Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRockfall Hazard Analysis 07.02.2026Ir CTL THOMP ON July 2, 2026 IRMW, LLC P.O. Box 1037 Carbondale, CO 81623 Attention: Don Vandevander Subject: Rockfall Hazard Analysis Parcel 1, Lot 1A, Building 1 1058 County Road 100 Garfield County, Colorado Project No. GS07130.000-130-L1 CTLIThompson, Inc. (CTLIT) has completed a rockfall hazard analysis for Parcel 1, Lot 1A, Building 1, located at 1058 County Road 100 in Garfield County, Colorado. A commercial storage building is proposed for the site. The project site is adjacent to a near -vertical, excavation face at the base of a steep slope. Rockfall from bedrock outcrops higher on the slope is a potential hazard for the property. Results from our rockfall hazard analysis include estimates of rock velocity, bounce height, and kinetic energy. The scope of our rockfall hazard analysis was set forth in our Proposal No. GS-26-0104. Site Reconnaissance James Parker, P.E., P.G., of CTLIT performed a site reconnaissance on June 12, 2026. The reconnaissance included walking the slope above the proposed building site to observe the slope configuration, surface conditions and locations of rock outcrops on the slope. Parcel 1, Lot 1A, Building 1, is located south of County Road 100, approximately 1 mile east of Carbondale in Garfield County, Colorado. A vicinity map with the location of the site is attached as Figure 1. The proposed building site is in the north -central portion of a 57.8-acre parcel. The location is on a cut -fill bench at the base of the north -facing slope at the south side of the proposed building location. The near -vertical excavation face is approximately 25-foot high. An unpaved access road is north of the building location. Photographs of the site are included in the attached Appendix A. Slope Configuration and Rockfall Sources The natural slope above the near -vertical, cut -slope is relatively steep. The overall slope grade above the site is approximately 60 percent (31 degrees) in the upper two-thirds of the steep slope, and about 40 percent (22 degrees) in the lower one-third of the slope. The overall slope topography is incised with a broad drainage that funnels down toward the building site. Vegetation is predominantly sage and grasses with pinyon and juniper trees, and thickets of oak brush. Based on our recommendations, the client will excavate the near -vertical excavation face to an approximately 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1 H to 1 V) slope prior to construction of the building. This proposed geometry was used for our rockfall analysis model. CTLIThompson, Inc. Denver, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Glenwood Springs, Montrose, Pueblo, Summit Count; — Colorado Chevenne, Wyoming and Bozeman, Montana Geologic mapping by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) titled, Geologic Map of the Carbondale Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado, by R.M. Kirkham and B.L. Widman (dated 2008) indicate the slope above (south) the subject site is predominantly composed of Eagle Valley Evaporite in the upper portion of the slope and quaternary colluvium in the lower portion. A younger quaternary debris fan is mapped at the mouth of the drainage above the site, overlying the proposed building footprint. The relatively gentle slope above the steeper slope is mapped as miocene sedimentary deposits, composed of fluvial sand, gravel, and cobbles. Numerous cobble -size rocks originating from the fluvial deposits were observed on the slope above the building site. The Eagle Valley Evaporite is exposed as outcrops in the central, eastern and western portion of the slope. These outcrops are the source of potential rockfall boulders that could affect the subject site. Tvaical Rockfall Boulders We noted several boulders on the lower slope resulting from previous rockfall. The boulders were generally about 2 to 4 feet in diameter and sub -angular to sub -rounded in shape. The boulders were partially buried and did not appear to have been due to recent rockfall events. Large boulders derived from rockfall were not noted in the excavation cut -face. Photographs of rockfall boulders encountered at the site are shown in the attached Photo Log. Rockfall Analysis Approach CTLIT evaluated the potential rockfall hazard for Parcel 1, Lot 1A, Building 1, using the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP) developed by the Colorado School of Mines (2004). We analyzed three slope sections (A -A' through C-C') shown on the attached Figure 3, to represent the three primary rock outcrops observed during our site visit. The program requires input regarding slope geometry and slope material properties, as well as coefficients to determine rock energy loss upon impact. It is also important to estimate the size, shape, and weight of rocks that would comprise a potential rockfall event. Our site observations indicate the rockfall boulders are generally sub -rounded to sub - angular in shape. Due to the constraints of CRSP, we analyzed the rocks as spherical boulders. This is conservative because a spherical shape represents the "worst -case" because a sphere comprises the most mass for a given radius. Our analysis assumed a rock unit weight of density of 165 Ib/ft3, which is a conservative estimate for the evaporite bedrock. We evaluated rocks with diameters of 4 ft, 6 ft, and 8 ft. The diameters of the rocks used for analysis were determined by our site observations and our experience with similar rock types and slope configurations. The CRSP program simulates "rolling" of rocks of the specified size and shape down the modeled slope geometries at each section. Parameters that must be entered for the slope sections include estimates of surface roughness, as well as tangential and normal coefficients, which allow estimates of rock trajectory and energy loss upon impacts as the rocks bounce while rolling down the slopes. The analysis ultimately predicts the number of rocks that would pass designated analysis points. It also provides estimates of rock velocities, bounce heights, and kinetic energy of the rocks at these points. CTLIT set two analysis points for each of our three slope sections. We modeled a potential rockfall mitigation structure consisting of a 6-foot high earthen berm at the south (uphill) terminus of the planned 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1 H to 1 V) layback of the toe of the IRMW, LLC Page 2 of 4 PARCEL 1, LOT 1A, BUILDING 1 CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS07130.000-130-L1 slope. We modeled the berm with a base width of 15 feet such that the upslope and downslope faces of the berm would have slopes of 1 H to 1 V with a 3-foot wide bench on the top of the berm. Analysis Point 1 for each section was set at the base of the upslope (south) face of the berm. Analysis Point 2 was set below the base of the downslope face of the berm, between the berm and the proposed building location. Rockfall Analysis Results CTLIT utilized the CRSP program to simulate rolling of 100 rocks down each of the three modeled slope sections. Our analyses assumed rocks starting at a velocity of 1 ft/sec upon separation from the source rock at the outcrops. Results of our analyses are summarized on the attached Table 1 The first data set for each slope section indicates the rock velocities, bounce heights, and kinetic energy at Analysis Point 1. The second data set is for Analysis Point 2. As indicated on the Table, a significant number of rocks were predicted to reach the base of the rockfall berm below slope sections A -A', B-B', and C-C'. The analysis showed none of these rocks passing the berm and reaching Analysis Point 2 for any modeled rock diameter. Opinions and Recommendations Based on the analysis results, the highest rockfall risk to the proposed building location on Parcel 1, Lot 1A, Building 1 is within the central and east areas. The greatest rock velocities, bounce heights, and kinetic energy would be below slope section A -A' in the western portion of the slope. Mitigation of rockfall hazard is required for safe development of the subject parcel. Our analysis indicates that a 64eet high earthen berm, constructed at the crest of the laid-back excavation face. The upslope and downslope faces of the berm at 1 H to 1 V, would prevent rocks from traveling past the berm and into the building envelope. Other mitigation systems can be considered, provided they are capable of absorbing the calculated maximum kinetic energies summarized on Table 1. We can provide additional assistance to the design - build contractor, if requested. Limitations The analysis methods, opinions, and recommendations in this letter are based upon consideration of many factors including, but not limited to, site topography, geologic conditions, and the proposed site development. We believe our analysis was performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily used by geotechnical engineers practicing in this area at this time. No warranty, express or implied, is made. CTLIT is available to discuss the contents of this letter. Please contact us if you have questions or need additional information. IRMW, LLC Page 3 of 4 PARCEL 1, LOT 1A, BUILDING 1 CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS07130.000-130-L1 CTLITHOMPSON, VIC. 7-j02A6 James A. Parker, E., P.G. Principal Engineer iaparker@cifthompson.com Attachments: Figure 1 —Vicinity Map Figure 2 —Aerial Photograph Figure 3 — Slope -Cross Sections Table 1 — Results of Rockfall Analysis Appendix A — Reconnaissance Photographs Via email: don.vandevanderLamail.com IRMW, LLC PARCEL 1, LOT 1A, BUILDING 1 CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS07130.000-130-L1 Reviewed by: � .1 ames D. Kellogg , Principal Ei 0 3829E3 D ' O` nmii_ � Page 4 of 4 0 1.000 2,000 SCALE: 1' - 2,000' NOTE: SATELLITE IMAGE FROM GOOGLE MAPS (DATED SEPTEMBER 2023) imm, LLO Vicinity MR31L1, Uff I& BU UXNG 1 CTL/T PROJECT NO. GS07130.000-130 Map Fla. 1 0 100 200 NOTE: SCALE: 1" = 200' SATELLITE IMAGE FROM GOOGLE MAPS (DATED MAY 2025) psi • 7• � i � �. -'�` , -- -'3._ _,�,�,► :�._... _ . - - ; -�: - - - - ��b. - 1A. County Road 100 F��roposed Building �}�,��"y.`.. - ^' ; ' " Location WHOM&& ek IRMW, LLO Aerial PARCFI 1, LOT 1A, BUILDING 1 CTL/T PROJECT NO. GS07130.000-130 Photograph 19 Flg. 2 0 100 zoo NOTE SCALE: 1. - 200' Proposed Building Location SATELLITE IMAGE FROM CALTOPO MAPS County Road 100 Q` ej v CO U � I co U c i C � J J e Bedrock Outcrops t 1 III,,WI LW Slope PAR081. LW IA. MAIAM I anjT PROJECT NO. GW7130.00 -130 Cross -Sections FV. 3 N C Co a Y H Uo T O O O 2 f6 f0 Q O H O O N D d A ' E a� C/) E w a a a m Y •E u cc z z z E c C O Y O z E v n op L C E 47 �O 7 a a a X= Z z z c o N m .0 C) O C O Cl) X [V C E L E o N a a a `° ao Z z z Q m a In Z, Vf N (O M 0 CY.1 w N cD N U LO W � O OC O M r 50 r J O_ �7 Q7 H c E v o0 _ C N [a 0 m C T• O m N Y N U d O 6 75 U U U IO L (n N N N L L L a n n N VI N O Cl) 0 0 � o O o z m CD a(9 O -'I Z F- ~ 0 W O K J U p, ~ Cr-' J a U mo in L) �� / k § E 'Ea»5 E ? co 5/ r e ) 2 � ~ 4 0 z � �E45 t co/ § E @ § \ k � � N + k = � a £ _ 3 Cl) § i a § N s no $ § 2�q�®#4 / § � /\\£moo= k - ® \/\ CL 2 cc m a § 13 k E A E r U) _ £ § m m m _ x a M z z z � 2 { k t \�E— { { £ z z z G 0 S § x �§f/��� z z z z $a R co« < / a § / � § k co uCC k a L6C - ¢ 0cr / § k § \o E f CL CC c \\\ APPENDIX A RECONNAISSANCE PHOTOGRAPHS IRMW, LLC PARCEL 1, LOT 1A, BUILDING 1 CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS07130.000-130-L1 ,mil �. �^- � •1 ,�„ �7 - �4-1 4q�. . / \ • • . • "•'� ��;. . , _ l 'jam, • � � _ .J.. - .._ - �J Looking east across natural slope Slope above the proposed building site IRMW, LLC A-2 PARCEL 1, LOT 1A, BUILDING I CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS07130.000-130-LI r7, ff M Zimuz "A M- Looking east across central part of slope above proposed building area Rock outcrop on west flank of broad drainage IRMW, LLC A-3 PARCEL 1, LOT 1A, BUILDING I CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS07130.000-130-LI Closer view of rock outcrop on west side of drainage Looking cross -slope at rock outcrop on east flank of drainage IRMW, LLC A-4 PARCEL 1, LOT 1A, BUILDING 1 CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS07130.000-130-L1 J Closer view of rock outcrop on eastern flank of drainage Boulders approximately 150-feet up -slope from proposed building location IRMW, LLC A-5 PARCEL 1, LOT 1A, BUILDING 1 CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS07130.000-130-L1 Approximate 4-foot diameter boulder about 40 feet from cut -slope r � I Fractured and weathered boulder above east portion of proposed building location IRMW, LLC A-6 PARCEL 1, LOT 1A, BUILDING 1 CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS07130.000-130-L1 General view of site and slope IRMW, LLC A-7 PARCEL 1, LOT 1A, BUILDING 1 CTLIT PROJECT NO. GS07130.000430-L1