however, Type V cement can be difficult to obtain in Western Colorado. Where Type V cement is unavailable, Type I-II sulfate resistant cement is recommended.


8.3 Lateral Earth Pressures

Any earth retaining structures should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures. HBET recommends that the structures be designed using the following earth pressure coefficients:

Native Lean Clay Soils • Ka = 0.39 • Kp = 2.56 Class 1 Structural Backfill • Ka = 0.33 • Kp = 3.00

The earth pressure coefficients above assume horizontal backslope and should be

increased where the backslope is not level. Computed lateral earth pressures on the structures should consider surcharge loading from 22 Road.

8.4 Seismic Site Classification

Based upon the results of the subsurface investigation, the project area generally classifies as Seismic Site Class E for a soft soil profile in accordance with the International Building Code (IBC).

8.5 Earthwork

Excavations in the soils at the site may stand for short periods of time but should not be considered to be stable. The native soils generally classify as Type C soil with regard to OSHA’s Construction Standards for Excavations. In general, for Type C soils, the maximum allowable slope in temporary cuts is 1.5H:1V. However, the soil classification is based solely on the boring data. Some of the native clay soils may actually classify as Type B soils. In addition, the shallow shale bedrock may classify as bedrock or Type A soils. Therefore, it is recommended that HBET be contacted during construction to further evaluate the native soils where significant excavations are proposed.

As part of the construction, significant cuts and/or fill are anticipated. In general,

the native clay soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable for use as embankment fill. Embankment fill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations outlined for structural fill in the Shallow Foundations section of this report.


8.6 Pavements

As discussed previously, the proposed construction may include reconstruction, realignment, or rehabilitation of 22 Road in the project area. As discussed previously, the pavement subgrade materials at the site consist primarily of lean clay with sand and lean clay soils. The design California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the native clay soils 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 design.

Based upon data from the Mesa County GIS database, pavement ESAL values

were calculated in accordance with AASHTO methodologies. The ESAL computations are included in Appendix E and indicate a flexible pavement ESAL value of 210,240.

As indicated previously, the minimum existing pavement thickness along 22 Road

is approximately 7-inches of asphalt above 11-inches of granular base course. This pavement section is adequate for an ESAL value of nearly 1.6 million. As a result, the existing pavement section is more than adequate for the design traffic loading. For consistency along the roadway, HBET recommends that any new pavements along 22 Road match the existing pavement section thickness.

Prior to pavement placement, areas to be paved should be stripped of all topsoil,

fill, or other unsuitable materials. It is recommended that the subgrade soils be scarified to a depth of 12-inches; moisture conditioned, and recompacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density, within ±2% of optimum moisture content as determined by AASHTO T-99. However, as discussed previously, soft soils were encountered at the site. As a result, subgrade stabilization may be required where significant cuts are proposed. HBET should be contacted to provide specific recommendations for subgrade stabilization where soft conditions are encountered during construction. However, up to 30-inches of granular fill in conjunction with geotextile and/or geogrid reinforcement may be required.

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.

The long-term performance of the pavements is critically 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 and to prevent excess moisture from infiltrating into the subgrade below the pavements. All pavements should conform to applicable local specifications.


9.0 GENERAL

The recommendations included above are based upon the results of the subsurface investigation and on our local experience. These conclusions and recommendations are valid only for the proposed construction.

As discussed previously, the subsurface conditions at the site were slightly variable. However, the precise nature and extent of subsurface variability may not become evident until construction. The recommendations contained herein are designed to reduce the risk and magnitude of movements and it is extremely critical that ALL of the recommendations herein be applied to the design and construction. However, HBET cannot predict long-term changes in subsurface moisture conditions and/or the precise magnitude or extent of any volume change in the native soils and/or shale bedrock.

In addition, the success of the structure foundations, pavements, etc. is critically dependent upon proper construction. Therefore, HBET should be retained to provide materials testing, special inspections, and engineering oversight during ALL phases of the construction to ensure conformance with the recommendations herein.

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-Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC

Michael A. Berry, P.E. Vice President of Engineering

03/06/19

FIGURES

Cr e dit s :

Mesa County Map Print Date: March 4, 2019

The Geographic Information System (GIS) and its com ponents are des igned as a source of reference for answering inquiries, for planning and for modeli ng. GIS is not intended or does not replace legal description information in the chain of title and other inform ati on contained in offici al government records s uch as the County Clerk and Recorders office or the courts. In addition,the repres entations of locati on in this G IS cannot be substitute for actual legal surveys.The information contained herein is believed accurate and sui table for the li mited uses, and subject to the limitations, set forth above. Mesa County makes no warranty as to the accuracy or suitability of any information contained herein. Users assume al l ri sk and res ponsibil ity for any and al l dam ages , inc luding consequential dam ages, which may flow from the user's use of this information.

0 1 20.5 mi

0 1 20.5 km

I

millerc

Rectangle

millerc

Text Box

Site Location

millerc

Text Box

FIGURE 1 Site Location Map

± 1 inch = 376 feet0 0.20.1

mi

City of Grand Junction

Printed: 3/4/2019

millerc

Text Box

B-1

millerc

Oval

millerc

Oval

millerc

Oval

millerc

Oval

millerc

Oval

millerc

Oval

millerc

Text Box

B-2

millerc

Text Box

B-3

millerc

Text Box

B-4

millerc

Text Box

B-5

millerc

Text Box

B-6

millerc

Text Box

FIGURE 2 Site Plan

± 1 inch = 376 feet0 0.20.1

mi

City of Grand Junction

Printed: 3/4/2019

millerc

Text Box

B-6

millerc

Oval

millerc

Oval

millerc

Oval

millerc

Oval

millerc

Oval

millerc

Oval

millerc

Oval

millerc

Text Box

B-7

millerc

Text Box

B-8

millerc

Text Box

B-9

millerc

Text Box

B-11

millerc

Text Box

B-12

millerc

Text Box

B-10

millerc

Text Box

FIGURE 3 Site Plan

APPENDIX A Soil Survey Data

Soil Map—Mesa County Area, Colorado

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey

3/5/2019Page 1 of 3

4334

300

4334

500

4334

700

4334

900

4335

100

4335

300

4335

500

4335

700

4335

900

4336

100

4334

300

4334

500

4334

700

4334

900

4335

100

4335

300

4335

500

4335

700

4335

900

4336

100

702800 703000 703200 703400 703600 703800 704000 704200

702800 703000 703200 703400 703600 703800 704000 704200

39° 9' 4'' N10

8° 3

9' 1

3'' W

39° 9' 4'' N

108°

38'

12'

' W

39° 8' 1'' N

108°

39'

13'

' W

39° 8' 1'' N

108°

38'

12'

' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS840 450 900 1800 2700

Feet0 100 200 400 600

MetersMap Scale: 1:9,520 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI)Area of Interest (AOI)

SoilsSoil Map Unit Polygons

Soil Map Unit Lines

Soil Map Unit Points

Special Point FeaturesBlowout

Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot

Severely Eroded Spot

Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

Spoil Area

Stony Spot

Very Stony Spot

Wet Spot

Other

Special Line Features

Water FeaturesStreams and Canals

TransportationRails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

BackgroundAerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWeb Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Mesa County Area, ColoradoSurvey Area Data: Version 9, Sep 10, 2018

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 13, 2010—Aug 8, 2017

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.




3/5/2019Page 2 of 3

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

Av Avalon sandy loam, gravelly stubstratum, 2 to 5 percent slopes

1.9 6.6%

AvC Avalon loam, gravelly substratum, 5 to 15 percent slopes

8.3 28.5%

Ba Massadona silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

0.1 0.2%

Bc Sagers silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

7.7 26.6%

BcS Sagers silty clay loam, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes

8.5 29.2%

BcW Cojam loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

0.5 1.6%

Fe Fruita clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

0.4 1.5%

Ff Fruita clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

0.7 2.4%

Hk Killpack silty clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes

1.0 3.5%

Totals for Area of Interest 29.0 100.0%




3/5/2019Page 3 of 3

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, soils that are similar to the named components, and some minor components that differ in use and management from the major soils.

Most of the soils similar to the major components 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. Some minor components, however, have properties and behavior 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.

Map Unit Description---Mesa County Area, Colorado



3/5/2019Page 1 of 12

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

Mesa County Area, Colorado

Av—Avalon sandy loam, gravelly stubstratum, 2 to 5 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: k0bn




3/5/2019Page 2 of 12

Elevation: 4,600 to 4,800 feetMean annual precipitation: 7 to 10 inchesMean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees FFrost-free period: 150 to 190 daysFarmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated

Map Unit CompositionAvalon, gravelly substratum, and similar soils: 90 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of

the mapunit.

Description of Avalon, Gravelly Substratum

SettingLandform: TerracesLandform position (three-dimensional): TreadDown-slope shape: LinearAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Cretaceous source alluvium derived from

sandstone and shale

Typical profileA - 0 to 3 inches: sandy loamBk1 - 3 to 17 inches: loamBk2 - 17 to 42 inches: clay loamBk3 - 42 to 60 inches: gravelly loam

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 2 to 5 percentDepth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inchesNatural drainage class: Well drainedRunoff class: MediumCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):

Moderately high (0.21 to 0.71 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneCalcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 40 percentSalinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0

to 2.0 mmhos/cm)Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 10.0Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.8 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): 3eLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 7cHydrologic Soil Group: CEcological site: Desert Loam (Shadscale) (R034BY106UT)Hydric soil rating: No




3/5/2019Page 3 of 12

AvC—Avalon loam, gravelly substratum, 5 to 15 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: k0bpElevation: 4,500 to 4,900 feetMean annual precipitation: 7 to 10 inchesMean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees FFrost-free period: 150 to 190 daysFarmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit CompositionAvalon, gravelly substratum, and similar soils: 90 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of

the mapunit.

Description of Avalon, Gravelly Substratum

SettingLandform: TerracesLandform position (three-dimensional): RiserDown-slope shape: ConcaveAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Cretaceous source alluvium derived from

sandstone and shale

Typical profileA - 0 to 3 inches: loamBk1 - 3 to 17 inches: loamBk2 - 17 to 42 inches: clay loamBk3 - 42 to 60 inches: gravelly loam

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 5 to 15 percentDepth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inchesNatural drainage class: Well drainedRunoff class: HighCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):

Moderately high (0.21 to 0.71 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneCalcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 40 percentSalinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0

to 2.0 mmhos/cm)Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 10.0Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.9 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): 6eLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 7cHydrologic Soil Group: C




3/5/2019Page 4 of 12

Ecological site: Desert Loam (Shadscale) (R034BY106UT)Hydric soil rating: No

Ba—Massadona silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: k06nElevation: 4,490 to 4,920 feetMean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inchesMean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees FFrost-free period: 140 to 180 daysFarmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit CompositionMassadona and similar soils: 70 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of

the mapunit.

Description of Massadona

SettingLandform: Fan remnantsDown-slope shape: ConcaveAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Cretaceous source alluvium derived from clayey

shale

Typical profileA - 0 to 2 inches: silty clay loamBw - 2 to 12 inches: silty clayBkyz - 12 to 24 inches: silty clayBCkyz1 - 24 to 48 inches: fine sandy loamBCkyz2 - 48 to 60 inches: silty clay loam

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 0 to 2 percentDepth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inchesNatural drainage class: Well drainedRunoff class: LowCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):

Moderately low to moderately high (0.07 to 0.21 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneCalcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percentGypsum, maximum in profile: 2 percentSalinity, maximum in profile: Moderately saline to strongly saline

(10.0 to 30.0 mmhos/cm)Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.3 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): 7sLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c




3/5/2019Page 5 of 12

Hydrologic Soil Group: CEcological site: Desert Clay (Castlevalley saltbush)

(R034BY103UT)Hydric soil rating: No

Bc—Sagers silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: k0bqElevation: 4,490 to 5,900 feetMean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inchesMean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees FFrost-free period: 140 to 180 daysFarmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated

Map Unit CompositionSagers and similar soils: 90 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of

the mapunit.

Description of Sagers

SettingLandform: TerracesLandform position (three-dimensional): TreadDown-slope shape: Linear, concaveAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Cretaceous source alluvium derived from

sandstone and shale

Typical profileAp - 0 to 12 inches: silty clay loamC - 12 to 25 inches: silty clay loamCy - 25 to 60 inches: silty clay loam


Moderately high (0.21 to 0.71 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneCalcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percentGypsum, maximum in profile: 5 percentSalinity, maximum in profile: Very slightly saline to moderately

saline (2.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm)Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.7 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): 4e




3/5/2019Page 6 of 12

Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7cHydrologic Soil Group: CEcological site: Desert Loam (Shadscale) (R034BY106UT)Hydric soil rating: No

BcS—Sagers silty clay loam, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: k0bsElevation: 4,490 to 4,920 feetMean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inchesMean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees FFrost-free period: 140 to 180 daysFarmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit CompositionSagers, saline, and similar soils: 90 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of

the mapunit.

Description of Sagers, Saline

SettingLandform: TerracesLandform position (three-dimensional): TreadDown-slope shape: Linear, concaveAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Cretaceous source alluvium derived from

sandstone and shale

Typical profileAp - 0 to 12 inches: silty clay loamC - 12 to 25 inches: silty clay loamCy - 25 to 60 inches: silty clay loam


Moderately high (0.21 to 0.71 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneCalcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percentGypsum, maximum in profile: 5 percentSalinity, maximum in profile: Strongly saline (16.0 to 32.0

mmhos/cm)Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.9 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): 7s




3/5/2019Page 7 of 12

Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7cHydrologic Soil Group: CEcological site: Desert Loam (Shadscale) (R034BY106UT)Hydric soil rating: No

BcW—Cojam loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: k06kElevation: 4,460 to 4,890 feetMean annual precipitation: 7 to 10 inchesMean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees FFrost-free period: 150 to 190 daysFarmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit CompositionCojam and similar soils: 90 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of

the mapunit.

Description of Cojam

SettingLandform: TerracesLandform position (three-dimensional): TreadDown-slope shape: Linear, concaveAcross-slope shape: Concave, linearParent material: Cretaceous alluvium derived from sandstone and

shale

Typical profileA - 0 to 4 inches: loamC1 - 4 to 12 inches: silt loamC2 - 12 to 24 inches: silty clay loamC3 - 24 to 35 inches: silty clay loamC4 - 35 to 60 inches: silty clay loam

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 0 to 2 percentDepth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inchesNatural drainage class: Poorly drainedRunoff class: MediumCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):

Moderately high (0.21 to 0.71 in/hr)Depth to water table: About 6 to 17 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneCalcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percentGypsum, maximum in profile: 5 percentSalinity, maximum in profile: Very slightly saline to moderately

saline (2.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm)Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 5.0




3/5/2019Page 8 of 12

Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.9 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): 6wLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 6wHydrologic Soil Group: C/DEcological site: Wet Saline Meadow (Inland saltgrass)

(R034BY024UT)Hydric soil rating: No

Fe—Fruita clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: k0c3Elevation: 4,490 to 4,890 feetMean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inchesMean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees FFrost-free period: 140 to 180 daysFarmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated

Map Unit CompositionFruita and similar soils: 90 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of

the mapunit.

Description of Fruita

SettingLandform: Stream terracesLandform position (three-dimensional): TreadDown-slope shape: LinearAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Cretaceous source alluvium derived from

sandstone and shale

Typical profileAp1 - 0 to 2 inches: clay loamAp2 - 2 to 6 inches: clay loamBtk1 - 6 to 16 inches: clay loamBtk2 - 16 to 22 inches: clay loamBtk3 - 22 to 32 inches: loamBky - 32 to 60 inches: gypsiferous sandy loam

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 0 to 2 percentDepth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inchesNatural drainage class: Well drainedCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):

Moderately high (0.21 to 0.71 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneCalcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent




3/5/2019Page 9 of 12

Gypsum, maximum in profile: 50 percentSalinity, maximum in profile: Slightly saline to strongly saline (4.0 to

16.0 mmhos/cm)Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 10.0Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.1 inches)


Ff—Fruita clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: k0c4Elevation: 4,490 to 4,890 feetMean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inchesMean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees FFrost-free period: 140 to 180 daysFarmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated

Map Unit CompositionFruita and similar soils: 90 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of

the mapunit.

Description of Fruita

SettingLandform: Stream terracesLandform position (three-dimensional): TreadDown-slope shape: LinearAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Cretaceous source alluvium derived from

sandstone and shale

Typical profileAp1 - 0 to 2 inches: clay loamAp2 - 2 to 6 inches: clay loamBtk1 - 6 to 16 inches: clay loamBtk2 - 16 to 22 inches: clay loamBtk3 - 22 to 32 inches: loamBky - 32 to 60 inches: gypsiferous sandy loam

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 2 to 5 percentDepth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inchesNatural drainage class: Well drainedCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):

Moderately high (0.21 to 0.71 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inches




3/5/2019Page 10 of 12

Frequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneCalcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percentGypsum, maximum in profile: 50 percentSalinity, maximum in profile: Slightly saline to strongly saline (4.0 to

16.0 mmhos/cm)Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 10.0Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.1 inches)


Hk—Killpack silty clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: k0cpElevation: 4,490 to 4,890 feetMean annual precipitation: 6 to 9 inchesMean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees FFrost-free period: 140 to 180 daysFarmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit CompositionKillpack and similar soils: 85 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of

the mapunit.

Description of Killpack

SettingLandform: HillsLandform position (two-dimensional): ToeslopeDown-slope shape: LinearAcross-slope shape: ConvexParent material: Cretaceous source residuum weathered from

calcareous shale

Typical profileAp - 0 to 6 inches: silty clayBw - 6 to 17 inches: silty clayBCy - 17 to 21 inches: silty clayC1 - 21 to 24 inches: silty clayC2 - 24 to 38 inches: silty clay loamCr - 38 to 60 inches: bedrock

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 0 to 2 percentDepth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrockNatural drainage class: Well drained




3/5/2019Page 11 of 12

Runoff class: MediumCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very

low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.07 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneCalcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 35 percentGypsum, maximum in profile: 15 percentSalinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (1.0 to 7.0

mmhos/cm)Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 2.0Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.8 inches)

Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): 4sLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 7cHydrologic Soil Group: DEcological site: Desert Loam (Shadscale) (R034BY106UT)Hydric soil rating: No

Data Source Information





3/5/2019Page 12 of 12

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 large 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.

Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping---Mesa County Area, Colorado



3/5/2019Page 1 of 4

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–Mesa County Area, Colorado

Map symbol and soil name

Pct. of map unit

Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations

Rating class and limiting features

Value Rating class and limiting features


Value


Avalon, gravelly substratum

90 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited

Dusty 0.29 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.29

Frost action 0.50 Unstable excavation walls

0.01




3/5/2019Page 2 of 4



Pct. of map unit





Value



90 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited


Slope 0.16 Frost action 0.50 Slope 0.16

Slope 0.16 Unstable excavation walls

0.01


Massadona 70 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited


Shrink-swell 0.17 Too clayey 0.02

Unstable excavation walls

0.01


Sagers 90 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited



0.01

Shrink-swell 0.03


Sagers, saline 90 Very limited Very limited Somewhat limited

Salinity 1.00 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.50

Dusty 0.50 Frost action 0.50 Unstable excavation walls

0.01

Droughty 0.13 Shrink-swell 0.03




3/5/2019Page 3 of 4



Pct. of map unit





Value


Cojam 90 Somewhat limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated zone

0.98 Low strength 1.00 Depth to saturated zone

1.00

Dusty 0.50 Depth to saturated zone

0.98 Dusty 0.50

Salinity 0.13 Frost action 0.50 Unstable excavation walls

0.01

Shrink-swell 0.18


Fruita 90 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited



0.01

Subsidence risk 0.15


Fruita 90 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited



0.01

Subsidence risk 0.15


Killpack 85 Very limited Very limited Somewhat limited

Too clayey 1.00 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.50

Dusty 0.50 Frost action 0.50 Too clayey 0.02

Depth to bedrock 0.01 Shrink-swell 0.02 Unstable excavation walls

0.01

Depth to soft bedrock 0.01






3/5/2019Page 4 of 4

Soil Features

This table gives estimates of various soil features. The estimates are used in land use planning that involves engineering considerations.

A restrictive layer is a nearly continuous layer that has one or more physical, chemical, or thermal properties that significantly impede the movement of water and air through the soil or that restrict roots or otherwise provide an unfavorable root environment. Examples are bedrock, cemented layers, dense layers, and frozen layers. The table indicates the hardness and thickness of the restrictive layer, both of which significantly affect the ease of excavation. Depth to top is the vertical distance from the soil surface to the upper boundary of the restrictive layer.

Subsidence is the settlement of organic soils or of saturated mineral soils of very low density. Subsidence generally results from either desiccation and shrinkage, or oxidation of organic material, or both, following drainage. Subsidence takes place gradually, usually over a period of several years. The table shows the expected initial subsidence, which usually is a result of drainage, and total subsidence, which results from a combination of factors.

Potential for frost action is the likelihood of upward or lateral expansion of the soil caused by the formation of segregated ice lenses (frost heave) and the subsequent collapse of the soil and loss of strength on thawing. Frost action occurs when moisture moves into the freezing zone of the soil. Temperature, texture, density, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), content of organic matter, and depth to the water table are the most important factors considered in evaluating the potential for frost action. It is assumed that the soil is not insulated by vegetation or snow and is not artificially drained. Silty and highly structured, clayey soils that have a high water table in winter are the most susceptible to frost action. Well drained, very gravelly, or very sandy soils are the least susceptible. Frost heave and low soil strength during thawing cause damage to pavements and other rigid structures.

Risk of corrosion pertains to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens uncoated steel or concrete. The rate of corrosion of uncoated steel is related to such factors as soil moisture, particle-size distribution, acidity, and electrical conductivity of the soil. The rate of corrosion of concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium content, texture, moisture content, and acidity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The steel or concrete in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the steel or concrete in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer.

For uncoated steel, the risk of corrosion, expressed as low, moderate, or high, is based on soil drainage class, total acidity, electrical resistivity near field capacity, and electrical conductivity of the saturation extract.

For concrete, the risk of corrosion also is expressed as low, moderate, or high. It is based on soil texture, acidity, and amount of sulfates in the saturation extract.

Soil Features---Mesa County Area, Colorado



3/5/2019Page 1 of 3

Report—Soil Features

Soil Features–Mesa County Area, Colorado


Restrictive Layer Subsidence Potential for frost action

Risk of corrosion

Kind Depth to top

Thickness Hardness Initial Total Uncoated steel Concrete

Low-RV-High

Range Low-High

Low-High

In In In In



— — 0 0 Moderate Moderate Low



— — 0 0 Moderate Moderate Low


Massadona — — 0 0 Low High High


Sagers — — 0 0 Moderate Moderate Moderate




3/5/2019Page 2 of 3

Soil Features–Mesa County Area, Colorado


Restrictive Layer Subsidence Potential for frost action

Risk of corrosion

Kind Depth to top

Thickness Hardness Initial Total Uncoated steel Concrete

Low-RV-High

Range Low-High

Low-High


Sagers, saline — — 0 0 Moderate High High


Cojam — — 0 0 Moderate High Moderate


Fruita — — 0 0 Moderate High High


Fruita — — 0 0 Moderate High High


Killpack Paralithic bedrock 20- 38-40

— Weakly cemented 0 0 Moderate High High






3/5/2019Page 3 of 3

APPENDIX B Typed Boring Logs

ASPAHALT

Granular Base Course

Silty Sand with Gravel (FILL), brown, moist, medium dense

Lean CLAY with Sand (cl) to Lean CLAY (CL), brown, moist to wet,soft to medium stiff

*** Lab Classified SS1

Bottom of hole at 15.5 feet.

SS1

SS2

SS3

93

78

50

67

4-9-15(24)

1-1-1(2)

1-3-5(8)

24 29 17 1212

NOTES NB Lane

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY CM

DRILLING METHOD Simco 2000 Truck Rig AT TIME OF DRILLING 12.5 ft

AT END OF DRILLING 12.5 ft

AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 4-inches

DRILLING CONTRACTOR S. McKracken GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY MAB

DATE STARTED 1/29/19 COMPLETED 1/30/19

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

ATTERBERGLIMITS

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

XP

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NUMBER B-1

CLIENT Rolland Engineering

PROJECT NUMBER 01042-0012

PROJECT NAME 22 Road

PROJECT LOCATION Grand Junction, CO

GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

0104

2-01

2 22

RO

AD

.GP

J G

INT

US

LA

B.G

DT

3/5

/19

Huddleston-Berry Engineering & Testing, LLC640 White Avenue, Unit BGrand Junction, CO 81501970-255-8005970-255-6818

ASPHALT


Sandy lean CLAY with Gravel (FILL), brown, moist, very stiff

Lean CLAY with Sand (cl) to Lean CLAY (cl), brown, moist to wet,medium stiff


SS1

SS2

SS3

50

67

61

8-9-19(28)

2-2-2(4)

1-2-2(4)

NOTES SB Lane

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY CM



AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 4-inches


CHECKED BY MAB


DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

ATTERBERGLIMITS


SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

XP

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX






GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

0104

2-01

2 22

RO

AD

.GP

J G

INT

US

LA

B.G

DT

3/5

/19


ASPHALT


Lean CLAY with Sand (CL) to Lean CLAY (cl), brown, moist, stiff tosoft*** Lab Classified SS1


SS1

SS2

SS3

84

89

50

50

5-6-6(12)

1-1-2(3)

1-2-2(4)

16 26 17 99

NOTES NB Lane

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY CM

DRILLING METHOD Simco 2000 Truck Rig AT TIME OF DRILLING dry

AT END OF DRILLING dry

AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 4-inches


CHECKED BY MAB


DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

ATTERBERGLIMITS


SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

XP

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX






GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

0104

2-01

2 22

RO

AD

.GP

J G

INT

US

LA

B.G

DT

3/5

/19


ASPHALT


Lean CLAY with Sand (cl) to Lean CLAY (CL), brown, moist to wet,medium stiff to very soft

*** Lab Classified SS3


SS1

SS2

SS3 96

33

67

50

3-3-4(7)

1-0-0(0)

2-1-1(2) 27 32 19 1313

NOTES SB Lane

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY CM



AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 4-inches


CHECKED BY MAB


DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

ATTERBERGLIMITS


SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

XP

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX






GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

0104

2-01

2 22

RO

AD

.GP

J G

INT

US

LA

B.G

DT

3/5

/19


ASPHALT


Lean CLAY with Sand (cl) to Lean CLAY (cl), brown, moist to wet,medium stiff to soft


SS1

SS2

SS3

61

39

50

3-3-3(6)

1-0-0(0)

2-3-4(7)

NOTES NB Lane

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY CM



AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 4-inches


CHECKED BY MAB


DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

ATTERBERGLIMITS


SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

XP

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX






GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

0104

2-01

2 22

RO

AD

.GP

J G

INT

US

LA

B.G

DT

3/5

/19


ASPHALT


Lean CLAY with Sand (CL) to Lean CLAY (cl), brown, moist to wet,medium stiff to soft*** Lab Classified SS1


SS1

SS2

SS3

8178

78

44

4-4-4(8)

0-0-2(2)

2-2-2(4)

15 25 15 1010

NOTES SB Lane

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY CM



AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 4-inches


CHECKED BY MAB


DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

ATTERBERGLIMITS


SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

XP

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX






GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

0104

2-01

2 22

RO

AD

.GP

J G

INT

US

LA

B.G

DT

3/5

/19


ASPHALT


Lean CLAY with Sand (cl) to Lean CLAY (cl), brown, moist, mediumstiff to very stiff

**Gravel and Cobbles present ~7 to 14 ft**


SS1

SS2

SS3

56

61

78

3-2-3(5)

3-7-22(29)

7-2-3(5)

NOTES NB Lane

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY CM



AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 4-inches


CHECKED BY MAB


DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

ATTERBERGLIMITS


SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

XP

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX






GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

0104

2-01

2 22

RO

AD

.GP

J G

INT

US

LA

B.G

DT

3/5

/19


ASPHALTGranular Base CourseLean CLAY with Sand (cl) to Lean CLAY (cl), brown, moist to wet,medium stiff

Sandy GRAVEL and COBBLES (gw), brown, wet, dense


SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

89

100

100

100

3-3-2(5)

2-1-2(3)

4-3-3(6)

2-2-2(4)

NOTES SB Lane

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY CM



AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 4-inches


CHECKED BY MAB


DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

ATTERBERGLIMITS


SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

XP

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX






GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

0104

2-01

2 22

RO

AD

.GP

J G

INT

US

LA

B.G

DT

3/5

/19


ASPHALTGranular Base CourseSilty CLAY with Gravel and Cobbles (FILL), brown, moist, medium stiffto very stiff

Lean CLAY with Sand (cl) to Lean CLAY (cl), brown, moist to wet,medium stiff to soft

Sandy GRAVEL and COBBLES (gw), brown, wet, dense


SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

50

89

61

67

94

5-2-2(4)

4-5-4(9)

2-3-2(5)

6-4-2(6)

2-2-2(4)

NOTES SB Lane

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY CM



AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 4-inches


CHECKED BY MAB


DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

ATTERBERGLIMITS


SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

XP

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX






GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

0104

2-01

2 22

RO

AD

.GP

J G

INT

US

LA

B.G

DT

3/5

/19


ASPHALT


Lean CLAY with Sand (cl), brown, moist, stiff

Sandy GRAVEL (gw), brown, moist, medium dense

Lean CLAY with Sand (cl), brown, moist, medium stiff


SS1

SS2

SS3

78

78

89

4-7-9(16)

6-9-17(26)

3-3-3(6)

NOTES NB Lane

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY CM



AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 4-inches


CHECKED BY MAB


DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

ATTERBERGLIMITS


SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

XP

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX






GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

0104

2-01

2 22

RO

AD

.GP

J G

INT

US

LA

B.G

DT

3/5

/19


ASPHALT



SHALE, tan to grey, soft to medium hard, completely weatherd tohighly weathered


SS1

SS2

SS3

94

94

67

4-3-4(7)

7-13-31(44)

50

36 20 1616

NOTES SB Lane

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY CM



AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 4-inches


CHECKED BY MAB


DE

PT

H(f

t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

ATTERBERGLIMITS


SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

XP

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX






GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

0104

2-01

2 22

RO

AD

.GP

J G

INT

US

LA

B.G

DT

3/5

/19


ASPHALT



SHALE, tan to grey, soft to medium hard, completely weatherd tohighly weathered


SS1

SS2

SS3

100

100

83

7-7-8(15)

21-26

50

NOTES NB Lane

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY CM



AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 4-inches


CHECKED BY MAB


DE

PT

H(f

t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

ATTERBERGLIMITS


SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

ICLI

MIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

YIN

DE

XP

LAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX






GE

OT

EC

H B

H C

OLU

MN

S

0104

2-01

2 22

RO

AD

.GP

J G

INT

US

LA

B.G

DT

3/5

/19


APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Results

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

PI Cc

17

17

19

15

18

29

26

32

25

24

CuLL PL

12

9

13

10

6

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

COBBLESGRAVEL

93.4

84.5

95.6

81.1

75.5

2.36

2

1.18

12.5

12.5

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

3 10024 16 301 2006 10 501/2HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

1403 4 20 406 601.5 8 143/4 3/8

SAND

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

coarse fine

LEAN CLAY(CL)

LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)

LEAN CLAY(CL)


SILTY CLAY with SAND(CL-ML)

ClassificationSpecimen Identification

Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel

coarseSILT OR CLAY

finemedium

%Sand %Silt %Clay

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

2.1

6.6

15.5

4.4

17.8

22.4

B-1, SS2B-3, SS1B-4, SS3B-6, SS1Composite

B-1, SS2B-3, SS1B-4, SS3B-6, SS1Composite

1/19

1/19

1/19

1/19

1/19

1/19

1/19

1/19

1/19

1/19





GR

AIN

SIZ

E 0

1042

-012

22

RO

AD

.GP

J G

INT

US

LA

B.G

DT

3/5

/19


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

ML

CL

MH

CH

93

84

96

81

76

Specimen Identification

CL-ML

PLASTICITY

INDEX

LIQUID LIMIT

Classification

29

36

26

32

25

24

17

20

17

19

15

18

LEAN CLAY(CL)


LEAN CLAY(CL)



LL PL PI

12

16

9

13

10

6

ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS

1/29/2019

1/29/2019

1/29/2019

1/29/2019

1/29/2019

1/29/2019

#200

B-1, SS2B-11, SS2

B-3, SS1

B-4, SS3

B-6, SS1

Composite





AT

TE

RB

ER

G L

IMIT

S 0

104

2-01

2 22

RO

AD

.GP

J G

INT

US

LA

B.G

DT

3/5

/19


90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

0 5 10 15 20 25 30


CompositeSample No.:

ASTM D698A

PL PI6D

RY

DE

NS

ITY

, pc

f

3/4"

WATER CONTENT, %

18

Test Method:

MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP

LL

GRADATION RESULTS (% PASSING)

ATTERBERG LIMITS

Curves of 100% Saturationfor Specific Gravity Equal to:

2.80

2.70

2.60

118.5

13.0

Sample Date: 1/29/2019

19-0052Source of Material:

Description of Material:

24

TEST RESULTS

Optimum Water Content %

#200

Maximum Dry Density PCF

#4

76 98 100





CO

MP

AC

TIO

N 0

1042

-012

22

RO

AD

.GP

J G

INT

US

LA

B.G

DT

3/4

/19


CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIOASTM D1883

Project No.: Authorized By: Date:Project Name: Sampled By: Date:Client Name: Submitted By: Date:Sample Number: Location: Reviewed By: Date:

Compaction Method

Maximum Dry Density (pcf):

Opt. Moisture Content (%):

Sample Condition:

Remarks:

Figure:

Corrected CBR @ 0.2"0.2 0.7 2.6

205

0.000

118.5

13.0

2.2Corrected CBR @ 0.1"

0.1 0.6

Point 1 Point 2 Point 3

Soaked

18

0.000 0.000

25157

Penetration Distance Correction (in)

5252

2022

163171184197

217229

47

425566

116105

148

128137

0.2000.225

1112

3335

49

38414244

1617

79

1010

6

26

1219

47

19

12141415

212531

17

6

6769737785

0124

18

434650555862

19

714192228323639

18

13141415

18

16

77

124678

10

66

4555

0.500

0011223

6

0.425

0.2500.2750.3000.325

0.450

0.350

0.0250.0500.0750.1000.1250.1500.175

0.3750.400

0.3500.3750.4000.4250.4500.500

0.1500.175

0.2500.2750.3000.325

0.4000.4250.4500.500

0.0250.0500.0750.1000.125

0.2500.2750.3000.3250.3500.375

1.1 1.623.4

25 5610.0 10.0

104.1 113.6103.0

Load (lbs)

Stress (psi)

Dist. (in)

Load (lbs)

Dist. (in)

Load (lbs)

Stress (psi)

Dist. (in)

Stress (psi)

Penetration Data

0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0

0.1000.1250.150

00.0250.0500.075

8394

20

0.1750.2000.225

0.2000.225

33

Percent Swell After Soak:

15

0.7

10.097.696.9

1196.011.3

01042-0012

Sample Data

Bottom Pre-TestTop Pre-Test

Surcharge Weight (lbs):Blows per Compacted Lift:

Client 01/29/19

Dry Density After Soak (pcf):

ASTM D698, Method APoint 2

Dry Density Before Soak (pcf):

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt

(%)

23.7Top 1" After TestAverage After Soak:

23.1

Point 3

01/29/19Rolland Engineering CM 03/04/19

MAB 03/05/19

22 Road CM

Point 1

19-0052 GB1 Composite

20.622.2 16.7

111.811.8 12.111.8 12.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500

Pene

trat

ion

Stre

ss (p

si)

Penetration (in)

Load Pentration Curve(s)

Point 1

Point 2

Point 3

0.1 in.

0.2 in.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

95 100 105 110 115

Cor

rect

ed C

BR

Dry Density (pcf)

Dry Density vs CBR

Form L20a CBR Report

APPENDIX D Bearing Resistance for Service Limit State

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 5 10 15 20 25

Nom

inal

Bea

ring

Str

ess (

psf)

Effective Footing Width (ft)

LRFD Service Limit State

APPENDIX E ESAL Calculations

ESAL CALCULATIONS

Project No.:Client Name:

GIVEN INFORMATION:

ASSUMPTIONS:

DEFINED EQUIVALENCY FACTORS:

CALCULATIONS:

Current Year: 2019

01042-0012Rolland Engineering

Project Name:

Year:ADT:ADT:

Mesa County GIS

2016 680

Source:

Year:

Growth Rate (%):Design Life (yr):Truck Traffic (%):Single Axle (%):Combination (%):

ADT:

Automobiles Flexible:Automobiles Rigid:Single Unit Flexible:Single Unit Rigid:

ADT:

2.23057030

1395

1060.5

ADT at End of Design Life

ADT at Midpoint of Design Life

Combination Flexible:Combination Rigid:

0.0030.0030.2490.2851.0871.692

41018

Automobiles:Single Unit:

Automobiles:Single Unit:Combination:

ESAL's: 275940

ADT at Beginning of Design LifeADT: 726

41127Combination:

Breakdown of Vehicles Multiplied by Equivalency Factors for Flexible Pavemen

22 Road, I to JCompleted by: MAB Date: 3/5/2019

Rigid Pavement ESAL's

Breakdown of Vehicles Multiplied by Equivalency Factors for Rigid Paveme

Flexible Pavement ESAL's

ESAL's: 210240

ESAL Calcs

geotechnical and geologic hazards investigation 22 road …

Documents