Attachment+3+Relevant+Studies.pdf

ATTACHMENT 3

RELEVANT STUDIES

PREPARED BY

in association with

MAY 2015

FINAL REPORT

Missouri River Hydrogeologic Investigation and Intake Conceptual Design Study

PREPARED FOR

North Dakota State Water Commission

F i na l Repo r t

Missouri River Hydrogeologic Investigation and Intake Conceptual Design Study

Prepared for North Dakota State Water Commission

May 28, 2015

This document was originally issued and sealed by Bruce J. Spiller, Registration Number 8196 on 05/27/2015 and the original documents are stored at CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc., Fargo, ND

Prepared by in association with

Contents

Section Page

Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... vii

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... ES-1

Section 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1-1

Section 2: BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 2-1

Section 3: PROJECT SCOPE ...................................................................................................................... 3-1

Section 4: SUMMARY OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS ................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Selection of Test Borehole Sites ............................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 Test Boreholes and Sample Wells .......................................................................................... 4-3

4.2.1 Boreholes .................................................................................................................. 4-3

4.2.2 Sample Wells ............................................................................................................. 4-4

4.3 Test Wells and Aquifer Tests .................................................................................................. 4-4

4.3.1 Well Construction ..................................................................................................... 4-5

4.3.2 Aquifer Testing ........................................................................................................ 4-10

4.3.3 Well Abandonment ................................................................................................. 4-11

4.4 Water Quality Sampling and Analysis .................................................................................. 4-18

4.4.1 Water Quality Sampling .......................................................................................... 4-18

4.4.2 Exceedances of Regulatory Standards .................................................................... 4-20

Section 5: ANALYSIS OF INVESTIGATION RESULTS AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN BASIS ............................... 5-1

5.1 Aquifer Testing ....................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Analysis Methods ................................................................................................................... 5-2

5.3 Conceptual Design Basis ...................................................................................................... 5-11

Section 6: GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS .............................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Ground-based Geophysics ..................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Airborne Geophysics .............................................................................................................. 6-3

6.3 Geophysical Survey Interpretation and Results ..................................................................... 6-5

6.3.1 Painted Woods Creek Site ........................................................................................ 6-5

6.3.2 Sundown Acres Site .................................................................................................. 6-6

6.3.3 MRCC Site.................................................................................................................. 6-6

6.3.4 Missouri River Overview ........................................................................................... 6-7

Section 7: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ............................................................................................................. 7-1

Section 8: COST ESTIMATES ..................................................................................................................... 8-1

Section 9: STUDY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 9-1

9.1 Study Findings ........................................................................................................................ 9-1

9.2 Conclusions/Recommendations ............................................................................................ 9-3

Section 10: REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 10-1

M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y i i i

CONTENTS, CONTINUED FINAL REPORT

Exhibits

4-1 – Potential Sites in the North Half of the Study Area 4-2 – Potential Sites in the South Half of the Study Area 4-3 – Irrigation Driller Logs & Geophysical Ground Survey: Painted Woods Creek 4-4 – Irrigation Driller Logs & Geophysical Ground Survey: Sundown Acres 4-5 – Irrigation Driller Logs & Geophysical Ground Survey: State Penitentiary

6-1 – Geophysical Data Comparison at Painted Woods Creek (DC Line 1) 6-2 – A Zoomed Perspective of the Geophysical Data with the Screened Interval Marked at Boring 2 6-3 – Interpretation of Producing Zone at Boring 2 6-4 – Geophysical Data Comparison at Sundown Acres (DC Lines 2 and 4) 6-5 – Geophysical Data Comparison at MRCC (DC Line 3) 6-6 – Interpreted Alluvial Sediment Thickness along the Survey Area 6-7 – Six Areas Identified for Future Investigation along the Survey Area

Appendixes (included as PDF files on DVD at the end of this report)

A Specific Authorization No. 1 Summary Memorandum B Field Investigation Plan C Borehole Logs D Sieve Data E Locations of Sample Wells F Abandonment Notes G Water Quality Sampling Parameters and Lab Results H Horizontal Collector Well Yield Estimates, Ranney Collector Wells I XRI Report J Conceptual Design Layout (included in print form with this report) K Conceptual Design Details (included in print form with this report) L Cost Estimate (included in print form with this report)

Tables

ES-1 Pumping Tests Conducted on PW-02 and PW-07 ............................................................................. ES-5 ES-2 Wellfield Characteristics and Costs ................................................................................................... ES-6 ES-3 Bismarck HCW Hydrogeologic and Yield Parameters ........................................................................ ES-7 ES-4 Sites Warranting Future Investigation Identified by AEM Geophysical Survey ................................ ES-7

4-1 Recommended Test Boring Locations ................................................................................................. 4-3 4-2 Boreholes and Sample wells ................................................................................................................ 4-4 4-3 Temporary Monitoring Wells and Piezometers at Test Sites .............................................................. 4-5 4-4 Pumping Tests Conducted on PW-02 ................................................................................................ 4-10 4-5 Pumping Tests Conducted on PW-07 ................................................................................................ 4-10 4-6 Water Quality Sampling Schedule ..................................................................................................... 4-19 4-7 Summary of Water Quality Data ....................................................................................................... 4-19 4-8 Microscopic Particle Analysis Testing Volumes Passed ..................................................................... 4-21 4-9 Microscopic Particle Analysis Testing Indicators Found .................................................................... 4-22 i v M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y

FINAL REPORT CONTENTS, CONTINUED

5-1 Pumping Tests Conducted on PW-02 ................................................................................................. 5-1 5-2 Pumping Tests Conducted on PW-07 ................................................................................................. 5-2 5-3 Aquifer Hydraulic Parameters for PW-02 ......................................................................................... 5-10 5-4 Aquifer Hydraulic Parameters for PW-07 ......................................................................................... 5-11 5-5 Aquifer Hydraulic Properties Estimated for the Test Borings Based on Sieve Analyses................... 5-12 5-6 Estimated Yield at Each Test Boring Site Where HCWs Were Selected ............................................ 5-13 5-7 Estimated Yield at Each Test Boring Site Where HCWs Were Not Selected ..................................... 5-14 5-8 Estimated Distance to Approximately One foot of Drawdown Behind an HCW .............................. 5-14

6-1 DC Survey Line Summary .................................................................................................................... 6-2

7-1 Wellfield Details .................................................................................................................................. 7-1 7-2 Conceptual Design of Wellfields at the Studied Locations ................................................................. 7-2

8-1 Summary of Conceptual Level Opinions of Probable Construction Cost (including Easements) ....... 8-1 8-2 Construction Cost per Million Gallons per Day (mgd) of Wellfield Capacity

(Laterals Outside River Boundary) ...................................................................................................... 8-3

9-1 Wellfield Characteristics and Costs ..................................................................................................... 9-2 9-2 Bismarck HCW Hydrogeologic and Yield Parameters ......................................................................... 9-2 9-3 Sites Warranting Future Investigation Identified by AEM Geophysical Survey .................................. 9-3

Figures

ES-1 RRVWSP Pipeline Alignments West of Sheyenne River and Hydrogeologic Investigation Study Area .......................................................................................................................................... ES-2

ES-2 Locations Showing Favorable Hydrogeologic Indications for BFS/HCW Intake Potential ................. ES-3

2-1 RRVWSP Pipeline Alignments West of Sheyenne River and Hydrogeologic Investigation

Study Area ........................................................................................................................................... 2-1

4-1 Locations Showing Favorable Hydrogeologic Indications for BFS/HCW Intake Potential .................. 4-2 4-2 Summary of PW-02 Construction Diagram ......................................................................................... 4-6 4-3 Summary of PW-07 Construction Diagram ......................................................................................... 4-7 4-4 Diagram of Monitoring Wells at Test Site 2, Painted Woods Creek ................................................... 4-8 4-5 Diagram of Monitoring Wells at Test Site 7, Sundown Acres ............................................................. 4-9 4-6 Water Levels Observed during PW-02 Step Test .............................................................................. 4-12 4-7 Water Levels Observed during PW-02 Constant-Rate Test .............................................................. 4-13 4-8 Monitoring Well Water Levels Observed during PW-02 Constant-Rate Test ................................... 4-14 4-9 Water Levels Observed during PW-07 Step Test .............................................................................. 4-15 4-10 Water Levels Observed during PW-07 Constant-Rate Test .............................................................. 4-16 4-11 Water Levels Observed during PW-07 Constant-Rate Test .............................................................. 4-17

5-1 PW-02 Variable-Rate Test ................................................................................................................... 5-3 5-2 PW-02 Constant-Rate Test .................................................................................................................. 5-4 5-3 MW2-1 Constant-Rate Test ................................................................................................................ 5-4 5-4 MW2-2 Constant-Rate Test ................................................................................................................ 5-5

M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y v

CONTENTS, CONTINUED FINAL REPORT

5-5 MW2-3 Constant-Rate Test ................................................................................................................. 5-5 5-6 MW2-4 Constant-Rate Test ................................................................................................................. 5-6 5-7 PW-07 Variable-Rate Test ................................................................................................................... 5-7 5-8 PW-07 Constant-Rate Test .................................................................................................................. 5-7 5-9 MW7-1 Constant-Rate Test ................................................................................................................. 5-8 5-10 MW7-2 Constant-Rate Test ................................................................................................................. 5-8 5-11 MW7-3 Constant-Rate Test ................................................................................................................. 5-9 5-12 MW7-4 Constant-Rate Test ................................................................................................................. 5-9

6-1 DC equipment, electrode connected to cable, and typical six-cable layout

(from XRI Report, 1-9) ......................................................................................................................... 6-2 6-2 Boundary areas of processed AEM data (yellow shapes) and cultural features that resulted in loss of data (marked in red). (Reproduced from XRI Report, 1-7) .................................................. 6-3 6-3 Airborne Geophysical Data Collection Using the SkyTem 301 AEM ................................................... 6-4 6-4 Sites Showing Favorable Hydrogeologic Indications for BFS/HCW Intake Potential

According to XRI Report as Indicated on Exhibit 6-7 of this Report .................................................... 6-9 6-5 Site 1 General Outline with Nearby Borehole Locations ................................................................... 6-10 6-6 Site 2 General Outline ....................................................................................................................... 6-12 6-7 Site 3 General Outline with Nearby Borehole Locations ................................................................... 6-13 6-8 Site 4 General Outline with Nearby Borehole Locations ................................................................... 6-14 6-9 Site 5 General Outline with Nearby Borehole Locations ................................................................... 6-16 6-10 Site 6 General Outline with Nearby Borehole Locations ................................................................... 6-17 v i M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y

Acronyms and Abbreviations

$M millions of dollars

1 MPN/100 ml 1 most probable number per 100 milliliters

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AE2S Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.

AEM airborne electromagnetic induction airborne investigations time-domain electromagnetic methods

BFS bank filtration system bgs below ground surface cfs cubic feet per second cm centimeters cm/sec centimeters per second

Commission North Dakota State Water Commission

DC direct current

Dept. Department

DGPS differential global positioning system

DO dissolved oxygen

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ft foot/feet ft bgs feet below ground surface gal gallons gpd gallons per day gpm gallons per minute ground-based investigations direct current geophysical methods

H-20 loading live load rating based on an axle load of 32,000 pounds

HCW horizontal collector well in inch

Layne Layne Christensen Company

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level mg/L milligram per liter

M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y v i i

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS FINAL REPORT

mgd million gallons per day

MPA microscopic particle analysis

MRCC Missouri River Correctional Center (also referred to as State Penitentiary)

NA not applicable

ND North Dakota

NDAC North Dakota Administrative Code

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit ohm-m ohm-meter

ORP oxidation reduction potential

Project Red River Valley Water Supply Project psi pounds per square inch

PVC polyvinyl chloride

RRVWSP Red River Valley Water Supply Project

SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition

SCH Schedule

State Penitentiary

Missouri River Correctional Center (also referred to as MRCC)

Study Missouri River Hydrogeologic Investigation and Intake Conceptual Design Study

Study Area Missouri River from south of the City of Bismarck, ND, to the City of Washburn, ND

Terrameter LS multifunction data acquisition system

XRI Exploration Resources International

XRI Report Geophysical Investigation Missouri Riverbank Filtration System, Bismarck, North Dakota

(XRI, 2014)

v i i i M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y

Executive Summary

Background The Missouri River Hydrogeologic Investigation and Intake Conceptual Design Study (Study) was conducted to determine and evaluate potential locations for subsurface water intakes along the Missouri River from south of the City of Bismarck, North Dakota (ND), to the City of Washburn, ND (Study Area), and to assess the feasibility of a bank filtration intake system to supply 120 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 150 cfs (78 million gallons per day [mgd] to 97 mgd) from the Missouri River to meet the needs of the Red River Valley Water Supply Project (RRVWSP). The Study was a recommended next step identified in the Red River Valley Water Supply Project Alternative Route Engineering Study (CH2M HILL, 2014a).

CH2M HILL (2014a) evaluated a number of different pipeline routes across the state for the RRVWSP. These routes can generally be placed into two groups – a northern group would have an intake near Washburn with routes that generally follow along the Highway 200 corridor, and a southern group that would have an intake near Bismarck with routes that would generally follow Interstate 94 (Figure ES-1). Both groups of routes face similar challenges for permitting and constructing the RRVWSP and present slightly different baskets of benefits. Selection of a preferred route, therefore, will be strongly influenced by proximity to the preferred intake location along the Missouri River. The preferred intake location is, in turn, influenced by hydrogeologic suitability to yield the flow quantities needed for the RRVWSP and by site availability/ accessibility. Evaluating these factors is the focus of this Study.

While RRVWSP provides the driving force for this Study, there is additional future need for water supply in the state to support economic development outside the Red River Valley. A secondary objective of the Study is to identify other sites in the Washburn to Bismarck reach of the Missouri River that might also be favorable for a bank filtration system (BFS) water supply intake to meet these unknown, potential future uses.

Project Scope CH2M HILL (2014a) identified a BFS consisting of one or more horizontal collector wells (HCWs) as the preferred RRVWSP intake configuration, if feasible. This BFS would reduce environmental impacts to a level that could eliminate the need for certain federal permits and yield a (potentially) higher quality water supply for the RRVWSP. The Study scope of work was developed with the objectives of identifying feasible locations along the east bank of the Missouri River that could serve as a future BFS/HCW intake site for the RRVWSP and/or other future water supply uses, and preparing conceptual intake designs. The major scope activities included the following:

• Identify locations having favorable hydrogeologic indications and property opportunity/access

• Conduct field investigations, to include:

− Test boreholes on accessible first priority properties − Well pumping tests at two selected locations

• Perform geophysical investigations, to include:

− Ground-based geophysical surveys at test borehole sites − Airborne geophysical surveys along Missouri River corridor between Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe

• Analyze results and develop conceptual designs of BFS/HCW intake for RRVWSP

• Prepare planning-level cost estimates

M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y E S - 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL REPORT

Figure ES-1 – RRVWSP Pipeline Alignments West of Sheyenne River and Hydrogeologic Investigation Study Area

Identification of Locations for Field Investigation Over 370 private contractor drilling logs and ground/surface water test boring logs within a quarter-mile of the river through the Study Area were reviewed to identify potential locations where thicker and coarser alluvial sediments might be expected. Such conditions are conducive to high water yields through a BFS/HCW system. Examination of the collected information resulted in the delineation of eight areas of primary interest along the river that were considered most favorable because of their hydrogeologic potential (that is, indications of thick, coarse alluvial sediments with hydraulic connection to the river).

Figure ES-2 shows the eight sites of primary interest. The three sites that were ultimately selected for field investigations are highlighted in yellow. The three sites are Painted Woods Creek, Sundown Acres, and the Missouri River Correctional Center (MRCC). The sites shared similar characteristics of lying close to the river, having sizable parcels that are currently undeveloped, and having nearby boreholes that show promising subsurface stratigraphy while having good accessibility. The five sites that were not pursued (highlighted in light blue) were not suitable from a land ownership perspective (for example, densely developed, federal ownership, access denied by landowner, or otherwise unavailable for intake purposes).

20 miles 0

Added Geophysical Survey Area

E S - 2 M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y

FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

- Location Selected for Field Investigation

- Location Not Selected for Field Investigation

Figure ES-2 – Locations Showing Favorable Hydrogeologic Indications for BFS/HCW Intake Potential

Painted Woods Creek

Sundown Acres

Missouri River Correctional Center (MRCC) Apple Creek Bottom

Bismarck

Island Park Estates

McCullough

Washburn South

M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y E S - 3

Results of Field Investigation Test Boreholes From October 6 to November 3, 2014, a total of 14 boreholes were advanced at the three sites shown in yellow on Figure ES-2. The 14 boreholes were continuously advanced using the rotosonic drilling method to provide continuous cores that were described and logged by a geologist onsite. Sieve analyses were performed on 67 select samples from the boreholes. Five boreholes were drilled at each of the Painted Woods Creek and Sundown Acres sites, and four boreholes were advanced at the MRCC site.

The results of the 14 boreholes include the following general observations:

• Depth to mudstone ranged from 45.6 to 129 feet below ground surface (ft bgs).

• Soil types encountered included poorly graded fine to very fine sands, silts, and clays, with some well graded sands and well graded gravels.

• The majority of the soil types encountered included poorly graded fine sands.

Based on the results of the test boreholes, the decision was made to perform the two well pumping tests at the Painted Woods Creek site and the Sundown Acres site, adjacent to the test boreholes at each site that showed the most promising potential for yielding a high capacity HCW. MRCC was not selected for one of the two well pumping tests because that site showed the least potential of the three sites based on the test borehole results.

Well Pumping Tests From November 4 through November 20, 2014, 16-inch-diameter test wells were constructed at both Painted Woods Creek and Sundown Acres, along with three monitoring wells and one monitoring/water supply well at each site. PW-02 was drilled to a total depth of 88 feet at Painted Woods Creek, with a 15-foot screened interval from 61 to 76 ft bgs. PW-07 was drilled to a total depth of 97 feet at Sundown Acres, with a 15-foot screened interval from 70 to 85 ft bgs. Four monitoring wells were spaced between 50 and 150 feet away from each test well.

Following development, each test well underwent a five-step, 9-hour variable-rate pumping test and a 4-day constant-rate pumping test during the period November 17 to November 27, 2014. Water levels in the monitoring wells, in a piezometer installed at the edge of the river at each site, and in an offsite irrigation well were continuously recorded by transducers and manually measured and verified hourly during the tests.

Table ES-1 summarizes the pumping rates and durations for each of the tests at each of the sites.

During the constant-rate pumping tests, drawdowns on the order of 14 to 15 feet were observed in the pumping well at Painted Woods Creek, and drawdowns on the order of 27 to 30 feet were observed in the pumping well at Sundown Acres.

Geophysical Investigations Geophysical investigations were conducted to provide (1) additional usable information to complement the data collected from test borings and pumping tests, and (2) a more comprehensive overview of where along the river potential high-yield intake sites could be found or, conversely, where it is unlikely they would be found. The geophysical methods used in this Study measure the conductivity of near-surface strata (and, indirectly, electrical resistivity), either through application of direct current (DC) methods (ground-based geophysical investigations) or through use of time-domain electromagnetic methods (airborne investigations).

E S - 4 M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y

TABLE ES-1

Pumping Tests Conducted on PW-02 and PW-07 Missouri River Hydrogeologic Investigation and Intake Conceptual Design Study

Variable-Rate Test

Step Test Duration (minutes)

Painted Woods Creek PW-02 Rate

(gpm)

Sundown Acres PW-07 Rate

(gpm)

Step 1 120 300 190

Step 2 120 500 310

Step 3 120 700 420

Step 4 120 900 515

Step 5 50-60 1200 560

Constant-Rate Test

Constant Rate Duration (hours)

PW-02 Rate (gpm)

PW-07 Rate (gpm)

Constant Rate 96 800 420 gpm = gallons per minute

Electrical resistivity of subsurface strata depends upon fluid content and chemistry, pore-volume porosity, effective porosity, and the presence of conductive mineral content. Experience has shown that resistivity can often be correlated to near-surface lithologies that are identified through boring logs to provide a more extensive understanding of the subsurface strata, including determination of total depth to bedrock and, potentially, delineation of areas having the desired sands and gravels needed to support a high-yield

BFS/HCW.

Ground-based Geophysical Surveys From October 14 to October 21, 2014, a total of 4.6 miles of ground-based geophysics were collected at the three test boring sites – Painted Woods Creek, Sundown Acres, and MRCC. The surveys were laid out to pass as close to the test boring locations as practical to provide a strong framework for correlating borehole information to the geophysical profiles.

Airborne Geophysical Surveys From October 23 to October 26, 2014, an airborne electromagnetic (AEM) survey was conducted over the Missouri River from Garrison Dam to south of Bismarck near the northern limits of Lake Oahe. The original plan for the airborne program extended to a northern limit of Washburn, corresponding to the “Study Area” limits shown on Figure ES-1. However, the Study Area for the airborne geophysics was later expanded to include the reach of the Missouri River from Washburn to Garrison Dam to take advantage of having the airborne equipment and crews mobilized to the site. The result is that the length of the river between Lake Oahe and Lake Sakakawea, approximately 83 miles, was surveyed, excluding a net 7 miles in the Bismarck- Mandan area. This area was omitted from the survey because of flight restrictions under Federal Aviation Administration regulations and because of the significant number of cultural features in the area.

AEM survey data were acquired using the SkyTem 301, a hexagonal rigid-frame transient electromagnetic system manufactured by a Danish firm, called SkyTem. The SkyTem 301 was suspended from the sling-load cargo system of a helicopter flying multiple flight lines up and down the river and approximately 1,000 feet beyond the river bank on each side.

M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y E S - 5

Study Findings The results of the investigations and the subsequent analysis of the collected data lead to the following Study findings.

1. Of the three sites investigated in this Study, the Painted Woods Creek site appears to have the highest yield potential, with an expected BFS/HCW wellfield yield in the range of 23 to 33 million gallons per day (mgd) from five HCWs. Sundown Acres has the next highest yield potential at 14 to 23 mgd from four HCWs. Table ES-2 provides a comparison of key hydrogeologic parameters, expected wellfield characteristics to develop the potential of each site, and conceptual-level development cost estimates.

TABLE ES-2

Wellfield Characteristics and Costs Missouri River Hydrogeologic Investigation and Intake Conceptual Design Study

Item Painted Woods Creek Sundown Acres MRCC

Saturated Thickness (ft) 61 to 75 61 to 90 55 to 120

Transmissivity (gpd/ft) 76,000 to 120,000 26,000 to 100,000 8,000 to 64,000

Number of HCWs 5 4 2

Expected HCW Yield (mgd/HCW) 3 to 10 3 to 10 5

Number of Vertical Wells – – 15

Expected Well Yield (gpm) – – 50 to 150

Expected Wellfield Yield (mgd)

- Laterals outside river boundary

- Laterals all around

23 to 33 26 to 38

14 to 23 16 to 26

11 to 13 13 to 15

Wellfield Construction Cost ($M) $53.4 $42.3 $31.3

Cost per mgd (high yield; outside of river) $1.6M/mgd $1.8M/mgd $2.4M/mgd

$M = millions of dollars ft = foot gpd = gallons per day gpm = gallons per minute HCW = horizontal collector well mgd = million gallons per day

2. Based on the values shown in Table ES-2, the individual sites investigated in this Study fall short of the yield capacity of the City of Bismarck HCW that was recently developed. For comparison, Table ES-3 presents some of the same parameters for the Bismarck HCW as are presented in Table ES-2 for the Study sites.

It should be noted that the Bismarck HCW is within the normal high water mark of the Missouri River, whereas all sites investigated in this Study were purposely selected to remain outside of areas subject to federal jurisdiction.

3. The wellfield capacities of the studied sites can only be verified through further test boreholes and pumping tests. However, it is apparent that none of the individual sites investigated in this Study show the capability of providing the required water supply demands of the RRVWSP (78 to 97 mgd). Achieving that capacity will require the development of multiple sites –likely at least two additional sites of similar quality and potential as the Painted Woods Creek site.

E S - 6 M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y

TABLE ES-3

Bismarck HCW Hydrogeologic and Yield Parameters Missouri River Hydrogeologic Investigation and Intake Conceptual Design Study

Item Bismarck HCW

Saturated Thickness (ft) 100+

Transmissivity (gpd/ft) 350,000 to 500,000

Expected HCW Yield (mgd/HCW) 26 (winter) to 34 (summer)

HCW Capital Cost ($M, including pipelines) $20M

Cost per mgd $0.6M to $0.8M/mgd

$M = millions of dollars ft = foot gpd = gallons per day gpm = gallons per minute HCW = horizontal collector well mgd = million gallons per day

4. Results of the airborne geophysics (AEM survey) indicate that several locations could warrant additional field investigations. Those areas of interest are where linear trends of more electrically resistive subsurface material, interpreted to be trends of thick alluvial sediment, cross or closely parallel the current river alignment. These trends may represent the earlier alignment of the high-energy river channel where it eroded into the underlying strata. At these locations, the thickened alluvial section presents a favorable opportunity of finding accumulations of coarser sands, gravels, and cobble in hydraulic connection with the river – the two principal requirements for a high-yield wellfield. The sites are identified in Table ES-4.

TABLE ES-4

Sites Warranting Future Investigation Identified by AEM Geophysical Survey Missouri River Hydrogeologic Investigation and Intake Conceptual Design Study

Site No.

Location Interpreted

Alluvium Thickness (feet)

Presence of Resistivity Layers

> 50 ohm-m? Section Township & Range

1 9, 16 T144N-R84W 250+ No

2 27, 32, 33 T144N-R83W 250+ Yes

3 5 T143N-R81W 250+ No

4 4 T142N-R81W 225+ No

5 22, 27, 34, 35 T142N-R81W 160+ No

6 4, 9 T137N-R80W 140+ No ohm-m = ohm-meters

5. In general, the resistivity response generated by the AEM survey correlated well with the test boreholes drilled during this investigation with respect to the depth to bedrock and thickness of granular alluvium observed in the boreholes. However, there was a less positive correlation between the magnitude of the resistivity response and the character of the alluvial sediments. Specifically, zones of higher AEM resistivity in the alluvial section did not necessarily correlate with the presence of the coarsest sands and gravels in the boreholes. While a better correlation was desired, the observed results are not entirely unexpected because the resistivity of the subsurface units is a product of many things besides sediment texture.

M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y E S - 7

6. The DC survey (ground-based geophysics) also did not appear successful in mapping sand/gravel layers within the alluvium. In fact, it was less successful than the AEM survey in defining the sediment/bedrock boundary. Near-surface anisotropies, including the nearby presence of the steep, high river bank, affected the quality of the DC data and their ultimate usefulness.

Conclusions/Recommendations Based on the results of this Study, the following can be concluded:

• Based on a review of previously existing well and borehole data, boreholes performed during this Study, and geophysical data collected, it does not appear likely that a suitable site exists that could support a BFS/HCW intake system to supply the flow needs of the RRVWSP in the southern (Bismarck) area.

• There is the reasonable potential to meet the RRVWSP supply needs by developing one or more BFS/HCW intake systems in the northern (Washburn) area. The Painted Woods Creek site is estimated to be able to produce between 19 and 29 mgd. This is approximately one-third of the RRVWSP supply need.

• Five additional sites with intake potential were identified by the airborne geophysics. The most promising site, Site 2, may have the potential to provide all of the RRVWSP desired flows. However, due to its location, an additional 20 miles of pipeline would be required beyond the RRVWSP pipeline lengths identified in the recent RRVWSP Engineering Study (CH2M HILL 2014b). Using a rounded average of $5 million per mile from the RRVWSP Study, the added pipeline cost from Site 2 would be $100 million.

This pipeline cost needs to be considered in conjunction with BFS/HCW system costs.

• Site 1 is also promising, but is located slightly farther from the northern RRVWSP alignment, a distance of approximately 24 miles. The added pipeline cost for this potential intake site would be on the order of $120 million.

• Site 5, the McCullough site, lies approximately 12 miles south of the northern RRVWSP alignment.

Should an intake be developed at this location, approximately $60 million of additional pipeline construction cost should be added to previous RRVWSP estimates.

It is recommended that the Commission proceed with additional field investigations to evaluate the intake potential of the above three sites as follows:

1. Verify property ownership, obtain rights-of-entry, and perform three to five test boreholes at each site to evaluate the potential indicated by the AEM survey.1

2. Based on the borehole data and the location of the site relative to the northern RRVWSP alignment, select two or more sites for well pumping tests.1

3. Conduct well testing and develop conceptual designs and cost estimates for the BFS/HCW wellfield that would realize the intake potential of each site and for the pipeline required to reach a common RRVWSP transmission point.

4. Determine the most economical intake option with the greatest potential for meeting the water supply needs for the RRVWSP.

1 A Draft Addendum to this report (dated June 2015) presents the results of activities that were conducted pursuant to this recommendation.

E S - 8 M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y

Section 1: INTRODUCTION

The Missouri River Hydrogeologic Investigation and Intake Conceptual Design Study (Study) was conducted to determine and evaluate potential locations for subsurface water intakes along the Missouri River from south of the City of Bismarck, North Dakota (ND), to the City of Washburn, ND (Study Area), and to assess the feasibility of a bank filtration intake system to supply 120 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 150 cfs (78 million gallons per day [mgd] to 97 mgd) from the Missouri River to meet the needs of the Red River Valley Water Supply Project (RRVWSP). The Study was performed in the autumn of 2014 by CH2M HILL, Inc.

in partnership with Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (AE2S) under contract to the North Dakota State Water Commission (Commission).

This report summarizes the various activities conducted to evaluate the Project reach of the Missouri River.

It presents the results and analysis of the investigations that were performed, which include a review of existing data, property identification, test borings, well pumping tests, and geophysical surveys. Based on the data and analysis thereof, conceptual designs of three different intake sites were developed and are presented, along with conceptual-level opinions of construction cost. Recommendations for next steps for the advancement of a Missouri River intake for the RRVWSP are offered.

November Sunset over Missouri River at

Sundown Acres Airborne Geophysical Survey North of Bismarck

M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y 1 - 1

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION FINAL REPORT

This page intentionally left blank.

1 - 2 M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y

Section 2: BACKGROUND

The Missouri River Hydrogeologic Investigation was a recommended next step identified in the Red River Valley Water Supply Project Alternative Route Engineering Study (CH2M HILL, 2014a). That study identified a bank filtration system (BFS) consisting of one or more horizontal collector wells (HCWs) as the preferred intake configuration, if feasible, to reduce environmental impacts, reduce permitting requirements, and yield a (potentially) higher quality water supply for the RRVWSP.

CH2M HILL (2014a) evaluated a number of different pipeline routes across the state. These routes can generally be placed into two groups – a northern group that would have an intake near Washburn with routes that would generally follow along the Highway 200 corridor, and a southern group that would have an intake near Bismarck with routes that would generally follow Interstate 94 (Figure 2-1). Both groups of routes face similar challenges for permitting and constructing the RRVWSP and present slightly different baskets of benefits. Selection of a preferred route, therefore, will be strongly influenced by proximity to the preferred intake location along the Missouri River. The preferred intake location is, in turn, influenced by hydrogeologic suitability to yield the flow quantities needed for the RRVWSP and by site availability/ accessibility. Evaluating these factors is the focus of this Hydrogeologic Investigation.

While RRVWSP provides the driving force for this Study, there is additional future need for water supply in the state to support economic development outside the Red River Valley. A secondary objective of the Study is to identify other sites in the Washburn to Bismarck reach of the Missouri River that might also be favorable for a BFS water supply intake to meet these unknown, potential future uses.

Figure 2-1 – RRVWSP Pipeline Alignments West of Sheyenne River and Hydrogeologic Investigation Study Area

M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y 2 - 1

SECTION 2: BACKGROUND FINAL REPORT

2 - 2 M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y

Section 3: PROJECT SCOPE

The Study scope of work consists of the following activities:

• Review existing hydrogeologic data in the Study Area

• Identify locations having favorable hydrogeologic indications and property opportunity/access

• Obtain rights-of-entry for field investigations

• Conduct field investigations (test boreholes and geophysical surveys)

• Perform well pumping tests at two selected locations

• Analyze results

• Develop conceptual design of BFS/HCW intake for RRVWSP

• Prepare planning-level cost estimates

• Document results in a final report

Figure 2-1 identifies the original Study Area for the Project, which is the reach of the Missouri River between Washburn and the north limits of Lake Oahe. Figure 2-1 also shows an added Study Area that was included in the airborne geophysical program discussed later in this report.

While a linear progression of the scoped activities would have allowed each succeeding step to build from the previous steps, the compressed 4-month schedule for the Project required that certain activities be conducted simultaneously. The geophysical surveys and analysis of their results were performed at the same time that test boreholes and well pumping tests were being conducted. Thus, the geophysical survey results were not available to be used in selecting locations for test boreholes and well pumping tests. The locations for test boreholes were based solely on the review of existing hydrogeologic information available to the Project team (and land ownership considerations), and well test locations were selected based upon the test borehole results.

Rotosonic Drilling Rig at Test Well PW-07 Developing Test Well PW-07

M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y 3 - 1

SECTION 3: PROJECT SCOPE FINAL REPORT

3 - 2 M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y

Section 4: SUMMARY OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES

AND RESULTS

The following Study activities and results are summarized in this section:

• Selection of test borehole sites

• Test boreholes and sample wells

• Test wells and aquifer tests

• Water quality sampling and analysis

4.1 Selection of Test Borehole Sites

A description of the steps taken to evaluate the existing hydrogeologic data and property ownership information, and then to select locations for test boreholes is presented in Specific Authorization No. 1 Summary Memorandum (see Appendix A). In summary, over 370 private contractor drilling logs and ground/ surface water test boring logs within a quarter-mile of the river through the Study Area were reviewed to identify potential locations where thicker and coarser alluvial sediments might be expected. Such conditions are conducive to high water yields through a BFS/HCW system. Examination of the collected information resulted in the delineation of a number of areas along the river that were considered favorable with respect to their hydrogeologic potential (thicker, coarser sections with hydraulic connection to the river). Eight potential sites were identified, as located on Figure 4-1. A more detailed presentation of the potential sites is shown on Exhibit 4-1 (north half of the Study Area) and Exhibit 4-2 (south half). (Note that exhibits are located in an Exhibits attachment following the narrative.)

The eight areas deemed most favorable based upon hydrogeology were assessed from a property-ownership perspective to determine the feasibility for conducting field investigations and the practicality for locating a river intake at each site. Three sites were ultimately selected for field investigations. These three sites (highlighted in yellow on Figure 4-1) are Painted Woods Creek, Sundown Acres, and the MRCC. The sites shared similar characteristics of lying close to the river, having sizable parcels that are currently undeveloped, and having nearby boreholes that show promising subsurface stratigraphy while having good accessibility. The five sites that were not pursued were not suitable from a land perspective (for example, densely developed, federal ownership, access denied by landowner, or otherwise unavailable for intake purposes).

The recommended sites were reviewed with Commission staff. The Study team was authorized to develop right-of-entry agreements for the field investigations and to negotiate with the landowners to gain access.

Rights-of-entry were successfully negotiated for the three sites highlighted in yellow on Figure 4-1.

Originally, the McCullough site was also recommended. Unfortunately, landowner access to the McCullough site for field investigations could not be procured for this Study, although that site might be available in the future.

M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y 4 - 1

SECTION 4: SUMMARY OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS FINAL REPORT

- Location Selected for Field Investigation

- Location Not Selected for Field Investigation

Figure 4-1 – Locations Showing Favorable Hydrogeologic Indications for BFS/HCW Intake Potential

Painted Woods Creek

Sundown Acres

Missouri River Correctional Center (MRCC) Apple Creek Bottom

Bismarck

Island Park Estates

McCullough

Washburn South

4 - 2 M i s s o u r i R i v e r H y d r o g e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d I n t a k e C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n S t u d y

FINAL REPORT SECTION 4: SUMMARY OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS

Exhibits 4-3 through 4-5 show parcel boundaries, property ownership, and locations for test boreholes that were conducted at the Painted Woods Creek, Sundown Acres, and MRCC sites. Originally, 11 test boreholes were planned for the three sites. Based on in-field assessment during the test boreholes, it was decided to drill one additional boring at each site to improve the ability to assess the presence and lateral extent of objective units.

Table 4-1 summarizes the test boreholes shown on Exhibits 4-3 through 4-5. Bore numbers with the suffix “A” were the added locations recommended during the investigations.

TABLE 4-1

Recommended Test Boring Locations Missouri River Hydrogeologic Investigation and Intake Conceptual Design Study Test Borehole Site Property Owner Location Bore No.

Painted Woods Creek Bickert Family Trust Bickert Family Trust Elaine Flinn Elaine Flinn Elaine Flinn

NE NE Section 18, T143N-R81W SE SE Section 18 NW NE Section 19 C SE Section 19 NE NE Section 30

B-01…