The Application of Soils Entry to the Rocky Ford Highline Canal

8/14/2019 The Application of Soils Entry to the Rocky Ford Highline Canal

1/11

DRAFT The Appl ication of SoilSentryTM

To the Rocky Ford Highline CanalAugust 18, 2008

Report Prepared By:

Innovium LLC1734 Clarkson Road, #244

Chesterfield, Missouri 63017Ph: 314-607-0563


2/11

Executive Summary:

The application of Linear Anionic Polyacrylamide (LA PAM) has been

demonstrated as being an effective canal sealant to minimize seepage inunlined earthen canals. Although LA PAM is an effective sealant, there have

been concerns about the safety and environmental impact of using theproduct on a large scale for this purpose. The polymer contains small

amounts of the acrylamide monomer ( AMD) which is a known neurotoxinand a suspect carcinogen.

Innovium LLC has developed a patented product called SoilSentryTMas a

more environmentally friendly alternative to LA PAM. SoilSentryTM, which ismanufactured from a modified polysaccharide in combination with a small

amount of LA PAM, performs as effectively as LA PAM, but the polysaccharideis biodegradable and since it contains only a small amount of LA PAM, it has

a significantly lower amount of the acrylamide monomer present.

The Rocky Ford Highline Canal Company working with Colorado StateUniversity (Dr. Timothy Gates), and Innovium (Mark Hochwalt, President)

applied SoilSentryTM to 5.7 miles of canal, starting from approximately 0.5miles upstream of HWY 50 and continuing upstream to the Rocky Ford

Highline Canal Gauging Station. The purpose for applying SoilSentryTM wasto determine its effectiveness as a canal sealant.

Del Smith from the Bureau of Reclamation was on hand to witness the

application and provide assistance in measuring the effectiveness of theapplication by taking measurements of the flow at various points along the

canal reach to determine seepage lose. The canal has been heavily studiedin this area and substantial baseline seepage loss data had been gather prior

to the application.

The following areal photo shows the area of the canal which was treated.The yellow line highlights the path of the canal in this reach and the

treatment zone. The canal parallels the Arkansas River and provides

irrigation water to its shareholders in the valley. The untreated canal wasloosing approximately 14 cubic feet per second along this reach of the canal.The canal flow the day it was treated was 200 cubic feet per second. The

linear velocity of the flow down the canal was approximately 2 ft per second.

The application rate was 100 pounds of SoilSentryTM per mile.


3/11

Treated section of the Rocky Ford Highline Canal

Seepage over the reach was reduced from approximately 14 cubic feet per

second to 5 cubic feet per second after the application. The seepage ratemeasurements were taken at a canal flow rate of 150 cubic feet per second.This represents a 64 % reduction. Additional analysis around the

measurements still needs to be done to confirm the reduction.


4/11

Application Details:

The application started at 12:30 PM and it took until 1:30 PM to get to

Nepesta Road located 0.8 miles upstream. The delivery method had to bemodified from an electric spreader to a simple hand held funnel because of

the fine nature of the SoilSentryTM product (like flower) rather than granular

like straight LA PAM (more like sugar).

Start Distance (Miles)

1230 PM 01237 PM 0.2

1243 PM 0.3 Took Electric Herd Spreader off of boat1252 0.4 (Added 40 pound of product to boat)

Started using Funnel at 0.3 miles (reapplied from downstream start point)

119 PM 0.7

124 PM 0.9 Cut funnel open with hacksaw to increasefeed rate(Added 40 pound of product to boat)

128 PM 1.1139 PM 1.3 (Added 40 pound of product to boat)



205 PM 2.3

207 PM 2.5 (Added 40 pound of product to boat)213 PM 2.7


226 PM 3.3 (Added 40 pound of product to boat)230 PM 3.5 (Discharge Cross Section 201 by Railroad

Bridger)234 PM 3.7 (Added 40 pound of product to boat)240 PM 3.9

243 PM 4.1 (Added 40 pound of product to boat)


Augmentation Station at 4.6 Miles

254 PM 4.7258 PM 4.9 (Added 40 pound of product to boat)300 PM 5.1


317 PM 5.7 ENDGauging Station / Measurement Flume at 5.8 miles.


5/11

The planned dosage was 80 lbs of SoilSentryTM per lineal mile of canal reach.

This was changed after removing the spreader to 100 lbs of SoilSentryTM perlineal mile of canal reach to make the dosing easier and more accurate.SoilSentryTM is packaged in 40 lb bags. To improve dosing accuracy a bag

was split into two five gallon buckets of 20 pounds each. Each bucket wouldtreat 0.2 of a mile. A vehicle would be parked 0.2 miles ahead of the motor

boat to help the applicators gauge the dosing amount and boat velocity.

Dan and Jay from the Rocky Ford Highline Canal CompanyAppling SoilSentryTM Through a Plastic Funnel

The canal had 200 cubic feet per second flow traveling at approximately 2 ftper second down the canal reach. The application was conducted starting at

the bottom of the reach and traveling up the reach at a rate of approximately

2 miles per hour or 2.93 ft per second. The dosage of SoilSentry in thewater is calculated from the following formula:

Dosage (PPM) = 2 ft X 100 lbs X 1 mile X sec X ft3 X 1,000,000

sec mile 5280 ft 200ft3 62.3 lbs= 3

The maximum acrylamide monomer (AMD) concentration in the water can be

calculated from the following formula:

AMD (PPT) = 3 ppm SoilSentry X 0.166 LA PAMX 0.0005 AMDX1,000,0001.0 SoilSentry 1.0 LA PAM

= 249


6/11

The maximum allowable acrylamide monomer (AMD) concentration indrinking water per NSF Standard 60 can be calculated from the followingformula:

AMD (PPT) = 1ppm LAPAM X 0.0005 AMD X 1,000,000

1.0 LA PAM

= 500

The acrylamide monomer (AMD) concentration in this application of

SoilSentryTM was 50% of the allowable limit for drinking water as outlined in

NSF Standard 60.

The following sequence of pictures shows the formation of flocks in the canalwater from one point on the canal as the application motor boat was

advancing up the canal. Based on the velocity of the boats travel up thecanal and the water flow rate down the canal, we can determine the time and

the distance from the point of application before flock formation was

observed.

Boat Passing During Application 2:44 PM


7/11

Point 10 minutes After Application 2:54 PM

Point 11 minutes After Application 2:55

Flocks beginning to Form


8/11

Point 13 minutes after application 2:57 PMWater becoming clearer, flock pools more evident

Point 16 minutes after application 3:00 PM


9/11

Point 20 minutes after application 3:04 PM

Flocks began forming in the water at 11 minutes after the boat passed.

Solving two simultaneous equations, one for the travel of the motor boat upthe reach and the other for the water flow rate down the reach, a distance

can be calculated from the observation point to determine the time it takesto hydrate the SoilSentryTM and begin flock formation.

Solving the two equations the boat had traveled approximately 791 ft up the

canal taking approximately 4.5 minutes at a velocity of 2.93 ft/sec, and thetreated water took 6.5 minutes to travel back to the observation point at a

velocity of 2.0 ft/sec with a total elapsed time of 11 minutes from the timethe boat passed the observation point.

Samples taken of the water before and after application show how effective

SoilSentryTM is in dropping the sediment out of the water to form a sealingmaterial.


10/11

Dr. Tim Gates, Professor Civil and Environmental Engineering Colorado State

University, holding water samples taken before and after application

Results:

Preliminary estimates indicated a loss rate of about 5 cubic feet per secondover the treated segment of canal with a canal flow rate of about 150 cubic

feet per second at the upstream end. An inflow-outflow test conducted

earlier this year on this same segment at a flow rate of about 150 cubic feetper second indicated a pre-treatment seepage loss of about 14 cubic feet persecond.

The results need to be more carefully analyzed, but this is quiteencouraging. This 64% reduction is very similar to the reduction that

was measured earlier along this reach using LA PAM.

Conclusions and Next Steps:

It appears from the preliminary result that SoilSentryTM is as effective as LAPAM at reducing canal seepage. The application technique used wasextremely low tech and inexpensive, but effective at achieving the desired

result. The exposure level to the product using this method when used along

with some simple personal protective equipment ( gloves and a dust mask)would be very low. The SoilSentryTM appeared to dissolve more easily than


11/11

LA PAM, with flocks appearing approximately 791 ft or 0.15 miles

downstream of the application point.

Next Steps:

Additional quality assurance check need to be done to determine theaccuracy of the seepage measurements.

Additional measurements over the reach should be taken to determinethe longevity of the application.

Some thought should be given to potentially improving the applicationmethod.

A more controlled study should be undertaken next season to validatethe results.

A controlled study should be undertaken to determine the optimumdosage of SoilSentryTM to get the desired reduction in canal seepage.

Documents

The Application of Soils Entry to the Rocky Ford Highline Canal