HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoils Report for Foundation DesignantlIaxIL|*rIt(?#+trCYI'I'J
$
aa
$\
.\
-N
Geotechnicol Engineering Report
6094 County Roqd 32O
Gqrfield Counly, Colorqdo
Proposed Residentiol Addition ond Hoy Born
April 30,2024
Prepored For:
Sunlight Volley Holdings [[C
Alln: Terry Hole
251 Little Folls Drive
Wilmington, Delowqre 198O8
GeoStrqta Job No. 1859-OOl
Office - 2487 lndustriol Boulevard #1, Grqnd Junclion, Colorado 81505
Phone (8Ol) 5Ot-0583 I info@geostrotc-llc.com
l?o^ClralavErryr r lr ttr
Reviewed By:
/,r";f-*-
2487 lndustrldl Boulevord #1. Grond Junctlon, Colorodo 815O5
T, {8Ot) 5Ol-0583 - ln{o@geosrrotoJlaom
Prepared for:
Sunlight Valley Holdings LLC
Attn: Terry Hale
251 Little Falls Drive
Wilmington, Delaware 19808
Geotechnical Investigation
6094 County Road 320, Garlield County, Colorado
Proposed Residential Addition and Hay Barn
GeoStrata Job No. 1869-001
Project
Scott W. Richards, P.E., P.G.
Senior Project Manager
GeoStrata
2487 Industrial Boulcvard #1
Grand Junction, Colorado 81505
(801) s01-0s83
Apil30,2024
4 207
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE ST]MMARY
2.0 INTRODUCTION.....
2,1
2.2
3.0
3.1
3.2
4.0
puRPosE AND SCOPE OF'WORK ........................3
PROJECT LOCATTON Al\D E)ilSTTNG COI\DrrONS............. ................4
METHODS OF STUDY ............5
FrELD rIYVESTrGATrON......... ..............5
LABORATORY TESTrNG........... ..........6
GEIIERALTZED SrrE COtlDrrroNS............. ............7
I
I
4.r SURFACE COI\DrTIONS.............
4.2 GENERAL STIBSURFACE CONDITIONS....
4.2. l,Soils...........
4.2.2 Groundwater......
5.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
7
7
.8
.9
5.1
5.2
6.1
6.2
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.2.3
6.3
6.s.I
6.3.2
6.3.3
6.3.4
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
GEOLOGIC SETTING ......,.
SEISMICITY AND FAULTING
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
EARTTIWORT(.........
General Site Preparation and Grading..
Excavation Stobility .....
Structural Fill and Compaction.
F'OT]NDATIONS
Installation and Bearing Material ..........
B earing Pres sure .............
Settlement
Construction Obsemation..................
CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION ..........
EARTH PRESSURES AND LATERAL RESISTANCE......
MOISTURE PROTECTION AND SURFACE DRAINAGE
SOIL CORROSIVITY.....
10
l0
l0
6.0 ENGIhIEERING ANALYSIS AI\D RECOMMEI\DATIONS........................I2
........12
,.'...,.|2
........ t2
.,','.,'13
........ I 3
........14
Copyright @ 2024 GeoStrata Project 1869401
7.0
7.1
7.2
8.0
APPENDICES
Appendix A Plate A-1 .........
Plate A-2
Appendix B
.......Site Vicinity Map
.......Exploration Location Map
...............Test Borehole Logs
...............Key to Soil Symbols and Terms
....Lab SummaryTable
Plates B-1 to B-5
Plate 8-6............
Plate C-1....
Plate C-2....
Plates C-3 and C4................
Plates C-5 to C7 ........-.--.-.--.
LIMITATIONS.................21
.......2r
,2
ADDITIONAL SERVICES ........
REFERENCES CITED
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
...Atterberg Limits Test Results
...Grain Size Distribution Test Results
... l-D Consolidation/Swell Test Results
Plates D-l to D-6 ...................Project Site Photographs
Plates E-1 and E-2..................Important Information about this Report
CopynSt@20U GeoStrato Project 1869-001
1.0 E)(ECUTTVE SI]MMARY
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation and laboratory data collection
conducted for the proposed addition to the existing residence at 6094 County Road 320 and the
proposed new hay bam at the property in Garfreld County, Colorado. We understand
improvements to include a one to two story addition to the exisfing two-level residence with a
crawl space and the new construction of a hay barn west of the existing residence. The proposed
square footage and loadings of the hay bam were unknown to us at the time of this report. We
understand that the proposed construction of the residence addition will likely consist of a wood
frame with masonry veneer exterior and the proposed hay barn will be a steel frame structure,
both bearing on native gravels or properly placed and compacted structural frll material
(reprocessed existing native material) with cuts/fills of less than 4 feet.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site, it is our opinion that the subject site
is suitable for the proposed construction provided that the recommendations contained in this
report are complied with. The recommendations herein should be considered preliminary until
actual construction (structure) loadings are made known to us.
The subsurface soils conditions were explored. at the subject property by advancing three
boreholes to depths ranging from 0.5 to 60 feet below existing surface grades. The three borehole
locations for the residence addition were south of the southeast corner of the existing residence
in the closest accessible area near the proposed addition. The two borehole locations for the
proposed hay barn were in the approximate southwest and northeast comers of the proposed
structure footprint per the Owner's on-site representative. Groundwater was encountered at a
depth of 58 feet at the time of drilling and at 40.8 feet one day after drilling in B-2 as part of this
geotechnical investigation. However, seasonal fluctuations in precipitationo surface runoff, or
other on or offsite sources may also increase moisture and groundwater conditions.
Laboratory data, geotechnical evaluation and observations, and construction recommendations
are provided regarding proposed construction. Key points discussed herein are the following:
Limited observations were made of the existing residence foundations from two
excavations performed by the Client and consisted of a combination of stacked stone and
concrete footing.
Proposed structure loadings were not provided at the time of this report.
A bearing pressure of 2.000 per square foot can be used for foundation design,
altemates are later in this
disturbed material should be removed below foundation and slab on
grade areas.
If encountered, undocumented fill should be removed a minirnum of two feet below
proposed footing elevation. Removed fill material may be replaced if properly processed
and compacted as discussed
a
O
o
a
a
C opy ight @ 2024 GeoStmta R1869-001
o
o
Subgrade native soil appears to be under-consolidated with low collapse or swell
potential and high strength. In our opinion subgrade soils can be suitable for use in
proposed construction if properly processed and compacted to at least 95% of the
maximum dry denstty as deterrnined by ASTM D-698 (standard Proctor) or ASTM D-
1557 (modified Proctor), depending material classification, near OMC.
Recommendations herein shall be followed for construction.
IMPORTAITIT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHMCAL-ENGIEERING REPORT:
Do ry! rely on the executive summary. The executive summary omits several details, any
one of which could be crucial. Read and refer to the report in full. Do g! rely on this
report if this report was prepared for a different client, different project, different purpose,
different site, and/or before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it. All
recommendations in this report are confirmation dependent. A two-page document
prepared by GBA explains these items with greater detail is found in Appendix E (Plates E-
I and E-2).
2Copyright @ 2024 GeoStrata R1869-00r
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 P{JRPOSE AI\D SCOPE OF WORK
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation completed for the proposed
addition to the existing residence located at 6094 County Road 320 and the proposed hay barn
west of the existing residence in Garfield County, Colorado (see Plates A-1, Site Vicinity Map
and A-2 Site Exploration Map in Appendix A). Based on information provided by the Client, we
understand the proposed improvements at the site are to include a one- to two-level addition to the
existing two- level residence with a crawl space and new construction of a hay barn as shown on
Plate A-2, Exploration Location Map.TIis investigation was completed through the advancement of
three exploratory boreholes east-southeast of the southeast corner of the existing residence in the
closest accessible atea near the proposed addition and two boreholes approximately 250 to 300 feet
west of the existing residence per the Owner's on-site representative for the proposed hay barn. The
putposes of this investigation were to perform a field investigation to gather pertinent information
regarding the subsurface conditions at the subject site and collect samples for laboratory testing in
order to provide dat4 develop opinions and provide recommendations to Sunlight Valley Holdings
LLC, for construction of the proposed addition and hay barn. We understand that the proposed
construction will likely consist of a wood frame with masonry veneer exterior for the addition and a
steel framed structure for the proposed hay barn, both bearing on native soils or on properly placed
and compacted fill material with cuts/fills of less than 4 feet. Proposed structure loadings were not
provided at the time of this report. Evaluations for additional scope items may be performed at a
futwe date for an additional fee, if requested.
The scope of work completed for this study included site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration
including three boreholes at two areas of proposed construction, sample collection and laboratory
testing, engineering analyses, recommendations for use in slabs on grade and foundation elements,
and preparation of this report. Our services were performed in accordance with our proposal dated
March 26, andyour signed authorization dated March 27,2024. The recommendations contained
in this report are subject to the limitations presented in the "Limitations" section of this report.
3C opy nghl @ 2024 GeoStrata R1869-001
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND E)ilSTING COI{DITONS
The project site at 6094 County Road 320 is located approximately 3/8 of a mile southwest of
County Road 320 in Garfield County, Colorado. The site is currently occupied by an existing
two-level residence with a crawl space, as well as an attached storage shed. The site topography
slopes gently to the south (away from County Road 320) at an approximate 50H:1V grade,
although the slope of the site directly to the east of the proposed addition steepens to an
approximate 5H:1V grade. The site is bound to the west, northwest, and southwest by several
outbuildings and irrigated pasfures and farmland, and to the east, northeast, and southeast by
relatively undeveloped land consisting of native grasses and moderately forested hillside
property. The Colorado River is approximately one mile north of the site. At the time of our
investigation the existing residence was undergoing asbestos abatement, and the interior and
crawl spaces were not accessible. It is our understanding that the existing residence is serviced
by a septic system and that the leach field lies south of the struchre.
Project site photos are found in Appendix D, Plates D-l through D-6
Specific project site conditions are discussed below in Section 4.1 of this report.
4Copyright @ 2024 GeoStrata R186940r
3.0 METHODS OF STT'DY
3.1 F.IELD II\TVESTIGATION
As a part of this investigation, subsurface soil conditions were explored at the project site by
advancing three boreholes to depths ranging from 0.5 to 60 feet below existing grades. It should
be noted that the locations of the boreholes were deterrnined by drill rig accessibility. The
approximate locations of the explorations are shown on Plate A-2, Exploration Location Map, in
Appendix A. Our exploration locations were measured from existing landmarks and reported as
latitude and longitude taken from phone GPS and elevations from Google Earth on the Borehole
Logs shown in Appendix B. In our opinion, the selected locations provide a reasonable estimate
of the subsurface soil conditions within the areas of the proposed improvements. We recommend
a site visit be performed by GeoStrata when excavations are complete, and prior to footing
construction, to assess subgrade conditions throughout the excavation areas. Subsurface soil
conditions as encountered in the explorations were logged at the time of our investigation by a
qualified geotechnical engineer and are presented on the enclosed exploration Borehole Logs,
Plates B-1 through B-5 in Appendix B. Drilling was completed on March 2 and3,2024.
Prior to our field exploration, boreholes were marked with lathe and white paint, and utility
locates were performed by calling UNCC and meeting at the project site. After drilling, the
excavated boreholes were left open at the request of the Owner's on-site representative for future
water level measurements. Slotted 0.5 inch PVC was installed inB-2 and backfilled with drill
cuttings.
Seven inch outside diameter hollow-stem auger boreholes were drilled using a track-mounted
Diedrich D90 drill rig to pre-determined depths for sampling and to evaluate the subsurface.
Bedrock was not encountered in borehole locations and estimations of bedrock depth was outside
the scope of service. Standard penetration tests (SPTs) and modified Califomia sampling were
conducted using a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches in general accordance with
ASTM D1586. The number of blows required to drive the sampler two 6-inch intervals or a
fraction thereof, constituted the N-value. The N-value, when properly evaluated, is an index of
the consistency or relative density of the material tested. Disturbed samples were collected by
driving a standard l.4-inch inside diameter split-spoon sampler. Undisturbed samples were
collected by driving a 2-inch interior diameter (ID), a 2.5 inch outside diameter (OD) modified
5C opy ight @ 2O24 GeoShata R1869-001
Califomia sampler, and a 3 inch outside diameter (OD) Califomia sampler. Bulk samples were
collected from thc drilling spoils as representative of subsurface soils not obtained in the
undisturbed samples. All samples were fiansported to our laboratory for further testing to
evaluate engineering properties of the various earth materials observed.
Subsurface soil conditions as encountered in the borehole explorations logged at the time of our
investigation by GeoStrata staff are presented on the enclosed Borehole Logs, Plates B-1 through
B-5 in Appendix B. A Key to Soil Symbols and Terminologt is presented on Plate 8-6. Samples
obtained during the field explorations were examined by GeoStrata staff and representative
samples were submitted for laboratory testing to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the
materials encountered. The soils were classified according to the Unifred Soil Classifrcation
System (USCS) by the Geotechnical Engineer.
3.2 LABORATORY TESTING
Geotechnical laboratory tests were conducted on samples obtained during our field investigation.
The laboratory testing progmm was designed to evaluate the engineering characteristics of onsite
earth materials. Laboratory tests conducted during this investigation include:
Grain Size Distribution Analysis (ASTM D422)
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318)
i-D Consolidation i Swell Test (ASTM D2435)
Water Soluble Sulfate Content (ASTM C1580)
Water Soluble Chloride Content (ASTM T29I)
Soil Electrical Resistivity and pH to evaluate corrosion potential of ferrous metals in
contact with site soils
Laboratory testing presented is preliminary at the time of this draft.
The results of laboratory tests are presented on the Borehole Logs in Appendix B (Plates B-l
through B-5), the Laboratory Summary Table.
6Copyright @ 2024 GeoStrata Rr869-001
4.0 GEI\ERALIZED SITE CONDITIONS
4.1 STJRFACE COND
of our project field investigation, the subject site
consisted of a two-level structure with a crawl space. Vegetation on the properly
consisted of landscaped grass and shrubs, as well as mature trees. As previously mentioned, the
site is bound to the west, northwest, and southwest by several outbuildings and irrigated pastures
and farmland and to the east, northeast, and southeast by relatively undeveloped land consisting
of native grasses and moderately forested hillside properly. The Colorado River is approximately
one mile north of the site. Cobbles and boulders were observed on the hillside to the east of the
site varying from approximately 3 inches to greater than 3 feet in diameter. Photographs of these
conditions are shown in Appendix D, Plates D-4 and D-5. Elevation of the existing ground
surface at the location of the proposed addition is estimated at between 5,370 to 5,380 feet above
MSL based Earth.
time of our ect field the subject site was vacant. As
mentioned, the site is to northwest, and southwest by several
outbuildings and irrigated pastures and and to the northeast, and southeast by relatively
and moderately forested hillside property. Theundeveloped land consisting of
existing residence at 6094 320 ls approximately 200 to 350 feet east of the
site. Elevation of the existing surface at the of the proposed addition is estimated
Existine Residence Addition. As previously discussed, the subsurface soil conditions were
explored at the site by advancing a borehole at the approximate corner of the proposed addition.
Auger refusal was encountered several times at depths ranging from 0.5 to 4 feet below existing
site grade. Each location experienced auger refusal likely due to cobbles/boulders at the depth
explored (refer to Appendix D, Plates D-4 and D-5 for photos of cobbles/boulders on hillside
directly east of site). The soils encountered were visually classified and logged during our field
investigation and are included on the Borehole Logs @lates B-1 through B-5).
at between 5,345 to 5,355 feet above MSL based on Google uY ,ot parh 4 *h/€
4.2 cENERALsuBsuRFAcEcoNDrrroNs
-Tetrrnt? 6h<E-or-z/-gga3
'lCopy ng}.t @ 2024 GeoStrata R1869-001
Hav Barn. As previously discussed, the subsurface soil conditions were explored at the site by
advancing two boreholes to depths ranging frorn 20 to 60 feet below existing site grade. The
soils encountered were visually classified an<l logged during our field investigation an<1 are
included on the Borehole Logs (Plates B-l through B-5).
A Key to Soil Symbols and Terminologt is presented on Plate 8-6. Additional discussions
concerning the soil encountered in our investigations are provided below.
4.2.1 Soils
Based on our observations and geologic literatwe review, the subject site consists of
approximately 0.5 to 60 feet of Sandy, Slightly Gravelly Clay sediments with Silt and Gravel
lenses likely representing alluvial fan (Q0 deposits. As previously mentioned, auger refusal was
encountered in BH-l (existing residence location) at depths of 0.5 to 4 feet likely due to boulders
similar to those observed on the hillside directly east of the boring locations (refer to Appendix
D, Plates D-4 and D-5 for photographs). Although auger refusal was not encountered in the
vicinity of BH-2 and BH-3 (proposed hay bam location), there was evidence of scattered
boulders during drilling operations, potential difficulties could be encountered during
excavations due to the potential presence ofboulders.
CLAY. Five samnlcs of the Verv Sandv. Cla-v (wrth Silt and Gravel lenses) had between 57.0:
and93.0o/o percent fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve). Atterberg t'-i1. lssting had liquid
limits between25 and29 andplasticity indices between 7 and 13. Two samples tested exhibited
collapse potentials of 0.5 percent and 1.0 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 1,000
psf.
SAI\D. One sample of a Very Clayey Sand lense had 42.4Yo percent fines (material passing the
No. 200 sieve). Atterberg limits testing had a liquid limit 31 and a plasticity index of I 1.
SILT. One sample of a Sandy Silt lense had74.2% percent fines (material passing the No. 200
sieve). The sample was non-plastic.
8Copy ngfu @ 2024 Geo Strata RI869-001
4.2.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in BF{-2 at 58 feet at the time of drilling and at 40.8 feet in BH-2
one day after drilling. Seasonal fluctuations in precipitation, surface runoff from adjacent
properties, or other sources on or offsite may also increase moisture and groundwater conditions;
however, it is not anticipated that groundwater will impact the proposed constnrction. Based on
observed subsurface conditions, perched groundwater may be encountered during spring
snowmelt due to low permeable clay and sandy clay and should be anticipated depending on season
of construction.
After drilling, the excavated boreholes were left open at the request of the Owner's on-site
representative for future water level measurements. Slotted 0.5 inch PVC was installed in BH-2
and backfilled with drill cuttings.
9Copyright @ 2024 Geostrata R1869-00r
5.0 GEOLOGIC COI\DITIONS
5.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING
The site is located within the eastern portion of the Piceance Basin, a relatively large geologic
structural basin formed during the Laramide Orogeny in northwestern Colorado. The basin is
bound by the Cathedral Bluffs to the west and by the Grand Hogback to the east. Both the
Cathedral Bluffs and the Grand Hogback are upward-bending formations rising to the surface,
resulting in a "sag" between them. The Piceance Basin is perrneated by a large number of folds
and faults, and is relatively deep, with the area initially receiving signifrcant amounts of
cretaceous-aged sediments, and then hosting a series of large freshwater lakes throughout the last
40 million years (Shroba, Green, and Fairer, 1995). These lakes resulted in relatively thick
sequences of lacustrine sediments that have given rise to significant oil and natural gas deposits.
The Colorado River has since eroded into the relatively soft tertiary and cretaceous sediments,
with the elevation of the Colorado River relative to the existing basin elevation has caused the
irnpedance of the flow of the Colorado River, resulting in a low stream gradient and causing the
river to meander into the softer cretaceous rocks resulting in the widening evolution of the Rifle
Valley.
Ncar surfacc sediments at the site are mapped on the l:24,000 scale Geologic Map (Shroba and
Scott, 1997) as consisting of Pleistocene-aged loess deposits (Qlo) consisting of clay, silt and
sand. Bedrock deposits mapped as being exposed on adjacent properties are mapped as
consisting of the Shire Member of the Wasatch Formation (Tws). The Wasatch Formation is
described as being deposited in alluvial, fluvial, and lacustrine environments and consists of
sandstone, siltstones, mudstones and shales with occasional coal seams throughout.
5.2 SEISMICITY AND FAULTING
The nearest fault to the subject site is the Gore Range frontal fault, which is mapped
approximately 80 miles east of the subject site. The Gore Range frontal fault bounds the eastern
margin of the Gore Range and is also known as the Blue River fault and the Frontal fault. The
Gore Range frontal fault is a high-angle, left-stepping, down to the northeast fault, and has
produced a major bedrock scarp up to 610 meters high near tsoulder Creek. While work
continues on dating the most recent rupture along this fault, it is thought to have last moved
during the latest Quaternary (ess than 15,000 years ago).
Copy i$t @ 2024 GeoStrata 10 R1869-001
The site is also located approximately 80% miles to the west of the Mosquito fault, a range-front
fault on the west flank of the Tenmile and Mosquito Ranges and may represent a southem
extension of the Gore Fault described previously. The fault is a high-angle normal fault that is
down to the west and northwest and has observed offset in late Quatemary glacial deposits.
Spectral responses for the Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCEn) are shown
in the table below. These values generally correspond to a one percent probability of structure
collapse in 50 years for a "firm rock" site. To account for site effects, site coefficients which
vary with the magnitude of spectral acceleration are used. Based on our field exploration and the
estimated soil conditions from the areas geologic surficial deposits as indicated by Shroba and
Scott (1997), it is ow opinion that this location is best described as a Site Class D (Stiff Soil).
The spectral accelerations are calculated based on the site's approximate latitude and longitude
of 39.4969" and -107.8527" respectively and the Seismic Design Maps web-based application at
https ://seismicmaps.org/.
Table 3. Seismic Data
It should be noted that our investigation did not include a site-specific ground motion hazard
analysis and a Site Class D (Stiff Soil) has been used to determine the seismic parameters
presented above based on known geologic conditions of the surficial deposits at the site and
according to the Section 20.1 of ASCE 7. The seismic parameters presented herein may be used
for design of the proposed structures provided that structural design allows for the ground motion
hazard analysis exception in ASCE 7-16 Segment 11.4.8. The seismic data provided above
should be used by the project geotechnical and structural engineers for proper site and structural
design. GeoStrata recommends that a licensed structural engineer provide proper structural
designs for all proposed structures which account for and mitigate this hazard. It is the opinion of
GeoStrata that earthquake ground shaking hazatd should not preclude development.
DSite Class
S, - MCEn ground motion (period - 0.2s)0.319
Sr - MCEn ground motion (period - 1.0s)0.075
1.545Fu - Site amplification factor at 1.0s
2.400Fu - Site amplification factor at 1.0s
0.190PGA - MCEe peak ground acceleration
0.270PGAu - Site modified peak ground acceleration
Description Value
Copy riehl @ 2024 GeoStrata l1 R1869-001
6.0 ENGII\EERINGANALYSISAI\DRECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 GEIYERAL CONCLUSIONS
Supporting data upon which the following recommendations are based have been presented in
the previous sections of this report. The recommendations presented herein are governed by the
physical properties of the earth materials encountered and tested as part of our subsurface
exploration and the anticipated design data discussed in the PROJECT DESCRIPTION
section. If subsurface conditions other than those described herein are encountered in
conjunction with construction, and/or if design and layout changes are initiated, GeoStrata must
be informed so that our recornmendations can be reviewed and revised as changes or conditions
may require.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site, it is our opinion that the subject site is
suitable for the proposed development provided that the recommendations contained in this report
are incorporated into the design and construction of the pruject.
6.2 EARTHWORK
Prior to the placement of foundations, general site grading is recommended to provide proper
support for foundations, exterior concrete flatwork, and concrete slabs-on-grade. Site grading is
also recommended to provide proper drainage and moisture control on the subject property and
to aid in preventing differential settlement of foundations as a result of variations in subgrade
moisture conclitions.
6.2.1 General Site Preparation and Grading
Within areas to be graded (below proposed structures, fill sections, concrete flatwork, or
pavement sections), any existing vegetation, topsoil, undocumented fill, debris, or otherwise
unsuitable soils should be removed. Any soft, loose, or disturbed soils should also be removed.
Following the removal of vegetation, unsuitable soils, and loose or disturbed soils, as described
above, site grading may be conducted to bring the site to design elevations. As over-excavation
is requirod, the oxoavation should oxtond a minimum of ono foot laterally for ovory foot of dopth
of over-excavation. Excavations should extend laterally at least two feet beyond flatwork,
pavements, and slabs-on-grade.
Copy nght @ 2O24 GeoStrata 12 R1869-00r
A GeoStrata representative should observe the site preparation and grading operations to assess
that the recommendations presented in this report are complied with.
6.2.2 Excavation Stability
Based on Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines for excavation
safety, trenches with vertical walls up to 5 feet in depth may be occupied, however, the presence
of filI soils, loose soils, or wet soils may require that the walls be flattened to maintain safe
working conditions. When the trench is deeper than 5 feet, we recommend a trench-shield or
shoring be used as a protective system to workers in the trench. Based on our soil observations,
laboratory testing, and OSHA guidelines, native soils at the site classiff as Type C soils due to
the cobbles/boulders encountered during drilling operations. Deeper excavations, if required,
should be constructed with side slopes no steeper than one and one-half horizontal to one vertical
(1.5H:1V). If wet conditions are encountered, side slopes should be further flattened to maintain
slope stability. Alternatively, shoring or trench boxes may be used to improve safe work
conditions in trenches. The contractor is ultimately responsible for trench and site safety.
Pertinent OSHA requirements should be met to provide a safe work environment. If site specific
conditions arise that require engineering analysis in accordance with OSIIA regulations,
GeoStrata can respond and provide recommendations as needed.
We recommend that a GeoStrata representative be on-site during all excavations to assess the
exposed foundation soils. We also recommend that the Geotechnical Engineer be allowed to
review the grading plans when they are prepared in order to evaluate their compatibility with
these recommendations.
6.2.3 Structural Fill and Compaction
All fill placed for the support of structures, concrete flatwork or pavements should consist of
structural fill. Structural fill may consist of reworked native fine grained soil. Where these soils
are to be used as strucfural fill, gravels and cobbles larger than 4 inches in nominal diameter
should be screened from material being used as structural fill. Alternatively, an imported fill
meeting the specifications of the Colorado Department of Transportation Class 2 Aggregate Base
Course may be used. Regardless of if the structural fill is imported or native, it should be free of
vegetation (less than 3 percent organic content), debris or frozen material, and should contain no
inert materials larger than 4 inches nominal size. Soils not meeting the aforementioned criteria
C opy Aght @ 2024 GeoStrata l3 R1869-001
nny be suitable for use as structural fill. These soils should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
and should be approved by the Geoteclurical Engineer prior to use. The contractor should
anticipate testing all soils used as struchral fill frequently to assess the maximum dry density,
fines content, and moisture content, etc.
All structural fill should be placed in maximum 6-inch loose lifts if compacted by small hand-
operated compaction equipment, maximum 8-inch loose lifts if compacted by lighlduty rollers,
and maximum l2-inch loose lifts if compacted by heavy duty compaction equipment that is
capable of efficiently compactrng the entire thickness of the lift. We recommend that all
structural filI be compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved by the geotechnical
engineer. Structural fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density, as
determined by ASTM D-698 or ASTM D-1557, depending on soil classification. The moisture
content should be at or slightly above the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and
compaction. Also, prior to placing any fill, the excavations should be observed by the
geotechnical engineer to observe that any unsuitable materials or loose soils have been removed.
In addition, proper grading should precede placement of fill, as described in the General Site
Preparation and Grading subsection of this report (Section 6.2.1).
Fill soils placed for subgrade below exterior flat work, should be within -lo/o to +2Yo of the
optimum moisture content when placed and compacted to at least 95Yo of the maximum dry
density as deterrnined by ASTI;I D-698 or ASTM D-1557. Aii utiiirr trenches backfiiied beiow
the proposed structure, pavements, and flatwork concrete, should be baokfrlled with struotural fill
that is within 3% of the OMC when placed and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum drlr
density as determined by ASTM D-698 or ASTM D-1557. All other trenches, in landscape areas,
should be backfilled and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dr-v densit.v (ASTM D-698
or D-1557).
The gradation, placemento moisture, and compaction recommendations contained in this section
meet our minimum requirements but may not meet the requirements of other governing agencies
such as city, county, or state entities. If their requirements exceed our reconrmendations, their
specifications should override those presented in this report.
6.3 FOUI{DATIONS
The foundations for the proposed structures may consist of conventional strip and/or spread
footings. Strip and spread footings should be a minimum of 16 and 36 inches wide, respectively,
Copyrigltt O 2024 GeoStrata 14 R1869-001
and exterior shallow footings should be embedded at least 30 inches for frost protection and
confinement. Interior shallow footings should be embedded at least 18 inches for confinement.
Results of two swell tests completed on representative samples of this soil indicated a -0.5 and
-1.0% volumehic change upon wetting. As such, it is our opinion that the soils at the site have a
relatively low potential for hydro-expansion/consolidation.
At the time of this report, pits were excavated at various locations against the foundation wall of
the existing residence. Based upon observations it appears that the existing residence foundation
is constructed of a combination of stacked stone and more recent shallow concrete footings.
Ideally, additions to structures should be constructed on the same foundation type as the existing
structure to minimize differential movements, assuming adequate performance of the existing
foundation system. As this is unlikely given the existing foundation, differential movement
between the existing residence and proposed addition should be anticipated. The foundation of
the addition should be tied into the existing foundation of the residence, if possible. A structural
engineer should be consulted for the integration of the new foundation system to the existing
foundation to limit any potential differential settlement.
6.3.1 Installation and Bearing Material
Due to the auger refusal encountered at the location of the existing residence due to underlying
cobbles/boulders and evidence of underlying cobbles/boulders during drilling at the location of
the hay barn, difficulties encountered dwing excavation should be anticipated. Based upon these
underlying conditions, it is our recommendation that foundation excavations extend a minimum
depth of two feet below proposed bottom of footing elevation and grade be reestablished
utilizing on site soils as structural fiIl, moisture conditioned and compacted as described above.
Foundation elements should not be founded on undocumented fill soils, and if these soils are
encountered, they should be over-excavated until suitable, native soils are exposed. Structural fill
should meet material recommendations and be placed and compacted as recommended in
Section 6.2.3. Bearing capacities may be increased if the overexcavation is extended to
minimum of four feet below proposed bottom of footing elevation and replaced with imported
fill material as discussed in Section 6.2.3.
Copyright @ 2024 Geosfiata l5 R1869-001
6.3.2 Bearing Pressure
Conventional strip and spread footings founded as described above may be proportioned for a
maximum net allowable bearing capacity of 21000 psf. The net allowable bearing capacity may
be increased (typically by one-third) for temporary loading conditions such as transient wind and
seismic loads. All footing excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to
placement of footing conclete.
If increased bearing capacities are required due to structural loadings (particularly for the hay
barn), foundation excavations should extend to four feet below proposed bottom of footing
elevation and grade reestablished with imported materials such as Colorado Department of
Transportation Class 2 Aggregate Base Course. If this option is selected, the maximum net
allowable bearing capacity could be increased to 31000 psf. Laboratory testing would be
required to confirm suitability of imported material. Additionally, field testing such as nuclear
density testing or a proof roll observation by a representative of the geotechnical engineer should
be performed prior to footing construction.
6.3.3 Settletnent
Settlements of properly designed and constructed conventional footings, founded as described
above, are anticipated to be less than I inch. Differential settlements should be on the order of
half the total settlement over 30 fect.
6.3.4 Construction Observation
A geotechnical engineer shall periodically monitor excavations prior to installation of footings.
Inspection of soil before placement of structural fill or concrete is required to detect any field
conditions not encountered in the investigation which would alter the recommendations of this
report. All structural fill material shall be tested under the direction of a geotechnical engineer
for material and compaction requirements.
6.4 CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION
Concrete slabs-on-grade should be constructed over at least 4 inches of compacted gravel
overlying undisturbed nativo eoils or struoturol fill. Struoturol fill should be compactcd to ot lcost
95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-698 or ASTM D-1557 prior to
placement of gravel. The gravel should consist of road base or clean drain rock with a le-tnch
C opy nfit @ 2O24 GeoStrata t6 R1869{0r
maximum particle size and no more than 12 percent fines passing the No. 200 mesh sieve. The
gravel layer should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density of modified
proctor or until tight and relatively unyielding if the material is non-proctorable. All concrete
slabs should be designed to minimize cracking as a result of shrinkage. Consideration should be
given to reinforcing the slab with welded wire, re-bar, or fiber mesh. A vapor ba:rier such as a
Visqueen polyethylene (PE) vapor barrier or equivalent, frdy be considered as an altemative to
the 4-inches of compacted gravel. The PE vapor barrier should be placed between the native soils
or structural fill and the concrete for the floor slab.
At the Owner's option, the requirement for 4-inches of gtavel beneath interior slabs on grade
sidewalks, drives, or aprons may be omitted; however, if the 4-inches of gravel is omitted,
settlement and cracking of these slabs may be more likely to occur.
6.5 EARTH PRESSURES AND LATERAL RESISTANCE
Lateral forces imposed upon conventional foundations due to wind or seismic forces may be
resisted by the development of passive earth pressures and friction between the base of the
footing and the supporting subgrade. In determining the frictional resistance, a coeffrcient of
friction of 0.43 should be used for native granular soils against concrete. A coefficient of friction
of 0.34 should be used for native fine-grained soils against concrete.
Ultimate lateral earth pressures from granular backfill acting against buried walls and structures
may be computed from the lateral pressure coefficients or equivalent fluid densities presented in
the following table:
* Based on Coulomb's equation
** Based on Jaky
*** Based on Mononobe-Okabe Equation
Activex 0.29 37
At-rest**0.46 57
Passive*3.39 424
Seismic Active***0.19 24
Seismic Passivex**-0.44 -55
Lateral Pressure Coefficient
Equivalent Fluid Density
(pounds per cubic foot)Condition
Copy ri$t @ 2024 Geostrata t'7 Rr869-001
Ultimate lateral earth pressures from fine grained backfill acting against buried walls and
strucfures may be conputed from the lateral pressure coefficients or equivalent fluid densities
presented in the following table:
* Based on Coulomb's equation
'F{' Based on Jaky
*** Based on Mononobe-Okabe Equation
These coefficients and densities assume level, granular backfill with no buildup of hydrostatic
pressures. The force of the water should be added to the presented values if hydrostatic pressures
are anticipated. If sloping backfill is present, we recommend the geotechnical engineer be
consulted to provide more accurate lateral pressure parameters once the design geometry is
established.
Walls and structures allowed to rotate slightly should use the active condition. If the element is
conshained against rotation, the at-rest condition should be used. These values should be used
with an appropriate factor of safety against overturning and sliding. A value of 1.5 is typically
used. Additionally, if passive resistance is calculated in conjunction with frictional resistance, the
passive resistance should be reduced by %.
For seismic analyses, the active and passive earth pressure coefficient provided in the table is
based on the Mononobe-Okabe pseudo-static approach and only accounts for the dynamic
horizontal thrust produced by ground motion. Hence, the resulting dynamic thrust pressure
should be added to thc static pressurc to dctcrrninc thc total prcsslrc on thc wall. Thc prcssurc
distribution of the dynamic horizontal thrust may be closely approximated as an inverted triangle
with stress decreasing with depth and the resultant acting at a distance approximately 0.6 times
the loaded height of the strucfure, measured upward from the bottom of the structure.
The coefficients shown assume a vertical wall face. Hydrostatic and surcharge loadings, if any,
should be added. Over-compaction behind walls should be avoided. Resisting passive earth
Active*0.36 45
At-rest**0.53 66
Passive*2.77 346
Seismic Active***o.22 27
Seismic Passive***-o.42 -53
Lateral Pressure Coefficient Equivalent Fluid Density
(pounds per cubic foot)Condition
C opy rifit @ 2024 GeoStrata IE RI869-001
pressure from soils subject to frost or heave, or otherwise above prescribed minimum depths of
embedment, should usually be neglected in design.
6.6 MOISTURE PROTECTION AND SURFACE DRAINAGE
Precautions should be taken during and after construction to eliminate saturation of foundation
soils. Overwetting the soils prior to or during construction may result in increased softening and
pumping, causing equipment mobility problems and difficulty in achieving compaction.
Moisture should not be allowed to infrltuate the soils in the vicinity of, or upslope from the
structures. We recommend that roof runoffdevices be installed to direct all runoffa minimum of
10 feet away from structures. In areas where soils are not covered with concrete, asphalt, or other
hard surface, the grade within l0 feet of the structures should be sloped a minimum of 5% away
from the structure. Uncovered concrete and asphalt surfaces should be sloped away from the
structure such that water does not pond against the exterior walls of the skucture. Soil and hard
surfaced areas that are covered may be relatively flat.
6.7 SOIL CORROSIVITY
One (1) soil sample was tested for soil chemical reactivity. Chemical reactivity tests were
performed to determine soil pH, resistivity, and concentrations of water-soluble sulfate ions.
Results from these tests are summarized in the table below;
Test results indicate that the soluble sulfate concentrations of 219 ppm. Based on the American
Concrete Institute (ACD Building Code, these concentrations represent "moderate" degree of
sulfate attack on concrete structures. Type VII Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) may be used for
concrete elements in contact with the onsite soils or properly placed and compacted granular
structural fill.
Laboratory soil resistivity has a direct impact on the degree of corrosion in underground steel
structures. A decrease in resistivity relates to an increase in corrosion activity and therefore
dictates that protective treatment to be used. Results from the laboratory resistivity tests indicate
8.2227976700BH-1 2
Borehole
No,
Sulfate
(ppm)
Resistivity
(o-cm)
Depth pHChloride
Copyright @ 2024 GeoStrata 19 R1869-001
a resistivity of 700 ohm-cm. Based on the resistivity test results, the onsite fine-grained soils are
considered to be'oextremely corrosive" if saturated in the field.
Results of the ion hydrogen concentration (pH) tests were 8.22. Concenhations above 7 are
considered basic and are less likely to contribute to corrosion attack on subsurface steel
strucfures.
Anticipated underground steel structures (i.e., pipes, exposed steel) should be protected against
corrosion.
Copyriglrt @ 2024 GooStrata 20 R1869-001
7.0 cLosuRE
7.1 LIMITATIONS
The recommendations contained in this report are based on limited field exploration and our
understanding of the proposed construction. This investigation was completed for the proposed
construction and should not be used for other projects. The subsurface data used in the
preparation of this report were obtained from the explorations made for this investigation. It is
likely that variations in the soil and groundwater conditions will exist. The nature and extent of
variations may not be evident until construction occurs. If any conditions are encountered at this
site that are different from those described in this report, our firm should be immediately notified
so that we may make any necessary revisions to the recommendations contained in this report. In
addition, if the scope of the proposed construction changes from that described in this report, our
firm should also be notified.
This report was prepared in accordance with the generally accepted standard of practice at the
time the report was written. No other waftarn$, expressed or implied, is made. It is the Client's
responsibility to see that all parties to the project including the Designer, Contractor,
Subcontractorso etc. are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of information
contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the Contractor's option and risk.
7.2 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate program
of tests and observations will be made during the construction. GeoStrata staff should be on site
to document compliance with these recommendations and to verifu geologic conditions are as
anticipated. Our services should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
r Observations and testing before and during site structural fill placement.
o Consultation as may be required during construction, including verification that the
geologic conditions are as anticipated during excavation and design of shoring if deemed
necessary based on acfual geologic conditions encountered during construction.
o If we are not involved in the construction process for observation and materials testing
either the Contractor or the engineer consulted for observation and materials testing
during construction assumes all liability.
Copyright @ 2024 GeoStrata 2t R1869-001
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have aily questions
regardtng the report or wish to discuss additional servicesn please do not hesitate to contact us at
your convenience at (801) 501-0583.
Copyright @ 2024 GeoStrata 22 RI869401
8.0 REFERENCES CITED
Shroba, Ralph R., Scott, Robert 8., 1997, Geologic Map of the Rifle Quadrangle, Garfield
County, Colorado, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 97-852.
Shroba, Ralph R., Green, Morris W., Fairero George M., 1995, Preliminary Geologic Map of the
Rifle Quadrangle, Garfreld County, Colorado, Open-File Report 95-52.
Tweto, Ogden, 1979, Geologic Map of Colorado, United States Geological Survey, Map M(271)
C opyight @ 2024 GeoStrata 23 R1869-00i
Appendix A
Sunlight Valley Holdings LLC
6094 CR 320
Garfield County, Colorado
Project Number: 1 869-001
Site Viclnlty Map
l?o^(l.tal.avEt dr I l, lL
Copyrighr,2024
Plate
A-1
1 ft
N
A
Legend
ll sit" Boundary
700 0 700
'l:12,N0
100
140
6unlight Valley lloldings LLC
6094 CR 320
Garfield Counfl Colorado
Project Number: 1869-001
Exploration Location Map
l?o^(*ra*alvg'lrdtlfq'l[!l'I
Copydght, 2024
Plate
A-2
N
A
Legend
f] sit. Boundary
+ Bore Hole Locations
70 0 70
'1:'1,200
210 280ft
Appendix B
2020 LOC OF BORTNG - PLATE (B) 0 869-00l) 2020 GrNT UPDATE.GPJ GEOSTRATA.GDT 4/26124
(l)
$otnrf-l(I
rlr
fT
o
€
@
oo
?A
ITTTSIE: F: q:IE
;EEeEl!
b r; p:13
sfdDtplE!6SH :6'=dZ- =
-H r:L!bitdviJ' >ca'? F>q)* EEiIt VFiEfr aklaF H7'EFOEd z.
(t) >
FldrdfrF
t3
IHla
{t< I
*15l
ElS t
EIE Idtln It-tfI
FIEI
il
EU Fs
rS al.ut!
z
Edv)
E
lrtUc
2.ooFF
EIoFl
lr,U
td
5{o
ztl
z*
o
lno*l
LII
Uz
q
D
EzFl
g,
-l
5
oc
2.'t
DATE
t
4.
F
t
o-
! a\O\CA
T H€E
? g-q3
E oroF+
S Or,r{r O N)ar'
-E-6'r€ <
8p d
=i1XEa: fioO. -aoF
Fb
dFC)
€r! H.!F
*ot
gdaa->9
I
EdH
I
z
zo
@
g
oo
Eri
t
b
ld
xEr
t!
FI
SAMPLES
WATERLEVEL
GRAPIIICAILOG
UNIFIED SOIL
CLASSIEICATION
EEE
3EHzd
qQ!P
-$hbO{F
G@ f-
o
!JzO9z
a
Dry Density(pcD
Moistue Contmt 9/o
Percmt minus 200
Liquid Limit
Plasticity Index
><
o6'x-H!50
L:O35ts.t
6*
a 5 a N,)o METERS
t.J
Y I ?I ^ FEETY
3.TEE
r l.)3
* +FB
JI
t I Ftr
- I !.X'e - E.E.
I(rJfr
l.
rnaoF
FU
tl
z
z
z*
3s
ox6Yc=9a
dHoF:O49i
tx}-txt t><
Nti
-2 -+--J i-)I ro lr<
EdsoE5smB S3g d'Etr, E?9 E;E €q
- '6(s) 6Fs c'as hEsa
oxod BSEI-EEEFIHEE}-:$i
r*gegi "s'F
L**.
oDo \o
oo N) b.){
L)
yo
6'^
NO
\6
NI
2020 LOG OF BORING - PLATE (B) 0 869-001) 2020 GrNT TTPDATE.GPJ GEOSTRATA.GDT 4/26124
G)
fiD(t(nrfrl
$rlr$
o
EE
a
ts
g
s
cEtEI=t
u?at!!et.?
oed"!c;'rr b 'rr 9'ctsp;p:'a6Cbtp
oaSli:6
!F r L-tli'r€vb' >o'h Hla
E gF!
- aE1 v)F E"E
EEZ
vt>
EFFtdlrl FF
E
Ft!
t!v2
rd
lql>
IE
IEI'l
te
lEl
\lJE
t!'r|NJ(D
z
v)lr,
L!
zo
F
EI
H
lr1
td
5
ooC
2,Fl
z*
ooFtr
EIo.l
lrlUz
a
GJ
trz-l(A
-l
td
5{oo
zrl
DATE
d
bb
! nO\Ca
6' E \OAs tirs=Z (DaOQ
E EET
S Otr{r Q N)o)'
-8"6'a€ <
A^ iJr
=y g
8.tsoti
Fo
aFc)Id6 E
.58 SEF
-TEE
*doa->9
€
IN
o
2
z
a
3ErE
e
s
6x
F
E
Itr!
I
SAMPLES
WATERLEVEL
GRAPHICALLOG
UNIFIED SOIL
CLASSIFICATION
EFFFO>36t
dgH4d
r^39Hnb
o{{
@e-
o
Fl
za
d'
Dry Density(pcD
Moisture Content %
Percmt minm 200
LiquidLimit
Plasticity Index
o6'*46sts5bo
L.O
H.8u2
o\5 N o METERS
N?I ?I ^ FEETY
bF+d
?
Fl
lnF
F
Ulrl(/)oF
Fd
-l
z
z
z*
-a
=lir-
EF=-3=la
=P!=
=4€H
t><L-txl t><L-txt tx
oF
I a--Jt Fr
nf;iFl s
EffiFi A
E'a E, E
E.F?I ff"+F ai s
a*ei E
EEffiEgH
BFFa;'g
I
L
{6 od
€o\o\\o N \o l.J N)&
N 9:J9Q
NP
I {
-------------L-
2020 LOG OF BORTNG - PLATE (B) 0869-001) 2020 GINT UpDATE.cpJ GEOSTRATAGDT 4/26124
DATE
ai
F.
rd
p
! n o\r,;'HEE9 EhsH2Oa@
E EETt 8sS
-E"6-a€ <
8o d*sXE&tsoF-o
9lEO
eE $IF
"otAdqa->g
Fz
zld
IN)
a
oo
b
t?
XB
TL
ln
4
SAMPLES
WATERLEVEL
GRA?HICAL LOG
UNIFIED SOIL
CLASSIFICATION
i-vSBHtrb
Q{{
c@l-
tsFl
zO
,)
EFTFO>
FAE
dEH
4d
Dry Density(pcf)
Moisture Conterf ?i
Pmentminus 200
LiquidLimit
Plasticity Indor
o6'r- F5AO
L:OEBb2
METERS\)@\o
II
N
FEETN)??5?
3 TB6
i t-o
DI\ l^z
i iaB3 l*65l! I Ht'
= I 9.X'o -3?
Fl
trjF
F
EIaoF
!
Fl
oz
z
z*
vFi
td
5
.)
C2,l
p
A\
i{
2
€
K
Fo
l-r
I
I
ot<
Fr
BI
ol
Ei
tAt
IHei
E 3['i-r =lO ci tar*fr i-it
F's>!
E"3 "idE&l-x E'l
a'Bl
el
I
I
-ra)o-A
^-- -tiil
^ .t+
Eiqs
6e
€Da
B
R
Bo.
f.J
-.t
L-
z
o
EO2Lfl
lr,
czo
Ee
o*l
ln
U
Eg
{
a
czrl
z*
I
CJoFFlrlorl
lnUz
a
E1D
F
rnz
'.1a
tsl
5{
o
ztsl
(l)
fiD(t
tnrfnl
nrfn
€
q
o
E
;
YA
FFFtrKulAq!.rH13
^z^vi^t3YPY;!lt"Y: ir' : !" l"rp-f=YFl€
5!tiINalEt6S! :d=t'2- =HH I Lrbt'r{vb. >(h.V) FLT'
IE VF-F aitaF H?OEFOtuz
tA>
Fo f{
Ir'EF
tz
lcloE
c
U
t!
R
d
EU Fs
rF9 Fl.(r(D
b
cr+
Fo
t:
&
ro
F
o
ci
k
H
:)
E
Q
o
Y
e
c)IJ
z
d
pa
tu
3o
oN
H
Fr
H
STARTED: 4/Uu Sunlight Valley Holdings LLC
6094 CR 320
Garfi eld Cormty, Colorado
PmietNmbs 1869-001
GostataR€p: RH
Rig Tlpe: Dedrich D90
BoringTYF: 7'IISA
BORINGNO:
BH-z
Sh@t3 of3
COMPLETF,Dt 4nn4
BACKFILLED:
DEPTI{
a
3
v)
F.lrrl
5
&HF
F
F.l
F]4
CJ
A
&()
zo
!L6{a \).aENHE6iJa
Fl 4z)D()
I,OCATION
39.4967 &e Notes:
-107.8527 &E
5,349.0 ft
I-{ITNDE
If)NGITTJDB
BLEVAIION
€.g
'd
d
o
h'o
d
go
o
o
oN
tr.F
E
oA
.E
Fl
d
F.l
x
c
o
d
A
Moistute Content
and
Atta6erg Limits
adHFd
14-
l5
16-
1 7
1 8-
19-
20
F
El
rI]E
45-
5&
55-
6G
65-
Plastic Moisture
Limit Cont€xrt
Uquid
Limitl------{---
I nro10doln6070*o00MATERTALDESCRIPTIONNN*SPTBI,OWCOUNT
totnln/o50ril70floqn
v
CL
'- @ 58-fffi\ gromdwater encountered
during drilling
lt 5/
Bottom of Boring@60Fer,t
N - OBSERVED T]NCORRECTED BI,OW COI]NT N* - CORRECIED NI(60) EQUIVALENT SPT BI,OW COUNT
l?oaClvalrrvr;t Jt t rtl l til
copyrieh (c) 202a, G@Shb
SAMPII,TYPE
E-F
8-
ft
2' O.D./I.38' I.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPIER
2.5" O.D.I2" I.D. SAMPLER
3' O.D. TI{IN-WALLED SIMLBY SAMPLER
GRAB SAMPLE
3" O.D.12.48" I.D. SAMPLER
-MEASTJRED BSTIMATED
Plate
B-4
q
E
Fo(J
c
Er(t
A
H,
g
F
z.
6
a
q]
.(
J
o
a
6
ta
o
So!J
FIH
A
STARTED 4DN4 Sunlight Valley Holdings LI,C
6094 CR 320
Garfi eld County, Colorado
PmjectNumber f869-001
c@Suat8Rop: RH
Rig T!4e: Diedrich D90
BoringTYpe: 7"HSA
BORINGNO:
BH-3
Sheet I of1
COMPLEIED: 42D4
BACI(FILLED:
DEPTTI
o
,rlFl
a
Flt!
s
&
lqF
F
I
,l,l
OH
A
&(,
zo
di69
ffH
E3ZAD(J
I,OCATION
39.4965 &g Notes:
-10?.8528 dog
5,347.0ft
LATITUDE
IONGITTJDE
ELEVATION
G.o
-9
d
a
h
;<
d
it
O
o
a
o
oN
Eo
oA
ll
F]€
d
F]
t
o
Ar
Moishlre Content
and
Atterberg Limits
a&t!Fg)
0-
I
t
3-
4-
5-
6-
Frd
rD
14
G
5-
10-
15-
2G
Plastic Moisture LiquidLimit Content Limit#
lO20tO/tOin6oTOfOOO
MATERIALDESCRIPTION N N*SPTBLOWCOIINT
1 ntol0do<n607ntoon
-1
I
sP-
sc
1_
CL
ct-
ML
- mediumdense,
sand is
I€an
to stiff, mois! brown, sand is coarse-
to fine-grained
- @ 7 -foet gnvel sized rock
encounterd
-SitE-claY--rfrium-fr iE
brown
15
t2
7
7
6
11
8
11
28
l5
8
11
6
10
7
8
I 5.(
1 5.{
15.9
27
25
25
1 1
I :l
/
-no groundwater €ncout€red
Bottom of Boring@20Feet
N - OBSERVED UNCORRECTED BI,OW COIJNT N* - CORRECTEDNI(60) EQUIVALENT SpT Br,OW COUNT
l?oaClyalav{;v{tltrrr*
Coprieh (c) 2{]2a, CFoSru
SAMPITTYPE
E- 2" o.D./1.38" LD. spLIT spooN SAMPLER
Z- 2.5" o.D./2" tD. SAMPLER
Z- :' o.o. THIN-WALLED SHELBY SAMPLER
[-cmnSAMPLE
u-3" O.D.12.48" I.D. SAMPLER
MBASTJRBD
Plate
B-5
rs:"r"[-l *F&LruEDGMGS.GMIAS0UlAruS6dEOArcf*g
eL"J
ffiruYGMG%@S.<fu€s&DExtureSnrfldrlGcftrcfre*fds
fBL.lru€OG&EG.ffiA€.SD*tureaWftlWIGF#Sfffl
ffi
w&r.lruEo6Mw6.ffi€w*rureswrltI'fIIE luY F€5
rytuYGWOGSEIS,
ffi€"wffilsR€*frlarFILE FSS
!*
FXS e'd
e4 l#[YcffiGsGs,(iM@SDHTUESWfH
ftrEuvF*s
&LIY ffiff.(sI€I,g!T.wffiures
@€YGM*LAs^€t-1wBqsYwluruS
i'!
*
5
&g
tf,e5
ils
s
6
-!+
t
g
e.g
@
r Wr e%!AS
ds6l.:!socuY-$I HMs
cc'r* Fl.:.il
'icc.3 l.:.:.1 s WAL..roEDs}rcgSS GRA€I'd-ruE$WIIH
L9TTTE dRM 6*3
s[#reotuY@wEW.6MWLbCrureSWfrrL(TG ORrefffiS
w&r,rcoffis.:iffi.(jgs!HI-!#swllrrLffTtE FES3*.s
s"s #&r.ffiDS.sEw.ffiqffiurcsLfrt€ cut FAs
EORYGTgUOqN6*A€UTU&SWrIltLf TLE FMs9g
s.s 6ORLYGM*O9
$sGftwLBtu*g*flaS'TSUYFffi
s[aYasF.$ERva sLJus$FES
€uwrffi.w&€L.f,siMTbrus
{
E
*T
-ryq
I
s
E
F,
ts,
fi
is
il
t!
:t
s
"3P
5€s
IE!
5
av
I{
FlG
s*s
1AFXS
ffi
i*; lG
Iss
s
s's
s
fuEYM.W-SL{ luYffir!ff$
&
a
a"n
a
6
!
e
$€
{tst*s
F6
,9
4 s
ff
DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS
Sample Tlpe Water Level
Disturbed or Bag Sample IZ
V
Water Level After a Specific Period of Time
Z Water Initially Encountered
2-112" OD "California" Style Split Barrel Sampler
ilxploration Type
2" OD Split Spoon Sampler a
ffi3" OD Thin-Walled ShelbyTube Sampler
Boring
Test Pit
Location anel Elevation
Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracy of such devices
is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical srrvey was conducted to confirm the surface
elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approxjmately determined from topographic maps of the area.
Classification of Soils for (Unified Soil Classification Svstem)
Terms Describing Consistence or Condition
ruMEWSffiES6
(kMSrd#dbdsbvo'hsly ddd ttw l:tddbnFlM
CNffiY*FEtil@sru
(ffidffioPsqhe ru*oi(:t,dow&lffib&ffisB.BEs8kq. aN
MlMgdcdll*d@1l&rdsra@
{hdvi
lllddC@tu8!qh
04 {Dc}
0-3 0
4,9 2-4
10 -4 l.mb2@ a-a
s,F 9ff emb4,m a- 15
>$4.mb Lm t5,g
> 9.@
lronlTrnE qoilTEt{T cEUENTAilON
lE$CRFTlt}I FIfLD T€gf
Prl
i!s&rof
ndBrre. drBry,
{fy !o fE tsittl
lillst frrrlptrjtno
laib{€ nsls
Wet
Vslbb t* wds.
c.d!sd$ i3Ddd
rN*r lEble
frcscRFnoir FIELD
'€S1
WssHy
gfl-dr{re3 ubr€die
{tlh Ns{hg tr slight
flqerpre3sfe
i,b*trSel!
Cjurdt€* lI bEd{s
lflh corlsirbrsue firBs
F€88if,*
sllof4y
Ltdllln*ffdeil
o{eaf t.lllh fng€t
pae6grte
Angularity
DESCRIPTION CRITERIA
Angular Parlicles ha\re sharp edges and relativdy plane sides with unpdished
surfaces.
Subangular Particles are similar to angular description but have rourded edg€s.
Subrounded Particles have nearly plane sides but ha\€well-rounded comers and
edges.
Rounded Pa.ticles have smootfdy curved sides and no edges.
l?+r^Cf uAlarqf tFu{tf f ttIl'l
Copyright GeoS fr ata, 2024
Soil Symbols Description Key
Suntight Valley Holdings LLC
6094 County Road 320
Garfield County, Colorado
Project Number: 1869-001
Plate
B-6
Appendix C
pH
8.22
Resistivity
(a-cn)
700
Chloridc
Content
(ppm)
76
Su[rte
Content
(ppn)
219
Colbpse
("/o)
1.0
0.5
Consolldation
ocR
3.6
Cr
0.0r4
Cc
0.169
Gnddion Atterberg
PI
13
11
7
9
NP
lt
1l
7
LL
29
31
25
26
NP
27
25
25
Fins
(o/o)
73.0
42,4
57.0
80.9
74.2
78.4
85.0
93.0
Smd
(%')
20.0
57.6
20.9
t7.l
17.8
2r.6
14.7
Gravel
(o/o)
7.0
0.0
22.1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0.3
NatualDry
Density
(pcD
82.4
105
105
Naturel
Moisture
Content
(%')
13,4
9.6
13.1
11.5
10.3
15.6
15.8
15.9
USCS Soil
Classification
CL
GC
CL
CL
ML
CL
CL
CLML
ganple Depth
(feeO
0
2
2
3
7
3
6
t4
Bore Hole
No'
BH.1
BH-I
BH-2
BH.2
BH-2
BH.3
BH-3
BH.3
Lab Summary Report
Plate
c-1
Sunlight Valley Holdings LLC
6094 CR 320
Garfield County, Colorado
Project Number: I 86940 I
n '-\aC*r.Alavr55t YI il til rtil
Copyright GeoStrata, 2024
+$
F
I
&
a
F
(,
AJF
o
F
z,o
&a
m
hi
E{,
@ @
Ic)a*
CLML _7 @ @
s
Xr!Az
tr
(J
t-(a
FlA
20 40
LTQUTD LrMrT (%)
Sample I-ocation Depth
(ft)
LL
(v,\
PL
(/r\
PI(w Fines
(v,\Classification
o BI.I-I 0.0 29 t6 13 73.0 Lean CLAYwith Sand
tr BH.1 2.0 31 20 11 42.4 Clayey GRAVEL with sand
BH.2 2.0 25 18 7 57.0 Lean CLAY with gravel
x DIt Artfa-L t^t I zll 17 a 80.9 Lean CLAYwith Sand
o BIJ-?7.0 NP NP NP 74.2 SILTwith SAIID
o BH-3 3.0 27 t6 11 78.4 Lean CLAYwith sand
o BH.3 6.0 25 t4 11 85.0 Lean CLAYwith sand
A BH-3 14.0 25 18 7 93.0 Silty CLAY
l?oaClyalaYI;\'YIIITIq'
ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESI]LTS . ASTM D 4318
Sunlight Valley Iloldings LLC
6094 CR 320
Garfield County, Colorado
ProjectNumber: 1869-001
Plate
c-2
+
+
FA(,i
<c6oa()
ts
I
td{HA;)
26
?
(JI
U.S.SIEVEOPENINGININCIIES I U.S. SIEVENUMBERS I
200
rM)ROMETER
4 2 t.s 1 314 t/2 J 6 10 16 30 50 100
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
.65F
HuoF>55
FA
d,c50
Z@i4sz
E]o40H
E]t35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.01100t01
GRAINSzE(mm)
I\T\I*re
L \rt \
I \
\I \
-
t-\t
E
\
COBBLES
GRAVEL SAND SILTORCLAY
coarse fine coarse medium fine
Sample Location Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu
o BH.1 0.0 Lean CLAY with Sand 29 t6 13
tr BH-1 2.0 Clayey Sand 31 20 11
BH.2 2.0 Lean CLAYwith gravel 25 18 7
*BH.2 3.0 Lean CLAYwith Sand 26 t7 9
o BH.2 7.0 SILT with SANI)I\P NP NP
Sample Loctaion Depth Dl00 D60 D30 Dl0 o/oCiravel %Sand %silt o/oClay
o BH.1 0.0 12.5 7.0 20.0 73.0
a BH.1 2.0 4.75 1.5 0.0 57.6 42.4
A BH-2 2.0 9.5 0.103 22.1 20.9 57.0
*BH-2 3.0 9.5 2.0 17.1 80.9
o 7.0BH.2 25 8.0 17.8 74.2
l2o,aClralav{trf gt r lrt t lil
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION - ASTM D422
Sunlight Valley Holdings LLC
6094 CR 320
Garfield County, Colorado
Project Number: I 869-001
Plate
c-3
s
+
Fo
{F
c
r
F
(,
FiI
D
F2
a
n
OI
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCI{ES I U.S. SIEVENUMBERS I
10 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100140200
}IYDROMETER
4 2 .s I zr+J 6
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65F
U
E]
F
tr
&
F]7h
Fzr{(-)
&
rd
55
45
35
25
15
l0
5
0
100 0.01 0.001
GRAINSIZE(mm)
:i
I
!._
I - ]t
I \
\
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CI"{Y
coarse fine coarse medium fine
Sample Location Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu
o BH-3 3.0 Lean CLAYwith sand 27 t6 11
E BH.3 6.0 Lean CLAY with sand 25 l4 11
Sample Loctaion Depth D100 D60 D30 Dl0 %Gravel %Sand %Silt o/oClav
o BII-3 an 4.75 tltl ala v8.4
E BH.3 6.0 9.5 0.3 14.7 85.0
l?oaC*yala\f ct\Jvt I td rttl
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ..ASTM D422
Sunlight Vallcy Holdings LLC
6094 CR 320
Gartield County, Colorado
Project Number: 1869-001
Plate
c-4
F
on
k
&
ooo
o
triF
oA;J
Fz
!!
I
I
F]
A
4
o(J)J
El,
!
z
O
ol
-.
\
\
\
\
\
\5
5
10
s
z
&tia
Fl
(-)
F&
F]
15
20
25
30
100 1,000 10,000
EFFECTIVE CONSOLIDATION STRESS (psf)
Sample Incation Depth
(ft)Classification I
(pc0
MC(w Ct"Ctt OCR Imrndation
Inad (ps0
Swell
(Y"\
Sollapsevt
o BII-1 2.0 Clayey GRAVEL with sand 82 11 n 1(o n nll 3.6 0
l?oaCfualaVgt Sl I ttl lrtl
l-D CONSOLIDAIION/SWELI,/COLLAPSE TEST
Sunlight Valley Holdings LI,C
6094CR320
Garfi eld County, Colorado
Project Number: 1869-001
Plate
c-5
*
b
Foo{I&
aEo
A(,
ciF
Q
E
oI
I
a
i
d()
5E
F
ao
z
ol
0
I
G
o\
z
dFa
F]
O
F&rrl
2
3
4
5
100 1,000
EFFECTIVE CONSOLIDATION STRESS (psf)
10,000
)
Sample Iocation Depth
(ft)Classification a
(pcfl
MC
(v,\c:Ct.ocR Inundation
Load (psf)
Swellvt
a BH-2 7.0 SILTwith SAI\D 101 8 1000 1.00
llo,aCfualaVrs;'t JlltlrlX
l.D CONSOLIDATION/SWELI,/COLLAPSE TEST
Sunlight Vailey Holdings LI,C
6094 CR 320
Garfield County, Colorado
Project Number: 1869-001
Plate
c-6
e
+
FAo
F
#
14
F(,
trir
AA
Fz
o
o
I
cl
IJ
QIt!
B
J
z
Q,
o
0
1
\
)
G
6\
z
&Fio
F]
CJ
F&
IrI
2
J
4
5
100 1,000
EFFECTIVE CONSOLIDATION STRESS (psf)
10,000
Sample Incation Depth
(ft)Classification u
(pcf)
MC
(Y"\Ct"Ctt OCR Inundation
Load (psO
Swell
(v,\(%
o BH.3 3.0 Lean CLAY with sand 100 t6 1000 0.45
l?oaCl,alavTtl,{ t; !!lrtf,
l,D CONSOLIDATION/SWELI,/COLLAPSE TEST
Sunlight Valley Holdings LLC
6094 CR 320
Garfi eld County, Colorado
Project Number: 1869-001
Plate
c-7
Appendix D
Photo 1, existing residence at6094 County Road 320 in Garfield County, Colorado.
l?.raCf '''.laviirrsl t tt rtil
Copyright GeoSt atz, 2024
Site Photos
6094 County Road 320
Proposed Residence Addition
Garheld County, Colorado
Project Number: 1869-001
Plate
D-1
Photo 2, proposed addition bumps out from east side of home over existing
patio slab and from west side of home on the second level.
(?'\.rCr'.;.lavrt;t yI I tt Irtt
Copyright GeoS t ata, 2O24
Site Photos
6094 County Road 320
Proposed Residence Addition
Garfi eld County, Colorado
Project Number: 1869-001
Plate
D-2
I,
Photo 3, excavation of existing foundation. Foundation appears to be a combination of
stacked stone and concrete footing.
lz r'\.rC*rfll,r , . .:r:t
.,,' "l; :.', .,;i !,1] u'$,i, i *,
Copyright GeoStata, 2024
Oa
;.li:-rqj:l
Site Photos
6094 County Road 320
Proposed Residence Addition
Garfield County, Colorado
Project Number: 1 869-001
Plate
D-3
Photo 4, field of rocks/boulders on east side of property indicative of auger refusal
encountersd within the upper 4' in three separate attompts to advanoe BH-I.
l?'\.rCrr.AlaYlttvJr r tt rIL|
Copyright GeoS t ata, 2024
Site Photos
6094 County Road 320
Proposed Residence Addition
Garfi eld County, Colorado
Project Number: I 869-001
Plate
D-4
Photo 5, field of rocks/boulders on east side of properly indicative of auger refusal
encountered within the upper 4' in three separate attempts to advance BH-1. A second borehole
was drilled approximately 5 feet to the south after BH-l refused at a depth of 4 feet. A third
borehole was drilled approximately 5 feet south of the second borehole after refusal at 0.5 foot,
third borehole encountered refusal at approximately 4 feet. No further boreholes due to access
limitations and septic system.
,?'\.rC*'.rlavrttt yl r til rtt
Copyright GeoS fr atu 2O24
Site Photos
6094 County Road 320
Proposed Residence Addition
Garfreld County, Colorado
Project Number: I 869-001
Plate
D-5
Photo 6, drilling BH-2 for the proposed hay barn approximately 250 feet west of existing residence
(ilt liltr oarlKgrouno oenlnu Ine rees).
fr AC*u**a
Copyright GeoStrata, 2024
Sifa Plrnfnc
6094 County Road 320
Proposed Hay Bam
Garheld County, Colorado
Project Number: 1869-001
Piate
D-6
Appendix E
ff sulnuhni uill- EnUi nnul'i nU fi epnrt
The Geoproie*eional Euainees A,$ociation {GFA)
ha* prepsred thie advi*ory to hclp you - aacumedly
a client reprec€ntative - i$terp.ret and apply thi*
geotechn ical-cngineeri ng report ae effectively ae
poeeible. kr that way, ycu can benefrt frorn a lowercd
exposure to problerne associeted with subsurfac€
condition* at project sites and development of
them that, for decadee. hsve been a principal cau*e
of constrEctitrn delayr, cost oyerrunr, cliEim$.
and disputec. lf you have questiolr$ oa wsnt more
inlofmrtlon sbout any sf the iseues discuesed herern,
cont&ct your GBA-member geotechnical engineer,
Active engagement in GBA expo*e* geotechnical
engineer* to a wide array ot risk-coflfronhtion
techniques that can be of genuine benefit for
everyorle involyed with a consiruction project,
Underrtand the Geotech nical-Engineering $ervices
Provided for thie Report
disstechnt€8l€lglnearln3 reratc€r tlpl€&ll!' lncllid€ dre planntnS,
{olt*€tlono l$tsrFrEtauolr, ard sns}y5r qf€Iplorqtorf .ldtr from
rvldoly rpeosd bortngt end/'rr te*tFlts. Fteld dets ar€ c$rabln€d
*tth t€flillr fonr httorEtorl" t€rtr sf roll aad roc.k fimpkr obtFlngd
from field ap!*rrudn {f rpFhrsblp.}"obsrvdtane mad.{ durhgrtt{
neronnslrBence, and hbtorErl Lofornrdtlon to form one or nEre mcdels
of the cxppded rubeurfscs 6oadlfl6or b€n€rtb ih€ dta L*rl geolcgy
en d slfi{uum! of th. rtts lurftc€ slrd subrurfB e by pr€{rlour sn d.
Fr€por€d t'lll$ir-ril-ii*n iiB riru iinFoaisni c€dsiilFJeiiBns" GeciKhnicai
er€ilosef' rpply tbefr englnp€r8rg trrtElng! fip€d.nae" rfid rualgm0nt
to rdelt the rqutranmtc of th* prr:.p€.tly€ ps4e{t ts tlra qrbrurfrce
model{.), Ertlmrt€r€re mdde of the rubpurfececdDdluutrs thst
wtil L&ely b€ tlcpo*e d dlrlng conrtnrf,tlsn a6 x.dl s5 the ryJcpestal
perfonumc* offoundatton: sr:d otber rtructur€o beingphnned nnd/or
sfected by cfli ftructloD sr.Ur1te6.
Th-. ndmtndtfln 5f thrp€ geot!<hDl(al-en*tneenqE r€r"t(€* G tld(attt e
gEst€ch$tcsl+Deheering rport praxtdlng thr drts obtdtn€d r dbrrsslon
ol the rubiurfs(e ,nl3cbUrf, the argtn*erlng ald geolcg!6 engtn€eiqg
dtt€trmslrts .fld ane\aer mgdc, rnd th{ t€{anun€Dd{flcor Seve}:ped
t6 istlsfy tbe glvfi rsildr€msoti of th* pmlocr Tlux r4rert mry be
tld€d lDre8tlsstlrsil3, stcglofeudDs, studlE , a$crmwuti, tr €v8lu8nffrf.
REgrrdli.rs €f th€ utle us'dt th€ gs*eElrnl{.l-mgrertD$ rEFort 13 en
.ogln€€rlDg Lnlspretdlor of the rulvurlEr€ {rrndlUonr wttbln tlx conted
of thF Frqlst and do€ net fqltr.fit a (,lo* *irnllrstlsn, r:fitematl[
lDqulry" of tll€mogb tmatlgrflon ddl dte Endeubrurfr.s cotrdlil,*nr,
Geotechnical-Engineerlng Servicea rre Performed
for $pacific Furpoeee, Periona, and Projeci*,
and Al Specific Tames
Crat€€h&l€al ingl.ae€rr strBiturG thrElr nrl'l{€6 ln rE*et ttre rFe.lfr€
neerle, gork, rnd flrk rtrlnigcm€ot prdcrenc*r of th.tr cllextr, A
geotrchntcal-*nglnserlng rtrHly eonducted f*l a glveo clvd engmet
wdl $pt Uft*ly mrel th. ne6ri5 of e ctvll-wor'*ir cotrstrlr{lof, or ey0fl {
dlffsrmt clrll flgtler, Etctusa e*dr gsotechnlcsl-englnserlfiF strrdF
le rurlquE|! srcb gaote<hbtceksg$seflng lEFqft Ir uniqu+ prepered
solrF ftr tb€ dlcDt.
Lllcwlre, gaotcdur.tc|l-crlgtn{€rlng ssrl.{6 trs Fef,fomred fer a ep*clfic
Frcted and purF,x*. For m.npla tt B uolllet!' thst d lFot*chntcil-
Gtrglnrelt[g surd], for r refrlgsrsted rareholr6e rlrlll be tlre s'JDf, ar
onc prqrrnd for a prr&lng grnge; etrd E fsw borLngr drllled dllrtng
a prellmtnrry *udy to .yrluats gtc feirlb,iltt!' reill4l! be edrqu.etF to
d*velop grotcdrn Lsj d.slgn r€f,8stmen d{tt6nr for tlrs Frul€c:t
Sonqlr.tj sn afi& rfpart tf yEur gEsk(h.ntsl 0ngrn€er proper*l ltt
' fo.rsdlf*reotclldl:
. fB( a dLfer€Dtprolsct w purps{i. fer a ditre.leot rlte (thrt ruy or mry I ot iodudre rjl or r por$on rf
thr orlgtngl dlt€)i o!
. before lD:Fifimt eventr occurrp:l at the 6tt€ $r edl{cellt ts lti
e.g, man-modr erenb ll}e mnstructlaD ar stfflroDnlfrltll
r.r$edleuon, or Drtlral e"E|rE llk{ llooda drorlshb. earthqu,elco,
or gro!.u dr{{ter iluctu6tlo$t.
Nstr. t6,+ lhe rellahllltf of a getedu:ksl-€ogtnErrlnflireF*rt {an
be rffec.ladbyrhrFsEsogscf ttme, b€€nk of fnct$rs ltke chrn4nl
subeurface esndnlsl q n€w or modlfied corlac, sbandard& or
rogr:latlcns; or newtedrnlqlpE or tool8, Illou arc t*tlwrl &'l rarrrdtr$r,
ebr'ilt the €Bnttllu€'J rettoblllty of thlr reFln, c4,lts(t yo1rr gR)t€(hrtcf,l
sngmerbsftreepplytng the ncommrndetlnur l[ ii A mln*r4mnmt
of sddlttoosl t*$tlngor alrp$s a.frer tlre lst|r-s€ of tlme* !f anlrls
requlrEd 6t sil - couici pr€vent mal(,r prrtble[u.
Read this Report in Full
Co*dy probkn* heve occlrred be'cause rhose r*lyrng on e gs,JtechJrt;al-
€nglit€ellog r€pcrrt dld nat r{€d the t{port l.It ltr elur€ty. Do not JaI}' str
sr €*e{lslw Blrmmsry, DpDAt redr*lectlve elernp8ts otrly. &FEd6nd
nfdtr fftrrrytrt f,lfdl
You Sleed io inforrn'four Geoiechnicai €ngineer
About Change
Your Est€(hjllcrl ersln€er cr3nrldcnl unlquq LrroJect-lF€dlii( fsL.tort
whfli {srrloping ths 6cop€ ofrttdy behlnd thJr repert and derehpurg
thF (onfifmetlotl-drpetdent mcrmmendstlFns ths r*Fort l1}nye,y|.
Typl('.l cbengsf tbrt could cmd* tJre r€li{blltty {lf thtr repofi UtrludF
th€rs thrt e.fect:
. th+cu€tilleurrhspsi. tbs gls{sl'fi, iqnfsurrflon- lFcitld{l, '3rlsntfitton,functlr:n or *elgbt cf the prErpend dru{ture snd
ths {ir6lr *t F*fforoi.n.. ff lterlEi
. lh€ c,]frFflltt*tr af thr dpggn tesm; sr. prcjKt dwD*ffhl$.
Ar a g*neral ruk, rtrlrq!,: lrfanu yuur gwtrchnlel eng!fier of prot{€t
or rlle ehrng*r - eyln mlndf oa6 - and requeel an ssratmsrtt of flrrlr
lmFert. ?*6 j|ufrr-tsn{ddt f,JeJ{fer rstro
'trtpilrfd
thts t4tort wr}nd 6ftp,
Sulrsurface problenls 8re a pnnctpal cause of c.lnstructlon detays. cort overruns. clarnrs. altd d;sputes.
Whlle you catlnot elinunale all srrch ftsks, you can msnage them. The {ollcwing lltformatron rs Frovrded to help.
(?a^C
VlI;T'9 lralall lilrtil
Copyright GeoStat
^,
2024
Sunlight Valley Holdings LLC
6094 County Road 320
Garfield County, Colorado
Project Number: I 869-001
Plate
E-1
,ttponrlbtlry Br td4tltl$at probleets tltfif 4{tir brrrt6e t}sgFotdr*ltf,?t
.rgbr.t€r rrls flf f feJbrneddlu*t rfrrrqptndilb rftr ff*friet oflrETtf ,ta
tlot ld lrsre ronrlifett?,
lrtlost of the t'Findinge" Related in This Report
Are Frofes*ional Opinions
S€ft{e ronstrurtlon b€glDs, *FatedMlcrl engine l$ *xpl*t€ a 6ltrb
rubsurfnce usln* yenous $.mFlu!! finil terttng Fto(sdiues. &cYr&:flu{attl
fjglnej5 e nn o&r8nrF dr,'sl.flr&Jr{tjb{d' cordra{ons RrrF rf ftro$e qFErff€
ir\'.rlfrrnr n&*rr rar4>llrg cilrJ ltsrtp€ & FFf/or'$aL Tht dqe dsrlved fr*m
lhst ss'llrllnF ind to*tlng v*re r*tewed b:/ y'lur g$"lt€(hnl{d f,Irglneer'
rho theQ epplletJ profritlon&l hdgFJir€nt tc forn! oPlnlen* aboul
lubgurl'ece {iDdttmr tfuough*ut ths slt*- Aatual stlswtd*-sut gurfEce
c,endltl$llr may dlfar - n*ybe rlgntB{untly - frem th6e hdlcrt€d ln
Itrl$ r€Fert. Cc'nfl{nt thst rlsh by rrtetDl[8 yDtu gooter.hoLal enEtnerr
to *rre ou tbeclerlgn tmIn thrugh Prtrlsft Eomfletl*n lo obtaln
lnformed Eutdsrrce qul*ly' t'*b*neYer nceded
Thir fieport'a RecornRnendetio{rs Are
Conf i rmation-Ilependent
Tlre r*r.qmnr*ndetloos hcludedtn lhB rdfr:rrr -bcludlru aDy oPtltxlr frr
glterngtlvar - arp c*nfirnrrtlotr+l*J,Endert. In olheru,E'rcla tlt*y arn not
frnsl" bssarlse the gc6ttchn!$l fIUlDs r+ls drvehperl tb.m rellai lxE"llr
,:$ lud€Elrrent eDd opLnlor: to do *r. t'cur g*dethnlcal €Bg[ns'ar cdr fiua]lze
lhe rscsmmFDdrtrll! r*.$ qJia' ohrefi 'fflg.rr?tld s**nfLtr {orfd{ttrd's
s:+lored drullrg aonsttrctlsn, lf tlustub otd€rsrdon y{ur gFct{itull(4l
er{tr€Er cDDfnrs that thE L-fiidluons s!6tu1ed to erltt 8f,tu€ur do €talrL
tha re{on:nLnddtorl drn tre relled upon, oeumtng no olh*r cbalgea lnve
*oillrrBd ?lrcguof*r&trlc*! erryl*'s 8410 t'n$fiftlt $G
'?tot?
rlpaut rF l#ttf,
r*:paru{rdlfp or i*r&flJryftr rc'rltk twttdrr-r{pmdrlf rerrnrneardctlerrs fltol't
JrJt to reftt', flrd*4gftts$' to FEFr'lt rofl5lrr.-a*t# o$5€f}rifon
Thi* Report Could Be Mieinterpreted
+ther derleln prolbsl oneb' mlrl ntrrtr€tatlofi af g*c,teetut-tr-ol-
*r:glneertng rip*rrE hst r€sult6d ttt tcrtll' problernr. CoDfront tbrt rlrk
ty hsvlng yout gtat€bnl!:el elrgln€€r sfrve st I c,.rntl$rIrg m€mbsr of
tbf d€dsn tlam, to:
. roaftr wltl other de6E!n-&sm $€rub*rst
. help d*ttlop qpsrJfr{$tontl
. r€yl€ff pglffn€nt elenr€nt' of ,]tlwr dr5 tgs Profs*slon rlc' plrnr and
cP€di{illoEri snd
. bE evs{at le wherruvar gpc*ech.ulcrl-€ngLnc€rtng guldance ts nesdPd,
f*trrhould alaa conftont the rltli of (,]nttrur:tort firltlnter?rsUng lhtE
reFffrt Da 30 by r*lstBlog yDtlt gsDtsrhol';' I sngln€er to FirtlclP{t8 ln
t{€tld 8nd pr€colrotructl*n cl1llf€rerr!:E$ nnd t'3 ferforut c4}nttructlon-
phare otrservrfi*n r.
Give Con*tractors 6 Complete Report and Guidance
S*nr* tlpnert urd de*lgn pr*ferslonalt nrlstskelly hFll€vr tlrer* €n rbtfr
ursrrtlcllqled-subsurfe(+a{,ndltl*llt lt&btltt}' t'l foostrfftoti tty Unrulls
the hJoriustl*n thq Fr{vldcfff btd Fr€Frrfltliln. Tohelpprevtnt
tl)e ffstlt" r*nlrntlou5 Illot{*ms lhls Frs.tl.d hsE cailrf,d,lncl&de t}re
compl*te Beotech[lr{ l-{lrgln€€ruu rePortl sl{,qg wltt sn}"ttochmpntt
*r appenriice*, vlth y.}lrl €ontr|d dof,unr€nr5, &tlf h. ratfii4 $ nd,r
(arrtrdflJe*rb arrrijar'lr frrrluderd l& t mfrlglglll,{'Infvt|trlfor,t ar.'Jtiltd:s
oftl To ivold tnl*uldc*tandhgytournryako waot to ni'te tbst
'lnfsfiurdonsl purpocc*' nr€ont .cti$tr$r.tore bave no rlght to relyen
thf, tEtetFt{tiuonf, oPtnlont, {oocfuBrFnF, o( rPcfirune[dattons tD th€
r{Fort. Be asrlsln that conrtruclo$ knov t}ey nrey l€trn .botil tp€clli{
piolelt t€qultetnslts, ltrchrdln* aPtlsfis set€ded fll} s rh€ r€Fott' .]ttry
from the dcrlgn drawtnga and epecltisatto[t, lf,mtud roDtlruriorf
ttst thsy ursy psrfn'ml thelr o\ieD Eutdtes tfthey lv8nt to' and lE tr$e lE
r:l{exuf,'rwgfi ffan* to }rrmlt th*rn to do *o, titnly then mt&t}Elrbe tn
r poslfl,f,n t,r glve conrtnxlFlr thr lnfenDatlon iY6llsbl€ to yotl, *lrtle
requlrlnB then to st l*i5t 8b8t* solrr€ ol th. ffilrdil r€tP$nrtblllu$6
st{rumlng frsm unentlctpald conillUtrnc CoEducitng Prcbld {nd
pre(,3rstructloD {onferen*c tro abo be rrluable ln thls resP€$t'
Read Responsibility Prouisions Closely
Som€ dl€nt r€pr€rs[trtlv€s, d*sl8n prot'eall*nrls" arrd {dBftrucl(,Is dP
not r*altse ilrct g.ot€{hnlcal engfns*rlrlg ls &t lees estct tluo c,thpr
ensrnrertog diEdpllnea Thtr happeru ln Psrt beca[5e soll and rnck *n
pml€{t rllss ers tlptcally h*terogeneous rld net rr]u)ufrctur€d msted{15
wlth wElt-d€fimd sligtn*€tlng ProPettl.6 ltlw steel md c*ncrete' that
Ieck c'frurdrrrtFndlng hrs nurtured unr*alletlc elpeclttllnr thar hdv!1
resulted ln dcappolntrnentr, delap *ost wern ns, clrl.m! utddlsputae'
T6 ronfrurt tbat rlsk, geolehnlcel eng:o€ene cBlrltD'rnly toEhdf,
eoqrlonstory pmvldort ln thrlr rePc.r15, S*mf,tlme3 lsbeled "llmitatlone'"
mury cf thrs* prtrtiltrrt r ll dl cste wber8 lFet {hn l€l engrn€{rd
rrrp{lrrlhlltu{E bsgin aDd €Dd, to help ath*rs rcccgntz* th*lr alfn
rerfonslt{lttl€E €nd rtske. ftcnd lr1fs* Frorlslons dorr'$', Ark qu*stlonx
YoLr g.r,technlcsl engJnear rhould reopond frdly sndlisnkt,
Geoenvironrnentfil Conc€tns Are flti Covered
Th€ F€norn€L eqr{Fnarl, snd tedrnl4uff uted to Pdtrm tn
enyltfnfir€ntNl stu,l]' - e"g., a "phar*+ae" or'phar*-twt' envlrE'nm{trtsl
{t{ e$€sarr€rtl - dlf€r rl4nlti.srtly frFnr lhc6€ uF€'d to Ferfonn .i
BP'trtfdml{ul'€lglJi€€fing $trdt'. For li{t tErsen, E ge+tsLhnL-d+n$neerhE
rfFort do6 not usLslly Prselde tftvlrDnlrtfftal fndtng5, .|f,JrehliloBe, e,r
ni{rrnm€r:drlldns; e,g,. itroLu tho ltle.llhc.>ll afenrauntertng undargnrturd
$ttralF tstrkE rr rsgulated contsmltrtDtr Uil'il?ft{trpdrd JUbr{JbrT
flvr?rfiilsrtbrttfiilile'ils rhtr4, M b ptqttt-&{tt Er. lflou hav* nd
obtatned yaur i]1rn €nylronm€trlsl lnfotnrdlcn ebout tht Pr'i]te$ slts
osk yrur gcotmhntcal cangulturt frr a t*oornnreEdstlsl an howto fnrd
ellytroilnrefit0l fl5k-rn&rsgFmqnt guldtn{e.
Obtain Frofe*sional Assistance to lleal ryith
Mciature lnfiltration end Mold
l{blle yoLr g€olKhnlcal *nglneer rnay hw* erl,;lrt**d gou.ndwuter'
water lnliltrstlon, er tlmller ltsu€t ln thts rep*rt, the tngllnterb
serylcsi $sre nnt drslEnqd. cdnductFrtr or lEtsnd,eal to PtEv€ot
nrlgrallon af mdlsture - lnclutltng rrut*r vop,:r - irom th* rotl
thFough buldltrg rlabo rnd '{ulls and tnto the bulldtng lnt€rtar' wbsl*
It stn ceuge mold grrwlh snd nltt*rlal-PBtfomistrce deiElentles.
Ac*:srdlnBly, proPrr lnglernrnlnllarl of lhe g*olnr&nirol *flgirrrr9
rw.snrnleillflljons *'ill.uail oJ-itsg{f ltr tnlffrir.rf to ptEfFnt
rnolrfirrr, i;-ttflraliotr. Co4fmnt tln' rit* a! moislnrc ittfitntten t'y
tncludlng bulldlng-eov*lope *r mahl rperlallsB nn the dettgn ttatrt'
CrolerJrrrifir, eil* ineen are nol brilrliag-elrulopr or mold sPrriali$s.
6EOPEOFEiSIOilAt
BUSF{ESsI AssoclanoH
Tclcph enr: 30 lJ5d5 -?7-i1
e-mail: inltrGrgcoprofrsrional.olE www,groFroicssional.or g
tioF rghl:0lFtif {ieFld|i5bnd ButntrirFchiloD 16&q}. Arpurtlq4 rpFdN[.q. s{olTlqEof thk dsllmL ltr tlEleatlj ftt( tTaryruitIlrffir' E {ddlJ
nrobbncl Juert t,|th GAi[r lpGrtf c trilbr pmbd6. fsrFr& qusnq. or atlK'tsc drxdrg iqrllry frm th!! dtrLrEtt lf Fml[Ed fnlt tlf tb!€lFH-xtlli!t PmltbD af
ti';:il;Fi;;"rp-.r r-iJ"Lfl *"ia * boot mtri oilf nmf,* cfGfA mrguctbudcwnt utlr rudhgilr€dspLilstle tr e il.Lnt!.ef rrpofl of urJttnrl
'try olbcr Em' rrdtrtd!{er €ahfi rntxrilr" s G thE dh-lmt slficl} bqlng r cDA ltubct odj b{ comslltloJ E€IEdt or hlrf,tlon!'l 1fu'r'uLntl rsEft#tdlm
--
(?'\rr(ru'.lavgt dr I Ll rtl
Copyright GeoSfr atz, 2024
Sunlight Valley Holdings LLC
6094 County Road 320
Garheld County, Colorado
Project Number: I 869-001
Plate
E,-2
)
