Source Water Delineation and Assessment Report

Home , Evergreen forest

SOURCE WATER DELINEATION AND ASSESSMENT REPORT

Rosebud School District #12 Public Water System

PWSID MT0001656

Date of Report: April 11, 2006

Mort Barrus, Certified Operator

1 Main St Rosebud, MT 59347

phone: 406 347 5353

Prepared By Karen LaClair and Steve Custer Montana State University Bozeman, MT 59717-3480 PH: 406 994 6906

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 INTRODUCTION ...... 5 CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND ...... 6 The Community ...... 6 Geographic Setting ...... 6 General Source Water Description ...... 7 The Public Water Supply ...... 7 Water Quality ...... 8 CHAPTER 2 - DELINEATION ...... 10 Hydrogeologic Conditions ...... 10 Conceptual Model and Assumptions ...... 12 Well Information ...... 13 Limiting Factors ...... 13 CHAPTER 3 - INVENTORY ...... 14 Inventory Method...... 14 Inventory Results/Control Zone ...... 15 Inventory Results/Inventory Region ...... 16 CHAPTER 4 - SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT ...... 20 Susceptibility Analysis Results ...... 9 REFERENCES CITED ...... 9 GLOSSARY ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. APPENDICES ...... 11 APPENDIX A - FIGURES ...... 12 Figure 1. Rosebud vicinity map ...... 13 Figure 2. Private and public water supply wells in the Rosebud vicinity ...... 15 Figure 3. Rosebud school well inventory vicinity...... 16 Figure 4. Rosebud school pws recharge region. Arrows approximate recharge flow direction ...... 17 Figure 5a. General Rosebud area geology (Ross and others, 1955) ...... 18 Figure 5b. Detailed Rosebud area geology (Stoner and Lewis, 1980). Arrows approximate flow direction. Each square is six miles across...... 18 Figure 5c. Map key for detailed geologic map...... 19 Figure 5d. Lithologic descriptions for detailed geologic map...... 19 Figure 6. Land cover of Rosebud school pws inventory and control zones...... 22 Figure 7. Land cover of Rosebud school pws recharge region ...... 23 Figure 8. Land cover by percent for the Rosebud school PWS inventory zone ...... 24 Figure 9. Land cover by percent of the Rosebud school PWS recharge region ...... 25 APPENDIX B - SITE PLAN ...... 26 APPENDIX C - WELL LOG(S) ...... 28 APPENDIX D - SANITARY SURVEY ...... 32 APPENDIX E – DEQ WATER QUALITY REPORT ...... 33

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Source Water Delineation and Assessment Report (SWDAR) was prepared as required by the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and in accordance with Montana’s Source Water Assessment Plan. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is completing assessment and delineation reports for all public water systems in Montana. Source water assessment is the first step towards source water protection. These reports are intended to provide information and help public water system staff/operator, consumers, and community citizens develop strategies to protect drinking water sources. The information provided includes the delineation of the area most critical to maintaining safe drinking water (the inventory region), an inventory of significant potential sources of contamination within this area, and an assessment of the relative threat that these sources pose to the water system.

This PWS’s uses ground water as its source of drinking water and uses one well to provide the water. The well is located to the rear of the school building. The well is reported to be completed in early 1989 to a depth of 240 feet. However, there is no driller’s log available listing construction, lithology, or aquifer information for the well. As a consequence, the source aquifer for the Rosebud School well is unknown. A majority of wells in the vicinity of the school’s wells appear to be completed in the shallow alluvial aquifer and range in depths from 23 to 162 feet. Wells completed in the deeper aquifer range in depths from 318 to 402 feet (GWIC). The sanitary survey reports that the Rosebud School well is flowing under artesian pressure. This lends evidence to the well being completed in the deeper, confined Hell Creek Formation. A complete copy of the sanitary survey is in Appendix D.

As part of this assessment, four types of source water protection areas are mapped or delineated. They are: the control zone, the inventory region, the recharge region, and a surface water buffer. The control zone (sometimes called the exclusion zone) is a 100-foot radius circle around the wellhead. The goal of management in the control zone is to avoid introducing contaminants directly into the well or immediate surrounding areas. The inventory region is delineated as 1,000 foot fixed radius circle that is used when an aquifer is interpreted to be confined (DEQ, 1999). The recharge region represents the area that is expected to contribute water to the well over long periods of time. A surface water buffer region is used when a stream flows on top of the aquifer used by a public water supply. Potential sources of pathogens and nitrate are inventoried for the surface water buffer and recharge regions. Potential sources of contamination inventoried within the source water protection regions are as follows:

Potential sources of contamination within the control zone include city streets, storm and municipal sewer lines, and several school related buildings. It is advisable for the school to restrict use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals and the washing of fertilizer and pesticide application equipment near the well.

The inventory region for the well includes three above ground fuel storage tanks and a relatively small percentage of agricultural land where fertilizers and ag-chemicals could be used. Within the recharge region there are also multiple inactive underground fuel tank sites, petroleum release sites, and small gravel pits listed for the vicinity of Rosebud but the exact locations are unknown. Land use in the recharge region and surface water buffer regions includes relatively

3 small percentages of agricultural land. Significant potential contaminant sources within the recharge region, like irrigated ag-land, may still pose a threat over time, they are not included in the susceptibility analysis in this report. Possible management options however are included at the end of this report.

The susceptibility analysis is intended to provide the operator with information on what the greatest risk or threats to the source water are. Maps included in this report show where the potential contaminant sources that pose a threat to the source water are located relative to the public water supply wells. The assessment is focused on potential contaminant sources that the Source Water Protection Section has determined to be significant. These are detailed in Chapter 4 and specifically in Table 10. Due to the fact that detailed information on the aquifer and well construction are not available for the school’s well and other wells in the area, the hazard assigned to most of the potential contaminant sources is high. However, because the school’s well is an artesian flowing well, the final susceptibility ratings for most of the potential contaminant sources in Table 10 are assigned to moderate.

Mitigating and managing some of the potential sources of contamination identified within the inventory region are often beyond the scope of what a PWS operator can accomplish or has the authority to change. The Source Water Protection Program acknowledges this and recommends that whenever possible, public water supplies work together and work with local, county, and state officials to find ways to protect source water. To this end, the Source Water Protection Program offers assistance to individual public water supplies and communities in developing source water protection plans. These plans use delineation and assessment reports like this one as a starting point to develop and implement strategies to protect source water, identify alternate sources of water, and develop emergency procedures. The plans can be developed as stand- alone documents or they can be developed as components of larger community level planning efforts.

The costs associated with contaminated drinking water are high, and prevention is vastly preferable to treatment. Public awareness is a powerful tool for protecting drinking water. The information in this report is intended to help increase public awareness about the relationship between land use activities and drinking water quality.

4 INTRODUCTION

This report is intended to meet the technical requirements for the completion of the Source Water Delineation and Assessment for the Rosebud School Public Water Supply System (PWSID# 01656) as required by the Montana Source Water Protection Program and the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). This report was completed by Karen LaClair, an undergraduate student, under the supervision of Dr. Steve Custer at MSU – Bozeman. The report was reviewed and edited by Jim Stimson, a hydrogeologist on staff with the Montana Source Water Protection Program. Information on the well and the public water supply comes from published sources, individuals familiar with the public water supply, and a sanitary survey completed in March 2001 by Brown and Associates Engineering and Planning, Park City, Montana (available from DEQ upon request).

The Montana Source Water Protection Program is intended to be a practical and cost-effective approach to protecting public drinking water supplies from contamination. A major component of the Montana Source Water Protection Program is termed delineation and assessment. The emphasis of this delineation and assessment report is to identify significant potential contaminant threats to public drinking water sources and provide information needed to develop a source water protection plan for Rosebud School District #12.

Delineation is a process whereby areas that contribute water to aquifers or surface waters used for drinking water, called source water protection areas, are identified on a map. Geologic and hydrologic conditions are evaluated in order to delineate source water protection areas. Assessment involves identifying locations or regions in source water protection areas where contaminants may be generated, stored, or transported and then determining the potential for contamination of drinking water by these sources.

Delineation and assessment is the foundation of source water protection plans, the mechanism Rosebud School District #12 can use to protect their drinking water source. Although voluntary, source water protection plans are the ultimate focus of source water delineation and assessment. This delineation and assessment report is written to encourage and facilitate the Rosebud School District #12 operator and the community to complete a source water protection plan that meets their specific needs.

5 CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND The Community

Rosebud School is considered a non-transient non-community public water supply system because it regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons for more than six but less than twelve months per year. The school is located in Rosebud, Montana. Rosebud is an unincorporated town located in Rosebud County immediately north of Interstate 94/US Highway 12; approximately 10 miles east of Forsyth and 35 miles south-west of Miles City (Appendix A, Figure 1). The legal location of the school is section SE ¼ SE ¼ NW ¼ Section 14, Township 6 North, Range 42 East.

The population of Rosebud County was estimated at 9,383 in 2000. Approximately 142 residents live in the town of Rosebud. Retail trade and accommodation and food services sectors form the economic base in Rosebud County according to US Census Bureau information.

Rosebud is served by a sanitary sewer system. Sewage from mains enters a lift station approximately in the center of town, and then gravity feeds to a lagoon ½ mile east of town adjacent to the railroad tracks. This location is down flow of the school and outside the inventory zone.

Geographic Setting

Rosebud is in the Great Plains physiographic province of North America (Howard and Williams, 1972), and the non-glaciated central ground-water region of the United States (Heath, 1984). Rosebud is within the alluvial valley of the Yellowstone River. The topography in the vicinity of the town exhibits very low relief, typically less than 100 feet over several miles. The elevation of the town of Rosebud is approximately 2060 feet above mean sea level. The Yellowstone River flows immediately to the north of Rosebud. Rosebud is in the Lower Yellowstone Lake Basin Watershed. The designated hydrologic unit code for this watershed is 10100001.

Climate data for the Rosebud vicinity was obtained from the Soil Survey of Rosebud County Area and the Climate Atlas of Montana (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1996, and Caprio and Nielsen, 1992). The average high and low temperatures in the Rosebud vicinity are 28° F and 4° F for January and 91° F and 55° F for July. The climate in the Rosebud vicinity is semi-arid with precipitation averaging 10 – 12 inches annually concentrated in the months of April through September. Snowfall averages 30 - 40 inches annually.

Soil underlying the Rosebud High School is classified as Lonna Silt Loam (USDA NRCS, 1996). Lonna Silt Loam is flat to gently sloping soil with slopes of 0% to 2% found on stream terraces. Surface runoff on this soil type is low. The hazard from wind erosion is high and the water erosion hazard is slightly high. This type of soil is suitable for growing wheat, barley and alfalfa and for hay production under dry-land farming. Irrigated Lonna silt loam soils are suitable for alfalfa production. Recent alluvium as well as shale and sandstone beds of the Hell Creek Formation underlie the Lonna silt loam (USDA NRCS, 1996).

6 General Source Water Description

Ground water is the source of water for Rosebud School. The source aquifer for the Rosebud School well is unknown because there is no well log available. A majority of wells within the inventory zone appear to be completed in the shallow alluvial aquifer and range in depths from 23 to 162 feet. Wells completed in the deeper aquifer range in depths from 318 to 402 feet (GWIC). The sanitary survey reports that the Rosebud School well is drilled to a depth of 240 feet and that the well is flowing under artesian pressure. This lends evidence to the well being completed in the deeper, confined Hell Creek Formation. A complete copy of the sanitary survey is in Appendix D.

The Yellowstone River alluvium contains extensive gravel deposits overlain in the vicinity by silty clay, silt, and sand. The source of the alluvium is the high terrace benches adjacent to the Yellowstone drainage way and sediment transported and deposited by the Yellowstone River. The Hell Creek Formation consists of beds of shale, mudstone, sandstone, and coal and can be up to 850 feet thick.

Slagle et al. (1983) identified two flow systems in the region. Shallow ground water within the alluvium flows generally from upland areas toward lowlands and major streams like the Yellowstone River. A deeper flow system within older bedrock. The aquifers in this region receive water from infiltration of precipitation, loss of water from streams and irrigation canals, and, in some locations, from leakage from adjacent aquifers. Recharge for the shallow system is interpreted to be from local highland areas, whereas the deeper ground water system is recharged from areas up dip of Rosebud in the northern part of the Powder River Basin.

Identifying which aquifer the Rosebud school well is completed in is important because this information is used to assess the overall sensitivity of the aquifer to potential sources of contamination. According to the Montana Source Water Protection Program criteria, an aquifer consisting of unconsolidated alluvium that is unconfined is rated as highly sensitive to potential sources of contamination (Montana DEQ, 2000, Table 2). Semi-consolidated to consolidated bedrock aquifers are considered to have a low sensitivity to potential contaminants. In the absence of a well log the conclusion must remain uncertain. Based upon anecdotal reports of depth and artesian conditions and geologic maps (Appendix A, Fig. 5) the water is assumed to be under confinement and from the Hell Creek Formation.

The Public Water Supply

There is one well at the Rosebud School. The well (Source 002) serves approximately 2 individuals in the summer and 100 during the winter through one active service connection. Total daily water demand in summer is approximately 50 gallons per day and 2,500 gallons per day in winter. This estimate is based on 25 gallons per day per person (EPA, 1991). According to the most recent sanitary survey on file at the DEQ, water is pumped from the well located at the rear of the school building and adjacent to the shop (see Appendix B for site plan diagrams). Specifics on the well construction are not available. The submersible pump delivers water to a bank of sediment filters and a hyperchlorite injection unit, and then to a 750 gallon pressure tank in the school basement. Water is supplied to the building plumbing from this point. In an

7 upstairs system, drinking water is passed through a reverse osmosis unit with pretreatment for sediment and with carbon filtration and stored in two pressure tanks before distribution. Water is also supplied to an irrigation system. A complete copy of the sanitary survey is located in Appendix D.

Water Quality

Regional background water quality is presented in Table 1. The Hell Creek and Fox Hills Formations are the relevant bedrock units in the area. The alluvium from the Yellowstone river is the other. The Ground Water Information Center provided Hell Creek and Fox Hills Data for Custer County. A search was made of water quality on the alluvium on a township by township basis from Miles City to Hysham. Two water quality data points were found which could confidently be attributed to alluvium. Specific electrical conductivity at 25 degrees C had a mean value of 1362 micro mohs per cm with a high of 3101 and a low of 19. The alluvial materials have much lower specific electrical conductivity than the Hell Creek and Fox Hills Aquifer. The water tends to be a sodium bicarbonate water although the two Yellowstone alluvial wells and two Hell Creek samples have slightly more sulfate than bicarbonate.

Table 1a: Hell Creek formation and Yellowstone Alluvium water quality data.

Mnumber aquifer Township latitude longitude Ca Mg Na K Cl HCO3 CO3 SO4 NO3_N F SiO2 (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) 730 Hell Creek 01N,46E,3DBDD 45.8652 -105.9875 115 188 402 6.5 18.05 612.4 0 1365.3 <.1 8.2 754 Hell Creek 01N,53E,35DCBC 45.7897 -105.0941 2.7 0.7 295 0.9 12 351.8 11.5 302.2 0 0.2 8.3 1162 Hell Creek 02N, 53E,1DACC 45.9516 -105.0686 67.5 28.5 43 2.6 6.6 413.8 0 31.6 2.7 0.2 11.5 1354 Hell Creek 04N,47E,31CBCA 46.0566 -105.9372 1.4 0.2 456 1.1 59.1 997 50.4 0.2 <.023 4.5 10.1 1358 Hell Creek 04N,49E,24DCDA 46.0822 -105.573 1 0.2 306 0.8 11.75 594 50.4 88.2 <.0 1.8 9.2 1359 Hell Creek 04N,50E,19DBCD 46.0836 -105.5494 1.2 0.3 305 0.8 4.4 617 55.2 81.3 0 1.6 8.3 1360 Hell Creek 04N,50E,30CCBB 46.0663 -105.5633 2.7 1.2 360 1.2 11.25 699 35.5 189 0 1.8 8.3 1424 Hell Creek 05N,47E,26AACA 46.1644 -105.8027 1.1 0.2 365 0.8 17.6 726 52.8 50 <.023 2.8 8.8 1612 Hell Creek 07N,46E,24ACBD 46.3494 -105.9125 1.2 0.3 392 1.3 55 883.7 41.3 0.1 0.5 2.1 8.7 1616 Hell Creek 07N,47E,10DDA 46.3708 -105.8238 1.8 0.7 394 0.9 6.3 676 28.8 258 0.093 1.7 7.8 D 1728 Hell Creek 09N,48E,3CD 46.558 -105.6725 6 0.3 313 2.4 43 670 53 3.2 0 1.5 15 1729 Hell Creek 09N,48E,4BB 46.5688 -105.6988 3.2 0.1 328 1.2 53 708 49 5.6 0.113 1.6 13 1731 Hell Creek 09N,48E,18DB 46.5327 -105.73 3 0.5 343 2.8 44 795 30 4 0.113 2.4 11 1733 Hell Creek 09N,55E,5BC 46.5611 -104.8347 2.6 2.3 620 1.7 13 936 98 356 0.023 4.3 8.8 1756 Hell Creek 10N,49E,15AA 46.6272 -105.5361 6 0.4 318 3.6 26 642 55 54 0 2.4 15 149945 Yel. Alluv. 06N,35E,23CCBD 46.2519 -107.3186 55.7 29 498 3.8 4.4 506.3 0 738.4 6.8 P 22.6 128213 Yel. Alluv. 07N,37E,34DBBB 46.3152 -107.0791 108 32.2 352 6.2 30.2 573.4 0 660.1 <.25 P 23.6 MAX 115 188 620 6.5 59.1 997 98 1365.3 2.7 4.5 23.6 MIN 1 .1 43 0.8 4.4 351.8 0 0.1 0 0.2 7.8 MEAN 22.3 24.9 355 2.4 25.22 671.1 37.3 292.4 0.322 2.1 11.7

Table 1b: Hell Creek and Yellowstone Alluvium water quality data continued.

B Ba Fe Li Mn Se Sr field_sc lab_sc mnumber (µg/l) (µg/l) (mg/l) (µg/l) (mg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µmhos/cm) field_ph lab_ph (µmhos/cm) sample_date_time 730 0.72 0.11 2907 7.72 3101 7/22/1975 12:00 754 0.21 20 <.01 1450 8.7 1318 8/26/1976 10:30 1162 0.38 40 0.03 775 7.69 687.5 8/17/1976 13:35 1354 774 110 0.04 30 0 <.10 74 1770 8.73 8.93 1712 8/8/1979 9:45 1358 0.1 0.01 1230 9.15 1234 6/24/1977 10:10 1359 0.02 20 <.01 1380 9.08 1245 5/5/1977 11:00 1360 0.07 20 0.02 1590 8.82 1532 6/23/1977 17:30 1424 428 120 0.02 16 0 <.1 50 1460 8.8 9.01 1386 8/22/1979 12:45 1612 0.07 40 <.01 1429 8.84 1526 8/27/1976 10:00 1616 562 50 0.17 27 <.01 <.10 79 1650 8.81 8.9 1553 8/8/1979 13:00 1728 680 0.1 8.9 1290 10/1/1948 0:00 1729 780 0.1 8.8 1300 10/1/1948 0:00 1731 480 0.02 8.5 1310 10/1/1948 0:00 1733 720 0.04 0 8.6 2390 8/30/1963 0:00 1756 760 0.1 9 1310 10/1/1948 0:00 149945 311 11.8 0.04 55 8.1 ## 7.79 241 8/3/1993 128213 329 22.6 0.38 45 1.7 880 7.52 19 5/2/1989 MAX 780 120 0.72 55 0.11 8.1 1066 9.15 3101 MIN 311 11.8 0.02 16 <.01 <0.1 50 7.52 19 MEAN 582.4 62.88 0.15 31.3 0.026 2.02 430 8.5853 1362

The Rosebud school PWS is routinely monitored for compliance with drinking water standards. Bacteriological monitoring occurs monthly. Compliance with other drinking water standards is based on additional sampling on a variety of schedules depending on system classification and population served. Nitrate can come from human or animal wastes but also occurs naturally. The highest level detected in the Rosebud school well in the last five years was 0.2 mg/l, considerably below the maximum concentration level of 10 mg/l set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Rosebud school PWS has tested free of bacteria for the past five years (DEQ).

9 CHAPTER 2 - DELINEATION

All source water protection areas for the Rosebud School well were delineated as required for non-transient, non-community public water supplies under the Montana Source Water Protection Program (DEQ, 1999). A 100-foot radius control zone was delineated for the Rosebud School (Appendix A, Fig. 3). The control zone is the most critical area within which direct introduction of contaminants into the well or immediate area can occur. An inventory region using a 1,000 foot fixed radius was delineated for the school well (Appendix A, Figure 3), reflective of the confined aquifer. The Inventory Region encompasses the area from which water or contaminants can flow to the well over a period of months to years. The recharge region (Appendix A, Figure 4) was delineated using geologic mapping and analysis. This region encompasses the entire area contributing recharge water to groundwater that may flow to a drinking water supply over long time periods or under a higher pumping rate. The recharge area for the Rosebud PWS includes outcrops of the Hell Creek Formation up dip of the well and areas of Yellowstone alluvium that overlie the Hell Creek (Appendix A, Fig. 4 and 5b).

Hydrogeologic Conditions

Land surface elevation decreases going towards the Yellowstone River. Groundwater flow direction in the Rosebud vicinity is interpreted to be from upland areas to lowland areas. Generally this means groundwater is moving toward the Yellowstone River. Closer to the river groundwater likely flows parallel to the river.

It is important to identify and describe the geologic formations or groups of formations used as aquifers in the region in order to understand why some aquifers are more sensitive to potential contamination from the land surface and why others are less sensitive. An overview of the geology and ground-water hydrology of the Yellowstone River Basin follows. Descriptions of hydrogeologic conditions in the Basin come primarily from Slagle et al. (1983), Stoner and Lewis, 1980, and Lewis and Roberts (1978) (Table 2 and 3).

Quaternary alluvial deposits and terrace deposits are present within most stream valleys and tributaries (Appendix A, Figure 5). These deposits consist of lenses and beds of gravel, sand, silt and clay ranging in thickness between 0 to 100 feet. The Wasatch Formation (Eocene age) crops out in several areas in the Powder River Basin to the south within Montana. Sedimentary rocks are exposed at the land surface in the region. The Fort Union Formation, of Paleocene age, dominates the landscape east and south of Rosebud. The Fort Union consists of beds of fine- grained sandstone, siltstone, shale, and coal. Clinker beds are also present where outcrops of coal have burned and fused rock material together. The Fort Union can be up to 2,500 feet thick and can be divided into three members in descending order: the Tullock, Lebo Shale, and Tongue River. The Lebo Shale acts as an aquitard. The Tullock and Tongue River Formations produce small amounts of water from coal, clinker and sandstone units. The Hell Creek Formation (Upper Cretaceous) is below the Fort Union, ranges between 0 and 850 feet thick, and contains beds of silty shale, mudstone, sandstone, and coal. Generally, the Hell Creek is more fine grained and contains less coal than the overlying Fort Union, but still serves as an aquifer. Sandstone beds are more abundant in the lower part of the Hell Creek Formation. The Fox Hills Formation (Upper Cretaceous) lies below the Hell Creek and is marked by a light-colored sandstone bed, which ranges in thickness from 30 to 150 feet. The sandstone is known as the

10 Colgate Member and is present over large areas in this region. The lower part of the Fox Hills is made up of sandstone, sandy shale, silty shale, and carbonaceous shale. The Fox Hills is an artesian aquifer that produces water well. Thickness of the entire Fox Hills ranges between 0 and 280 feet in this region and further east. The Bearpaw Shale (Upper Cretaceous, also known as the Pierre Shale in the Dakotas) occurs below the Fox Hills, is between 1,300 and 3,000 feet thick, and is an aquitard. Geologic formations below the Pierre Shale are generally not considered as potential aquifers due to either limited yield, poor water quality, or large drilling depths. The portion of the Lewis and Roberts map (1978) used to obtain this information is in Appendix A, Figure 5d.

Table 2. List of geologic or hydrogeologic investigations near the Rosebud area.

Title of Project Period of Project Area Covered Project Purpose

To document changes in Rosebud and East Fork Armells creeks since Hydrologic Assessment of July 1998–December Near Colstrip, the 1970s, to begin developing Rosebud 2000 Montana plans to maintain the viability of the and East Fork Armells Creeks, water resource and choose locations Rosebud County, Montana for future implementation of NPS controls.

Hydrology of Area 49, Northern Great Plains and rocky Yellowstone and Mountain Coal Provinces, Describe general hydrology of the January 1983 Powder River Montana and Wyoming. Water areas. Basin. Resources Investigation Open File Report 82-682.

Table 3. List of geologic or hydrogeologic maps available for the Rosebud area. Title or Description Date Area Covered Reference S.E. Slagle, U. S. Geological Water resources of the Fort East-central Survey Water-Resources 1983 Union coal region Montana Investigations WRI 83-4151- U. S. Geological Survey, p.42 Lewis, B.D. and Roberts, R. S. Geology and Water Yielding Draft EIS Development of Coal Characteristics of Rocks of the Southeastern 1978 Resources in Northern Powder Northern Powder River Basin Montana River Basin, Southeastern,

Montana, Map 3. Lewis, B.D., Stoner, J.D., 1980, Hydrogeology of the Fort Union Hydrogeology of the Fort Union Southeastern 1980 Coal Region: U S. Geological Coal Region, Eastern Montana Montana Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I 1236. Geologic Map of Montana 1955 Entire state Ross, Clyde P., Andrew, David A.,

11 Witkind, Irving, Montana Bureau of Mines & Geology

A 1,000-foot radius inventory region is delineated for the Rosebud School well as the well appears to be installed in the confined Hell Creek Formation (Appendix A, Fig. 3). Because the Hell Creek Formation is classified as a consolidated sandstone bedrock aquifer under confined conditions, the source water sensitivity to potential contamination is considered low. It is also important to note that the schools well is reported as a flowing artesian well. However, the Yellowstone River flows over the Hell Creek Formation and may be in hydraulic connection with the aquifer. For this reason a half-mile surface water buffer zone was delineated ten miles upstream and ½-mile downstream from the Rosebud school well.

Conceptual Model and Assumptions

There are two aquifers in the Rosebud area. The shallow unconfined Yellowstone aquifer is composed of silt, sand, and gravel. The deep, confined aquifer is composed of interbedded shale and sandstone of the Hell Creek Formation. A five- to 40-foot clay layer in the Rosebud area separates the two aquifers and acts as a local confining layer. It is assumed that the Rosebud School well is constructed in the Hell Creek aquifer based on information from the sanitary survey. Therefore a 1,000-foot radius inventory region was delineated for this well in accordance with the Source Water Protection guidelines.

Recharge to the bedrock aquifer most likely occurs at outcrops Hell Creek Formation (Khc) and perhaps the Fox Hills Formation (Kfh) up dip of Rosebud (Fig 4, 5b). The Fox Hills is included with the Hell Creek because there may be some connection between the two aquifer units. Recharge may also occur where Yellowstone Alluvium overlies these aquifers. In addition, Yellowstone was also included in the recharge area where not in contact with the Hell Creek Formation (Khc) and the Fox Hills Formation (Kfh) to include the remote possibility that the alluvium is in flow connection directly with the well or indirectly with the bedrock. All alluvium ten miles up stream of Rosebud and half a mile down stream was included. This conservative approach was chosen because of the lack of well information to verify the Hell Creek aquifer-source hypothesis. The dip of the Hell Creek Formation is 3-4 degrees to the east on the geologic map of the area (Stoner and Lewis, 1980, Appendix A, Fig.5b). Structure contours on the Bear Paw Shale also suggest dips to the east south east (Appendix A, Fig. 5b). Just south of Rosebud the structure contours suggest a north east dip on the flank of a small anticline so recharge is not likely more than three miles to the south (Appendix A, Fig. 5b). The bedrock recharge area can be defined by drawing flow lines perpendicular to structure contours and including any areas of the Hell Creek or Fox Hills Formation that approach Rosebud (Fig 5b see arrows). Flow lines more than six miles north of Rosebud using structure contours would also not be expected to reach Rosebud. The recharge area is most reliably drawn on the detailed geologic map (Stoner and Lewis, 1980, Appendix A, Fig.5b), but the detailed geologic map is an image without topology in the geographic information system used to create other maps and data for this report so the locations were estimated on the topographic map (Appendix A, Fig.4). Those interested in the detailed location should use Figure 5 (Appendix A) and include Hell Creek and Fox Hills formations and Yellowstone alluvium 10 miles east and half a mile west of Rosebud.

Well Information

There is one well supplying water to the Rosebud School. The well (source 002) is located to the rear of the school building. The well is reported to be completed in early 1989 to a depth of 240 feet. There is no construction, lithology, or aquifer information available on the well. See Table 4 for available well information.

Limiting Factors

There is no well log for the Rosebud School well and published reports are not site specific to the Rosebud area but are general in scope and nature. The Rosebud School’s source water, aquifer characteristics, and ground water flow direction have been determined based on these general sources of information. As a result, it is not possible to identify with certainty all of the land areas that contribute recharge to the school’s well. To help compensate for the uncertainties, the surface water buffer zone was added to the delineated inventory region. In the event that site specific studies become available, this report should be revised to reflect information and data presented in those studies.

Table 4. Source well information for Rosebud School

Information Well #1 Source of Information

PWS Source Code 002 DEQ PWS Database

MBMG # none GWIC

Water Right # NA NA Legal Location 06N, 42E, 14 Mapper (T, R, Sec.) Latitude/Longitude 46.2759/ 106.4421 Sanitary Survey

Date Completed Early 1989 Sanitary Survey

Well Depth 240’ Sanitary Survey

Perforated Interval unknown Sanitary Survey

Static Water Level Depth artesian Sanitary Survey Pumping Water Level unknown Sanitary Survey Depth Drawdown unknown Sanitary Survey

Test Pumping Rate unknown Sanitary Survey

Specific Capacity unknown Sanitary Survey

Source Type Alluvium None

13 CHAPTER 3 - INVENTORY

The Montana Source Water Protection Program (DEQ, 1999) requires that land uses and all potential contaminant sources be identified within the control zone and inventory region of non- transient non-community public water supplies. Inventory of potential sources of contamination was conducted for Rosebud School within the control and inventory regions. Potential sources of known primary drinking water contaminants and Cryptosporidium were identified, however, only significant potential contaminant sources were selected for detailed inventory. The significant potential contaminants in the Rosebud School inventory region are nitrate, pathogens, fuels, solvents, and agricultural chemicals.

The inventory for Rosebud School focuses on all activities in the control zone, certain sites or land use activities in the inventory region, and general land uses and large facilities in the recharge region.

Inventory Method

Available databases were initially searched to identify businesses and land uses that are potential sources of regulated contaminants in the inventory region. The following steps were followed:

Step 1: Urban and agricultural land uses were identified from the U.S. Geological Survey's Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis System (http://nris.state.mt.us/gis/datalist.html). Sewered and unsewered residential land use were identified from boundaries of sewer coverage obtained from municipal wastewater utilities.

Step 2: EPA’s Envirofacts System (http://www.epa.gov/enviro/) was queried to identify EPA regulated facilities located in the Inventory Region. This system accesses facilities listed in the following databases: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS), Biennial Reporting System (BRS), Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), and Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). The available reports were browsed for facility information including the Handler/Facility Classification to be used in assessing whether a facility should be classified as a significant potential contaminant source.

Step 3: The Permit Compliance System (PCS) was queried using Envirofacts (http://www.epa.gov/enviro/) to identify Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations with MPDES permits. The water system operator or other local official familiar with the area included in the inventory region identified animal feeding operations that are not required to obtain a permit.

Step 4: Databases were queried to identify the following in the inventory region: Underground Storage Tanks (UST) (http://webdev.deq.state.mt.us/UST/ and http://www.deq.state.mt.us/rem/tsb/iss/USTDownloads.asp), hazardous waste contaminated sites (DEQ hazardous waste site cleanup bureau), landfills (http://nris.state.mt.us/gis/datalist.html), abandoned mines (http://nris.state.mt.us/gis/datalist.html) and active mines including gravel pits. Any information on past releases and present compliance status was noted.

14 Step 5: A business phone directory was queried to identify businesses that generate, use, or store chemicals in the inventory region. Equipment manufacturing and/or repair facilities, printing or photographic shops, dry cleaners, farm chemical suppliers, and wholesale fuel suppliers were targeted by SIC code. Historic land uses that might introduce contaminants were sought using Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps (1928)

Step 6: Major road and rail transportation routes were identified throughout the inventory region (http://nris.state.mt.us/gis/datalist.html).

Step 7: Land uses and facilities that generate, store, or use large quantities of hazardous materials were identified within the recharge region and identified on the base map.

Step 8: Wells located within the inventory region were identified and well logs were reviewed when available.

Step 9: A windshield survey of potential contaminant sources in Rosebud was performed by Dr. Steve Custer.

Potential contaminant sources are designated as significant if they fall into one of the following categories: 1) Large quantity hazardous waste generators. 2) Landfills. 3) Under- and above-ground storage tanks. 4) Known groundwater contamination (including open or closed hazardous waste sites, state or federal superfund sites, and UST leak sites). 5) Underground injection wells. 6) Major roads or rail transportation routes. 7) Cultivated cropland greater than 20 % of the inventory region. 8) Animal feeding operations. 9) Wastewater treatment facilities, sludge handling sites, or land application areas. 10) Septic systems. 11) Sewer mains. 12) Storm sewer outflows. 13) Abandoned or active mines.

Inventory Results/Control Zone

The school is located in a neighborhood with open fields and unidentified buildings. The land cover data identifies the control zone to be comprised of shrubland and woody wetlands. Rosebud School owns approximately half of the land within the 100-foot control zone. Two city streets cross the control zone. Presence of the streets in the control zone constitutes a spill threat however traffic volume is not considered to be high and the streets are not used to transport potentially hazardous material. There is no information indicating that other significant potential contaminants are present in the control zone. However, the school should consider restricting use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals and the washing of fertilizer and pesticide application equipment near the well.

15 Inventory Results/Inventory Region

Land cover information for the Rosebud School inventory region (Appendix A, Fig. 6, Fig. 8) was summarized from the National Land Cover Dataset, Montana (USGS, 2000). Land cover within the 1000-foot Rosebud Inventory Zone includes 38% grassland/herbaceous, 23% open water, 19% shrubland, 10% woody wetlands, 3% evergreen forest, 2% fallow, 2% deciduous forest, 1.5% small grains, and 1% pasture/hay (Appendix A, Figure 8). Of these land uses, only the fallow, small grains, and pasture/hay are considered potential contaminant sources due to the use of fertilizers and herbicides. However, because of the ag-lands represent such a small percentage of the inventory region, they most likely do not pose a threat to the Rosebud School well. The school is served by a sanitary sewer system. Because greater than 50% of city residences are on the municipal sewer system the sewer mains constitute a significant source of potential contamination. The schools abandoned septic system is off the northeast corner of the school building approximately 200 feet from the school well.

The most significant potential contaminate source near the school well is an above ground storage tank located on the school property (Appendix A, Fig. 3). There are two additional above ground fuel storage tanks in the inventory zone. Two historic sites are also located very near the school grounds. One was an automotive garage that housed waste oil. The other was an oil company. Historically a lumber mill housing paint and an auto repair shop existed in the inventory zone as well. The school’s septic tank is considered large capacity because it serves more than 20 persons per day. The septic system is assigned a high hazard rating when it is located in the inventory region.

The most significant potential sources of contamination in the inventory region are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Significant potential contaminant sources for Rosebud School.

Source Contaminants Description

Above ground fuel VOC’s, SOC’s VOC’s, SOC’s leaching to groundwater storage tanks from spills or leaking tanks Bacteriological agents and Nitrates and pathogens leaching to Sewer mains Nitrates groundwater from seeping mains VOC’s, SOC’s, Inorganics, Highway Spill threat etc., VOC’s, SOC’s, Inorganics, Railway Spill threat etc.,

16 Inventory Results/Recharge Region

Land cover within the Rosebud School recharge region (Appendix A, Fig. 7 and Fig. 9) includes 56% grassland/herbaceous, 12% small grains, 8% shrubland, 7% fallow, 6% pasture/hay, 4% open water, 2% woody wetlands and deciduous forest, 1% evergreen forests and row crops, and less than 1% each of quarries/strip mines/gravel pits, bare rock/sand/clay, and commercial/industrial/transportation. The ag-lands represent a total of 25 percent of the recharge region.

There are three above ground fuel storage tanks in the recharge region in addition to those in the inventory zone.

Fisher Sand and Gravel has an operation located in the Rosebud vicinity. The exact location has not been identified. The assumption that it is located in the recharge region is supported by a land cover value for quarries/strip mines/gravel pits obtained from within the region. There are many inactive underground storage tanks (USTs) in the Rosebud vicinity with unspecified locations (Table 6). Several petroleum releases have occurred in the area, also with unspecified locations (Table 7).

Inventory Results/Stream Buffer

The Montana Source Water Protection guidelines states that for confined aquifers that have the potential to be in hydraulic connection to surface water, a ½ mile buffer extending upstream a distance corresponding to a 4-hour time of travel, but not to exceed ten miles, the nearest intake, or the extent of the watershed should be drawn (DEQ 1999). Potential sources of pathogens and nitrate are inventoried within the surface water buffer region. Because it is unclear whether or not the Hell Creek aquifer receives recharge from the Yellowstone River in the Rosebud area the Yellowstone River and its tributary Rosebud Creek were buffered at a ½ mile distance for ten miles up stream and ½ mile downstream of the well. Land cover within the stream buffers includes 58% shrubland, 10% row crops and evergreen forest, 5% small grains, 3% fallow, 2% deciduous forest, 1.5% quarries/strip mines/gravel pits, 1% pasture/hay, and less than 1% open water, commercial/industrial/transportation, and bare rock/sand/clay.

Table 6. Underground storage tanks listed with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Facility AltFacilityID Street Address City County ActiveTanks NonactiveTanks Name 44-09357 Arthur Polich Address Unknown Rosebud Rosebud 2 Berry, 44-00525 Address Unknown Rosebud Rosebud 1 Richard 44-06208 Beyl, James J Hc 83 Box 19 Rosebud Rosebud 1 44-06062 Biery Bros Address Unknown Rosebud Rosebud 1 Bn - Hwy 94, Milepost 44-09887 Rosebud Rosebud 2 Rosebud 111.3 Cindie's 44-08371 Old Hwy 10 Rosebud Rosebud 3 Station

17 F & W 44-09260 Address Unknown Rosebud Rosebud 1 Enterprises 44-07378 Harken, R.C. T1N R42E Sec 2 Rosebud Rosebud 1 44-04168 Kraus, Ed Address Unknown Rosebud Rosebud 1 Montgomery, 44-01468 W Nw Approx 2 Mi Rosebud Rosebud 2 Kirk L Muri, 44-02046 Box 11 Rosebud Rosebud 1 William Robinette, 44-00523 Po Box 27 Rosebud Rosebud 1 Glenn W. Rosebud Public 44-00524 Box 38 Rosebud Rosebud 1 Schools Dist # 12 Schiffer 44-03251 Rd 446 S 6T6 R43E Rosebud Rosebud 4 Ranch Co 44-08196 Seleg, Alex Address Unknown Rosebud Rosebud 2 Wilson, Dee 44-00700 Hcr 83 Box 52 Rosebud Rosebud 1 C.

Table 7. DEQ listed leaking underground storage tanks.

Confirmed Project City SiteName Location AltEventID Date Release Active Officer Date CINDIE'S 4408371*29 12-Jul- Rosebud OLD HWY 10 19-Jun-96 No STATION 56 96 F & W Address 4409260*28 17-Nov- Rosebud ENTERPRI 17-Nov-95 No Unknown 66 95 SES MURI, 4402046*13 18-Aug- Rosebud BOX 11 18-Aug-92 No WILLIAM 63 92 Schiffer 4403251*38 01-Dec- Rosebud Road 446 01-Dec-99 John Raty Yes Ranch 83 99

Inventory Update

The certified operator is encouraged to update the inventory for his or her records every year. Changes in land uses or potential contaminant sources should be noted and additions made as needed. The complete inventory should be submitted to DEQ every five years so that the source water delineation and assessment report can be maintained and kept current.

Inventory Limitations

The potential sources of contamination for the Rosebud School have been identified using readily available data and reports and a cursory windshield survey. Unregulated activities or unreported contaminant releases may have been missed. The use of multiple sources of data,

18 however, should ensure that the major potential contaminant threats to the Rosebud School are known.

19 CHAPTER 4 - SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT

Susceptibility is the potential for a public water supply to draw water contaminated by inventoried sources at concentrations that would pose concern. Susceptibility is assessed in order to prioritize potential pollutant sources for management actions by local entities, in this case Rosebud School.

The goal of Source Water Management is to protect the source water by 1) controlling activities in the control zone, 2) managing significant potential contaminant sources in the Inventory Region, and 3) ensuring that land use activities in the Recharge Region pose minimal threat to the source water. Management priorities in the Inventory Region are determined by ranking the significant potential contaminant sources identified in the previous chapter according to susceptibility. Alternative management approaches that could be pursued by the Rosebud School to reduce susceptibility are recommended.

Susceptibility is determined by considering the hazard rating for each potential contaminant source and the existence of barriers that decrease the likelihood that contaminated water will flow to Rosebud School well(s). Table 8 shows the procedure used to assign hazard to potential contaminant sources when the water supply well is completed in a confined aquifer. Hazard for confined aquifers is low if all wells in the inventory region are constructed to current state standards. Hazard is high if the PWS well is not sealed into the confining layer and moderate if only other wells are not properly constructed. Due to the fact that driller’s logs for the school’s well and other wells in the area do not indicate how the wells are constructed, the initial hazard rating is set to high. Table 9 shows how the final susceptibility rating is assigned when barriers are present.

Table 8. CONFINED AQUIFERS (modified from MT SWPP Table 6): Hazard of potential contaminant sources. Potential The PWS well is Other wells in the All wells in the Contaminate not sealed inventory region are inventory region are Sources through the not sealed through sealed through the confining layer the confining layer confining layer Point Sources High Moderate Low

Septic Systems High: > 300 Moderate: > 300 Low (# per square mile) Moderate: 50 to Low: < 300 300 Low: < 50 Sanitary Sewer High: > 50 Moderate: > 50 Low (% land use) Moderate: 20 to Low: < 50 50 Low: < 20 Cropland High: > 50 Moderate: > 50 Low (% land use) Moderate: 20 to Low: < 50 50 Low: < 20

21 Table 9. Relative susceptibility to specific contaminant sources from hazard source and the presence of barriers. Presence Of Hazard Barriers High Moderate Low Very High Moderate No Barriers High Susceptibility Susceptibility Susceptibility High Moderate Low One Barrier Susceptibility Susceptibility Susceptibility Moderate Low Very Low Multiple Barriers Susceptibility Susceptibility Susceptibility

Susceptibility ratings are presented in Table 10 for each significant potential contaminant source and each associated contaminant. The overall susceptibility of the Rosebud School well to potential contaminant sources is rated moderate to low. The well is located in a confined aquifer. But, there is no log for the school well to indicate whether or not it is sealed through the confining layer. Other wells in the vicinity of the school are also missing sanitary seal records (MBMG GWIC).

Susceptibility Analysis Results

Table 10. Susceptibility assessment for significant potential contaminant sources in the Inventory Region.

Hazard Source Contaminant Hazard Barriers Susceptibility Management Rating -Upward gradient, Support maintenance, rehabilitation,or Municipal Sewer Nitrate, Seepage from replacement of existing sewer mains; use High -recharge area may be located Moderate Mains Bacteriological ruptured pipes remotely from the well location of sewer main liners; and rapid response planning for leaks or ruptures. -Upward gradient, -recharge area may be located Contaminants remotely from the well location Monitor re-fueling to ensure that leaching to accidental spills or overflow are prevented Above Ground -As of Dec 1999, USTs had to be VOC’s, SOC’s groundwater High Moderate or quickly responded to if they occur. Storage Tanks replaced with ones that met new from spills or standards) If replaced the new tank Monitor tanks for leakage to prevent leaking tanks and monitoring can be used as an impacts to groundwater additional barrier because they are in compliance Contaminants leaching to -Upward gradient, Abandoned Septic Nitrates and Monitor groundwater to ensure groundwater Low Very Low Systems pathogens -recharge area may be located contaminants do not impact the PWS from leaking remotely from the well location tanks Notify landowners of well and protection area locations. Encourage and support emergency Inorganics, - Upward gradient, planning, training of local emergency response personnel, use of levees and Highway VOC’s, SOC’s, Spill threat High -recharge area may be located Moderate engineered storm drainage to carry any etc. remotely from the well location spills away and prevent infiltration into ground, cooperation with railroad managers or MDOT to reduce herbicide use. Inorganics, - Upward gradient, -recharge area may Railway VOC’s, SOC’s, Spill threat High be located remotely from the well Moderate Same as for Highway etc. location 9

REFERENCES CITED

Brown & Associates Engineering and Planning, Sanitary Survey of Rosebud School, 2001.

Caprio, J.M. and G.A. Nielsen, 1992, Climate Atlas of Montana; Montana State University Extension Service, Bozeman, Montana.

Census Bureau, http://ceic.commerce.state.mt.us/C2000/PL2000/places90-2000.htm, http://censtats.census.gov/data/MT/05030087.pdf#page=3, http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_1990_STF3_DP3&_geo_id=0 5000US30087

Heath, R.C., 1984, Introduction to State summaries of ground-water resources, U. S. Geological Survey Water- Supply Paper, Pages 118-121; U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Howard, A.D. and Williams, J.W., 1972, Physiography, in Mallory, W.W. (ed. in chief), Geological Atlas of the Rocky Mountain Region: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, Denver, CO, p. 29-31.

Lewis, B.D. and Roberts, R. S., 1978, Geology and Water Yielding Characteristics of Rocks of the Northern Powder River Basin, Southeastern Montana; Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map, I847D, U.S. Geological Survey.

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Ground-Water Projects, http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/grwprojects.htm

Montana DEQ, 2001, BacT database.

Montana DEQ, 1999, Montana Source Water Protection Program, Approved by EPA in November 1999. Montana DEQ Public Water Supply Program.

Montana DEQ Source Water Protection Program’s Mapper GIS application, http://nris.state.mt.us/mapper/.

Montana DEQ, UST/LUST Data, http://www.deq.state.mt.us/rem/tsb/iss/USTDownloads.asp.

Ross, Clyde P., Andrew, David A., Witkind, Irving, 1955, Geologic Map of Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps, 1928, series 588, reel 3, from original copies in the Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress residing in special collection at the MSU-Bozeman library, Teaneck, N.J. 1983.

Slagle, S.E., 1983, Water resources of the Fort Union coal region, east-central Montana; U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations WRI 83-4151- U. S. Geological Survey, 42 p.

Stone, W.D., 1972, Stratigraphy and exploration of the lower Cretaceous Muddy Formation, northern Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana, The Mountain Geologist. 9; 4, Pages 355-378; Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists (RMAG), Denver, CO.

9 Stoner, J.D., Lewis, B.D., 1980, Hydrogeology of the Fort Union Coal Region, Eastern Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I 1236.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, July 1996, Soil Survey of Rosebud County Area and Part of Big Horn County, Montana.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Multisystem Database Query, http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/multisystem_query_java.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1991, Manual of Small Public Water Supply Systems, EPA 570/9-91-003, 211 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2000, National Landcover Dataset, Montana.

10 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A FIGURES

APPENDIX B SITE PLAN

APPENDIX C WELL LOG(s)

APPENDIX D SANITARY SURVEY

APPENDIX E Hazard and Barrier Work Sheets

11 APPENDIX A - Figures

12 Figure 1. Rosebud vicinity map

14 Figure 2. Private and public water supply wells in the Rosebud vicinity.

15 Figure 3. Rosebud school well inventory vicinity.

16 Figure 4. Rosebud school pws recharge region. Arrows approximate recharge flow direction

17 Figure 5a. General Rosebud area geology (Ross and others, 1955)

Figure 5b. Detailed Rosebud area geology (Stoner and Lewis, 1980). Arrows approximate flow direction. Each square is six miles across.

18 Figure 5c. Map key for detailed geologic map.

19 Figure 5d. Lithologic descriptions for detailed geologic map.

21 Figure 6. Land cover of Rosebud school pws inventory and control zones

% Land Cover of Inventory Zone

1.8% 1.1%

26.1%

Open Water Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest 43.5% Shrubland Grassland/Herbaceous 2.1% Pasture/Hay Small Grains 3.2%

22.3%

Figure 7. Land cover of Rosebud school pws recharge region

23 .

Recharge Region Land Cover 0.16%

4.29% 0.03% 0.01% 2.21% 7.02% 1.73% 1.39% 7.92%

12.23% Open Water Commercial/Industrial/Transportation Bare Rock/Sand/Clay Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits 1.35% Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Shrubland 5.99% Grassland/Herbaceous Pasture/Hay Row Crops Small Grains Fallow Woody Wetlands

55.67%

Figure 8. Land cover by percent for the Rosebud school PWS inventory zone

24 Figure 9. Land cover by percent of the Rosebud school PWS recharge region

25 APPENDIX B - SITE PLAN

27 APPENDIX C - WELL LOG(S)

28 An example log from a well estimated to be 530 feet from the Rosebud School well.

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Plot this site on a topographic map Ground-water Information Center Site Report LUHMAN DON

Location Information

GWIC Id: 18834 Source of Data: Not Reported Location (TRS): 06N 42E 14 BDB Latitude (dd): 46.2757 County (MT): ROSEBUD Longitude (dd): - 106.4401 DNRC Water Right: Not Reported Geomethod: TRS -TWN PWS Id: Not Reported Datum: 1927 Block: Not Reported Addition: Not Reported Lot: Not Reported Type of Site: WELL Certificate of Survey: Not Reported

Well Construction and Performance Data (measurements are reported below land surface)

Total Depth (ft): 70.00 How Drilled: Not Reported Static Water Level (ft): 25.00 Driller's Name: Not Reported Pumping Water Level (ft): Driller License: Not Reported Yield (gpm): 10.00 Completion Date: Jan 01, 1920 Test Type: Not Reported Special Conditions: None Reported Test Duration: Is Well Flowing?: No Drill Stem Setting (ft): Shut-In Pressure: Recovery Water Level (ft): Geology/Aquifer: 211HLCK Recovery Time (hrs): Well/Water Use: DOMESTIC

Hole Diameter Information Casing Information No hole diameter records were found. No casing records were found. Annular Seal Information Completion Information No annular seal records were found. No completion records were found.

Lithology Information No lithology records were found.

These data represent the contents of the GWIC databases at the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology at the time and date of the retrieval. The information is considered unpublished and is subject to correction and review on a daily basis. The Bureau warrants the accurate transmission of the data to the original end user. Retransmission of the data to other users is discouraged and the Bureau claims no responsibility if the material is retransmitted. Note: non-reported casing, completion, and lithologic records may exist in paper files at GWIC.

29 An example log from a well estimated to be 634 feet from the Rosebud School well.

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Plot this site on a topographic map Ground-water Information Center Site Report ROSEBUD PUB. SCHOOL

Location Information

GWIC Id: 18832 Source of Data: Not Reported Location (TRS): 06N 42E 14 BCD Latitude (dd): 46.2738 County (MT): ROSEBUD Longitude (dd): - 106.4427 DNRC Water Right: Not Reported Geomethod: TRS -TWN PWS Id: Not Reported Datum: 1927 Block: Not Reported Addition: Not Reported Lot: Not Reported Type of Site: WELL Certificate of Survey: Not Reported

Well Construction and Performance Data (measurements are reported below land surface)

Total Depth (ft): 162.00 How Drilled: Not Reported Static Water Level (ft): Driller's Name: Not Reported Pumping Water Level (ft): Driller License: Not Reported Yield (gpm): 20.0 0 Completion Date: Jan 01, 1954 Test Type: Not Reported Special Conditions: None Reported Test Duration: Is Well Flowing?: No Drill Stem Setting (ft): Shut-In Pressure: Recovery Water Level (ft): Geology/Aquifer: 211HLCK Recovery Time (hrs): Well/Water Use: PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY

Lithology Information No lithology records were found.

30 An example log from a well estimated to be 898 feet from the Rosebud School well.

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Plot this site on a topographic map Ground-water Information Center Site Report ROSEBUD CHURCH

Location Information

GWIC Id: 188 33 Source of Data: Not Reported Location (TRS): 06N 42E 14 BD Latitude (dd): 46.2748 County (MT): ROSEBUD Longitude (dd): - 106.4387 DNRC Water Right: 11234 Geomethod: TRS -TWN PWS Id: Not Reported Datum: 1927 Block: Not Reported Addition: No t Reported Lot: Not Reported Type of Site: WELL Certificate of Survey: Not Reported

Well Construction and Performance Data (measurements are reported below land surface)

Total Depth (ft): 60.00 How Drilled: Not Reported Static Water Level (ft): 30.00 Driller's Name: Not Reported Pumping Water Level (ft): 40.00 Driller License: 183 Yield (gpm): 20.00 Completion Date: Jan 01, 1976 Test Type: Not Reported Special Conditions: None Reported Test Duration: Is Well Flowing?: No Drill Stem Setting (ft): Shut-In Pressure: Recovery Water Level (ft): Geology/Aquifer: 211HLCK Recovery Time (hrs): Well/Water Use: DOMESTIC

Hole Diameter Information Casing Information No hole diameter records were found. From (ft) To (ft) Dia (in) Description 0.0 0.0 6.0

Annular Seal Information Completion Information No annular seal records were found. From (ft) To (ft) Dia (in) Description 40.0 60.0 0.0

Lithology Information No lithology records were found.

31 APPENDIX D - SANITARY SURVEY

32 APPENDIX E – DEQ Water Quality Report