Canal Seepage Reduction by Soil Compaction
http://www.itrc.org/papers/canalseepage.htm
ITRC Paper No. P 09-001
Canal Seepage Reduction by Soil Compaction
Charles M. Burt1; Sierra Orvis2; Nadya Alexander3
Abstract: Simple in-situ vibratory soil compaction of earth lined canals was tested to
determine the impact on seepage losses. Commercial equipment was used for vibratory
compaction of long sections of five irrigation district earthen canals. Ponding tests were
conducted before and after compaction. When the sides and bottoms of the canals were
compacted, seepage reductions of about 90% were obtained; reductions of 16 – 31% were
obtained when only sides were compacted.
DOI:
CE Database subject headings: canal seepage; in-situ compaction; soil; irrigation;
sheepsfoot.
INTRODUCTION
Irrigation districts that rely upon long, open canals share a common problem: canal
seepage. Canal seepage can lead to:
• Reduced water deliveries to farmers
• Increased pumping costs if the water in the canals is lifted by pumps
• Increased drainage problems, possibly causing crop yield and health problems
• Loss of water supply in a basin if the seepage goes to a salty aquifer or into the ocean
• Increased diversion from rivers, resulting in decreased in-stream flows
The two most common solutions for reducing seepage are lining canals or replacing them
with pipes. These options bring along with them additional benefits, such as stabilization
of banks (with canal lining) or reduced need for access and fewer drownings (with
pipelines). However, these solutions are expensive. A typical piping cost in California for
an irrigation district is around $400US-$1000US per meter for pipe sizes in the 1.2-1.5
meter diameter range (flows in the 0.6-0.9 cubic meters per second [CMS] range). Canal
lining costs are often around $700,00US per kilometer for a canal with about 3-5 CMS
capacity, which is prohibitive for most irrigation districts. A medium-sized district may
have more than 150 kilometers of unlined canals.
The general concepts of soil compaction for seepage reduction and soil consolidation are
well-documented in civil engineering, under the category of “soil mechanics”. New canal
bases are often compacted using standard engineering techniques. However, most canals
were built crudely, and the authors were unable to locate any published results from
1
Professor, Dept. of BioResource and Agricultural Engr., and Chair, Irrigation Training and Research
Center, California Polytechnic State Univ., San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0730. E-mail: [email protected]
2
Graduate Student and Engineering Assistant, Irrigation Training and Research Center, California
Polytechnic State Univ., San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0730. E-mail: [email protected]
3
Student, Dept. of BioResource and Agricultural Engr., California Polytechnic State Univ., San Luis
Obispo, CA 93407-0730. E-mail: [email protected]
Canal Seepage Reduction by Soil Compaction
http://www.itrc.org/papers/canalseepage.htm
ITRC Paper No. P 09-001
within the US to reduce seepage by running compaction equipment over the canal
surfaces (without doing the standard, costly over-excavation of soil and careful
compaction of replaced soil in layers). Therefore, the Irrigation Training and Research
Center (ITRC), with support from the USBR and the California State University
Agricultural Research Initiative, researched the effectiveness of in-situ compaction of
canal banks and canal bottoms for reducing canal seepage.
Concepts of Soil Compaction
Two of the major dams in California (Oroville Dam and San Luis Dam) are earth-filled
dams rather than concrete structures. The success of these dams certainly proves that
proper soil compaction can reduce seepage.
Soil laboratory tests for compaction (Proctor and Modified Proctor) have specified
procedures by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Soil samples are
compacted in specified layer thicknesses, with specified weights dropped a specified
number of times from a specified height. In a compaction test, this is typically done with
a number of samples, each having a different soil moisture content. A graph is developed,
illustrating what the moisture content should be during construction. Generally, the
purpose of this compaction is to build a solid soil foundation that will not settle over time
or deflect when subjected to transient loads. Seepage reduction is not a typical goal of
compaction, except for dams.
Some soils compact better than others and as the level of compaction increases, the soil
hydraulic conductivity (seepage rate) decreases. The increase in bulk density will also
depend upon the moisture content during compaction; if the soil is too moist or too dry, it
will not achieve the “optimum bulk density”.
The details of compaction are more complex than a simple graph might suggest,
however. The optimum moisture content is not only dependent on soil type/gradation; it
also depends upon the amount of energy applied to the soil for compaction purposes.
Therefore, different laboratory compaction test procedures yield different results. The
Standard Proctor Optimum Moisture Content (SPOM) varies considerably from the
Modified Proctor Optimum Moisture Content (MPOM) for the same soil. Further, energy
levels (hammer mass, drop height, and number of drops) applied in determining SPOM
and MPOM are arbitrary in nature. The Standard Proctor test (ASTM D698) was
developed in the 1920s when static rollers were state-of-the-art. The Modified Proctor
test (ASTM D1557) was developed in the 1950s and reflected the increased compaction
capabilities of vibratory compactors. Today, technology has advanced even further in
terms of energy applied by at least a few compactors, including vibration speeds,
pressure, and configuration of the pads/rollers. In general, the higher applied energy, the
lower the optimum moisture content will be.
The optimum moisture content for high bulk density cannot necessarily be converted into
the optimum moisture content for reduced seepage. Some engineers believe that a
Canal Seepage Reduction by Soil Compaction
http://www.itrc.org/papers/canalseepage.htm
ITRC Paper No. P 09-001
slightly-moister-than-“optimum” soil in the field provides the best seepage reduction for
non-clay soils.
There are challenges here for in-situ compaction—in-place compaction of existing canal
banks and bottoms—for seepage reduction:
1. Normally, one only has a small window of time during which the canals are “dry”.
Because clay soils can liquefy during compaction, if they are too wet, clay soils
should probably be compacted at moisture contents slightly below the “optimum”
moisture content – if the objective is seepage reduction. It is extremely difficult to dry
a clay soil to below the “optimum” moisture range; therefore, it is extremely difficult
to properly compact clay soils. On the positive side, usually the clay soils have low
seepage rates without compaction. However, what small amounts of water do seep
out often show up on the surface of the soil next to the canal and create operational
headaches for farmers and district personnel.
2. If one applies a laboratory compaction test (at various moisture contents) to a soil, it
is fairly easy to determine differences in bulk density. It is entirely different in
determining the effect on hydraulic conductivity. Over a wide range of compaction
conditions, the laboratory tests will yield very similar results – a drastic reduction of
hydraulic conductivity. To look at the lab results, one could conclude that as long as
there is some compaction, the seepage would almost be eliminated. However, this
level of effectiveness has not been seen in the field.
3. A canal is removed from service for up to a few weeks prior to compaction. That
means at each depth from the surface, there is a different moisture content.
Compaction Equipment
The best type of compaction equipment will vary, depending upon the soil type. For
example, according to Bader (2001), a vibrating sheepsfoot roller may be excellent for
compacting clay, but ineffective for gravel or sand. In gravel or sand, a vibrating plate
roller would have much better results.
For the compaction research, ITRC purchased a Universal Vibratory Wheel (UVW)
Roller from MBW, Inc. This is a sheepsfoot in-drum configuration. The operator can
select the mode of vibration for a particular condition. It can be operated in static mode
(clays), vibratory mode (little host machine down pressure, for sands and gravels), and in
a mode that combines variable host machine down pressure to a maximum of roughly
130 kN (at the end of an excavator arm) with full vibration (clays, mixed soils, most
native soils).
Soil Compaction for Sealing Canals
The best source found for information on earth lining of canals is a publication by
ANCID (Australian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, 2001) entitled
“Open Channel Seepage and Control”. This publication focuses on bringing soil material
to the site one layer at a time and properly compacting each layer. The publication does
mention “in-situ” compaction. The senior author has talked to engineers from dozens of
Canal Seepage Reduction by Soil Compaction
http://www.itrc.org/papers/canalseepage.htm
ITRC Paper No. P 09-001
irrigation districts in California about this, and has not encountered anyone who has tried
in-situ compaction before this research. After a preliminary presentation of the research
results (Burt et al., 2008) one engineer from Colorado (Zimbelman, 2009) did comment
that compaction had produced good seepage reduction in the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy district near Loveland.
FIELD EXPERIMENTS IN CALIFORNIA
ITRC contacted four irrigation districts in the San Joaquin Valley of California that were
experiencing seepage problems:
• Panoche WD
• Chowchilla WD
• San Luis Canal Co. (also known as Henry Miller Reclamation District)
• James ID
Seepage tests were conducted on two Panoche WD canals, and it was determined that the
seepage rates were very low. Plus, the soil was a heavy silty clay loam and it would be
impossible to dry the soil enough for compaction. Therefore, further efforts at Panoche
WD were halted.
The other three districts had sandier soil, so compaction trials were conducted there. The
results of one canal compaction effort in Chowchilla WD cannot be reported because the
well that would have supplied the water for post-compaction seepage tests failed and was
not repaired. One site in James ID had very low pre-compaction seepage rates, so the site
was not compacted.
All the compaction work was performed “in-situ”, meaning that there was no addition of
soil, and no over-excavation and replacement of compacted soil layers. The compaction
was performed on the soil surface “as-is,” with the exception of some smoothing of canal
banks. Two of the three districts have conducted subsequent compaction efforts to
reduce seepage in their canals.
Seepage Tests
Prior to and after compaction, ponding tests were conducted to determine the seepage
rates (shown in Fig. 1).
Canal Seepage Reduction by Soil Compaction
http://www.itrc.org/papers/canalseepage.htm
ITRC Paper No. P 09-001
Figure 1. Pre-compaction seepage test – James ID Main Canal
The ponding tests involved the following:
• The entire canal pool that was to be compacted was filled with water to the normal
operating depth.
• The ends of the pool were sealed to prevent water from entering or leaving the pool.
• Weather data was recorded from the nearest California Irrigation Management
Information System (CIMIS) station, to estimate evaporation losses. The estimated
volume of evaporation was estimated as:
Evaporation volume = ETo × 0.95 × (Surface area of the pond), where
- ETo (grass reference evapotranspiration) is from the CIMIS station
as the sum of hourly data, for the duration of the test
- 0.95 is the assumed “crop coefficient” for a still, deep body of
water several feet below the canal banks
- The area is the area of the ponded water surface
• Redundant water level sensors were installed to measure the change in water depth
versus time (see Fig. 2). The sensors used were 5 psi DRUCK PDCR 1830 pressure
transducers with a ±0.06% accuracy. Water levels were recorded once per 5 minutes
using a Telog PR-31 12-bit datalogger. Differences in readings between the sensors
contributed to an error of 1-4% of total seepage, depending upon on the location. The
transducers were firmly secured to different stakes in the ponds. Manual readings
were also taken of relative water depths, but only to confirm pressure transducer data
reasonableness.
Canal Seepage Reduction by Soil Compaction
http://www.itrc.org/papers/canalseepage.htm
ITRC Paper No. P 09-001
Figure 2. Pressure transducer (“Druck” brand) data from ponding test – Henry Miller RD
•
•
•
•
•
The water was replenished as needed with a metered supply to maintain a fairly
constant water level. The flow meter used during the seepage tests was a SeaMetrics
magnetic meter AG2000-400.
There was no attempt made to examine the effect of silt deposition during the
ponding tests. Both the pre- and post- compaction tests used the same canal water
supplies.
Water temperatures were measured. It was assumed that seepage rates are directly
proportional to hydraulic conductivity, which is directly proportional to kinematic
viscosity. Therefore, the water temperatures were used to provide relative hydraulic
conductivities in pre- and post-compaction tests. The seepage rate for the postcompaction test was adjusted to the same water temperature as the pre-compaction
test.
Measurements began after water had been standing in the pool for several days, and
continued for 1-3 days.
The wetted areas of the pools were determined with survey data of 5 cross sections of
each pool.
Soil Preparation
During the first compaction work at the H Lateral in James ID, it was learned that if the
canal banks were smoothed off first, the compactor could operate much more quickly.
Subsequent locations were therefore lightly smoothed off. There was no opportunity to
Canal Seepage Reduction by Soil Compaction
http://www.itrc.org/papers/canalseepage.htm
ITRC Paper No. P 09-001
obtain the “optimum” moisture content for compaction. Field conditions and availability
required that the compactor begin work as soon as the canal had dried down enough to
use the equipment without making mud. Moisture contents were different at various
depths in the banks and bottom.
Laboratory Tests
Texture samples (about 20 per canal section) were taken at various depths. Texture
samples were either sent to a commercial laboratory for analysis, or were tested by ITRC
using equipment and procedures specified by ASTM D421 and D422.
Laboratory preparation of compacted soil samples was done using two techniques. With
both techniques, the soil used had been collected in the field immediately prior to
compaction and was sealed in a plastic bag to retain the original moisture content. The
techniques were:
1. Proctor Method (ASTM D698) using commercial equipment including a 2.5 kg
(5.5 lb) drop hammer.
2. Water compaction. Approximately 2 cm of soil at a time was placed in the
permeameter cylinder. Water was poured into the cylinder until it was about 2-3
cm above the soil and then allowed to drain. This was repeated until the entire
cylinder was full of water-compacted soil.
Undisturbed soil samples for bulk density measurements were taken with an AMS®
3.5 cm × 30.5 cm (1.375” × 12”) split core sampler and signature series slide hammer.
The soil above the sample depth was excavated by hand to reveal the top of the sample
zone before the sampler was used. Sample locations were selected to cover a variety of
locations along each measured cross section (see Fig. 3).
Figure 3. James ID H Lateral example cross section showing location of soil sampling as
dots
Hydraulic conductivity was tested using a constant head permeameter (Humboldt Mfg.
Compaction Permeameter (H-4145)).
Equipment and Costs
Canal Seepage Reduction by Soil Compaction
http://www.itrc.org/papers/canalseepage.htm
ITRC Paper No. P 09-001
The side soil was compacted using a 45-thousand pound (20 metric ton) Kobelco
excavator with an MBW, Inc. UVW 36-inch (91-cm) roller attached to the end of the
boom (Figs. 4 and 5). Installed immediately between the UVW-36 roller and the end of
the excavator boom was a UV-10K exciter. This exciter is a hydraulically driven
vibration mechanism. Since the vibratory exciter was hydraulically driven, the excavator
operator could engage and disengage the exciter when he felt it was necessary. For large
canal bottoms, a ride-on unit was used (Fig. 6).
Figure 4. Side compaction with Kobelco excavator – James ID Main Canal
Figure 5. 36” vibratory roller (MBW, Inc.) attached to the end of an excavator arm
Canal Seepage Reduction by Soil Compaction
http://www.itrc.org/papers/canalseepage.htm
ITRC Paper No. P 09-001
Figure 6. Ride-on vibratory compactor for bottom of canals – Chowchilla WD Main
Canal
The compaction accessories cost about $25,000US (not including the cost of the
excavator) installed. An experienced operator was able to compact the sides of 1.6
kilometers of canal (both sides, meaning 3.2 kilometers total) in about 8 days. The cost
for the operator, transport of the excavator, and the excavator rental was about $3.90US
per meter of canal length, with about 3 meters of compaction on each side of the canal.
RESULTS
Undisturbed soil core samples were collected at various depths, locations along cross
sections, and at different cross sections of each pool in an attempt to characterize the
range of bulk densities in the canal. Samples were taken before compaction (PreCompact) and after compaction (Post-Compact). Results are summarized in Tables 1 and
2.
Table 1. Undisturbed bulk densities pre- and post-compaction
Canal
James ID
Main
James ID
H Lateral
Chowchilla
# 2 (Main)
Value
Pre-Compact Avg. BD, gm/cm3
n
cv
Post-Compact Avg. BD
n
cv
Pre-Compact Avg.
n
cv
Post-Compact Avg.
n
cv
Pre-Compact Avg.
n
cv
Post-Compact Avg.
n
0 - 10
1.33
7
0.14
1.53
6
0.09
1.44
19
0.19
1.45
2
0.14
1.38
35
0.13
1.41
13
10 - 20
1.31
8
0.19
1.62
7
0.09
1.54
19
0.12
1.79
3
0.02
1.47
35
0.11
1.53
13
Depth Range, cm.
20 - 30
30 - 41
41 - 51
1.51
1.54
1.55
7
5
5
0.03
0.05
0.05
1.57
1.54
1.62
8
7
8
0.08
0.19
0.08
1.67
1.59
1.77
18
7
6
0.07
0.15
0.02
1.81
2.03
1.85
3
2
2
0.02
0.18
0.01
1.51
1.45
1.48
35
15
16
0.13
0.12
0.15
1.49
1.53
1.55
12
13
14
51 - 61
1.62
5
0.03
1.63
7
0.04
1.79
7
0.03
1.83
2
0.07
1.55
15
0.13
1.49
13
All
1.46
37
0.13
1.59
43
0.10
1.58
76
0.14
1.79
14
0.12
1.47
151
0.13
1.50
78
Canal Seepage Reduction by Soil Compaction
http://www.itrc.org/papers/canalseepage.htm
cv
Pre-Compact Avg.
n
cv
Post-Compact Avg.
n
cv
Pre-Compact Avg.
n
cv
Post-Compact Avg.
n
cv
Pre-Compact Avg.
n
cv
Post-Compact Avg.
n
cv
Chowchilla
# 1 (Ash
Bypass)
HMRD
Swamp
HMRD
Delta
0.11
1.48
20
0.09
0.13
1.52
19
0.04
0.08
1.50
20
0.04
ITRC Paper No. P 09-001
0.08
1.62
6
0.08
0.12
1.61
7
0.07
0.12
1.55
6
0.06
0.11
1.50
78
0.07
1.70
7
0.02
1.64
7
0.07
1.17
3
0.08
1.62
2
0.06
1.55
44
0.09
1.56
45
0.09
1.23
19
0.07
1.39
12
0.13
No data; no samples were collected
1.40
7
0.11
1.48
8
0.07
1.17
4
0.06
1.15
2
0.21
1.48
7
0.12
1.48
6
0.05
1.28
3
0.01
1.31
2
0.11
1.54
8
0.06
1.55
8
0.10
1.34
2
0.03
1.40
2
0.02
1.51
8
0.09
1.56
8
0.11
1.26
3
0.04
1.41
2
0.01
1.65
7
0.06
1.61
8
0.09
1.22
4
0.10
1.48
2
0.10
Table 2. Relative bulk densities (post-compaction/pre-compaction) of undisturbed soil
core samples at a various depths
Canal
James ID Main
James ID H Lateral
Chowchilla #2 (Main)
HMRD Swamp
HMRD Delta
0-10
1.15
1.01
1.02
1.06
0.98
10-20
1.24
1.16
1.04
1.00
1.02
20-30
1.04
1.09
0.99
1.01
1.05
Depth Range, cm
30-41
1.00
1.27
1.06
1.04
1.12
41-51
1.04
1.04
1.05
0.97
1.21
51-61
1.01
1.02
0.96
0.96
1.39
All
1.09
1.13
1.02
1.01
1.13
Laboratory measurements of saturated hydraulic conductivity and corresponding bulk
densities were performed on disturbed soil samples collected from four canal pools.
Results are found in Table 3.
Table 3. Laboratory results of hydraulic conductivity and bulk density
Location
Chowchilla #1
(Ash Bypass)
Chowchilla #2
(Main)
James ID H
Lateral
James ID Main
Value
Avg
n
cv
Avg
n
cv
Avg
n
cv
Avg
n
cv
Water Compacted
Bulk
Density
K (cm/sec)
(gm/cm3)
0.09
1.41
8
8
0.77
0.04
0.24
1.40
14
14
0.28
0.09
0.10
1.46
10
10
0.60
0.08
0.17
1.38
4
4
0.94
0.07
Proctor Compacted
Bulk
Density
K (cm/sec)
(gm/cm3)
0.008
1.75
8
7
2.70
0.05
0.097
1.63
14
14
0.56
0.07
0.052
1.74
9
10
0.90
0.09
0.003
1.68
4
4
1.61
0.14
Figure 7 illustrates the relationship between percentage silt and seepage reduction at
various sites. The silt content ranged from about 20 to 50%.
Canal Seepage Reduction by Soil Compaction
http://www.itrc.org/papers/canalseepage.htm
ITRC Paper No. P 09-001
Figure 7. Percent reduction in seepage rate compared to percent silt by site
a
Values were adjusted to reflect post-compaction seepage through compacted areas only
Table 4 shows the field results of the in-situ compaction. Seepage reduction varied from
16% to 90%. The three sites at which the canal bottom was compacted had much better
results than the two sites at which only the sides were compacted.
Table 4. Compaction results comparison of sites
Irrigation District
Location
Sides
Bottom
Cost, $US
Canal Length, m.
Canal Width, m.
Compaction
Texture
Pre-Comp. Seepage
LPS/m2 x 103
Post-Comp. Seepage
LPS/m2 x 103
% Seepage Reduction
Chowchilla WD
Main Canal,
between roads 1112
Ya
N
4,845
1,292
8.2
James ID
Lateral H,
from Main
Canal to TO N
Y
Y
3,240
308
4.6
Sandy Loam
Sandy Loam
0.800
3.28
0.674
16
James ID
Henry Miller RD
Swamp 1 Ditch,
between Turner
Island & Deep Well
Y
Y
1,945
527
8.2
Y
Y – with ride-onb
3,100
921
5.8
Clay Loam
Silt Loam
0.261
2.41
0.646
0.458
0.179
0.259
0.0646
86
31
89
90
Main Canal
Y
N
15,800
3121
17.7
Sandy Clay
Loam
Henry Miller RD
East Delta Canal
Notes:
a
The Chowchilla WD Main Canal site had sections of rip-rap along the canal banks that could not be
compacted, resulting in a lower % seepage reduction
b
Ride-on indicates a large self-propelled unit
Canal Seepage Reduction by Soil Compaction
http://www.itrc.org/papers/canalseepage.htm
ITRC Paper No. P 09-001
Discussion
The three sites that had the sides and bottom compacted (HMRD Swamp, HMRD East,
and James H) all had seepage rate reductions greater than 85%. The site with only the
sides compacted (James Main) had only 31% reduction (72% when adjusted for
compacted areas only), and the site with only parts of the sides compacted (Chowchilla
Main) had only 16% reduction (33% when adjusted for compacted areas only).
Small-scale testing of undisturbed and disturbed soil samples provided large variations in
individual values, as indicated by the coefficients of variation (cv) in Tables 1 and 2. It
would have been difficult or impossible to predict field-level reduction in seepage based
on the laboratory test results. Table 3 shows that while bulk density values are relatively
tightly clustered for a given testing procedure and sampling location, the opposite is true
for hydraulic conductivity measurements – as evidenced by the cv values.
The undisturbed bulk densities of before and after compaction shown in Tables 1 and 2
were not greatly different, but in all cases there was an increase in bulk density from
compaction, as expected. It is hypothesized that as long as only one layer of soil is
sufficiently compacted, the hydraulic conductivity will be significantly reduced. It may
also be the case that, because within any single canal pool the seepage rate is not uniform,
the compaction may have a very significant effect on a relatively small area that might
not have been sampled.
The cost to sample the soils and conduct laboratory tests of bulk density and hydraulic
conductivity is much greater than the cost to compact the canals. Because of the
difficulty in comparing laboratory results to field performance, in addition to the large
laboratory costs, it is recommended to forgo laboratory tests. Instead, if there appears to
be a large amount of seepage and the soils can dry out sufficiently well to allow physical
compaction, it is recommended to move straight to compacting the canals.
CONCLUSION
For all tested soil types, in-situ compaction with a vibratory roller reduced seepage. The
seepage reduction was significant (86 – 90%) when both the sides and bottom were
compacted. Since silt contents in the 20% range and the 50% range both had high percent
reductions, it appears that within the range observed (20-50%) silt content of the soil does
not significantly affect the seepage rate reduction due to compaction. Incomplete
compaction, however, appears to greatly affect the effectiveness of the compaction.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding for this project was supplied by the Fresno office of the Mid-Pacific Region of
the US Bureau of Reclamation, and by the California State University Agricultural
Research Initiative (CSU/ARI).
Canal Seepage Reduction by Soil Compaction
http://www.itrc.org/papers/canalseepage.htm
ITRC Paper No. P 09-001
REFERENCES
ANCID. (2001). “Open Channel Seepage and Control, Vol. 2.1.” Australian National
Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, March 2001.
Bader, C. D. (2001). “Soil compaction: Modern solutions to an age-old need.”
Forester Media, Inc. < http://www.gradingandexcavation.com/january-february2001/soil-compaction-solutions.aspx>, (May 27, 2009).
Burt, C.M., M. Cardenas, and M. Grissa. (2008). Canal Seepage Reduction by Soil
Compaction. Preliminary results, presented at the 2008 International Irrigation Association
Technical Conference. Anaheim, CA
Zimbelman, D. (2009). Personal communication. [email protected] (303)
663-0215.