HomeMy WebLinkAbout801192.tiff CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
I
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
LAND APPLICATION TREATMENT FACILITY
A Professional Corporation
MIX Engineers Architects Planners
2021 Clubhouse Drive
Greeley,Colorado 60631
SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
Weld County
Department of Planning Services
915 - 10th Street
Greeley , Colorado 80631
PHONE : 356-4000 Ext. 400
FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY :
Permit Fee : Case Number :
Recording Fee : App . Checked by :
Receipt No. :
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURAL GUIDE REQUIRE-
MENTS : Print or type only , except for necessary signatures .
I , (we) the undersigned , hereby request a hearing before the Weld County
Planning Commission concerning a proposed Special Use Permit for the
following described unincorporated area of Weld County :
LEGAL DESCRIPTION of contiguous property owned upon which Special Use
Permit is proposed : —
•
All of Sections 5 and 6 in T5N, R63W, and all of Sections 15, 21, 22•, 27,
28, 29, 31, 32, and 33 in T6N, R63W
11 Sections x 640 = 7,040 Acres
•
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT AREA:
Same as above
STREET LOCATION : Weld Co. Rds. 62 and 61 (3 miles E. of cm) ZONE : Agricultural
PROPOSED USE : Wastewater Treatment Facility
•
FEE OWNERS OF AREA PROPOSED FOR SPECIAL USE :
•
NAME : See attached sheet ADDRESS : - TEL :
NAME : ADDRESS : TEL :
NAME: ADDRESS : TEL :
I hereby depose and state under the penalties of perjury that all state-
ments , proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within this
application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge .
COUNTY OF WELD )
STATE OF COLORADO )
Signature : Owner or Authorized Agent
Subscribed ans sworn to before me this day of , 19`
SEAL Notary -Public
My commission expires : _ _
llNAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
A. Bruce & Jackson B. Wells Jackson B. Wells 352-2952
Gill , Colorado 80624
State Board of Land 1313 Sherman Suite 620
Commissioners Denver, Colorado 80203 839-3454
Carroll & Arlene Bishop 32138 Weld Co. Rd. 68 352-8048
Gill , Colorado 80624
Theodore L. Nieman 222 + S. Ogden Street
Denver, Colorado 80210
Jackson B. & Lillian M.
Wells Gill , Colorado 80624 352-2952
Jacob, Jr. & Shirley L. Rt. 1 Box 24
Miller Gill , Colorado 80624 352-1749
—._
s{•.Ay. - , - ,
t� -� _ - ip.' .-..---- _ __ - , .)` AW A
— .v"�?rT.-ss .asaY _ - •S -
•
. ,Irvil , 4 i,,,"'"•-. " Pr, r ___..,--------s7:;ru - - --_____
At mss% y
-¢ - 0,l 1' - . s, �„. ,� c.....:,..._2.,j..--.„--.....,• •a,Niz_v+• 0 •f•-•.,..,-.'`
r �q •' 1e �"' I ..m_ �-iU ,;,,z,--)r`,"1 r.. ."'" `..,s�� Cosh. 7 ie
w �e� ,.5.J a lMJ�S .��ila�7ne, \�'il � tA._.s..ra: �� •- "" .AA4v 1 G'7,iz.,,
GREELEY CIVIC CENTER •
GREELEY COLORADO 80631 October 2 , 1980
PHONE ,303, 353-6123
Weld County Planning Commission
Weld County Court House
919 - 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado
Dear Commission Members :
Pursuant to discussions between the Weld County Attorney ' s
Office, the Law Department of the City of Greeley, and the
201 Project team, the City of Greeley submits the attached
application for a Special Use Permit . As you will note from
the information contained therein, the City does not currently
own the property required for the construction of this treat-
ment facility. Therefore, we are requesting that this applica-
tion be approved conditioned upon the acquisition of that
property, through purchase or condemnation, prior to construction
of the project .
•
This type of request is necessitated by conflicts in local
regulations and federal funding requirements . The Environmental
Protection Agency will not approve and release any funds for the
purchase of land to be used in this project until all local
requirements are met . One of those requirements for the Step III
Grant is the Special Use Permit for which we are now applying .
If we must acquire the subject property to obtain the Permit , the
Federal Government will not reimburse the City for any of those
f expenditures . Therefore , we request the issuance of a Special Use
Permit with the condition that we obtain a legal interest in the
property prior to commencing work on the project . This will
enable us to obtain necessary funds for purchase from the E. P .A.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter .
Very truly s ,
v`i' o� . D ' a co
City Attor ey
jk
i
"A COMMUNITY OF PROGRESS"
•
INTRODUCTION
This report includes information required by Weld County in order to make
application for a Weld County Special Use Permit. The "Procedural Guide for
Special Use Permit Application Weld County Planning Commission" was followed
in assembling the information. The report is presented in three parts. Part
I is 'entitled Project Background and Information. It includes miscellaneous
information as required for the special use permit in additign to providing'
the reader with a background of the project. Part II is entitled Bedrock
Geology Investigation and was prepared by ESA Geotechnical Consultants. Part
liIII, which is called Report of a Geotechnical Investigation, was prepared by
Empire Laboratories, Inc.
The contents of Parts II and III are supplemental to the extensive soils
investigations contained in Volumes I and II of the Greeley Wastewater Facility
Plan. One copy of the complete Greeley Wastewater Facility Plan, Volumes I,
II, and III, has been submitted to the Weld County Planning Department to be
kept on file. Information on the soils of the treatment site is included
throughout the three volumes of the Facility Plan. This condensed soils
information provides a representative sample of the overall soils investiga-
tions while eliminating the need to review the entire Facility Plan.
II
II
1M
PART I
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION
• r
II PART I
TABLE OF CONTENT
S
Page
PROJECT BACKGROUND 1
PROJECT APPROACH 2
'' THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS 3
THE .PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 4
II
General Information 4
Design Development 6
Citizens Advisory Committee Alternative (Site 4) 8
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED OPERATION SITE I 8
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 10
- Surface Water Quality 10
Groundwater Quality 10
Public Health 11
Odor 11
Visual 12
ill Agriculture 12
Land Use 13
WATER SUPPLY 13
ACCESS ROADS 14
•
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP 15
,
1
i
,
E
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Initial planning for the upgrading and expansion of Greeley' s Wastewater
Treatment facilities was begun in 1972. The engineering firm of Wright-
McLaughlin Engineers was retained to prepare a Facility Plan which would
llidentify alternative long term solutions for the treatment and disposal of
Greeley's wastewater. This study was completed in 1975. After completion of
IIthis study, the Greeley Water Board recommended that the City Council proceed
with the design and construction of a new "mechanical" treatment plant located
at the "Delta" site east of the city. The plan also called for the rehabilita-
tion of the existing First Avenue Plant which would continue in operation
until approximately 1990.
A great deal of controversy- surrounded the adoption of this plan.
Organized opposition, consisting of residents and landowners living in east
Greeley and the Delta site areas, aggressively opposed the plan to construct
lla wastewater treatment plant in that location. The Environmental Protection
Agency, partially as a result of this opposition, required the City of Greeley
llto undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed plant along
with a complete Environmental Impact Statement. Ultimately, the locally
adopted plan was accepted by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission and
the Environmental Protection Agency. However, certain area residents continued
to actively oppose the project.
Complete information regarding the initial Facility Planning Process and
the Environmental Impact Statement is contained within the following documents
which are on file at the administrative offices of the City of Greeley, the
Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, and the Environmental Protection
Agency.
ll ° Facilities Plan Report, Sanitary Sewage System for the Greeley
Region Weld County, Colorado
** Part One, Basic Information and Analysis
- 1 -
F
** Part Two, Alternative Plan Formulation, Master Plan Initial
Program •
**
Part Three, Public Participation and Supplemental Information
° Final Environmental Impact Statement Greeley Region Wastewater
Management Program
IIAfter receiving approval to proceed with the plan to upgrade First Avenue
and construct the First Phase of a new plant in the Delta area, an application
_ for funding assistance for design of the facilities was submitted to the Water
ilQuality Control Commission and EPA. This application was approved and the
City then retained the firm of CH2M Hill , Inc. to complete the design of the
project .
During the preliminary design, new construction cost estimates were
prepared which indicated that the total construction cost of the proposed
facilities would be in the range of 23 to 26 million dollars. The adoption of
the original plan was based upon estimates of construction costs in the range
of eight to nine million dollars. This fact, along with a new national
emphasis on land treatment and "non-mechanical" treatment systems, together
IIwith continued opposition from residents of the "Delta" plant area, caused the
Greeley Staff, Water Board, and City Council to re-evaluate the desirability
of proceeding with the proposed plan. As a result of this re-evaluation, the
City decided to study several additional alternatives which had not been
considered in the origianl Facility Plan.
PROJECT APPROACH
The planning process associated with the preparation of the original
Facility Plan resulted in the resolution of many issues related to the planning
of future wastewater treatment facilities to serve the community. Analysis of
IIfactors such as population, land use, waste characteristics, service areas,
infiltration, etc. is unaffected by the reconsideration of the method of
- 2 -
i
treatment and ultimate disposal of the treated wastewater. Consequently,
additional studies were limited to only an evaluation of various methods of
treatment and disposal of wastewater not evaluated in the original Facility
Plan. The newly developed alternatives were then compared to the originally
adopted plan and a decision was made to follow a new course of action.
During the analysis of the newly developed alternatives, the Environmental
Protection Agency indicated the need to revise the original Environmental
Impact Statement to consider the newly developed alternates. As a result, the
City of Greeley retained URS, an environmental consulting firm, to complete
the EIS revision.
THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS •
The implementation of any plan will affect many individuals and interests
ranging from those directly affected such as property owners to those indirectly
affected such as local businessmen, environmental interests, etc. Because so
many individuals and groups are affected in one way or another, it is extremely
important that all parties have the opportunity to express their concerns/
opinions and that this information be made available to those individuals who
must make the ultimate decision.
The initial Facility Planning and Environmental Impact processes provided
the opportunity for substantial input from individuals and/or affected interests
through public hearings, meetings and formally organized advisory groups. In
addition to the re-evaluation of the treatment aspects of the plan, every
attempt was made to gather the opinions, concerns and ideas which the affected
public had regarding this project. This information has been documented and
considered much in the same way as other data related to the alternates under
study. All such information was available prior to the time the decision was
made by the various public officials responsible for the project' s ultimate
completion.
- 3 -
After the various treatment alternates were identified, each was then
subjected to a thorough technical analysis, the results of which are contained
within two documents, "Wastewater Facilities Planning Report No. I, Vol . 1 and
Vol . II, 1979". Simultaneously, numerous individuals, organizations, and
agencies were contacted to inform them of the present work and to receive
their comments regarding the project. After adequate time had elapsed for the
review of this information, additional public meetings as well as a Public
Hearing were held to hear the views of all interested parties. In addition,
the Environmental Consultant, as part of the requirements of the EIS process,
held other public meetings and a formal hearing on the draft EIS amendment.
After review of the technical analysis, public input, and environmental
analysis, the Greeley Water Board recommended to the City Council a future
course of action. Following adoption of a plan at the local level , the plan
was then submitted to the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission for their
approval . Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency must also approve the
plan before design and construction can proceed. Throughout this process,
numerous other local , state and federal agencies will be reviewing the plan
and submitting comments to the agencies. having decision making responsibilities.
THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
General Information
After a thorough review of all available information which included
technical data, the environmental analysis, input from the public, and
engineering staff recommendations, the Greeley Water and Sewer Board and the
City Council voted to proceed with the implementation of the Land Application
Alternative. This alternative as originally developed, is fully described in
Chapters III and IV of Vol . 1 and Vol . II of the "Wastewater Facilities
Planning Report No. 1."
- 4 -
In accordance with the requirements for public participation set forth
by EPA, a Citizens Advisory Committee was appointed by the City Co
uncil to
lassist in the development and evaluation of the project. This group strongly
supports implementation of the Land Application Alternative in concept but
IIstrongly recommended that the facility be located approximately four miles
d southeast of the originally proposed site. The basis of this recommendation
was that by changing the location, all of the expressed concerns relating to
negative environmental impacts would be eliminated. Specific concerns with
locating the facility at Site I (the original proposed location) are documented
in the record of testimony from the EIS Public Hearing and in the Committee
report to the City.
, I •
Due to the concerns expressed regarding the proposed location of the Land
Application system, the Greeley City Council authorized the submission of a
grant application to the Water Quality Control Commission for additional
evaluations of Site I. This application was approved by the Commission at its
regular meeting on June 2nd, 1980. On June 20th, a grant offer was made by
EPA for the additional evaluations of Site I .
The primary purpose for the additional study was to further investigate
the physical characteristics of the soil and underlying geological features in
IIorder to answer questions raised by City Council, Water Board ana the Citizens
Advisory Committee concerning the suitability of Site I. The underlying
purpose was to increase the degree of reliability of the data used to select
the site for the project.
A description of the soils and geological studies undertaken and the
results of those studies is included in this report. Following is a summary
of the conclusions reached by the Project Team regarding the suitability of
Site I for the proposed treatment facility:
- 5 -
1. Site I is the most desirable location of the project
from the standpoint of cost, management of water
rights, and physical conditions of the site.
2. Underlying geology (bedrock formations) will not
permit infiltration of any significant quantities
of treated wastewater into lower formations.
3. Overburden materials (surface to bedrock) are
capable of accepting applications at originally
estimated rates.
4. The proposed system will not adversely affect
farmlands to the west of the site by raising
the groundwater table as has been suggested by
property owners in the area.
5. Water passing through the crop root zone and
not consumed by the crops will be recaptured
by the use of interceptor drains, ditches,
and wells.
• 6. Water rights management is greatly simplified
at Site I since return flows can be discharged
to Crow Creek and/or the Ogilvy Ditch.
Based upon the results of all studies, the Greeley City Council , on August 11,
1980 selected the Land Application Alternative located at Site I as the
preferred alternative.
Design Development
Four conceptual alternatives were originally selected for complete
design development and analysis. These included the following:
1. Treatment at the Delta Site using a conventional "Mechanical"
treatment facility.
- 6 -
t
2. Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek using a "non-mechanical"
' (aerated lagoon) treatment system.
3. Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek during the winter months
with discharge to the Ogilvy Ditch during the irrigation season.
4. Treatment utilizing a conventional Land Application System.
Preliminary design development resulted in the identification of numerous
- ways of developing the alternative system concepts which would satisfy the
basic design requirements of the project. Chapters III and IV of Vol . I of
the "Wastewater Facilities Planning Report" contain the detailed information
relative to all of the sub-alternatives which were evaluated. The Land
Application Alternative at Site I was selected from a total of eighty-seven .
. different alternative systems which were developed and evaluated.
The basic treatment components of the Land Application System at Site I
include a four day detention aerated lagoon, storage reservoir, and center
pivot irrigation sprinklers. An extensive underdrain system will be installed
in the areas irrigated by the center pivots in order to reclaim the treated
wastewater for discharge into Crow Creek.
Early in the evaluations, several locations were designated as potential
sites for land application treatment and storage systems as described above.
These sites were first evaluated to determine whether a winter storage reser-
voir of adequate size could be constructed at a reasonable cost. It is also
advantageous to locate the reservoir near the most desirable application
areas. From these studies, Site I was determined to be the most feasible of
the reservoir sites from engineering, financial and water rights management
aspects. The topography of Site I is well suited for the economical construc-
tion of a reservoir of adequate size. Site I is closer to the City than other
sites which will result in lower costs for construction and operation of the
required pumping station and transmission lines.
- 7 -
{ I .1 I \ -r ',-ti 't - j '' - IIIt '> 1 Y / ''(.',` p ` u t f J R•l II '-. t
, 0.a- r{" ,
u
I , I 'i• I S ,i _ �,
,r ..4't w 'r' e ' ',s ' f i .J �%N.i \ I
4�1 f• I ! -, /
I �
�' , I I _ J
�; �, p_-^, r n1 i s.
)1"Li.,._ .\ , 1
`-•. T --`——i �-- —— =I`_-- :� —. —+mil -. ...r-1._•-4}.-++ . , -:� / -,++, 7,-
,:,, ,.-,f+-.(,
- - - _�
- ... -�411sa�4,rr� ` a iii,�� t„0,01 t .I.JI1 N ., ---' '''t /
'1... II , rte y l' ti 'r
r S � ltiiiiil—...1�►\ i
- � ae► ■.iii■■rfit■ r t I -5---- = , _ ;A: ' • -f.; ._-- •�.
' Ii�i�d�i�• •n►1i7■i■. s__ - _
i yaiiii�=ice■■!! rr •�} T
l,_ —='.r M \i i■�' \iii "t li �'r' .!� '- IF 1
a F� '
` : Y!■t. x - ;4. O •-)k-..,-
,� �' o
:+� ' - Wit' r�'.,, - - ,FT•- - -I 'I `, - 5- +..
k.,-..)• r A Y tl . I • • l s
,, a lii i t. a } 4
1�, r ' '' .! I'
���LLL t`fir M �j /,
'' ,e �. I0
is
V.
. ,,,-.'..,, .,'ilt
/,mow } '+? •
"I •ay► --r Ja �f.p '1 '
•-"•• . 51
-i ` I POTENTIAL RESERVOIR SITES,,
Citizens Advisory Committee Alternative (Site 4)
. As previously discussed, the Citizens Advisory Committee recommended to
the Greeley City Council consideration of the development of the Land Applica-
tion System approximately 3-1/2 miles southeast of the originally proposed
location. As a result of this request, a preliminary engineering analysis was
made of this proposal .
A preliminary analysis of this proposal indicates that from an engineer-
ing viewpoint, the system can be successfully developed in this location.
However, due to the substantially higher project costs and water rights
' management issues, Site I was selected as the best location for the project.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED OPERATION AT SITE I
The information which follows is based on preliminary engineering studies
which were summarized in Volumes I, II and III of the "Wastewater Facilities
Plan" for the City of Greeley. During final design of the project, a more
detailed study of the treatment system will be made, and the results of the
preliminary studies will be subject to modification. The layout of the
treatment components at Site I is shown on the special use drawings in concept
only, and the exact location of the lagoon system, piping and center, pivot
sprinklers will be determined in final design. The reservoir location is
somewhat fixed due to its dependence on the existing topography of the site.
i It is not intended that the exact layout of the site as presented be made a
requirement of the special use permit.
Wastewater will be transported to the treatment site by means of a
proposed pumping station at the "Delta" site, and a transmission system
extending from the "Delta" to the lagoon site. The aerated lagoons will be
the first step in the treatment process, and a minimum of two lagoon cells will
be constructed. Wastewater will flow from the lagoon system into the storage
- 8 -
1
reservoir where further treatment takes place. The treatment system has a
built-in flexibility• at this point. Wastewater can be discharged directly to
Crow Creek from the reservoir if only a secondary level of treatment is
desired. However, an advanced level of treatment can be obtained by using
effluent from the reservoir to irrigate crops through the center pivot sprink-
ling system. Nutrients are removed from the wastewater by the crops and the
unused portion of the wastewater is then collected in the underdrain system
for discharge into Crow Creek.
The lagoons are proposed to be sized for 4 day detention prior to releas-
ing the wastewater into the storage reservoir. Surface aerators will be used
to provide proper aeration of the wastewater which should be sufficient to
prevent undesirable odors or appearance in the storage reservoir.
Sludge will accumulate in the lagoons as a result of treatment of the raw
sewage. The lagoons will require sludge removal every two to three years.
The sludge will be of a thick but liquid consistency and removal is accom-
plished by pumping or scooping with a loader. The sand hills within the
treatment site provide an excellent natural drying bed for the removed sludge.
Proper operation of the lagoons will produce a sludge that is stable and
odor-free thus reducing 'the potential for health hazards during handling.
The staff required for operation of the lagoon system is estimated at
nine employees. This number includes a superintendent, lab technicians,
operators and maintenance men. The majority of these employees are expected
to work during the day although operators will be at the plant during evening
and night shifts as well . The storage reservoir will require a maximum of two
employees during •the day primarily for maintenance purposes.
It is not yet known whether the City will own or merely lease the land
required for the center pivot irrigation system. The farming operation itself
may be leased out to local farmers who would then be responsible for their own
- 9 -
labor requirements. The number of workers required is also dependent on the
type of crop to be grown, and at least two crops, alfalfa and corn, are being
considered. The number of City employees could range from zero to ten depenu-
ing on the ownership or leasing agreements . A reasonable estimate of the
manpower requirements for the farming operation can be mane based on 3U0 acres
per man. With modern equipment and center pivot sprinklers for irrigation, a
total of 10 farmers would be needed based on 300 acres per farmer.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following information has been taken from the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement which was prepared for the City of Greeley Wastewater Treat-
ment Alternatives. Only the information for the Land Application System at
Site I is included below.
Surface Water Quality
The point of discharge of Greeley' s wastewater effluent would be removed
from the Cache la Poudre River. This would improve the water quality in the
river. The discharge would be made into Crow Creek between March and October
and is expected to improve the water quality of both Crow Creek and the Platte
due to the high quality of the effluent. The overall effect of the Land
Application System at Site I on surface water quality is beneficial .
Groundwater Quality
Soils in the reservoir site have high permeabilities and so seepage
is expected from the reservoir. However, an interception ditch will be con-
structed around the perimeter of the reservoir to capture this seepage water.
This water will either be recycled to the reservoir, or discharged to Crow
Creek depending on its quality. The reservoir will also be partially lined to
reduce this seepage. The lagoons are to be lined with an impervious material,
so no groundwater impacts will occur due to raw or partially treated wastewater.
- 10 -
In the application site, the underdrains will capture the effluent which
percolates through the soil . Consequently, minimal impacts to groundwater at
the treatment site are expected.
Public Health
Public health risk associated with the land application system is the
potential public exposure to the effluent during irrigation. Wind blown
effluent from spray irrigation has been shown to transmit pathogens. Conse-
quently, buffer zones surrounding the land application site would be required.
The size of these buffers currently has not been determined. An evaluation of
wind velocity, and residential dwelling locations will be made during the .
final design stage in order to properly size the buffer zone.
Health risks will be greatly reduced at the application site since the
City of Greeley will maintain control of the effluent during reuse and dis-
charge. Some risks would be associated with the farming personnel during
operations, but education and special precautions should minimize these
risks.
Odor .
The potential for the development of odors increases with the amount of
time the wastewater is retained in the transmission line from the "Delta" to
the lagoons. Air scrubbing of odors, prior to discharge, and a submerged
inlet at the lagoon will help to minimize the release of odors•to the atmo-
sphere. Decaying material which has settled to the bottom of the reservoir is
capable of producing odors when the material is exposed during low reservoir
levels. Proper aeration of the lagoons will reduce the occurrence of odors
from the reservoir during low levels. Potential odors at the land application
site will be minimized by thorough aeration of the soil . Proper farming
techniques including plowing, discing, and cultivating should provide odor
free conditions in the soil .
- 11 -
Visual
The proposed reserovir and lagoons will alter the topographic features of
IIthe immediate area. The greatest impact will occur during construction when
exposed soil will contrast with surrounding vegetation. However, as vegetation
IIestablishes on the slopes of the facility, this impact will be significantly
reduced. Analysis of the visual features of the area indicates that the
llrolling terrain of the area will aid in further reducing the visual effects •
beyond the immediate site.II The 4 day lagoons can probably be located away from county roads thus
IIreducing the visual impact . The exact location of the lagoon will be selected
during the final design stage of the project. The conversion of dry land to
llirrigated lands should not produce any visual impacts since the surrounding
area is also agricultural .
Agriculture
The land application system will convert between 2,000 and 3,000 acres of
historically dry land to irrigated land. This is in keeping with EPA's
agricultural land policy of preserving agricultural land. At this time, the
crops that would be cultivated have not been determined. Corn and alfalfa are
the most probable crops that would be grown.
Both crops have high annual water requirements and their nutrient uptakes
should remove most of the wastewater nutrients. In addition, there is a local
market for these crops due to feedlot operations in the area. A third crop
option would be reed canarygrass. Reed canarygrass has been irrigated with
applications of water of two inches per week (in/wk) which is comparable to
corn (2.5 in/wk) but has the benefit of a longer irrigation period. Reed
canarygrass can be irrigated as long as the soil will take water. It is also
a nutrient demanding crop. Local markets have not been identified at this
time which may be a major drawback to this crop.
- 12 -
The buildup of toxic or hazardous materials in soil , crops or livestock
has a minimal potential for occurring. Concentrations of these parameters in
1 domestic wastewater have not proven detrimental in similar land application
I
projects. The implementation and enforcement of pre-treatment requirements on
industries along with detention/storage of the wastewater prior to application
will minimize toxic materials buildup at the application site. It will be
necessary to occasionally monitor the pH of the reservoir water to insure a
more basic condition. This basic condition will reduce the tendency toward
solubility of metals which occurs with more acidic conditions.
No impacts to livestock as a result of being fed silage or grain produced
under this system are expected .
LAND USE
The land application system will have significant land use impacts.
1 Between 2,000 and 3,000 acres would change from rangeland to cropland .
Irrigation in the study area from the land application alternative will
have a positive effect on land use. This area is not looked on as an area of
commercial or residential development. Production value of the land in the
study area would increase as well as the generation of crop revenue. There
would be little detrimental long term land use impacts on adjacent farmland.
WATER SUPPLY
The location of the storage reservoir and lagoon system is near existing
North Weld County Water District distribution lines. NWCWD has agreed to
provide service to the site for domestic use. A copy of the letter from NWCWD
indicating the ability to provide water service is included in this document.
The NWCWD must satisfy the requirements of the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District in providing service to any customer. The reservoir and
lagoon site at Site I does not meet one particular requirement which states
- 13 -
BOARD OF DIRECTORS �..,
[_RNEST TIGGES NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
�-
ALEX HEIDENREICH -
ROBERr. ALKIRE -' HIGHWAY 85 LUCERNE. COLORADO 80646
GARY SIMPSONf� LYLE NELSON. MGR
_TOM REED �
P O. BOX 56 • PHONE 356-3020
`'` ' 1 "r19�0
September 15 , 1980 `'`-''
RE: Water Service .TTN: DICK urJT,;A
Dear Sirs ,
This letter is in response to your inquiry regarding water
' service to the following described property : .
The city of Greeley ' s wastewater disposal site south of Barnesville ,
Colorado , in port-ion of 6 N R,63 W.
Providing service is to land that is in boundry of Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy District , or land that is agreed by Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy can be served by North Weld County Water District .
1 . Water service is presently being provided to the
above described property .
2. X Water service can b- mdde availal) i e to the above
described property provided all requirements of
•
the District are satisfied.
If contracts have not been consuttrated with North Weld County
Water histri- , t within one year from date of this letter . this
letter shall become- nun and void.
Additional comments .
•
Sincerely ,
NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
•
•
- J
I y D. Nelson , Manager
I,DN/rM
r
that the site at which the water is used must fall within the boundary of the
Conservancy District. The Conservancy District boundary runs •through the
center of the reservor and lagoon site, and the water will be used at buildings
located just outside the boundary. This problem will be resolved through
Greeley's participation in the Windy Gap Project.
ACCESS ROADS •
• Two access roads to the treatment site are proposed. These two roads
will be laid out to provide access around the entire reservoir and lagoon
site. In this way, the roads can be used to operate and maintain the facili-
ties in addition to providing access to the site.
The southern access will enter the treatment site at the intersection
of County Roads 62 and 61 and cross the storage reservoir dam. This access
will terminate near the control , lab, and maintenance buildings . The north
access will enter the treatment site at County Roads 64 and 61. This road
will follow the northern and eastern edges of the reservoir and also terminate
at the control , lab and maintenance buildings. Other roads within the site
will be located on the reservoir and lagoon dikes, and field roads within the
land application areas will develop between center pivots. Any heavy traffic
will enter the site from the northern access to avoid crossing over the
reservoir dikes and dam.
The City of Greeley will be responsible for maintenance and improvement
of all roads within the site. However, part of the northern access is currently
a dedicated county road even though it appears to be nothing more than a field
road. The entity responsible for maintenance of this portion of road has not
been determined at this time pending a decision on this special use permit
application.
- 14 -
•
Traffic at the site will be minimal . The most significant volume of
traffic will be the result of employees arriving for work and •later departing.
Vehicles will be moving around the site daily as employees operate and maintain
the facility.
Truck traffic to the site will be infrequent. Large delivery truck will
occasionally bring supplies to the maintenance building. Trucks may- also be
required during sludge removal from the lagoons, but this is expected only
once every two years.
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
The City of Greeley does not currently own the lands which are within the
special use boundary. The proposed site is owned by several individuals who
carry on agricultural and livestock operations on the land. The introductory
letter from the City of Greeley's Attorney indicates the reasons for delaying
in the purchase of the treatment site.
•
- 15 -
NAMES OF OWNERS OF PROPER-1' WITHIN 500 FEET .
-/ , Please print or type .
NAME MAILING ADDRESS
Jackson B. Wells
. A. Bruce & Jackson B. Wells Gill , Colorado 8062.4
1313 Sherman Ste. 620
State Board of Land Commissioners Denver, Colorado 80203 .
Rt. 1 Box 15'Z
S.L.W. Ranch ' Greeley,Colorado 80631
Vera Peterson Rt. 1 Box 39
Kersey, Colorado 80644
William & Dorothy Walker 34380 Weld Co, Rd. 67 Rt. 1 Box 51A
Gill , Colorado 80624
72 Broad Street —"
Elizabeth Armstrong c/o Mrs. Hugh Dunn Guilford, Conn. 06437
,, fit. I Box 43 -'
C. Millard Bashor Gill , Colorado 80624
NE of Gill
Duane G. Bashor Gill , Colorado 80624
Jackson B. Wells
A. Bruce Wells c/o Jackson B. Wells Gill , Colorado 80624 I .
N.U. Box z143
Ethyl Margaret Nesbitt Bullhead City, Arizona 86430
•
Rt. 1
Julia M. Cook Gill , Colorado 80621
Rt.Altena & Julia M. Cook I
Gill , Colorado 806'24
Carroll& Arlene Bishop 32138 Weld Co. Rd. 68
Gill , Colorado 80624
602 S. 2nd Street
Frank J. & Maria B. Granado
• Kersey, Colorado 80644
2224 S. Ogden Street
Theodore L. Nieman _ Denver, Colorado 80210 '
Jackson B. & 'Lillian M. Wells Gill , Colorado 80624
Box 836
Fairmeadows Land Co. Greeley, Colorado 80632
Rt. I Box 21
Lee A. & Norma J. Miller Gill , Colorado 80624
Rt. 1 Box 24
Jacob. Jr. & Shirley L. Miller Gill , Colorado 80624
Rt. 1 Box 43
David E. Bates c/o C. Millard Bashor Gill , Colorado 80631
i
, r
PART II
BEDROCK GEOLOGY INVESTIGATION
•
•
•
•
GREELEY 201 WASTEWATER STUDY
BEDROCK GEOLOGY
INVESTIGATION
for
ARIX Engineers
P.O. Box 2021
Greeley, Colorado 80631
and
City of Greeley
Civic Center Complex
Greeley, Colorado 80631
by
ESA Geotechnical Consultants
317 Walnut Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 •
August 1980 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
ESA Geotechnical Consultants
DOUGLAS H HAMILTON 317 Walnut Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
RICHARD L MEEHAN
EUGENE A NELSON (303) 221-2612
RICHARD C HARDING GEOLOGY
KARL YONDER LINDEN GEOPHYSICS
LEONARDO ALVAREZ • SEISMOLOGY
MICHAEL T DUKES ENGINEERING
PATRICK 0 SHIRES _ GEOHYDROLOGY
ROBERT H WRIGHT
VICTOR F VIETS
PHILIP A FRAME
W ROGER HAIL
JULIO E VALERA
BARBARA I.
DWIGHT HUNT TURNER August 14, 1980
C RES 8 SCOTT
ICHARD WILLINGHAM 2189
r SALLY W BILODEAU
TIMOTHY J MANZAGOL
•
•Mr. Gary R. Windolph, Vice-President
ARIX
P.O. Box 2021
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Geologic Investigation, Greeley 201 Wastewater Study
Dear Gary:
We are pleased to transmit the above referenced report on bedrock condi-
tions at the proposed land application site east of Greeley, near Barnesville.
We have provided a bound copy for your files as well as an unbound copy for
reproduction. To ensure good copies of the drawings, we are transmitting the
original mylars. We would, however, like to have them back after printing is
completed.
We at ESA are pleased to have had this opportunity to work with ARIX,
the City of Greeley, and other consultants on the team. We have enjoyed both
the technical aspects of the work and the association with other individuals
working on the project. We look forward to future projects with ARIX.
Sincerely,
ESA GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
e7-'''e---1/4—/Li'
W. Roger Hail, Principal
Gil a / 7/..e., _
Barbara L. Turner, Project Manager
BLT:nb
Palo Alto, California Oak Harbor,Washington Fort Collins,Colorado
Table of Contents
Page
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
. A. Background I-1
B. Purpose I-1
C. Scope I-2
D. Authorization and Performance I-2
E. Summary of Conclusions I-2
II. SITE GEOLOGY
A. Regional Setting II-1
B. Geology of the Site II-3
III. SITE HYDROGEOLOGY (BEDROCK)
A. Hydraulic Characteristics III-1
B. Permeability Distribution III-3
C. Existing Water Levels III-4
IV. SEEPAGE ANALYSIS (BEDROCK)
A. Land Application Area IV-1
B. Storage Reservoir IV-4
V. BIBLIOGRAPHY V-1
FIGURES
1. Location of Exploratory Borings
2. Location of Oil and Gas Wells and Regional Geologic Sections
3, Geologic Map
4. Water Levels in Laramie Formation and Fox Hills Sandstone,
July 1980
S. Location of Seepage Zones
ESA Geotechnical Consultants
TABLES
A. Summary of Field Permeability Testing
B. Summary of Seepage Estimates
Plate Numbers 1-5 and Supplements A, B, and C were not included in this
report.
ii ESA Geotechnical Consultants
' , r
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
A. Background
For the past several years, the City of Greeley has been working on
a plan for wastewater treatment and disposal. After consideration of a num-
ber of different alternatives, land application was selected as the preferred
method, and a site was tentatively chosen principally on the basis of cost
' and water rights considerations. Because little bedrock information was
available, members of the City Council and the Citizens Advisory Committee
expressed concern about the possibility of important water losses through
the bedrock. The primary reasons for their concern were: 1) that farming
operations in the Crow Creek alluvium northwest of the site could be
affected should the project cause ground water levels to rise; and 2) exces-
sive water losses to the southeast would diminish the water available for
augmentation, should it be necessary.
The City requested and obtained a grant from EPA to study the bedrock
formations beneath the site, and to evaluate the potential for seepage
losses through the bedrock. After interviewing several consultants, the
City selected ESA Geotechnical Consultants to perform this work.
B. Purpose
The purpose of ESA's work was to study the subsurface bedrock geology
at Site 1, to determine the hydraulic properties of the rocks underlying
the site, and to evaluate the effect of bedrock conditions on the feasibil-
ity and operation of the proposed land application project. The present
study has been conducted to determine whether seepage amounts could be
significant and whether fracture zones are present in the bedrock that
would concentrate seepage toward a part of Crow Creek Valley, or to the
southeast where recovery could be difficult.
I-1 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
C. Scope
The scope of ESA's work included a review of published data, field
studies at and near the site, data analysis and report preparation. Also,
included were attendance at weekly project meetings and presentation of
results to the City Council, Water Board and Citizens Advisory Committee.
All of ESA's studies were limited to the bedrock formations. The
unconsolidated overburden, which plays a crucial role in the feasibility and
ultimate performance of the project, was investigated by ARIX Engineers of
Greeley and Resource Consultants, Inc. of Ft. Collins. Some of their results
have been used in developing the conclusions presented here, but no attempt
was made to verify or reproduce these data during field investigations.
D. Authorization and Performance
ESA's work was performed as a subcontract to ARIX Engineers in accord-
ance with our proposal submitted on May 14, 1980. Authorization to proceed
was given by telephone on June 11, 1980 and verified by a letter from ARIX
dated June 16, 1980.
ESA's Principal Hydrogeologist Roger Hail was responsible for general
supervision and review of the work, and performed some of the seepage analyses.
Barbara Turner, Senior Hydrogeologist, acted as Project Manager and Principal
Investigator. Supporting staff included Sally Bilodeau, Alan Isreal, Debbie
Lienhart and Nancy Bartlett.
E. Summary of Conclusions
1. The regional geologic studies indicate that Site 1 is as good or
better than other potential sites in the project area. Site specific studies
(test drilling) of bedrock conditions were not made at other sites. However,
regional subsurface data from published sources and oil and gas test wells
indicate relatively uniform geologic conditions throughout the project area,
1-2 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
resulting in little or no significant geologic advantage of one site over
another with respect to bedrock conditions.
2. Examinations of core samples collected during drilling indicated
that nearly all of the fractures are essentially bedding plane partings and
are sub horizontal (0-S0) . No fracture zones were observed that would provide
rapid seepage paths downward through confining shale layers or that would
provide preferred horizontal flow paths which could concentrate ground water
. flow in any particular area.
3. Very conservative bedrock seepage analyses were performed for
the spray irrigation area. A range of seepage estimates was developed,
using both high and low permeability values from field test results. These
analyses show that annual seepage losses through the bedrock at the site
are estimated to be less than 1 to 4 percent of the total applied water, an
amount which is insignificant in an overall water balance. Because of the
conservative nature of the analyses, actual seepage rates will probably be
at or below the lower part of the estimated range.
4. Seepage analyses indicate that a maximum of only 200 acre-feet
per year could be transmitted through the bedrock toward agricultural areas
in the vicinity of Crow Creek. Actual seepage amounts would probably be
much less and the water would be dispersed over a large area that is at least
five miles long. Even if the maximum estimated amounts of seepage were lost
from the land application area by bedrock seepage, it should not be large
enough to substantially affect water levels in the agricultural areas to
the west. These seepage losses, however small, can be recovered within the
Crow Creek watershed and are not necessarily lost to the project or to
landowners in the area.
1-3 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
rr
r
5. There will be bedrock seepage losses in a northeasterly ar.1 south-
easterly direction that will amount to a maximum of 360 acre-feet per year.
Again, the actual amount will probably be much less. Although, this amount
of seepage is insignificant, most of it will be effectively lost from the
Crow Creek watershed.
6. Very approximate analyses of seepage from the storage reservoir
suggest that annual seepage losses through the bedrock beneath the reservoir
would amount to less than 5 percent of storage capacity, assuming full
storage all year round. Since full storage will not be used most of the
year, annual bedrock seepage will probably be less than 2 or 3 percent of
storage. Seepage conditions in the overlying alluvial deposits are much
more critical to dam design and reservoir seepage control because these
materials are much more permeable. These conditions should be defined and
analysed in detail to support design of the dam and reservoir.
1-4 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
•
r.
-7 ' r
10 r. �.
,
•
I M
t /I G
1 13
i 1:...,
A. t M
a
1 "
/ �i
r7. ! —O a"i
1\
21 ,I 22 `/'' 23/,r
?r (//�` j 24
• /^ \ y ! `�i \Y' Cl / �'.-r-fib
'/� \ C, ,• M rt(11, -_ \ J EXPLANATION
' '� s Air Rotary Boring,
�� , ESA 198O.
1 ARD-I
X28 :/ -r' - `--''- _ - ' C-1
�, 1 •,4a - •\,`.,....,,, ,,, � '' 26- 28 • Core Hole, ESA iP8O.
, •. - :
} r.';Ali r Gill 1
1 I:- _r_ - -.°' Note: All exploratory borings were
33 _ :
3 35 % ' completed as observation •.cells
i`"�T s, 36
i ' ` with 2 in. dia. casing k core
i (Tut.Lake( , .
an holes and 4 or 5 in. dia.
I,, _ - / _ ".4-) casing in air rotary holes.
w �r SCALE
k r , , ' 0 5000
4', 1 -a� -2-
,r=' ; '1 feet
_,/
J ) �, `� ESA Geotechnical Consultants
'- / fort coihos co,orado
G
,\ )!‘43\-1-,_,- t �b\- Greeley 201 Wastewater Study
\\ `�.�-.,,-.ter'—\ia� ,• —`" 1e LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
M
..- -'
_ t ChecKeo ov5Jdt✓oW.c.z--e-�u-�Date tf/3, 80 Projee `o I Figure Nu
400roved by VI/-- 'f, t Date 8,/7,T, P
' Q 21 R9 '1
A ' T
- ty
I
•
., 4 :b 1, �, :n' ;sI ' `� l lb h ;S Oo I 14
tom'_ �� J i \'^;
II
N. I . .' _ "'%, -)4." f 'frjH ' '
I \ .
'Y' r -- l s, 91, i ti
r A. _`rtef1I 61
r �E 1N,I, 4
} i, _vv C . G \\_i
Z�,.,». a -- --
] —9♦ y Fad Terra \ I " / .
\HI
ri
y `, •,4•. J S 044
I Torn vessels. S^f.
* ` Lo.,., Nr4'; yAlex Fielde�trl chN0.1 w °
c,"c,a.,,.t ° °
S
...ice—. ,_I s=___ — ,4_i..,:fi— �,_4 '- r :‘ y.`0''',"-',•• — { , iy - ,
I
1, )
I z a f
:7,--- — -- '0s,o-_--,a� __c - .. '=•-�� ,I of` - i •.
S D Uohnson - "6, Gill '-*/
ZO2L�
r
PI€t.�k ceder• — I - 1 — J
r= '' , '
B 4 i; . �_ _ ,. .
_ _• .— -- I Choncllelet el, — N , — „ -
I -Stat ' V`Vo 4 r�,,,,,,Ar1
4
,. �L� �=5 `A' -�— a _!I•:• 1 r 4I \• O fi 1 Q0� '
sl .. ,. � - , , -- — "e
oa.`tl _..
The 't\ \
sa '''2
i,
' 8 o ,- . SCALE
.z. I ` fi _ a+ a ,I. - 0 I0t000
1 I
, ,,,,,,N° I' feet
a
Iu A".; ESA Geotechnical Consultants
t_ caK a5x c�ev` \ Fort Collins Colorado
y n1C
S .4 Iit .° °•fax
' Greeley 201 ',,lastewater Study
_I -" - .Pa Arne-dean Pef oleim 4r(1,-?...,- AND RF OF OIL GAS
GIAr FoLnGIrSF CEInSS
' (i—
UPRFI-Nv 'f' `i i F SiPro ect `o F ure �o
Ctiecked byrf-, - Date 3
Approved by * `•2e. DdIP '1 /� 'CI .,
II. SITE GEOLOGY
A. Regional Setting
The proposed land application project is located about ten miles east
of Greeley, in the low hills southeast of Crow Creek. Most of the study
area is situated on land owned or leased by Jack Wells , and is mainly used
for grazing. It is essentially rolling prairie land with sparse vegetative
cover. Topographic relief is fairly low with the maximum variation being
several hundred feet. The proposed land application site comprises
approximately seven square miles on the northeast side of a low ridge.
Elevations of the site range from about 4,650 feet to 4,800 feet above
mean sea level near the ridge crest. A storage reservoir will be located
at the west edge of the project area, in sections 31 (T6N R63W) and 6
(T5N R63W) (See Figure 1) .
The site area is situated on the north-western rim of the Denver
Basin along a doubly plunging syncline. Typically the rocks are nearly flat-
lying, dipping gently westward at one to five (1-50) degrees . There are minor
flexures and folds regionally, but these are conspicuously absent in the
study area. This absence is important from a hydrogeologic point of view,
lessening the likelihood that compressive forces would have caused frac-
turing and faulting in the sedimentary rocks underlying the site.
A series of regional cross sections were constructed across the site
area, using electric logs from oil and gas test holes. The test holes and
cross section locations are shown in Figure 2. These cross sections, Plates
1 through 5, demonstrate clearly the absence of major structural features
in the site region. The sections were prepared using the total length of
the oil and gas logs (to depths of 6,000 to 7,000 feet) , but only the
II-1 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
7r
uppermost 3,000 feet are shown, as units in the lower part of the geologic
section show the same relationship as those above. Due to the generally
subdued topography and lack of well defined stream cuts , rock outcrops in
the site area are not abundant. However, from the regional sections and
from published geologic maps, it was determined that rocks underlying the
area belong mainly to the Laramie Formation, of Upper Cretaceous age
(about 100 million years old) . According to Romero (1976, p. 19) :
"The Laramie Formation is considered by most investi-
gators to consist of two parts, a lower part composed pre-
dominantly of sandstone and an upper part composed largely
of shale. The lower 30 to 80 meters (100 to 260 feet) of
the Laramie consists of a series of thin-bedded, white to
yellowish-orange and tan, quartzose sandstone interbedded
with seams of lignitic shale and coal, and two generally
prominent beds of yellowish-brown to tan and light-gray,
medium-grained, quartzose sandstones. The two sandstone
beds form the base of the Laramie and from the base upward
are termed the A and B sandstones. An intervening thick-
ness of about 2 to 6 meters (about 5 to 20 feet) of shale
commonly separates the two sandstones."
Most of the Laramie Formation has been eroded away from the site
area, with less than a few hundred feet remaining.
The Laramie Formation is underlain by another Upper Cretaceous unit,
the Fox Hills Sandstone. The Fox Hills consists of up to 400 feet
(Wacinski, 1979) of sandstone and sandy shale. The lower part is pre-
dominantly shaley sandstone and sandy shale while the uppermost part
(Milliken Member) consists of a massive sandstone unit, characterized by
hard calcareous concretionsup to several feet in diameter and small round
iron concretions. The upper Fox Hills, together with the lower Laramie
A and B sands, make up what is commonly referred to as the L-F aquifer. In
the Denver area, where it is fully saturated, this aquifer supplies quan-
tities of water adequate for stock and domestic wells, but well yields are
generally insufficient for irrigation uses.
11-2 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
f
Beneath the Fox Hills Sandstone is a very thick (5,000 to 7,000 feet)
marine unit, the Pierre Shale of Upper Cretaceous age. The uppermost 2,000
feet of the Pierre is transitional to the overlying Fox Hills Sandstone,
and consists of interbedded shaley sandstones and sandy shales (See electric
logs on regional cross-sections) . The lower part is a massive clay shale
sequence. The Pierre is nowhere exposed in the site area, but underlies it
at a depth of about 150 to 500 feet.
Overlying the bedrock is a thin veneer of Quaternary age, uncon-
solidated dune sand and fluvial sand and gravel deposits ranging in thick-
ness from a foot or two to more than 80 feet in the buried ancestral channel
of Crow Creek. These units are unsaturated over much of the site, but in
• the Crow Creek Valley and along the northwest edge of the site, they are
an important source of water for irrigation. From samples recovered during
drilling, the dune sand was observed to be sub-rounded, fine-grained to
medium-grained, fairly uniform, and uncemented.
B. Geology of the Site
As part of ESA's investigation, 13 boreholes were drilled on and
around Site 1. Details of the field exploration program are given in
Supplement A and field data are contained in Supplement B. The results of
this and previous work done by others show that in most of the proposed
land application area, the bedrock is covered by unconsolidated deposits ,
a few feet to more than 85 feet thick (See Figure 3, Geologic Map) . ESA's
work was not specifically concerned with the alluvial units overlying the
study area, as the firm was commissioned to evaluate seepage potential
through the bedrock. However, unconsolidated materials were carefully
described in the logs of all boreholes drilled for this investigation. The
units encountered can be classified as alluvial deposits, terrace deposits
11-3 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
l -1
N
1 EXPLANATION
\ ,
I Geologic Units
Qd Dune Sand, Quaternary age. Symbol
of underlying bedrock unit in
parentheses.
to (;y „4 _-,„1 ;') l Ovf Valley Fill, Quaternary age Consists
I . of unconsolidated sand, gravel,
. _-,:f7,„. _, , ,_: 1 1, .�!.-.�;_>- ,_x r,_��. a r _ , silt and clay; locally more than 85
. feet thick. Symbol of inferred
r-
i ("1, KI \\ I underlying bedrock in parentheses
"
�- :S 54 1 K/ Laramie Formation, Upper Cretaceous
( age. Consists of interbedded shale,
A ..,/ , siltstone, claystone, and
sandstone with some thin coal beds
x r ` - - j,14—, Mostly sandstone in lowermost
r - l 50 to 100 feet.
.'
•i 22 ®. 23 <`,/ Y�;",. 2, Kf Fox Hills Sandstone,Upper Cretaceous
o 6 f b age. Consists of sandstone with
�' " .\` ( interbedded sandy shales.
-;�, .+. ) ='1 `' liJ -/ Symbols
j
I RD 19 Air rotary boring, ESA 1980.
, . \\ ,kAr6-I,-- , '
2 ,�`; '( z6 ' •i5 c-I • Core hole, ESA 1980
- - _ 1 ? •..
a _ _ •
•�; ,L.Gill } X \ ••• Geologic contact, approximately
' \ I rt'._ RD-2 • located.
•. Buried contact between Fox Hills
•?• Sandstone (Kf) and Laramie
''34,- K a 1� 36 • Formation (K/ ), approximately
1\'. located. Queried where inferred
- i t / I Approximate location of buried contact
��• _ _• - -...Y.-._ •_ _ _ _ _yti; _ �_ —
between top of L-F aquifer zone
\�/�� /l�, and overlying rocks Stippled on
ka\� / r r L-F side of contact.
�, _ -4 _\� Sources: Hershey and Schneider,1972,
rK J
, Schwochow, Schroba and Wicklem, 1974, and
3t
, \ r
_,4' Weist, 1965
- _" \\� r's� . "J ESA Geotechnical Consultants
I r`F• \ rorr Collins Colorado
{ . r, \ J-" ` Greeley 201 Wastewater Study
io• I_ :iN ,' :2 GEOLOGIC MAP
Checked bv<- '�� Date'. 9r ProleR No Figure `o
T� 1 _ �.- F i3 8-I 21 P,g 3
�ooroved by � �� Dater t
or dune sand. They typically consist of silty sand, clayey sand, sandy
clay, gravelly sand, or sand. The sand is generally sub-rounded, fine-
grained, poorly graded, and uncemented. Bits of organic matter, coal and
shell fragments are commonly found in small amounts in the overburden.
Beneath the unconsolidated material, bedrock is principally the
Laramie Formation, of Upper Cretaceous age (about 100 million years) . The
maximum thickness of Laramie rocks penetrated by ESA's drilling was 155
. feet in Boring C-4. In this borehole, both the A and B sands in the lower
Laramie were penetrated. They were found to be very dense, but largely
uncemented. In this and other boreholes the typical sandstones were fairly
uniform, fine to medium grained, sub-rounded, and uncemented to weakly
cemented. They range in color from light brown to bluish gray and contain
thin interbeds of coal, clay or siltstone. There are occasional zones
of calcareous and ferruginous concretions. Sandstone beds typically exhibit
moderate weathering (iron oxide staining) , and low to moderate hardness.
Bedding is typically massive, but subhorizontal bedding (0-5°) can be seen
where interbeds of claystone are present. The sandstone is saturated where
it is present immediately beneath the alluvium of Crow Creek and at lower
elevations on the proposed irrigation site, but is unsaturated along the
southeast boundary of the land application area, near the ridge crest.
The claystone and siltstone units range from light olive gray to
moderate yellow brown and are variegated in many cases. Some of the clay-
stone shows platey cleavage and grades downward to a more fissile shale.
Thin lignitic beds were encountered in most of the Laramie section drilled
at the site, but coal beds were found only in RD-7 and C-4. The maximum
thickness of coal was five feet in RD-7. In the five core holes drilled,
the claystone and siltstone units exhibit the spectrum of fracturing
ranging from closely fractured near the surface to little to no fracturing
11-4 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
at depth. In three of the five holes, fracturing and weathering decreased
to little or none at 20 to 30 feet below the bedrock surface. As an example,
in borehole C-2 sandstone bedrock was encountered at 24.0 feet and clay-
stone was encountered at 34.0 feet. From 34.0 feet to 36.0 feet the clay-
stone was closely fractured and then became little fractured, remaining in
this state to the bottom of the hole at 74.2 feet. In borehole C-4, however,
the claystone, siltstone, and sandstone core was closely fractured to 76.7
feet. Bedding plane partings may be a more appropriate term for the
fractures found in this rock, as they are aligned along the bedding planes
at 0-Se. There were few to no steeply dipping fractures seen in the cores,
which would preclude the downward movement of irrigation water through the
claystone along fractures. It was also difficult to differentiate natural
• fractures from mechanical breakage of the core due to drilling, when there is
no iron oxide staining or other sign of weathering along the joints. In
summary, no intense fracture zones were encountered that would provide rapid
seepage paths downward through confining shale layers or that would provide
preferred horizontal seepage paths which could concentrate ground water in
any particular area.
Stratigraphically below the Laramie Formation is the Fox Hills Sand-
stone, also of Upper Cretaceous age. This formation is relatively thin,
and attains an average estimated thickness of 135 feet in the project area.
The upper part of the Fox Hills consists principally of sandstone, while
the lower part contains a greater proportion of sandy shale. interbeds.
It is somewhat difficult to differentiate between the lower Laramie
Formation and the Fox Hills Sandstone or to assign a contact to them. In
the field, they were differentiated primarily on the basis of stratigraphic
position and rock types. Also, the Laramie Formation contains coal while
the Fox Hills Sandstone, being marine, lacks coal and contains some obvious
marine fossils. As noted above, the lower Laramie sandstones and the upper
11-5 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
Fox Hills sandstone, where they are saturated have historically been treat-
ed as a single hydraulic unit, known as the L-F aquifer.
Exploratory borings drilled for this investigation did not penetrate
the full thickness of the Fox Hills Sandstone. Where Fox Hills rocks were
encountered, they consisted mainly of very hard cemented sandstone (RD-2
and RD-3) with some claystone and siltstone (as in the bottom of C-4) . The
sandstone encountered in drilling was fine to medium grained, sub-rounded,
poorly graded and well cemented. It was so hard that drilling had to be
discontinued. It ranged from medium dark gray, to yellowish brown in color.
Horizontal bedding was observed in some of the samples (0-5°) , but for
the most part, the unit is fairly massive. Claystone and siltstone beds
were gray to yellowish brown, with scattered pelecypod fragments and sand
and silt lenses.
The Fox Hills does not outcrop in the site area, but is present
immediately beneath the alluvium in the lower part of Crow Creek Valley,
and probably subcrops beneath all or part of the storage reservoir site,
as shown in Figure 3, Geologic Map. Stratigraphically below the Fox Hills
is the Pierre Shale, which neither outcrops nor subcrops in the site region,
and was not penetrated by the exploratory drillholes.
From the samples recovered during coring operations , it was determin-
ed that most of the claystone encountered was relatively tight and un-
weathered, except for several isolated intervals scattered about the study
area. It was also determined that the majority of the sandstones encounter-
ed were dense, massive, sub-rounded to rounded, little weathered, non-cemented
to moderately cemented, and relatively pervious. There were localized zones
of concretions, but these were rare. Much of the sandstone encountered
11-6 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
was uncemented, which caused caving of the borehole walls during the
drilling operations. Within the Laramie Formation are thin seams of coal
varying from one-inch to five feet (1"-5') in thickness. These seams did
not appear to be continuous for any great distances in the study area.
No regional trends concerning fracturing and weathering could be determined
with the exception that the uppermost few tens of feet in the bedrock
(immediately beneath the overburden) are typically more fractured along
bedding planes and more weathered than the underlying units. However, the
excellent core recovery which was achieved is further evidence that the
rocks underlying the site are relatively unfractured, as recovery is usually
poor in sheared or complexly fractured rocks.
11-7 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
- r
III. SITE HYDROGEOLOGY (BEDROCK)
A. Hydraulic Characteristics
ESA investigated the hydraulic characteristics of the bedrock units
underlying the site by performing tests in the boreholes both during
drilling and after installing slotted pipe. Three types of tests were
performed to evaluate field permeability (hydraulic conductivity) : falling
head, slug tests, and pumping-in tests. Details of these tests and analyt-
ical methods are explained in Supplement A, Results of the 61 tests are
presented in Table A; where more than one method was used to analyze the
test, field permeabilities derived from each are given. Reliable storage
coefficients could not be determined without long-term pump tests. However,
published data for the L-F aquifer provides a good estimate as noted below.
Claystone, siltstone and shale. The data in Table A show that the
field permeability of the fine-grained rocks is very low, even in the
weathered zone. The highest field permeability value recorded for the
fine-grained rocks under the site is 131 ft/yr in RD-7. It should be noted
that the claystone permeabilities in RD-7 decrease rapidly with depth.
This is due to the combined effects of less weathering at depth, and in-
creasing degree of saturation as each test is performed. As the claystone
and shale are wetted, they tend to swell, closing small fractures or
openings, and causing permeabilities to decrease. Under the site, most of
the shale and claystone is above the saturated zone, so tests were mainly
performed in unsaturated rocks. The geometric mean of all test results in
the fine-grained rocks was computed from the data in Table A. Where two
or more methods were used to analyze a single test, a simple arithmetic
average of the resulting values from different methods was used for input
III-1 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
N >'
a) •ri 4-1
I.-1 1,.1 N
cd .0 Q I QC) t� QQQ . C) .c OO .:C Q i V UV V V L3 C3 <C QC) Co Q <4 on
.O ca
O •ri 4i
f. '-1 O
a a)
a
v
.-i
CS >.
i•1 .--1 C, 01 Co Ln O .D t7 Ln o0 Q1 .--1 M
O• r-i >. ri 1 .-1 M CT N N) .-1 N ri V) N N CD 0 I-1 O 01 N N CO V) C1 I ) N ,4 N .D N
N •r1 . O1 I L) d' V) r-1 V) .D I .D N ri r-1 ri r-1 In
•r1 .O a-1 ri Ln N N I N
fi Ld 4-+ r-1 N
O Q)
ri
a) of
a g
La
a) a) C
bI O v--4 U 'O r•'1
r-1 a) •r.1 cd •r1 Cr)
Cr)• -v b pp..-O -0 a b -0 -a -d N -L7 't7 b a b O 'V -o 'L3 '10 -o '0 N
•r1 O •r1 •ri •ri •rl 'O •ri •ri •r•1 .r.1 •H •H •r1 'O •ra O C G C C C2' •ri •ri •ri .r.1 •ri •ri
4—) •— r--1 E E C E E E E fi E E E :I-, E -r•1 C) C] ) COP =P C) C) E E E E E E f-1
>.a-) .L' in C f. Cd •" ,c r.. H U ..C .C rC Cd .C U in C/) C/D El) CI) C/) C/D .2._".r r" .-^-. ...a r. '-' a)
r-1 Q) U U U OOOOO U U U •ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 000000-
CS ,z• C/) bO V) Cl) Fi U) U) En Cl) O CI) CID Ci) i-1 Cl) 4-1 Ln Cl) V) Cn CI) Cn 0
V 44-i o
Z < •H 3 V 3 O V
1-♦ N 0 0 in
V) V Co Co 1
L1]
H .
a-1 - - b '0 't7 b - b 'C7 'd b 'O b 'O 'O 'O -b -0 d .O b O O '7 -0F^ in cd cd cd cd cd it cd cd cd cd cd cd Cd Cd Cd Cd col co cd c: cd m cO cd cd cd
H a) a) a) a) a) a-) O C) CJ U 4-) a) a) Q) 4-) a) a) a) a) a) C) 0 O C) C) O C.) C) C) a) a-1
a E- x ." .y x !n _ .._ V) _ ..._ .., N .-. J. V)
co 44 b0 bO CIO bO E. b0 b0 CIO L.-0 E- b0 b0 CO E-• b0 b0 CO b0 b0 b0 CIO b0 CIO b0 C10 b0 bO t]0 b0 E-
Q O >; C C t; K a a a a C i; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q ( •r1 .r-I •ri -r1 b0 •r1 •ri •H •r b0•H -r1 -H b0•r.-4 •H -r1 •H ..--1 •H •r-1 -H •H •H •r--I •r. • •-i •H t4
a) r-1 r4 .-I rH ri r-. r-t 1--E Z ri r•-1 r r-i r--1 rl r i r-I r I r-1 r4r4 r1 r-1 r-1 ri .--1 r-1
¢, r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 ri ri ri r-+ Hi r-♦ r—I r--1 r--1 r--I r-I r-i r-i r--1 r-1 r--I ri ri r-4 r-1 ri r4 ri ri r-1
W A cd cd cd cd V) al cd cd h V) cd Cd cd Ln cd cd cd cd cd cd al cd cd cd cd cd co cd cd V)
a E- D. D. Cr. D. D. D. D. P. P. D. D. W D. D. D. D. D. D. E.L. U.. Cl. E.I. E.L. C-.. C.L. (L.
E- O
a
w
H •
CL E
O 4i
N -op d' L.41 Ln VD %.0 Ln Ln
Cs. $.1 - - •
� � CA
O 4a ^ ri ri L- L- 1-- .-4 .-i d- .--1 .--I M N O CD .D .D .D d- .D d O .D -- O CD d' Cn O1
a) M d .D M Cl.) *Cr Ln L- L- C- d• .D d• d N M �. Ln .D CO r1 r-4 r1 N OO C)1 C N N- N
'>. .C U 11111 O I I 1 I I 1 11 1 111111111 111111
c4 a.) Cd ri ri .D N N M CD CD CD L./) Ln Cn CT N C\ d' d• d' d' d• d• d• d' ri cr ‘,:r CD CD
Q I .,4i N N N N N M M M • - .--c ri M r1 .--t .--i .--i ri r-i ri r•-1 ri CV Ln Ln 1l Ln C— E--...
G ID U) in rl
V)
V)
4-) 4-) a-) a-) 4.)
4) 4J a-1 N N N N to
a) U) N N a••1 .I.) i-1 }1 a..1
›N >. >, ri ri r-1 r1 r-1 Ln e i •H •H •H -H -H
E- in N U U U to N N to In to
.........................
O .-L ,..4 4-3 4-) 4 4.-) >. >. •--L 4-) a••) a-) a-•1 4-) 4-.1
cd O U 1n In in -U -O -b U N Ln to 4/) in ti)
O \ >. >. >. O C O \ >. >. >. >. >. >.
Z C4 N to r-1 in N In r-i ,—I Cd Cd Cd in in in N in N in V) N N N N in r--I ri r1 r--i .-4 .--4
O Ln in U N in N U U in y N N Cn N Cn N N in Ln to LI) in to V) OOOOOO
•r•1 +�-)C Cd Cll CI) CD
•H •H •H -E.1 -HEO.1 -H -.O.1 •H -H -H E -H -H •rrEI •H -EHE •H -H •Hj •H -H •H •HHE •H -H •H -H •H -H-EEH •H -H
fEi .,-I E cd g cd cd cd cd cEd cd cd cd
O E H fi k f-+ k F-+ k k S-1 fi k F-I f-1 I-I H Fi fi Ei Fi i-i $-I f-1 1-1 F-1 f-1 1-i f-i f-1 1-+ f-1
6L o cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd (TS cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd cd Cd Cd Cd cd cd cd cd
-o a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa ..-aaaaaa .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4
a)
F•i
a
4J
N
fa' z T.4N M Cr d• ri (-NI N) .. Ll) Ln r1 N N) M r-4 N M d• Ln .O N 00 C1 .--I N M d• Ln Ln
11)
.-i • ri rI r•1 ri .-•1 N N N N N N N) M NI N) d' ..7 d' d• d' d• d• d• d' Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
O .- I 1 1 1 1 111111 III I 1 1 1 1 1111 I 111111
.% V V V U V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V C.)
- - r
N >,
C) 4-1
HI •ri 3-1
0 •rl a) cA < CJ « < <4 <4 no on OOL) OCGQ < « « « C4 naC000U -
.O .0 3-1
O cd
fi •ri 4i
a HI 0
a)
cz
•
HI
cd >.
+J +1
O *HI fi iI •k •k •k # •C •C iC i1 iC •k k is
O ,-1 >. Lin N M %,D N Ln O 00 d• 00 h 00 00 .-i O .-i O Ln O CO O O) VD NT N vo CO N on 00
O ..•1 - M .•i M .1 O) VD NT r- M V r- O) C) N O d 00 O .0 qO O .-4 N r- .--I r•-C NT M N N
•ri .0 }) N N M .•i h N r1 e--1 N HI N NT ri r+ (NI N N co
fi Cd 4i .. •• -- •• - ••
O a) COO NMr1 N
x E rl N
fi
a)
a.
f-
4-)
O a) O
.� U U ,-1 HI .-1
Hi Cd •r1 •r1 Cd Cd 0.
}) )
v 'd b 'O a) 'b "0 ro b 'tf ' 'O 'O C) 'O -0 -n 'O 'L7 "U a) a
•r..1 0 -HI .r.l -r.1 b •ri 'O ..-I .H •H .H •H •H V) •,, •.•-I •r.1 -H •ri •,i 04 - C. 0
•E x CO E E E E E f~ •.i E E E E E E fi c-] C.'^. - C O
>,4-) E E a) O CF-1 E m U) U) a .c .` .C .: e) C) a) Cr; Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) r
HI a) O U O. U U U 0 0 0 0 U U C-.,_,'^ U U U U O O P. C = .:� .= '7
Cd .7. E) Cl) 0 U) fi Cr) k i U) Cl) E) U) U) U) 0 [-. U) Cl) 00 U) U) U) 0 `-�
2 < 0 3 3 V U Cl)
r•-1 r O •ri
0a)
tip CO Da
ELI -
F _
>• 3) -0 'd 'O b 'O - 'b 'C 'd -10 'd '0 'O r 'O ^O b 'O -0 -O -0 -
E• v1 as Cd cd al no
Cd cd a c1,1 d cJ Cd O n rd cs cd c3 co cd c co r
I-•1 a) U O 3-1 C) P a) +) a) a) a) C) a) a) a) a) +-) C a) O a) a) a) U 3-1 O a) C) a) O 0
.-] H V) x U) ... Cl) x _... .L .--. _. .L J-. ._, v) I-I U) I
C I--1
I-1
4 1 C0 130 F- b0 H bo H bo bO b0 bO bO b0 b0 b0 H C.0 b0 CIO 00 b0 b0 00 H bO 00 b0 bL b0 C-0
-'-1 < 0 •g >; G C C >= C g g g g C H G C >= G g G G g g
y L)7 •ri •ri bO -H O.0.,-I bC•H •H •ri -H •ri •ri •,--I •H bO•rl •,.-1 •r •ri •ri •ri •ri CU) -r1 •H •-, •r1 • I --C
a) ri .-1 ,4 0 r-1 ) ,--I -4. .- i r .1 .-•I r r-I i i 0 $:14 .� ,--4 .-.1 1-i .4 .-4 0 1-4 ,-I .1 r-1 , 1 04
C ,-1 ri r'4 ,-I r I 1-i . ri ri ri r-I ,-I .-I ri ri ri .-1 E ,-.1 4 ,-1 ri .-1 ,-I ri ,-1 r 4 ri ,-I r 1 E
C`a -. cd as up Ed N Cd U) a Cd cd cd cd cd cd aim O cd Cd Cd Cd cd cd U) Cd O Cd 0Cd O
�.-) O.. H U.. CL w u, W. W. C.:.. Lt. W. W. W.. W. C. Cl. U. W. W. CL. LL. W. Cl. W. C . D. C.
f C
a
C. C-1
_ 4-i
0 w
W. o
h Li) t1 i N .--I ri .--1 N cY 'ct '�7 %O [� O) C) CO I..l') co tl) O
r. Li. fi - N N N
O 4i Hi ri ,-4 d- MO VD ,•-1 .-1 00 00 00 00 h d' Ct C- 00 CO 00 00 .-i O O 00 C) O O O 00
a) h ‘O VO LI) LI) L!) 00 00 .--I N M Ct Ln \O NT NT LI) ,O h CO 1-I ri e-I ri N Ct CO VD G`
J.. „O U 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II III
cr 3-) Cd C) .-i ,-i h %.O VD V) Ln ri r-i .-i HI ri ri •cf CI- d' Lf) LO LI) 111 1I) NT NT C) Lin Ln LI) Lf) O
¢.(4i - in Li) d• v v • oO oo • h h h h •
li NT r-1 ri CO CO CO CO COC)O NT NT NT h h h h h CO • O
C [n ri VO '.O N N N NT d- NT d• d' oo CO co CO .4
-
ti)
a) a) N
U U in
a) fi fi >`
a) r-1 U) N N fi f-1 a)
Cd V) V) N a) a) >'
r-•1 • ri
H N >, >, >, \ - U
'CC \ 'r ,--1 r-1 ri5 5 .-) 3') 4) 3-) i 1 3-)
Cd U N V) N •H -r1 •H -H •ri
0 >,..---\ N V) N > > >. >, >. >. >, >,
♦~ CC ri N V) 0 0 C/) V) V) V) V) N V) 1/) V) V) V) U) V) V) V) N .-i ri r-I 1-i r-C ,--1
O O V) In V) V) V) ri ri N V) V) V) C/) N V) V) V) N In N N V) V) V) OOOOO (..)
.r.1 4-) ri ri ri ri .••1
3-1 G (1) C) (1) ,-i ri .-i rd cd c.) a) C) C) a) a) a) C) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a)
Cd Cd -H -H -H •ri •ri •H •H -H •H -H •ri •ri -H •,i •ri •H •.-1 •ri •ri -H •ri -H -H -H •r1 •ri •ri •ri
fE•1 •.i 55P xxx a) a) 55555 ,9 555 5555 ,9 5 555555
O E f-I i-I fi < < 't! 'U fi fi {-1 f-1 '•i {-I I-I k fi fi fi I•-I f"I f- f-1 fi fi $4 f-I fi �+ ii
u. O Cd al Cd O O O ri r-1 Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd cd Cd Cd WWWWWW Cd WWWWW Cd
'G aaa W. W. W. CC ..aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaa aaaaaa
a)
fi
a
4-)
m
a) Z HI N N .-i N N ,-i ri ri N M d• Ln '.D h h 00 .-I N M d Ln CO VD ri N M d' Ln \O
H
a) .--1 .-i .-i N N N M M NT d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' Lin Lin Ln Ln Ln Ln in vD cD ,D 'D CD VD
r-1 • I 1 1 I I I I 1 111111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
O - O C C O C C CC o O O C C C C C C C C C C C O C O CC C] CJ C C
.•ti C4 Cd c4 a lx x a CY cC lx lz cG lz x l; c4 c4 tti: 1;`' Et: c4 c4 0' a a C Cd Cd Cd Cd
4.1 a) +-) •,-) •H •1-1 F.
CCaa •ri a Co CnUUU CaU CODU 02 02 UUU < 02 a) p. a) 4-)
oc a4-) C:.c +
d
H •I-1 4-i
+� V) •ri
Lt. — O ,-ct-4a) ca > � •
+4
C4 .C H V)
4-) a) CO a)
4-) s= +)
- O C; .ri NIC v ••+-1 'L7 ri
r•i ri V) N
cd >, •k •k 4c• # a) a) DO
4-) 4-1 'D \C Lf)-
* *• > •r•r-1 H
C: •r1 H •Ic • •Ic •K jC •c is
O ••d >, •c7 N ••-4 r•1 N N. M C) O N. M Ln CC N. N 00 r-4 ••• V)
14 .r4 . r-1 V) H N M r1 ri N M O N C) Cd
•r .—^ 4-) ri ri N Ln Li) M H "0 U •
Fc C 4i
C
O a) a) r)
cd U .C +-3 •
3 C•I a
O •r )
a •rr.1 a) O 0)
+) ri ,d C
at a
• a) 4) CO 00 a) 4))
r-1 U V) •ri ,� C
r•-I Cd •ri r-1 4-) Cd
Cd 4-) a) a) O CO +)
-'-4 0 'd
a aa [,' a a aaa a b a) 'd � H .fl •H
4-) .C 0.1 CC q cc) co e0 C] C) C? Ca C] C) E E c C N a) r1 •rf
>,4—) V) (f) V) Cl) Cl) C/D Cr) Cl) V) Cl) G) V) ,.0 a) cd 3 v) -.C •-1
•-4 a) a a = U U C. 0 a) +-1 Cd +.)
C V) V) 0 H1-4 r•i 4i 0
C..)Z < C..) 3 v) O bA
"1 , O 4..+ ,--4 Z v)
r" O V) r-I a) •ri •H
Cl)LL1 C4 i H
•O d •
E•' a) 0 v) r 7 CO
• 4-) i-I L-. C
Y• 4 b •d b b 'd 'Cl b -0 '0 'd 'O 'O "0 '0 < 0 cd
— E-• in cd Cd Cd cd cd ca cd cd cd cd cd rd cd cd a) a) H R...C
)--I a) a) a) a) a) a) Ci a) a) a) a) 00 a) a) +) 4.) X '0 0 U
'-) H = ..... x x �.. ".. = .i 'X ... ..� _. .-.. v) V) CA Cd H
Ca 4-c CO CO bO CO bO DA CC DO bA DO DA CA bA DA c-• H •ri 0 a)
•ri < O C C C Cg C C C C C '" C C G' N " > r-4 •?
4-) W •ri •r1 .H •r1 •ri •ri •H •H •r-I •ri •ri •n •H •r-i bA ^0 Cd U Cl) a) a)
a) ri — ri r1 r1 rf r-•- r-I r--I ri ri r1 ri ,-4 C C r• U •r1 r-1 } ri
1 v-4r-1 •--I .--I r-i r-1 r-•I r1 ri r-+ r1 r1 r-c r1 r1
W Cd Ca Cd cd cd d cd d N cd cd cd cd cd Cr) V) Q) 3 H ;--1H
a E— Cl-. r.. w Cl., w r~ u, u.. r.. u. ri.. u-. CL. LL. .t; a) a)
< Q _ H g H o) ca
Cl) •
H aO-) 3 Cd 3 x
I•-1 a) U 0 3 r--I U
O 4iO) Cr) .-f N N N O O CD O O• 3 44 4-) "d •ri H
Cl-. 4-I Ln N14 Ln LO Ln 00 00 00 d• Cr rr i ri .--f ri ri a) a) a) •�
Cl-,.•rl b
a) N N M d• 11) Ln 'o 'o r-( r-I ri C0 co co 00 In E H cd O C)
J-. ••C U I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 a) H •ri +-1
a 4.) Cd r- r- N r- r- O r- c) N. r- 00 r- v) ri ri ri •C C) rC cd
ta.4i C) N N N 4-) 3 0 C H
a) H .a �o .a .n VD N rn 4-) a) O
Q ri r--1 r-1 ri ,--i M rir-i v) rM-I `O Cd a u) a) 3 v)an 0 a) 'Cl +)
tri N +-I r1 >,
V) C .--I
O a) X 1~ •rl Cd
4J 4-3 U •H 4a •H
Q) a) a) Cd O d 4a 4-)
?�.. C r1 H H cd •r1 H
r-I E,•• V) rg 4-) C 4-) 'U H O.
'Cl N N •H Ca a) a)
C .4 4- 4-) 4- 4-3 4-) 4-) 4-) 4-) 4-) +> >, b .--1 V) 4-) 4a H H
cd U N M v) v) N N v) V) v) v) a) .-I C a) cd O O 0
O >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, >, cd Cd H a) H E
O CC: ri ri .i ri r•I '-4 r-1 . 4 r--I ri r-I 0 V) V) V) In cn O H '0
O U O D U U U N v U U U U U U ) v) 4/) C) -) � •1:1
• O >,
+) C a) 0 a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) 0 C O a) O C In E cd cd C
Cd Cd •H •H •r-1 •ri •EEl •H E •H •rEi •H •r1 •E-4 •-4 •,E4 •,i •-4 .H 00 +a +� >, E •H C
cts
H •rI cd cd cd cd cd Ca cd cd id cd id id cd ccdd C U) 4-) r-4 a) v) a) 4-)
O E H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H O >N I-4 U •C -r-i C 4- •D Cd
C7-. O Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd cd cd Cd Cd Cd cd Cd +•) Cd •,-1 4.) •r-4 C V)
T1 r-a a a a a ...) a aaa as .4 .4 .1 .4 a) in .--4 in II 'L7 a) C C
a) •-4 'd U >, 0 A•H Cd
H Cd C II V) r-I +.) HI U U
R. "C Cd II V) Ht V) •--I •ri C
r-, n n ,•-, V) V) 4-) Cd a) 0 4a C •r4
V) N V) V) 4-1 V) >, H 4-3 .C 4i 0
4-) H 1-4 H H H II v) +) a) a) 3 O •H +-)
V) • cd ,LI Cd rC Cd ..G Cd ,g >,r1 >, 1~ •"1 V) 4-) in
Cl.) O r-I r 4 N M ..:1- V Lf) co ,O r- r- Co ,--4 N N N .C •v) .—I -H Hi a) Cd H C Cd a)
E— Z co Ln 00 v V) V) O V) U C7 > 0 •H +) H
•c7 r-4 .1 N N
v v v v a)
4-) r-1 N #
a) N N. r. N. r. r` N. N. r. r. N. r. CO CO CO CO 0
✓1 • I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I IIII .Z
C 0 O C C] GM CI C] C GM 0 C) C) O C] C) C] C)
Z as aaarz end cd Craa a aaada
• 43
into the geometric mean calculations. For tests in claystone, shale and
siltstone (30 tests) the mean value was 10 ft/yr.
The field tests performed provide data on the horizontal (along bed-
ding) field permeabilities of the rock, since the bedding is oriented approx-
imately perpendicular to the drill holes. This is the preferred flow path
within the rock mass, and permeabilities in this direction will be higher
than in any other direction. As a result of interbedding and absence of
vertical fracturing within the Laramie Formation, the vertical conductivity
(Kv) will be much less than the horizontal conductivity (Kh) . At this
site, Kv is estimated to be at most 1/10 Kh, and may be as little as
1/100 Kh.
Sandstone and coal. The test results in Table A show that the field
permeability of sandstones, while generally greater than the fine-grained
rocks, is highly variable. Some of the lowest field permeability values
resulted from tests in relatively thin sandstones , stratigraphically above
the L-F "aquifer" zone. Correlation of units from borehole data showed
that these sandstones were not always laterally continuous, and this may be
one reason for their lower permeability.
Test results in the lower Laramie and in the Fox Hills Sandstone
(L-F zone) showed generally higher field permeabilities , ranging from 32
ft/yr to 3,141 ft/yr. The range of field permeabilities reported for the
L-F aquifer in the Denver Basin was recently summarized by Romero (1976, p. 42)
who suggested a probable range of 10-35 gallons per day per foot2 (488 to
1,708 ft/yr) . Most of the sandstone test results at the site fall into or
below this range. Extremes at both ends of the scale are probably attribut-
able to inherent errors in test procedures or to unusual conditions affect-
ing the test, such as caving of the borehole walls. Geometric means of the
111-2 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
r
sandstone permeability data were calculated using two different ways :
1) the data from all tests (multiple values for a given test interval were
arithmetically averaged) , and 2) only those test data obtained under sat-
urated conditions. These averages are 118 ft/yr (31 tests) and 303 ft/yr
(16 tests) respectively.
As mentioned above, it is important to remember that test results
represent only horizontal field permeabilities. Vertical field perme-
abilities in the sandstone are probably on the order of 1/10 to 1/100 the ,
horizontal values. This affects seepage rates, since water must move verti-
cally downward before it can travel horizontally within the bedrock.
Storage coefficients for the L-F aquifer have been reported by Romero
(1976, p. 45) to range from 0.00012 to 0.21, with an average of 0.0004
under artesian (confined) conditions and 0.15 for water table conditions.
Although it is theoretically possible to determine storage coefficients
from slug test data using the method of Cooper et al (1967) it is not a
very reliable method because small changes in the match points selected
result in large changes in storativity. The lack of site specific data
on storativity is not of great importance however, since the method used
for seepage analysis assumes steady state conditions.
B. Permeability Distribution
The interpretation of regional geologic data has been combined with
drilling at the site to determine what rock types underlie the alluvium
which covers the area. As described above, bedrock beneath the site consists
of shale, claystone, siltstone and sandstone of the Laramie Formation and
Fox Hills Sandstone. Water tests performed for this investigation show
that the most permeable bedrock units are the sandstones in the upper part
of the L-F aquifer zone. Based on regional and site specific studies,
the approximate subcrop of the L-F zone beneath the site was delineated,
111-3 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
and is shown on the geologic map, Figure 3. As this figure illustrates,
bedrock subcropping beneath the storage reservoir and southwestern part of
the land application area, is mainly sandstone, and in the northeast part
of the land application area, is mainly shale, claystone and siltstone.
This means that seepage rates through the bedrock will be less in the
northeastern part of the project area. Water seeping downward will have
to pass through the low permeability shales and claystones before reaching
' laterally continuous sandstone beds.
C. Existing Water Levels
In order to evaluate the seepage potential, it was necessary to
determine the direction and slope of existing hydraulic gradients in the
project area. To do this, boreholes were completed as monitoring wells
(piezometers) within the bedrock, and measurements of static water levels
were made after testing was finished. As would be expected, water levels
reached equilibrium most rapidly in boreholes where the higher permeability
tests were recorded. In two borings, RD-6 and RD-7, water levels dropped
so slowly that it was not apparent until after drilling and testing were
completed, that the saturated zone had not been reached.
To supplement water level data from the 13 ESA boreholes, measure-
ments were also made in one abandoned well and, ten stock wells with wind-
mills on and around the site. Water levels measured in stock wells must be
used with some caution, since, if they have been pumping, measured levels
could be somewhat lower than static levels. In most cases measurements were
made on days when there was not very much wind, so that data are probably
reliable to within a few feet. Also, reference point elevations were not sur-
veyed and elevations were estimated from topographic maps (10 foot contour
intervals) .
111-4 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
- r
Figure 4 is a contour map of the potentiometric surface within the
Laramie and Fox Hills bedrock, prepared from water level measurements
taken in July 1980. Two windmill measurements are not shown; one was in
section 14 5N 63W and is off the map area, but was used in drawing the con-
tours. The other was in section 11, 6N 63W and is completed in a deep
formation below the L-F zone. Figure 4 shows that the regional hydraulic
gradient is to the southwest, but that a ground water "nose" has developed
in the low hills southeast of Crow Creek. This feature is probably the
result of direct recharge into the bedrock from the saturated alluvium of
Crow Creek, especially in the irrigated areas around Barnesville.
Drilling and testing of the bedrock formations indicate that where
the L-F sandstones are saturated, they are generally unconfined, so water
levels in the bedrock are generally about the same as these in the over-
lying alluvium, where both are saturated. During operation of the project,
a ground water mound will probably develop beneath the irrigated area,
changing hydraulic gradients in and around the site. Thedimensions of this
mound will depend on the operation of the project, especially the location,
and amount of water applied as well as hydraulic parameters and climatic
factors. Water level changes in monitoring wells will help to determine
the lateral extent and configuration of any ground water mound which develops.
111-5 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
I^
EXPLANATION
Data points measured in July 1980:
• Observation well installed by
ESA, 1980.
■ Existing well
/ — — Approximate contour on potentiometric
' surface in Laramie Formation and
Fox Hills Sandstone. Contour
interval 10 feet.
/
SCALE
0 5000
1 r ,
feet
ESA Geotechnical Consultants
Fort Collins Co oraao
Greeley 201 4astewater Study
WATER LEVELS IN LARAWIE FOR",:—'0N
NP fl" ILLS S PcTn^,E , . 19'0
4'Checked bv Date Jr 3 Pr Project 'No Figure
Approved by •r . ? 4
IV. SEEPAGE ANALYSES (BEDROCK)
A. Land Application Area
Very conservative seepage analyses were made, based on field test
data, to determine the maximum seepage losses that could reasonably occur
through the bedrock units resulting from irrigation. It was assumed that
vertical percolation would not be hindered by the anisotrophy of the sand-
stone, nor retarded by shale or siltstone layers. This is extremely
conservative because the vertical permeability of sandstones is normally
less than 0.1 of the horizontal permeability, and the shales and siltstones
have very low horizontal and vertical permeabilities.
Another conservative assumption made was that water percolating
downward from the irrigated areas would immediately saturate the presently
dry rocks between the water table and the surface. Actually this would
take considerable time, and saturation to the surface would not be permitted
because a zone of aeration would have to be maintained for the growing
crops. Development of a seepage mound in the bedrock units will induce flow
of seepage water away from the land application area to the northwest, south-
west and southeast by developing slopes in those directions. This seepage
mound would dissipate slowly during the winter season and rebuild during
each irrigation season. For purposes of seepage analyses it was assumed
that the water table rises to the surface, sloping westward toward Crow Creek
Valley. To the southeast and north, where the land surface rises, the
slope of the mound was estimated as the slope between the ground surface at
the edge of the irrigation area, and the present water elevation at a dis-
tance of at least several thousand feet from the site.
Because there are few if any open fractures, the only rock types
capable of transmitting significant amounts of water are the sandstones of
IV-1 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
the L-F aquifer (or similar sandstones in close proximity) . Therefore, it
was assumed that most of the flow in the bedrock would be transmitted lat-
erally by the first sandstone layer encountered by the downward seeping
irrigation water.
Field permeabilities were assigned to the upper sandstones based on
the range of values obtained from field tests at the site and based on
published data for the L-F aquifer in the Denver Basin. Because the per-
meabilities of the sandstones vary greatly, upper, intermediate and lower
case values were assigned to provide a range of values for seepage amounts.
The values used were 2,000 ft/yr, 1,150 ft/yr and 300 ft/yr, respectively.
The high range permeability value was selected using the maximum permeability
of 1,708 ft/yr reported by Romero (1976, p. 42) for the L-F aquifer, and
the highest test results recorded for sandstones at the site. The low range
permeability of 300 ft/yr represents the geometric mean of all the data in
saturated sandstones at the site, and is probably the most reliable average
permeability value for the L-F zone as a whole, beneath the site. Romero
(1976, p. 42) reports aquifer test and pump test values for the L-F aquifer
ranging from 0. 1 ft/yr to 1,708 ft/yr and suggests that the more probable
range in the Denver Basin is 488 ft/yr to 1,708 ft/yr. A value of 300 ft/yr
is slightly below the low end of Romero's estimated range, but is much
higher than the lowest test data reported by him. The intermediate case
was computed with a permeability value of 1,150 ft/yr, the arithmetic mean
between 2,000 and 300 ft/yr. The amount of bedrock seepage resulting from
irrigation was calculated using Darcy's equation, multiplying the permea-
bility times the hydraulic gradient (slope of the seepage mound) times the
cross-sectional area of the upper sandstone layer for the seven month irri-
gation season. This is also a conservative computational method resulting
IV-2 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
in higher than actual amounts because the hydraulic gradient increases with
time during the early part of the irrigation season, reaches a peak at the
end of the season, and slowly dissipates (declines) . Therefore, the calcu-
lations represent peak flows for each permeability assigned. Further, it
was assumed that all 22 pivot sprinkler systems will have to be used to dis-
pose of the water, which may not be the case.
The computations were performed by calculating the flow through each
of six zones along the site boundary, as shown in Figure 5. (Computations
are provided in Supplement C) . No flow was calculated toward the storage
reservoir, because the seepage mound around it will act as a barrier to
flow in that direction. Gradients used for the upper and intermediate cases
were calculated assuming saturation occurs all the way to the surface be-
neath the irrigated area. For the lower case, saturation to within five feet
of the ground surface was assumed to take place. This is more realistic,
since there will have to be a zone of aeration near the surface for success-
ful crop growth.
Results of seepage calculations are summarized in Table B. These
calculations indicate that maximum bedrock flow westward and southward
(Zones 1, 2, and 6) would be approximately 200 acre-feet per year. The
intermediate case and lower case estimates of flow are 112 and 28 acre-feet
respectively. Most of this water would probably discharge from the bedrock
units into the Crow Creek alluvium along an area at least five miles long.
Part of this water will probably be intercepted by drains, but it is assumed
that most of it would flow beneath the interior and perimeter drains of the
land application area. However, this water would be available as ground
water for use in the Crow Creek drainage. The effect of this flow on the
existing water table would probably not be noticeable in the valley area
because it would be widely dispersed.
IV-3 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
EXPLANATION
Seepage zones- Incremental zone
used in seepage analyses for the
land application area
tRD-I
&RD-2,
41 f'
v
SCALE
0 5000
r r
feet
ESA Geotechnical Consultants
Fort Collins Colorado
Greeley 201 Wastewater Study
LOCATION OF SEEPAGE ZONES
Checked bvf •<+.'Mt - `"� Date P, Project No Figure NO
woroved by -'Y %2 4-- Date P St' 21 ')9
TABLE B
Summary of Seepage Estimates (Land Application Area)
Upper Case Intermediate Case Lower Case
Zone 1 154 88 22
Zone 2 34 19 5
Zone 3 62 36 9
Zone 4 45 26 6
Zone 5 256 147 37
Zone 6 8 5 1
Totals 559 321 80
Because the sandstones are flat-lying and because of seepage mounding,
there will be some seepage losses to the north and southeast (Zones 3, 4, and
5) . These flows are conservatively estimated to range from 50 to 360 acre-
feet per year. Therefore, the total bedrock flow away from the land appli-
cation area is estimated conservatively to range from approximately 80 to
560 acre-feet per year. This is only 1 to 4 percent of the total applied
water which is not significant in an overall water balance. However,
because of the very conservative nature of the analyses, actual seepage
rates will probably be at or below the lower part of the estimated range.
B. Storage Reservoir
Very conservative seepage calculations were performed to evaluate
seepage potential through the bedrock underlying the storage reservoir site.
(Calculations are found in the section following the text) . The method
used was similar to that described above for the irrigated area. Gradients
were established by taking the difference between the proposed pool
elevation of 4,635 feet and the present water elevation along the north,
west and southwest edges of the reservoir, and dividing by the length of
the average seepage path. Seepage to the east is not expected to occur be-
cause the gradient will be towards, rather than away from the east edge of
the reservor. The following conservative assumptions were used in the
analysis:
1. Reservoir was at full pool elevation (4,635) 12 months of the
year. Actually, the reservoir level will gradually rise
during the winter months and gradually fall during summer and
fall when land application is occurring.
2. A 50 foot thickness of sandstone was used in computations.
This is the estimated maximum which could be present. In
IV-4 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
addition, the sandstone .encountered in RD-3, at the southwest
corner of the reservoir, was well cemented and very hard. It
is likely that the horizontal field permeability of this
material is low, perhaps even lower than the 300 feet per
year used in the lower range of seepage estimates.
3. Anisotrophy was ignored. This is extremely conservative
because the vertical permeability of the sandstones is normally
•
less than 0.1 of the horizontal permeability.
4. No lining of the reservoir area was assumed. The addition
of lining material would increase the length of seepage paths ,
and therefore reduce total flows through the subsurface.
The results of seepage calculations suggest that annual seepage losses
through the bedrock would be less than 4 percent of storage capacity,
assuming full storage (5,500 acre-feet) all year round. Since full
storage will not be used most of the year, annual bedrock seepage will
probably be less than 1 to 3 percent.
•
IV-5 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
•
V. BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Geological Institute, compiler, 1976. Bibliography and index of
Colorado geology 1875-1975. Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin 37.
ARIX, 1979. Wastewater facilities planning, report no. 1, Evaluation of
alternatives for Greeley, Colorado, 2 vols.
Bouwer, Herman and Rice, R.C. , 1976. A slug test for determining hydraulic
conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially pen-
etrating wells, in Water Resources Research, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 423-428.
Briscoe, H.J. , 1972. Stratigraphy of the Fox Hills Sandstone with some
comments on its suitability as an aquifer, Greeley area, Weld County,
Colorado: Colorado School of Mines M.A. Thesis.
Brown, R.H. , 1963. The cone of depression and the area of diversion around
a discharging well in an infinite strip aquifer subject to uniform
recharge, in Bentall, Ray, ed. , Shortcuts and Special Problems in
Aquifer Tests: U.S.G.S. Water Supply Paper 1545-C, pp. C69-C85.
Colton, R.B. , 1978. Geologic map of the Boulder-Fort Collins-Greeley area,
Colorado: U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-855-G.
Cooper, H.H. , Jr. , Bredenhoeft, J.D. and Papadopulos , I.S. , 1967. Response
of a finite diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water, in Water
Resources Research, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 263-269.
Edgerton, K.G. , 1973. Groundwater quality and aquifer thickness in the Eaton
and Greeley area, Colorado: Rocky Mountain section, 26th annual
meeting, Geological Society of America abstract, vol. 5, no.6, p. 478.
Hampton, E.R. , Clark, G.A. , and Mc Nutt, M.H. , 1974. Map showing availability
of hydrologic data, Boulder-Fort Collins-Greeley area, Front Range Urban
Corridor, Colorado: U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map
I-855-C.
Hershey, L.A. , and Schneider, P.A. , Jr. , 1964. Ground water investigations
in the Lower Cache La Poudre River Basin, Colorado: U.S.G.S. Water
Supply Paper 1669-x.
1972. Geologic map of the Lower Cache La Poudre River Basin, North
Central Colorado: U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations
Map I-687.
Hillier, D.E. , and Schneider, P.A. , Jr. , 1979. Depth to water table in the
Boulder-Fort Collins-Greeley area, Front Range Urban Corridor, Colo-
rado: U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-855-I.
Kline, M.A. , Jr. , 1955. The structure and stratigraphy of Cretaceous rocks
in Northeastern Larimer County, Colorado: Colorado School of Mines
M.S. Thesis.
V-1 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
Major, T.J. , Kerbs, Lynda, and Penley, R.D. , compilers, 1975. Water level
records for Colorado, 1971-1975 : U.S.G.S. in cooperation with the
Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Water Resources
Basic Data Release no. 37.
Papadopulos, I.S. , Bredenhoeft, J.D. , and Cooper, H.H. , Jr. , 1973. On the
analysis of slug test data, in Water Resources Research, vol. 9, no. 4,
pp. 1087-1089.
Schmid, W.E. , 1967. Field determination of permeability by the infiltration
test, in Permeability and Capillarity of Soils, ASTM, STP 417
American Society for Testing and Materials.
Schneider, P.A. , Jr. , and Hershey, L.A. , 1961. Records and logs of selected
wells and test holes, and chemical analyses of ground water in the
Lower Cache La Poudre River Basin, Colorado: Colorado Water Conservation
Board, Colorado Ground Water Basic Data Report no. 8.
1962. Records and logs of selected wells and test holes , and chemical
analyses of ground water in the South Platte River Basin in Western
Adams and Southwestern Weld Counties, Colorado: Colorado Water
Conservation Board, Colorado Ground Water Basic Data Report no. 9.
Schwochow, S.D. , Shroba, R.R. , and Wicklein, P.C. , 1974. Atlas of sand,
gravel, and quarry aggregate resources, Colorado Front Range Counties :
Colorado Geological Survey, Special Publication 5-B, pp. 218.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1951. Permeability tests using drill holes and
wells: U.S.B.R. Geology Report no. G-97.
Wacinski, Andrew, 1979. A hydrogeologic investigation of the Crow Creek
Drainage Basin in North Central Weld County, Colorado: State of
Colorado Division of Water Resources, Office of the State Engineer,
Denver, Colorado. Open-file report August 1979.
Walton, W.C. , 1978. Comprehensive analysis of water table aquifer test
data: Ground Water, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 311-317.
Weist, W.J. , 1964. Hydrologic data from parts of Larimer, Logan, Morgan,
Sedgwick, and Weld Counties, Colorado: Colorado Water Conservation
Board, Colorado Ground Water Basic Data Report no. 16.
1965. Reconnaissance of the ground water resources in parts of F
Larimer, Logan, Morgan, Sedgwick, and Weld Counties, Colorado: U.S.G.S.
Water Supply Paper 1809-L.
V-2 ESA Geotechnical Consultants
•
PART III
REPORT OF A GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
REPORT
OF A
• GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
FOR
RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC.
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 4079-80
RE: SITE I, CITY OF GREELEY
SEWAGE LAND APPLICATION SYSTEM
BARNESVILLE, COLORADO
BY
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
214 NORTH HOWES STREET
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
80521
t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents i
Letter of Transmittal ii
Report 1
Appendix A A-1
Test Boring Location Plan A-2
Key to Borings A-3
Log of Borings A-4
Appendix B B-1
• Grain-Size Distribution Curves B-2
Permeability Curves B-9
Summary of Test Results B-15
i
•
Empire Laboratories, Branch Offices
P Inc.111 1242 Bramwood Place
Longmont.Colorado 80501
MATERIALS AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERS P.O Box 1135
214 No. Howes Fort Collins,Colorado 80522 (303) 776-3921
P.O.Box 429 (303)484-0359
3151 Nation Way
Jul 22 1980 Cheyenne,Wyoming 82001
Y P.O. Box 10076
(307) 632.9224
Resource Consultants, Inc.
105 South Meldrum
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Gentlemen:
We are pleased to submit our Report of a Geotechnical Investigation
prepared for the proposed sewage application site located east of
Greeley, Colorado. The attached report presents the subsurface con-
ditions at the site.
We appreciate this opportunity of consulting with you on this project.
If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please
contact us.
Very truly yours,
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC. •r.-`-1 ;•
V`. , •1../% s J
Neil R. Sherrod �fll, ; 4'f11 R•..•:{i7,7g, ="r
Senior Engineering Geologist
Reviewed by:
C.1 ER
{{fir{C1111>tl//oft
Chester C. Smith, P.E. y d
President i*! 4808 0;
em w.
- •.
-0°0 �o
7•
;qy
cic 0../
'`
s0 a C 74,04•'' 1. \.
' 7.Cli•:
++9p'
MEMBER OF CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL
rt
ii
REPORT
OF A
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
SCOPE
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation
prepared for the proposed sewage application site located approximately
ten (10) miles east of Greeley, Colorado. The investigation included
test borings, laboratory testing, engineering evaluation, and prepara-
tion of this report.
The objectives of the investigation were to (1 ) determine the soil
and groundwater conditions at the site and (2) determine the physical
properties of the soils encountered.
SITE INVESTIGATION
The field investigation, carried out on June 30 and July 1 and 2,
1980, consisted of drilling, logging, and sampling twenty-three (23)
test borings. Twenty-five (25) to twenty-seven (27) borings were
proposed for the site; however, there was a footage limitation of five
hundred fifty '(550) feet. This limitation was reached upon completion
of twenty-three (23) test borings, and for this reason Borings 5 and 22
were not drilled. The locations of the test borings are shown on the
Test Boring Location Plan included in Appendix A of this report.
Boring logs prepared from the field logs are shown in Appendix A. These
logs show soils encountered, location of sampling, and groundwater at
the time of the investigation.
All borings were advanced with a four-inch diameter, continuous-
type, power-flight auger drill . During the drilling operations, an
engineering geologist from Empire Laboratories, Inc. was present and
made a continuous visual inspection of the soils encountered.
• -1-
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The proposed site consists of approximately fifteen (15) square
miles of land located east and south of Barnesville, Colorado and ap-
proximately
ten (10) miles east of Greeley, Colorado in Weld County,
Colorado. More particularly, the site is described as a tract of land
situate in Sections 14, 15, 21 , 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 , 32, and
33, Township 6 North, Range 63 West, Sections 5 and 6, Township 5
North, Range 63 West, and Sections 1 and 12, Township 5 North, Range 65
West of the Sixth P.M. , Weld County, Colorado.
In general , the site consists of rolling sand hills vegetated with
short and tall grasses, cactus, yucca, and sage and used for cattle
grazing. The majority of the property is fenced along the section lines
and county roads. Several ranch houses and outbuildings and numerous
windmills are scattered across the site. Isolated trees and numerous
dirt trails are located throughout the parcel . The property is bordered
on the west by irrigated farmland and the flood plain of Crow Creek. In
general , the site has positive drainage in a northerly and westerly
direction towards Crow Creek.
LABORATORY TESTS AND EXAMINATION
Samples obtained from the test borings were subjected to testing
and inspection in the laboratory to provide a sound basis for deter-
mining the physical properties of the soils encountered. Moisture
contents, dry unit weights, Atterberg limits, grain-size distribution,
and permeability characteristics were determined. A summary of the test
results and curves showing this data are included in Appendix B.
SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
The soil profile at the site consists of strata of materials ar-
ranged in different combinations. In order of increasing depths, they
are as follows :
-2-
- r
•
(1) Blow Sand and/or Silty Sandy Topsoil : The majority of the
surface of the area is overlain by a one-half (1/2) to one (1 ) •
foot layer of blow sand, a material formed by wind erosion. A
six (6) inch to one and one-half (1-1/2) foot layer of silty
sandy topsoil underlies the blow sand throughout the majority
of the site. The topsoil has been penetrated by root growth
and organic matter.
(2) Silty Sand: This stratum was encountered in Borings 1 through
3, 9, 11 , 13, 18, 20, and 21 below the upper blow sand and/or
topsoil and extends to depths one (1 ) foot to thirteen (13)
feet below present grades. A layer of clayey and/or silty
sand was also encountered in Borings 15, 24, and 25 below the
topsoil and/or upper sand at' depths of two (2) to eight and
one-half (8-1/2) feet and extends to depths four and one-half
(4-1/2) to thirteen and one-half (13-1/2) feet below the
surface. This fine sand contains a large percentage of silt,
is nonplastic to slightly plastic, and is generally dry to
damp in situ.
(3). Clayey Sand: Minor amounts of clayey sand were encountered at
the site in Boring 16. This clayey sand stratum was encoun-
tered below the topsoil at a depth one (1 ) foot below the
surface and extends to a depth three (3) feet below the
surface. A second stratum of this clayey sand was encountered
at a depth of eight and one-half (8-1/2) feet and extends to
a depth fourteen (14) feet below the surface. The fine sand
contains minor amounts of clay, is slightly plastic, and is
damp to wet in situ.
(4) Sandy and/or Sandy Gravelly Silty Clay: A layer of sandy
gravelly silty clay was encountered in Boring 1 at a depth
three and one-half (3-1/2) feet below the surface and extends
to the bedrock below. A layer of sandy silty clay was encoun-
-3-
tered in Boring 16 at a depth three (3) feet below the surface
between the upper and lower layers of clayey sand. A five (5)
foot layer of sandy silty clay was also encountered within the
sand and gravel stratum in Boring 23 at a depth of forty-five
(45) feet, and a four and one-half (4-1/2) foot layer of sandy
silty clay separates the sand and gravel from the bedrock in
Boring 24. The silty clay contains varying amounts of sand
and/or gravel , is moderately plastic, and is generally damp in
its in-place natural condition.
(5) Sand: The sand stratum was encountered throughout the ma-
jority of the site, except in Borings 1 , 13, and 21 , at depths
one-half (1/2) to fourteen (14) feet below the surface.
Except in Borings 23 and 24, it extends to the bedrock below
or to the depths explored. In places, thin lenses of silty
and/or silty clayey sand were encountered within the sand
stratum, as was noted in Borings 7 and 15. In general , the
sand is fine to medium grained, though it varies from fine to
coarse grained. It is relatively clean, containing ten percent
(10%) or less of fines, and is poorly graded in its loose to
generally medium dense in situ condition.
(6) Sand and/or Fine Gravel : This stratum of sand containing II
minor amounts of fine gravel was encountered in Borings 23 and
24 at depths nine (9) to thirty-seven (37) feet below the
surface and extends to depths thirteen and one-half (13-1/2)
to greater than seventy-four and one-half (74-1/2) feet below
the surface. The sand and gravel stratum encountered in
Boring 23 is separated by a five (5) foot layer of sandy silty
clay. In general , this coarse sand and fine gravel is poorly
• graded and is moist to saturated in its medium dense con-
dition.
1
-4-
(7) Sandstone-Siltstone-Claystone Bedrock: The bedrock was en-
countered in all but Boring 23 at depths four (4) to forty-
five (45) feet below the surface. The bedrock consists of
sandstones, claystones, and interbedded sandstones, clay-
stones, and siltstones. The majority of the rock encountered
consists of highly friable, firm to dense sandstone. The
upper one-half (1/2) foot to six (6) feet of the bedrock is
highly weathered; however, the underlying sandstone, claystone,
and interbedded sandstones, siltstones, and claystones are
firm to dense.
(8) Groundwater: At the time of the investigation, free ground-
water was encountered in Borings 1 , 4, 14, 15, and 23 at
depths nine (9) to thirty-five and one-half (35-1/2) feet
below the surface. No free groundwater was encountered in the
remaining test borings to depths forty-nine (49) feet below
the surface. Water levels in this area may be subject to
change due to seasonal variations.
DISCUSSION
It is our understanding that the area under investigation is being
considered for disposal of sewage effluent from the City of Greeley.
The effluent is to be stored in a reservoir located in the western
portion of the site and distributed by center-pivot sprinkling systems.
In doing so, the dry land occupying the site will become irrigated farm
land. In order to study the feasibility of this program, test borings
were drilled at one (1 ) mile intervals at section corners throughout the
area. A total of approximately five hundred fifty (550) linear feet was
drilled. All borings except Boring 23 were drilled to the bedrock
stratum. Boring 23 was drilled to a depth of seventy-four and one-half
(74-1/2) feet, and no bedrock was encountered to this depth. The physi-
cal properties of the soils were evaluated, both visually in the field
and in the laboratory by sieve analyses, Atterberg limits, soil classifi-
-5-5-
•
cations, and permeability characteristics. Specific yield of the soil
was determined by approximate methods utilizing uniformity coefficient,
effective size, and estimated porosity.
In general , the soils at the site consist of silty sands underlain
by clean, fine- to medium- to coarse-grained sands. Along the western
edge of the area adjacent to Crow Creek, sands and fine gravels were
encountered at depth. The upper silty sands contain approximately
twenty-five percent (25%) to thirty-five percent (35%) fines. These
soils have permeabilities of approximately thirty (30) to one hundred
thirty (130) feet per year. Specific yields of the silty sand approxi-
mate seventeen percent (17%) to eighteen percent (18%). The majority of
the soil encountered consists of clean, fine- to medium-grained sands.
These materials have permeabilities of approximately five hundred (500)
to six hundred (600) feet per year and specific yield of twenty-four
percent (24%) to twenty-four and one-half percent (24-1/2%). Inter-
mediate silty sands have approximately fifteen percent (15%) fines,
permeabilities of two hundred seventy (270) feet per year, and specific
yields of twenty percent (20%) to twenty-two and one-half percent (22-
1/2%). The bedrock encountered consists mostly of sandstone of the
Laramie Formation. Claystone members of the Laramie Formation were
encountered throughout portions of the site, and interbedded siltstones,
claystones, and sandstones were also encountered. In general , it is
anticipated that the sandstones are moderately to highly permeable; the
claystones are relatively impermeable; and the interbedded siltstones,
claystones, and sandstones have variable permeabilities depending on the
amount of sandstone, siltstone, and claystone encountered. The bedrock
was encountered at relatively shallow depths of approximately ten (10)
to twenty (20) feet over the majority of the site. However, depths of
thirty (30) to forty (40) feet were encountered in the south-central
• portion and in the northwest corner of the site. Bedrock was not encoun-
tered to depths of seventy-five (75) feet in the southern portion of the
property along the western edge, which is in the Crow Creek flood plain.
-6-
7
GENERAL COMMENTS
It should be noted that the test borings were drilled on approxi-
mate one (1 ) mile grids and that variations in the soil and groundwater
conditions could have occurred between these test borings.
-7-
r
APPENDIX A.
r
TEST BORING LOCATION PLAN. NI • ,�ilq4
IJc..t4 X1O.6�1'" f�lo.5
® O 0
014
15 14
5�/L.i< n.13 No.7 ' Nom LID.f_
1" =5000' G
1 22 23 24
i1
V 0.15 ' No.I2 No.a No.3 0.2_
R64W R63W 2.9 28 27 26
Al.!
KID.2 Z � No.2 i too.I G Isis,,_11 _o_�?
31 32 33
. '0 kt\ i\‘‘d
No.23 AIo.20 No.17 No.1O T b N
E O ® 1 T 5 N
•
1 -
6 5
47
19 tN
12
'Jo.25
O LL- OTC.i BORINGS NOT bRILLis
.
A-2
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
r
KEY TO BORING LOGS
��e., TOPSOIL �•�� GRAVEL
roomo AA.
FILL •���� SAND& GRAVEL
^wow�/� SILT •i• SILTY SAND & GRAVEL
.1 .�
e/e CLAYEY SILT ,°p COBBLES
o ,
i.
e SANDY SILT SAND,GRAVEL& COBBLES
ro �.
CLAY o WEATHERED BEDROCK
mom
Pir SILTY CLAY __ SILTSTONE BEDROCK
i
�d SANDY CLAY CLAYSTONE BEDROCK
SAND • • • SANDSTONE BEDROCK
�•• SILTY SAND NIKE.
�• • MINI LIMESTONE
i. . ■M
Prig CLAYEY SAND XxX GRANITE
XXX
' SANDY SILTY CLAY Ill
ill SHELBY TUBE SAMPLE
ElSTANDARD PENETRATION DRIVE SAMPLER
WATER TABLE 24-48 HRS AFTER DRILLING
C HOLE CAVED
5/12 Indicates that 5 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches was required to penetrate 12 inches.
A-3
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
•
LOG OF BORINGS
•
CsUPTE-I No. I No. Z No.3 l.Jo. 4
•
10/12 4.>'. 1R/124 - • 4/12-1 . : ' 1Q/12��/j;447-49/1? K/O 4/12 , :• •. •• •
97/123••• 15/12
10 17/12 12/12 j•• •'
25/1? •• Y •. 13/121-1 . .
• 1.
17/12 T" 14/12 3. ". •
20 46/12h 28/127.1:
A-a
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
I
LOG OF BORINGS
•
QE,PTN Mo. 6 No. 7 No.B N-lo.9
0
16/12 ')v 19/12 11/12x"'" 8/12.. ••
' . .
4/12 �.- 6/125 .- • 4/1?�' ••• 4/12.: •
•
•
• •p 14112 1,1 6/12[IF • 17/]2 t3/1?j'• .. .
26/12 33/12 -] - _
6/12 12/12D. •-:-
-- 1------1
20 20/12 ___ I 22/12h • .
50/10 -
30
•
A-5
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
0
LOG OF BORINGS
DE_PTI-4 ND. ►O Na. l 1 No. 12 K10. 13
0
6 12 = ' 2
7/12�.'� 7/12 18/1
i I •
l;
8/12 • 10/1211. •1" 7/12 3•• .• 5/12 •'
10 12112 =-- • 30/12D • • I 8/12tj:•.• 20/12
: : .
19/12h • 50/1
50/12 - 50/6 •
20 50/4
•
•
A-6 • •
- EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC. •
r r
•
LOG OF BORINGS
bf_.PTF-1 t•--10. l4 fvo. ►5 t.lo.16 MO 17'
0 .
6 12 F 6 2 =ter 12 12 . .:
2 2 = 12 12 9 12 ". •• • _ 8/12='•' -
10 5 12 °• 1 16 12 . . 11 12 • 15 12
2: 2 21 12 19 12 = 8 12 . ••
•I
20 s = • -. I ._ 28 1213 '- ' 50 6 19 12 = : • .
47 12 . • ' •
21 12 = •
30 • " I 1 , - 23 1213.
47 12 .; 50 3
• .. 3312 . • - •
40
50 10�:
� •
50
50/9
A-7
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
In
a
•
LOG OF BORINGS
•
bLP1 -1 t.-Jo.18 k10.19 No.20 No.21
0
6/12 04' 7/1? 12/12 ;f''' 15/121' ''
.• � / / •
5/12 ' . 9/12 = ••• • 3/12 -7- 4/12�/
•
10 4/12 a:. • 9/12. •• ••• 4/12a: I 20/12
34/12-, : :
11/12 0'1 -* 9/12 3 41/121=1--j• • •
20 50/10 I 14/123 50/9
?4/17 ;•
30 • 35/1? J•-
-
40 50/4
•
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
• LOG OF BORINGS
DEPTH t-/o.23 NM..24 Llo.Z5
0
21/12 Vrttl 11/17 J:�V T4/1? •-•.
I-•.• • . I
10/12 1a • 7/12 15/17 = •
10 6/12 - • 25/122 : 12/12 H. •
. :
11/12 � 22/12 • • 9/12
. : • I
20 6/12 3. - 47/12 3 /12 bi-. :
12/12 • : I
30 17/12 • •
50/17 �. O
40 43/12 s.. -
2• •
. 50 35/12 • i•
•
60 30/12 �'• I
70 O .
.
50/11 � ' EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC. •
APPENDIX B.
03NIdl3a 1N3J b3d
O O N � Q � �O � CD U p
^ O
O
� _ _ _ _ -- _ _ — — __ — — —
CV
\ __ _— _ — _ _ — _ _ _ — — _
� —� __ —� __ — _ _ _ -- - - - _ —
\ _ —_�_ __ _— _— _ _ _ — _ _
n __ __ — _ — _ -- _ — __ - - - - _ — O
. �
� — — _— —— — —
� _ —_ —_ _ — _ —
�
W �
� �
� �
�
V o
o � �
ZN — _ _ _ _ — — — — — — — _ _ — _ — — �
� w
� ~
r �
J
u � _ � _ � � � � _- �� � � __ _ _ � - �
I�/ � Z
Vi
� ~ � N
t1� �o — — -- — - -- -- - - — -- - - —
� � N
I z
� � — —— — — — — — —— —— — — —
N � — z
N � O
z o .
Q o - - -- -- - - - - — - - — - - —
N
�rn. �
V
W '
._1
d
�
� O
LI..
�
Z ui
O ^'
, �
Q W
>
V �
O
J
O
O
O P W � d N V M c�V � O
JNISSVd 1N3J tJ3d
B-2
EMPIRE LAE3ORA1'ORI[S, INC.
� �
O3NIV1321 IND 21]d
o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0
CV C) Q N '0 n 03 P O
0
O
C) — —
N
— — -- -- — — — — — — — — — — _ — —
gt
———— —— —— —— — —— — — — —
O
V -- —— —— —— — — —— —— ——— — —
4
W -(�
>
o o
O - v)
zr ' — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — w
O 4 w
1-p - __
o
o ")
-
CINI
O
N a - -- - - - _ .. __ . . � .. _ - - -- -- - W
Z
O
z o
0 - - - -- --- - -- -- - - - - -
W
J
CQ
Q O
U)
lL
O
Z w
O ^1
N
Q F.
0 N
0
J
.-
C:
CD 0 0 CO N. 0 U)0 0 CO) 0 .-
0 0
ONISSVd IND 213d
B-3
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
r
03NIV132I IN3) 213d
o O O O O O O 0 co 0 00
N 0 ' in '0cr.
O
O
N
-- - - - - -- - - - - - - --LU o- --------
- ------
- -.-.---.-
*k
CG
0 o
o _'
04 I Z
F-- - o . " w
N .0 - - -- - - . -- - -- - - - - - N
0 4t w
0
W0o — -- — — — — — — — — —— — —— — Z
N W
N O
Z 0 o
W
J
Cd
Cl) O
U-
0
Z u,
p • N
N
Q W
W
O
J
0
O
CO n `0.0 h V o N .- 0
0 0 •
ONISSVd INDJ ?13d
• B-4
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
- r7
03NIV13d IN3D 83d
O O 0 C O') Q N ' n 0 P O
O IO
Cy - -- - - - - -- - - _ - - - - - -
IN
^
r.
-- ———— -- -- -- — -- — — — —
o
p — _- - - - - -- - - - - - -
" -- -
W o
J .
U ', O
0 cc
ZN _ — — — — — — — — _ — — — — — _ — — N
O 4 w
�I—
CO Nr
! IE!E ± : EEEEEE
r
C
•r
O
C13
W
J
CL
Q O
LL
O
Z w
O NI
N
✓ W
Q W
U (,
O
J
E.
0
W n p O .O V N N O O
O P
ONISSVd INDJ bad
B-5
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
03NIV13M 1N3) 213d
O o N r O to ^O co P O
O
O
N
•
n —— —— — — —— — — — — —— — — — — —
— __.--_ -- -- -- — -- •--• — — —
_ _ _ _ O
V —— —— —— —— — — —— —— ——— — —
4t
LLI o�t
> 4
CG
V o
No ' - N
cy
Qii
0441 CO
_
o
a
t/7 _ O
r O — NM
O
CO
w
J
CL
Q O
O
Z w
p N
N
Q W
W
U N
O
J
O
O
O P co I. •O N Q M N O O
`JNISSVd 1N3D 213d
B-6
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
i
a3NIV132i 1N3) 213d
O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 m P 0
N C7 v v) .O
I
�7 - -- - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - -
CV -
_ -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
: -- -- - - - -- - - - -
- ---- -- - - -- - -- - - - - -
O
V - -- - - -- - - --- -- --- -
44
w O
4k
CC
U o
Z
Lj
T-:;.' Z
CC
0 to
CI 4t
. Z
N to
N _ O
z N O I
co
W
J
CL
Q o
U.-
0
O N .
N
Q Lt*:.
U c,
O
J
- O
O
n .0 to V O M CO V O O
O P co
ONISSVd 1N3D bad
B-7
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
- 1
•
•
a3NIV1321 1N3D 213d
• O N M •cr CO O O
0
a
O
_ —— —— — —— —— —— —
LJJ
J �k
Lj
CZ
tra CD
U o
N
• v)I 4t
LLJ -
N
z 0
N — — —— —— — — — — — — — — — — —
•r—
S-
0
W
J
d
L1) O
U-
O
Z LL,
o ^'
N
Q w
1
V N
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
O P DD `O v) Q M N
ONISSVd 1N3D 213d
B-8
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
r
•
•
PERMEABILITY I
•
LOCATION OF SAMPLE: Boring 2 @ 3.5'-4.5'•
I
TEST PROCEDURE- Falling Head Method I
DENSITY: 98.81/Ft3
PERMEABILITY: k = 127.3 Ft/Yr _ I
2000
.
. 1600 y .
i ,
_ I
al 200.
r I
L
_J
Q
g 800
W
400 I
I
0
0 .04 .08 .12 .16 .20
TIME - HOURS I
I
I
B-9
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
- r
PERMEABILITY
LOCATION OF SAMPLE: Boring 3 @ 3. 5'-4. 5'
TEST PROCEDURE:_Fal 1 i ng Head Method
DENSITY: 103.1#/Ft3
PERMEABILITY: k = 32.8 Ft/Yr •
250
200 2
1
ci 150
}
J
100 .
a
50
0
0 1 2
TIME - HOURS
B-10
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
PERMEABILITY
LOCATION OF SAMPLE: Boring 9 @ 13.5'-14.5'
• TEST PROCEDURE. Fal 1 i ng Head Method
DENSITY: 103.4#/Ft3
PERMEABILITY: k = 269.3 Ft/Tr
5000
4000
c3000 •
>-
>-
Fri
2000
n.
1A1
6 `
1 000
0
0 .05 .1 .15 .2 .25
TIME - HOURS
B-11
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
•
PERMEABILITY
LOCATION OF SAMPLE: Boring 15 @ 3. 5'-4.5'
• TEST PROCEDURE. Falling Head Method
DENSITY: 103.5#/Ft3
PERMEABILITY: k = 35.3 Ft/Yr •
4000
..3000
>-
Of]
X2000
W
1000
•
0 -'J�---
0 .4 .8 1 . 2 1 .6 2.0
TIME - HOURS
•
•
B-12
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
• •
PERMEABILITY•
LOCATION OF SAMPLE: Boring 17 @ 13.5'-14. 5'
TEST PROCEDURE• Fall i ng Head Method
DENSITY: 102.7#/Ft3 remolded sampl e
PERMEABILITY: k = 549.1 Ft/Yr
I •
1500
1200
a 900
� I
6
600 1
300
0 _
0 .03 .06 .09 .12 .15
TIME - HOURS
8-1.3:
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
t
PERMEABILITY
LOCATION OF SAMPLE: Boring 25 @ 13.0'-14.0'
• • TEST PROCEDURE• Falling Head Method
DENSITY: 101 .7#/Ft3
PERMEABILITY: k = 573. 3 Ft/Yr
5000
4000 li
.3000
}
. IL
I-
I
_
m
W
X2000
W .
EL
a
1000
• • .. _ . •_.... ._..... �` 0
0
0 .03 .06 .09 .12 .15
TIME - HOURS
B-14
EMPIRE LABORATORIES, INC.
• - r
•
•
•
to
•
f-Z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Q_ r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
CY F� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
w O C31 1•••• Lf) CO 'Ci N to 1",. r Cr CO Z I
r N r r r CY' r r N
w0 r—
am
. I
w
co z,4.'
3I IO
V)LLI
i-
ce Q
w w
I-J
L7 I
I
1../1
J w
U) U)i Z
w �u2
0C CL.vi
I- O
LA i
U
I-
w Leo Q
•
LL Z w
O LL.rx
ZN
U
>- .
Qz «�
N }
LU
1—
Z LL N CD <O
•
0(J O CO Ch
•
a M O O I
>' - r r r
IY
ca
w I
gz
D OO CO l0 O1 Cf CD r-. LO t0 N. N CO r N O1
c i—
ces r • • • • • • • •kCO CO O1 1. l0 1.O N. CO O LO .^ I() Ch N I
r r r r N
Ln LC) LO 1O LC) Lf) LC)
LO LO LC) LC) • LO LC) LC) LO LO LC) LO Lf)
X • CI' • • • • CI' Lf) O1 • • C}' LO O1
I--
•~ r Cr LO O1 r r- Ch LO O1 r r r r •Rr Lf) O1 r r r
wI- I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1
O LC) in LC) LC) LO LC) LO LO LO LO in LO Lf) Lf) Lf) Lf) Lf) Lf) LO
O CO CY CO Ch O CO Cr CO M CY CO O CO Ct' CO CO CI- CO
r r r r r r- r
U'
-O r N CO
O
CC
CO
B-15
w Z
0 e •
�� N N N N N N N N N N N N N CD
Q- r r r r r r r r-• r r r r r r
OC_ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - \ \ \ \
1.--
U) CD LO Cr) 00 l0 Cr d' CO CT CO I.0 CO C) O
Z r r r- r r r N F—.. N Ln
w0
a m
w
mo
-J 0
N w
H
OC Q
Lai tL
I-J
3N
J w 0
N D Z
W w LL:
CC n.L6
w
F— 0 I W
w oI- D
F-
W zWce
O z ed
I- O
>- z
QLLI
W
Cf) H
L-6 CO N Ln 0)
Z LI,
wLj 00 01 O)
a 00 01 CD O
>- r— r
Ce
0
•
c4
0 CO 01 01 00 Ct CO N N N r r Cr r 00
c ti-ii . .
*RI' IC) O) lfl N 1.0N O CO IC) N. O CD Ln
N r- N r N r r r
in in in LO LO CO
LO LO LO in • in LO LO LO • LO ill in Ln
2 d' d• • Ct LO O1 Ct
r C7• LO O) r . CI- Ln O1 r r- Ct L.001 r r r N
F-
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
LO LO LO LO LO in LO LO LO LO LO LO in LO LO LO LO LO
0
. . . . • • . • • . . . . . . . .
O CO Ct CO M O CO ct 00 CO O CO d- CO CO d' CO M
r r r- I- r N
C7
Z •
Q .4- 00 I-
°C z
Q
co
8-16
r
I
Zz I
F N N N N N N N •
N N N N N N
QZ r r r r r r r r r r r r r
FN \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
w r-' 'C- N. CO CO Gt Cr) N N O CO N O)
r r CO r r N r r
w0
d m
I
I
CU
m.c.R.
O
ill
1 I Crn
In W
I--
CY Q
wu_
I--,
<D
N
I
N
J w
in L
W w LL. z
a e_vi
rf
N u0 ii
I—
a0 I--
L. z
ZI-
>4 U
Q D
LLI
).•N I-
L-5 r N ' M
Z LL .
O V• O O O
)-a r r r I
aL
O
Ill
I
IY
D CO in co N 1s-- CO CO N vat in Ol I\ N
O lfl 0O cY r O CY CO O r CO lD ^ 1\ I
r N r r r
LC) LO in LO to I
LO to in to • to LO to LO 1O Ln in LO •
_ • a- • d' in col • • • • •t-
F- • r 'ct. LO O) r r d' LO Ol r r r r Gt LO O) r
n.W 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I S
Li' LO LO in in LO LO LO LC) LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO in
O c d' 1b co O co d- CO co •t CO O M 'Ct- CO co
r r r r r
0 I
EO CO O) O
O Z •--
co
I
R_1 7
- r
•
Z •
o1
I-Z N N N N (\I N N N N N
Q- r r r r r r r r r- r r LID
IX I-N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
ILI N. O O O N. N. co O CO LO CD O O
Z 6 r M LC) LC) r N LO LC)
w0
•
n m
•
me,
2I .
N LU H Q
/
LU w
I-.-JJ
N
N
J w V
to N z
w CY
GC a vi .
O Li;
w
S 0
0
LLI I-
F— o O ~Q
L.L. Z wce
O r"Y
Z O
N 9
Cd Z Q
Q = w
C1.
= to
N }•
t-
N n r LD n
ZI2 •
tu GI
U CD LC) N LC)
p; r C) C) r
a r r r r
0
w
2'
0 .4- CO L7 LO LO ' cf d' LC) N U) O Ol O •zt' Ol
oN . • • , • • • •
O ct' CO N Ol CO co Gt• MCA Ol N LO M LO 10 10
N r r r r
LSD LC) LC) CD LC) CO
LI) LC) LC) III • LC) LC) IC) In Lf) LC) LO In
I • . CO . 0:1- LC) • • • • ct- ‘;:Y CO
a r St' LC) Ol r r Cl- LC) 0) r r r ct LC) 0) r r r
LU 0 LO LO LO LO LO LS') LO Ln LO Ln Ln LO LO LO LO IS) G) Lf)
O
O Cr) fit- CO Cr) O M CI- CO CO dt' O co Ct' CD Cr) d- CO
✓ r r r- r-- r-
O
- •
0 r N M
tr
Q Z r- r r
m
B-18
•
•
U) iZW . .
Oz
1-U N (NJ N N C, N r N N N N N N N \N
Q? r r r . . . . . LO r r r- r r r Lf) CO
OC\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ S \ \ \ \ \
►- LO N LI) CO C) r- O N. CD CO N LO r- CO 1— O C) I
z 3 N N .:1" LO r- r N N •::1- Lf) LC)
w OJ
m
I
I
w
01
V)w
1-
U Q
L LL
I-
I--.J
(I) I
I
•
Ill
J >
= N Z
N
W wt •
CC aa..6
a•
W
F- 2c9
U.. Zw
ZN
>-
O
ty. Z ..
Q D
w
in I� ^ CO
wLL
0 LO CO N
d 01 CD r--
).- r r
IY
0
w
re
n t- (\I d C) CO CD CO N tom. r- O Lf) 01 N L[) t- GY CO
O LO LO GY r N N LO N 01 In LC) Gt 'LS7 al01M CO r
r r r N r r N N
O CD CO U) G- IC) 0) LO LI) Lf) LO O CO
Ll) LO IC) In in In Lf) Lf) •
x cl- LO 01 l- 01 Gt Cr) • Gt 1n al sr- Ol co
F- • r GY LO 0) r- r r N N CO Gt r Gr in CLl — r- r N N CO
a-11"L, 11111111111 1111111111
w Lf) in LO LO LC) C) LO LO LO Lf) Lt) in LC) Ln LO LO II) LC) Lf) Lf) LO
0
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
O CO CI' CO CO Gt CO M CO COM O CO GI' CO CO Gt CO CO CO M
r r r N N CO Gt r r r N N CO
0
--,O .4- Lf)
0z r
m
•
R_1 Cl r r
z .
�V N N N N N N N N N N N N O
Zr r r- r- LO r r r . r r- r- r r--- 01
IX
\ \ \ . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ •S \ \
If)
w---
CA al r 01 CD N CO LC) CO Ol r M CO CD CD
r r- If) r r • N N CO IC)
w O
a ca
•
ma
3 ut
O
(/)w
I-
aQ
w w
N
N
. w
U
N N ?
W Lt.,
ce
CG a.vi 6.
F- O a LU
W U 2
F- 20
LL ZZ • CC
O oNCO
ed z
Q D
M.
LU
N y'
I-
in . LO • LO
Z U •
-
o •" o CO
a
r r
tY
C)
Li.,
ce
D n co d• l0 N LC) 1---••• d• r r •LO I.O d• r- IC)
O r c' al al r r CO M N N N N N co
o r N
LC) IC) CD IC) LO LC) in L0 LC) O O CO CO
L!) CD O L[) LO L0 LC) LC)
S • • • • d- Lf) 01 • • d- LO 01 d' LC) 01 d- IC) 01 Ol
• r d' If) 01 r r r r d' LC) CT r r r N N N co co co d'
I--
I i I I i I I I I I I I I I i i I i I t I
in LO CD C) U LC) LC) L0 I ) LO LC) LC) IC) in IC) 10 LO LC) LC) CD in in
0
. . . • . • . . • . . . . . • . • • . . .
O CO CO c d- CO O CC) CY CO CO d' CO O1 d' 00 C`7 d' CO CO
r r r r r r N N N co co co 'd'
O
•
oz—,O 10 N-
oz r
al
' r. n n
I
Z= • 1
v
p .
N N N N O N N N N N N N
a- r r r r- r- r- r- r r r r r -' Ct
F N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \U) \
I-U) CO LC) Ct r--- O N. Ol Ol Ol .4- LC) O O
r L[) r- N M LC) LC)
w SO
a CO
I
w
CO. I
o� .
J
U)IU
fY Q
W-J
I-J
N
III
J Lu
>
w Lam: Z
04 c vi
H o�
zw
Z� Q
CZ Z
cQLLI
•C
in CO Ct N CO
Zit:
w Li LC) L..0 N CI' I
f] •a O N r O
} r- r r r
Le
I
W
fY
CO Ol O O1 LC) O CO LC) Ol CO r r N O r
GN • • • • • • • • • • . • • •
O I—. Ct CI" LC) LC) N M Ct M N LC) co Lf) Ct CO I
LC) LC) M LO L0 LC) LC) LC) r CO I
LO L0 LC) IC) LC) LC) LC) LC)
I • Gt LO 01 • Cf- LC) 01 Ct Ol d' CO
I- • r Ct in al r r r r CI' LC) 01 r r r- N N CO M
11.LL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
w LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) L0 LC) L) LC) LC) LC) LC) L0 LC) L0 LC) LC) LC) I
O CO Ct CO CO Ct 00 O CO Ct W CO Ct CO CO CO CO CO
r r r r- r r N N C) co
•
I
0
a •
p co Ol
O Z r r
m I
. B-21
•
V)
Z . .
O •
I.._Z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
QZ r r r r C)l r r r r r r r r r r
cY\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - \ \ S.
w U N CO St r O LO d' O •::1- r CD CID r- 1.0 N
r d• LO I-• N co or r r r
w00
4
w
m�
O(h i
v)w
LUQ
w w
I--.J
ct N
N •
J w
(3
N
n Z
W w cc LL
CZ a.vi
F— 0 1 IX
w
til v
E- Q
WO
w Ur I-
LL Z w c
Z I- m
N
>. O Q
QCe
O.
W
N >•-
v> d- Co LO
Zu
O
V
Co N ct
d r- r r
} r r r
Ce
O
w
ce
n c) r r CO Co C31 C•1 l0 r L•O CD OD O O CO r-.
o 1,7) . . .
O co d' .4 ch l0 N ct- L ) l0 10 cY CO LS) Cr" O Ln
o
LO I ) CO Ln LO LC) LO LI) LO
U) in Ln in LO LO 10 Ln • Lf) LSI Lf) Ln
ct Lf) C)1 • • d- • • Cl- LO C)) •Ct' LI)
II- • P-• Gt LS) 01 r r r r •,:t LS) O) r r d" LO O) r- r r N N
n•I- I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1
w Ln Ln LO LO Ln LO LI) LO Ln LI) LS) Ln LO Ln LS) Ln LO LO Ln LI) Ln
Cl
O co ch CO CO CO O M d co co CD CO Gt CO CO Gt CO CO 'ci-
s- r- r r r r r N N
0
ce
O OZ N N N
m
Q-22
L
zT I
O
I-.Z N N N N N r N N N N N N N N N N
Q_ . . . . . . r r-• r r r r r r- r r--
De. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
W U) h. CD M I ) CD CD r f- II) N h` Ch LC) N01 C) I
r LC) . 1- M Cr) LC) F-.. N N Cr r . r r- M
w o •
c m •
I
I
W
CO O-I1
� •
I
0 ILI
I-
LU Q
LULL.
I--•J
t') I
I
N •
JW y v`n) Z
WU.
pd avi
I-- CI
W p
F-- LU Z Q
LL Z al
O ZI-
CU)
>" U J
QZ D LU
w
in N
Z u-
tir 0V M I
>a I--
0
W •I
a
D N. 01 r- CO It, Ch r CD r LL) r CO O N
01-• . .
O M CD CD CO N C)1 M Lf) Lf) N. Cr) N LC) r
r r r r r N
LC) IC) LC) Lf) LC) d' Lf) LC) O O O
Lf) LC) LC) In LC) O CD O
X ON Ch C 1 01 0) Ch • Ch 01 • Ch tf) 01
a •F N CO CO Ch LC) h. r Cr Lf) 01 r r- r Ch LC) 01 r r r
w u- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
L L L L LO C) C) f) LC) LC) LC) C) LC) LC) Lf) LC) LC) CD CD CD CD CD CD
. . . . . . • • • • • • • . . . . • .
CO CO CO CO CO CO O Cr) Ch CO CO CO O CO Ch CO CO Ch CO
N CO CO Cr LC) h . r r r- r r
4-)
C
0
U' U
0 Z N N N
m
8-23
r r
• SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
Atterberg Summary
Boring No. 15 16
• Depth (Ft. ) 3.5-4.5 3.5-4.5
Liquid Limit 16.1 32.4
Plastic Limit 17.1 14.0
•
Plasticity Index N.P. , 18.4
Passing 200 28.3 68.3
Group Index 0.0 9.9
Classification
Unified SM CL
AASHTO A-2-4(0) A-6(10)
•
8-24
•
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
Boring 2 @ 3. 5'-4.5'
Atterberq Limits II
Liquid Limit 20.1
Plastic Limit 13.5
Plasticity Index 6.6
% Passing #200 36.4
Group Index 0.3
Classification
• Unified SM-SC
AASHTO A-4(0)
Permeability: k = 127.3 Ft/Yr @ 98.8#/Ft3 Dry Density
Boring 3 @ 3. 5'-4.5'
Gradation
Sieve Size % Passing
#4 100
#10 99.9
#20 99. 8
#40 99.3 .
#60 92.4
#100 67.5
#200 31 .3
Permeability: k = 32. 8 Ft/Yr @ 103.1#/Ft3 Dry Density
Specific Yield: 17% approximate
11..9R
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
Boring 9 @ 13.5'-14.5'
Gradation
Sieve Size % Passing_
#4 100
#10 99.8
#20 99.8
#40 99.4
#60 91 .8
#100 46.5
#200 14.6
Permeability: k = 269.3 Ft/Yr @ 103.4#/Ft3 Dry Density
•
Specific Yield: 22. 5% approximate
Boring 14 @ 13.5'-14.5'
Gradation
Sieve Size % Passing
1/2" 100
3/8" * 99.3
#4 97.3 _
#10 95.0
#20 92.7
#40 84.6
#60 61 .4
#100 23.9
#200 9.1
•
Specific Yield: 24% approximate
B-26
.
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
Boring 15 @ 3. 5'-4.5'
Gradation
Sieve Size % Passing
3/8" 100
#4 99.8
#10 98.9
#20 96.8
#40 91 .4
#60 79.7
#100 51 .4
#200 23.7
Permeability: k = 35.3 Ft/Yr @ 103. 5#/Ft3 Dry Density
Specific Yield: 18% approximate
Boring 17 @ 13. 5'-14.5'
Gradation
Sieve Size % Passing
#10 100
#20 95.2
#40 74.5
#60 46.6 .
#100 16.4
#200 6.7
Permeability: k = 549.1 Ft/Yr @ 102.7#/Ft3 Dry Density
Specific Yield: 24.5% approximate
B-27
F
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
Boring 23 @ 23.5'-24.5'
Gradation
Sieve Size % Passing
3/8" 100
#4 99.8
#10 99.1
•
#20 75.8 •
#40 59.9
#60 44.5
#100 22.8
#200 7.8
Specific Yield: 24.5% approximate
Boring 25 @ 13.0'-14.0'
Gradation
Sieve Size % Passing
#4 100
#10 99.9
#20 97.0
#40 88.2
#60 75:7
#100 38.4
#200 9.5
Permeability: 573.3 Ft/Yr @ 101 .7#/Ft3 Dry Density
Specific Yield: 24. 5% approximate
B-28
Hello