n

IL _--

FEAS.Ttsil,]'TY ST'UDYFOR SEIIPWATER F [JÌvtlryNc SYSTEÌqINEAÐ CCL:I' CREEK ÐAI,T

swc tlrG7tRANSOM COLTNT'Y

SCiM

;_tsEol'l

rQl

I

¡I

Ia

II

IIIiI

ct.'Lf¡')'--

II

IIt

1

ri

ïI

)---.-<_--

NGRTTI D.AKt_r?:tLSTATE TI'A TSR CÜi'{i-TIS,S/O¡i

såPî'À'ffA^&"R f gJt

R ,A ir.l

PRELII,ÍINÀRY ENGINEERING REPORT

Dead CoIt CreekFeasibility Study forSeep IÍater Pump Back System

SWC Project #1671

September 1991

North Dakota State llater Comnission900 East Boulevard

Bismarck, North Dakota 58505-0850

Prepared by:

Ronald À. SwansonDesign Engineer

Submitted by:

a

t^t x Fr^ßDaIe L. Frink, Directorllater DeveJ-opment Diwision

Approved by:

David À.State Eng

ty E

DEÀD COLT CREEK DÀlTSEEP WÀTER PTT}ÍP BÀCK SYSTE}í STT'DY

swc PRoJECT #1671

Purpose and Scope:

Since Dead Colt Creek Dam vras constructed in 1983, it has

proved to be a popular water resource facility. An extensiverecreation complex has been developed. However, because of thislow runoff situation, the reservoir has been unabl-e to maintain a

steady pool level. This results in a reduction in the surfacearea and volume of the reservoir.

Besides the obvious effects of the loss of pool area forrecreational purposes, there is aLso a less visible factor. Thisis the resultant shortage of water to operate the low-Ieve1drawdown system. This feature is provided to remove poorquality, eutrophic, contaminated water from the bottom of thereservoir. The low-Ievel drawdown should ideally be operatedtwice a year, in late winter and in late summer, to discharge thestratified eutrophic layer from the bottom of the reservoir. Thisregular flushing action serves to release the accumulatednutrient laden layer and greatly improves the resen¡oir waterquality. However, during the current dry cycle, there has notbeen any excess water available to accomplish this clean outfunction. One idea that has been presented by the water resourcedistrict is to capture the seepage water flow from the downstream

channel.

-1-

Physiography and Geology:The entire reservoir area is part of the Glaciated Plains, a

glaciated slope east of the Missouri Coteau. This area ischaracterized by a surface of nearry level to undulatingtopography. The topography was produced by glacial erosion and

deposition, but is controlled in part by the preglacial bedrocksurface.

Most of Ransom County is drained by the Sheyenne River,which is part of the Red River of the North drainage system. The

Sheyenne River valley is the most prominent physiographic featurein the area. Àt its confluence, with Dead CoIt Creek in theNWf-/4 of Section 33, Township 134 North, Range 55 West, thevalley depth ranges between 75 to 100 feet and the valley widthis approximately 2,500 feet.

Dead CoIt Creek, an intermittent stream, occupies one of thelarger tributary valleys of the Sheyenne River in Ransom County.The rolling to steep land found along the Sheyenne River alsoextends back into the Dead CoIt Creek reservoir. The slopes,which are part of a deeply-incised topography, have been erodedby slope wash and small streams. The vaJ-ley ranges from about11300 to 11500 feet wide, with approximately 85 feet of relief atthe dam site. Some of the steep valley walls are cut in tillrwhile -others have exposed sand and gravel deposits. Boulders areIocally abundant.

-3-

Post construction surveillance of the seep water flowscollecting in the downstream channel varied from about 0.35 cfsto about 1 cfs; well within the anticipated range. While thisinformation tends to provide satisfactory details regarding theIong-term safety status of the dam, it also reveals the magnitude

of the losses from the reservoir. The objective of this study ist'o determine if this seep water can be collect,ed and pumped back

into the reservoir in order to preserve its Ievel.

Reservoir Losses:

The losses previously mentioned appear to average about 200

gallons per minute (0.4456 cfs), equivaÌent to 322.62 acre-feetper year or approximately 3 feet off the top of the pool. Thiswould be in addition to the evaporative losses which could be

expected to be approximately another f f/2 feet.

The capability of being able to recapture some of the lostwater could serve to replenish the reservoir during dry periods.The recycling of this lost water may be enough to sustain thereservoir during mild droughts. Other benefits may include theoption of using the low-Ievel drawdown system at' more frequentintervals. These potential benefits may justify the cost of t'hepump back system.

Seep Ttater Pump Back:

The objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibilityof installing a seep water pump back system. This would entail

Ê

maior advantage of offering about 23 feet less of totat dynamichead to pump against, but would have some critical engineeringand installation probtems to surmount. The route over the dam

would present a more straightforward installation problem, butwould provide a continuously higher operating cost for a smallerrate of return frow because of the rarger operating head.Calculations sheets for both alternatives are provided in theappendix.

The anticipated discharges of 1BO GPM for the first case and1,7O GPM for the second wourd appear to be both in the range whrerethe seep water rate of flow could provide a constant source for acontinuous pumpÍng operation.

Reservoir Capacity:The attached area-capacity curve shows the storage of the

reservoir at the various erevations. The two pumping optionscould return about 19o acre-feet per year and 1go acre-feet peryear' respectively- These figures Índicate that approximately zfeet of reservoÍr storage courd be recaptured each year. Thiswould j-mprove the situation somewhat during a mird drought, butcould not stop the inevitabte drawdown.

The return flows may create a condition where the operatorsare more willing to regularty use the low-Ievel drawdor^rn. Thiswourd improve the water quarity by draining off the bad qualítybottom layer.

-7-

there may be a restriction against pumping during low flowperiods.

overal-l-, the pro ject shoul-d be evaruated on the basis ofwhether either option is really needed and if either is worth theanticipated cost, and upon the benefit to cost ratio.

Benefit to Cost Ratio:The estimated inftial constructed cost of the preferred

Àlternative B is $281400, and the annuar pumping is estimated tobe SLtt2L.L7. using the methods of engineering economy toevaluate the annualized cost of the initial investment, basedupon an interest rate of 6 percent and a 25 year anticipatedproject life, the annual cost is determined to be 52r22L.73. rfthe annual maintenance cost is assumed to be 3 percent, of theinitial cost, it is found to be $852.00, therefore, the totalannualized costs ares

Ànnualized Construction CostÀnnual Pumping CostÀnnual Maintenance CostTotal Ànnual Cost

s2,221.73I,I2I.L7R52 - 00

$4,149 .90

The benefits of the project would be reÌated to theadditional recreational capability of the reservoir if theproject were installed. It woul-d appear that the pool would havea surface area of about 90 acres during a dry season without thepumping facirity, but if it were used, the pool courd. bemaintained about 2 feet higher with about 99 acres or

-9-

SUBMERSIBLEPUMPS BOTHALTERNATIVES

ot¡-ofLol--É,UJ

àHI(,

DEAD COLT CREEK DAMswc # 1671

SEEPWATER PUMPBACK PROJECT

48"ø RcPSPILLWAY

co

+z:)É,

J oF

JoTL

a+JIJF

ffrl-an

TDo-

(rEt¡JÈ

TOP OF DAMEL t t60

1---

PUMP

I

EXISTING OUTLET STRUC 4' POLY PIPE HALDING POND

VATER SURFACEEL t079AL TIRNA Tf A

PtrLYPIPE THRtrUGHPRINCIPAL SPILLVAY

EXISTING TNLET STRUCTURE

EXISTTN6 4A' RCP

EL '1

TOP OF DAMEL T I605',

ALTERNA Tf BP.V,C. TRENCHED IN

OVER TAP OF ÐAM

5

ORIGINAL GRAUND

cHELDING PAND

VATER SURFACEEL I 079

DEAD CNLT CRffKsr/c # 167 1

DAM

I

I

I

PRNCIPÄL SPII,I-WAY1€' @ilCREtE P|PE

4. Po|_t?tPE

SECTION A_AALTERNATI A

PIPE INSIDEPRINCIPAL SPILLWAY

l+ t.5'

G'n

a' P.v.c

ALTERN ATE BTRENCH OVER TOP OF DAM

(oR D.r.P.){' Pq-tPtPE ,¿3.0'

¡1' P.V,C.

SECTION B_B

DEAD coLT cREEK DAM PRoJECT #t6T rAREA-CAPACITY CURVES

cAPACtTY (0. rt.)-2000 -1800 -1600 -1400 -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0t

L

tVAT

I

0

11 t0t

11J0 L1125

1120

1115

1iz5 tV

1120 /̂1

1110 å

1110

1115 T

1105 NN 1105

1 100

M

S

L

1 095

1 090

110

109

109

0

5M0S

L0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 B0 90 100 110 120 130 140 i50 160 170 180 190200ARIA (ocres)

,-',,,ì.,',.,.,,-.\ \

ARTA

CAPACITY

PROJECT:

COUNTY: RANSOM

LOCATION:

MAP DATE:1985

DATE: 1991 K.F.K.

ELEV. DIST SQ. AREAMS acres

1/2 SUMacres acft.

ACCUMULATECAPACITY CAPACITYSUM

acres acft

0

1

28

93

197

334

508

725

998

1 333

1 730

1 958

1.3

26.3

65.2

104.6

136.6

173.8

217.O

272.8

335.0

397.5

227.8

0.0

1.35

6.58

16.30

26.16

34.14

43.45

54.25

68.19

83.76

99.38

1 13.91

59.94

2.69

13.16

32.59

52.32

68.28

86.89

108.49

136.38

167.52

198.76

227.82

119.88

0.00

2.69

10.47

22.12

30.20

38.08

48.81

59.68

76.70

90.82

107.94

1 19.88

1

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

2

1 091

1 092

1 096

1 100

1104

1108

i112

1116

1120

1124

1128

1130

DEAD COLT CREEK DAMswc # 1671DESIGN SEEP WATER PUMPBACK SYSTEM

ALTERNATIVE A: PUMP SEEP WATER THRU SPILLWAY

ABSJUMBO sOWSUBMERSIBLE PUMP EL 1130

EL.4" POLYPIPE400LF C= 1 50

ASSUME: Q=1 80cPM=0.40107CFS=0.7941 1 BAF /OAVSTATIC HEAD(U=) = 1150-1080 = sOFTFRICTION HEAD(Hf) = 1.60FT/1OoFT x 4 = 6.4vELOCTTY HEAD(Hu) 3 0.2sFTPUMP LOSSES(HP) = ASSUME

TOTAL DYNAMTC HEAD(TDH)Hs+Hf+Hv+Hp=50'+6.4'+0.25'+5.35' = 62'

HORSE POWER( r-P ) - QY, HQ=CFS=0.401 CFS 550

tf = 0.401 (6 2.4) 62 = 2.821P5s0ASSUME: EFFICIENCY

TOTAL = 2.821P = 4.03 [-P0.7

POWER REQUIRED(KW) = 0.7 46tpKW = 4.031f x 0.7 46 = 5.00KWPASSUME: PUMPING 24O DAYS A YEARQt = 0.7941 l BAF /OAV x 240DAYS = 190.588 A.F./YEAR

POWER USED: 5.01 KW X 24HR/DAY X T4ODAYS/YEAR17,280 KWHRS/YEAR

ASSUME COST = $O.OSKWHR$o.os x 17 ,2BoKwH R

y'' __= 62.4L8/fl"H =TDH =62

DEAD COLT CREEK DAMswc # 1671DESIGN SEEP WATER PUMPBACK SYSTEM

ALTERNATIVE B: PUMP SEEP WATER OVER DAM

FLYGT ITTBS 2102-238-1 0SUBMERSIBLE PUM

EL 1 161EL 1 156EL 1

ASSUME: Q=170cPM = 0.3787878 = 0.7SAF/DAySTATIC HEAD(Hs) = 1156-1080 = 76FTFRICTION HEAD(Hf) = 1.548FT/1OOFI x 4 = 6.2'VELOCITY HEAD(Hv) = 0.25'PUMP LOSSES(Hp) = ASSUME = 2.55'TOTAL DYNAMIc HEAD(TDH) =Hs+Hf+Hv+Hp=

76.0'+6 .2' +0.25' +2.55' = 85'

HORSE POWER( FP ) = QY, HQ=CFS=0.57879CFS 550--

Y, - 62.4L8/F!: Fp - 0.37878782(62.4\ 8s - J.65J¡.oH =TDH=85ASSUME: EFFICIENCY = 70%EFFICENCY = 3.655FP= 5.2 t+

o.7POWER REQUIRED(KW) = O.746tpKW = 5.2 tf x 0.746 = 5.895KW

: PUMPING 24O DAYS A YEAR.75AF /DAY x ?4ODAYS = 180 A.F./YEAR

POWER USED:

5ot-\

ASSU M EQt=0

24O DAYS/YEA.893KW x 24HRS/DAY x22623.33 KWHR/YEAR

ASSUME COST = $O.OsKWHR =$0.05 x zz4z3.JJKwHR = gttz1.17/rEAR

R=

sEcT. 600Curves 6 TD

R, IìIMRO

300

PG. 26L

400

TA

140

120

40

0

40

ØÉ.uIFluJ

=z.otIJIJÉol--

0

20

100

I

t-TUTTJtr-zoll'l:EJÉoF

10

USGPM 100 r80 200GPM

\\

\

DATE March_I, ìq8SHP 5. 7s sgLloslzE ---l-lß-:

JUMBO-5OW/sOWHH

: DISCHABGE SIZE 3 .4 -

-:

60 x¡ I px

Standard & Hll

230

MODEL

RPII3450YOLTAG E

utP. tSPEED

\

\\

\\+

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

5 10 15LITERS PER SECOND

20 25

GENERAL DATA50'r 35

CABLE, STAHOARD LENGTH

PU'TP WE¡GHT - L8S

65',NSSHOEU or SOW

IIüI[IUM SUBMERGEHCE

POWER CABLE. TYPE

ELECTRICAL DATA

ABS Pumps lnc.

ALT. A

FlNsuuilolt ctÂss

2305.75 (4.3)

25

1550C

208s.75 (4.3)

27 .6

MAXIHUH STAIOß IEI,IP0108 I'ÍPE

Sealminder. 0verload shorE circult rotectionH0l0R PBotECTt0r{

VOTTAGE

H.P (xìvlTU[L IÍ)AD AIIPS

140 Pond View Drive Meriden, Connecticut 06450

BS-2102lmpellers 238, 240, 244, 246

Power input kW

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

Total headmeters feet

12035

110

100

908580

30

25

20

15

10

70

60

40

30

10

50

205

0501001 200 250 300 350 4oo 450 5oO us cPM800 1000

capacrlyli min

oGPM

I\

I

0244 3

I0246 1

\ìI

83eil

o¡

,zê

\\

tt240 1þ

\

{--\t

1/r7

7

/

\

//

\0246 1

I

\

ttI

\\

238 30\ t

\

\

\\\

I

1\

\

zqJ r+\

l\

l/,2

\\

\\\ \

L

\

\\

- _...!-

0 0

0 200 400

ALT. B

1200 1400 1600 18oO

SIfC ProÀugust

ject #L671I, 19',91

Dead CoIt Creek DamSeep fÍater Punp Back Systenr

À]-ternative À-1Cost Est,i¡lâte

No.

1.

2.3.4.5.

ProjecttvlobilizationExcavationPump

4-inch Diarneter PoJ-y Pipe4-inch Diameter Dip Pipe

Fi.ttingsPunp SupportRock RiprapElectrical Hookup

Cleanup and Seeding

Ouantity UnitLS

LS

LS

4OO LF

LS

$

UnitPrice

10. 00

Total.$ 2,000

1r000

6,0004r0001, 000

2,0001r 000

2r500s00

$20,0003,0002 r0oa2,000

s27,000

6.

7,

8.

9.

tsLS

LS

LS

SubtotalCont,ingencies ( 15t )Engineering (108)Contract and Àdrninistration (108)TOTÀI

SIJC Project #L67LÀugust 8, 1991

Dead CoIt Creek Da¡rSeep lÍater Pump Back SystenrÀIternative À-2

Cost Esti¡rate

No.

1.

2.3.4.tr

ProjectMobilizationExcavationPurnp

4-inch Diameter Dip Pipe4-inch Diameter Dip PipeFittings

6. Pump Support7. Rock Riprap8. Electrical Hookup

9. Cleanup and Seeding

Ouantity UnitLS

LS

LS

4OO LF

LS

$

TotaI$ 2,000

1r0006,0007 ,2001, 000

2 r0001, 000

2 r500500

ç23,2003 t2O02 t3002_30n

$31,000

18.00

LS

LS

LS

LS

SubtotalContingencies (15t)Engineering ( 108)Contract and Àdministration (108)TOlAL

Dead Colt Creek DamSeep lÍater PunP Back SYsten

ÀIternative BCost Estimate

SIüC ProJect #1671JuLy 24, 1991

unit,Pricel{o.

1.

2.3.

4.5.5.7.8.9.

Proiect'MobilizationExcavationPump

4-inch Diar¡eter PVC PiPe

4-Lnch D.iamet,er DiP PiPe

Pump SupportRock RiprapElectrical HookuP

Cleanup and Seeding

Ouantity

400

UniÈ

LS

LS

LS

LF

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

12.50

TotaI$ 21000

1r0005r000

5,0001r0002r0001r0002 r5OO

s00

$

SubtotalContingenciesEngineeringContract and AdministrationTOTÀt

s21, 0003r1502 tr25? -.121

$28 r 400