DOCSLIB.ORG

Overview Discussion Conclusions References Groundwater Quality in the Shields River Basin of South-Central Montana

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Overview Discussion Conclusions References Groundwater Quality in the Shields River Basin of South-Central Montana MONTANA BUREAU OF MINES AND GEOLOGY INFORMATION PAMPHLET 11 DISCUSSION GROUNDWATER QUALITY IN THE SHIELDS RIVER BASIN OF SOUTH-CENTRAL MONTANA: The two primary sources of methane in groundwater are biogenic and thermocatalytic. ASSESSMENT OF OIL AND GAS DRILLING IMPACTS AND BASELINE CONDITIONS Biogenic methane, common in shallow ground- Daniel D. Blythe, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology water, is formed from bacterial reduction of organic material (Clark and Fritz, 1997). Ther- OVERVIEW mocatalytic methane is the major component in 2 natural gas extracted from sedimentary basins; The Shields River Basin covers nearly 855 mi (547,048 acres) of mostly open range and some irrigated fi elds it forms from the breakdown of higher mass hy- adjacent to the Shields River and its tributaries. The basin is mostly in northern Park County, but extends into drocarbons at elevated temperatures. There are parts of Gallatin and Meagher Counties. The basin is bounded by the Bridger Range to the west, the Crazy Moun- advanced analytical techniques to determine the tains to the east, and low hills on the north (fi g. 1). Clyde Park and Wilsall have populations of less than 300 (U.S. source of methane in groundwater (Clark and Census Bureau). Farming and ranching are the main industries. Fritz, 1997). Concentrations of methane were Bedrock in the Shields River Basin consists of Mississippian through Tertiary sedimentary rocks with some too low to use these techniques in this study. Tertiary intrusive rocks in the Crazy Mountains. Quaternary alluvium occurs in the drainage bottoms, and terrace Half the wells with low-level methane concen- gravels are present at levels above the streams. The terraces are most notable between the Shields River and the trations were within 2 mi of the recent oil and Crazy Mountains. gas wells, and the others were over 10 mi away There are records of approximately 1,300 domestic, stock, and public water supply wells in the basin (GWIC, (fi g. 6). Fractures in the subsurface can signifi - 2016); most wells serve domestic purposes (fi g. 1). Typically, bedrock aquifers supply water wells completed with- cantly increase groundwater velocities; how- in 300 ft of the land surface. Figure 6. Organic sampling results. No BTEX, DRO, GRO, or ethane was detected. Low-level methane concentrations were detected in 6 wells and ethylene in 3 wells. ever, an unusual set of fractures would have Since 2000, increased oil and natural gas production from organic-rich shale formations in North Dakota and Concentrations were well below the recommended threshold value of 10 mg/L to exist to transport methane across formation Montana has occurred, largely due to advances in directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing. These advances (Eltschlager and others, 2001). Three of the wells with detectable methane were boundaries and nearly 10 mi from the recent have opened up areas for exploration that had seen little to no recent oil and gas exploration (King, 2012). Within resampled in 2014; neither methane nor ethylene was detected. drilling. the Shields River Basin, exploration companies have identifi ed the Cody and Mowry shales as potential shale-gas Groundwater fl ow paths and velocities likely vary widely between and within formations across the basin. McMa- hon and others (2014) concluded that in areas with slower velocities, subsurface contamination may go undetected if the monitoring period is short or the monitoring wells are far from the source. Therefore, long-term monitoring is needed from monitoring points close to energy development to increase the likelihood of early detection of contami- nation. CONCLUSIONS The MBMG collected samples from surface water, springs, and water wells to assess the groundwater resource utilized by residents of the Shields River Basin. Analytical results show that the water in the basin is of good quality and suitable for public water supplies, domestic or stock use, and irrigation. Generally, concentrations were below drinking water health standards, TDS concentrations < 500 mg/L, and there was an absence of organic constit- uents. Methane and ethane occurred at low concentrations in samples from a few wells in 2013, but were below detection in follow-up samples in 2014. The results show that groundwater in the sampled areas has not been impacted by oil and gas drilling. REFERENCES Blythe, D.D., 2015, Shallow groundwater quality and geochemistry in the Shields River Basin, south-central Montana: Butte, Montana Tech of The University of Montana, M.S. thesis, 72 p. Clark, I., and Fritz, P., 1997, Environmental isotopes in hydrogeology: New York, Lewis Publishers, 328 p. Eltschlager, K.K., Hawkins, J.W., Ehler, W.C., and Baldassare, F., 2001, Technical measures for the investigation and mitigation of fugitive methane hazards in areas of coal mining: Pittsburgh, Pa.: Offi ce of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, http://www.osmre.gov/ resources/library/ghm/methane.pdf [Accessed 7/7/13]. King, G.E., 2012, Hydraulic fracturing 101—What every representative, environmentalist, regulator, reporter, investor, university researcher, neighbor and engineer should know about estimating frac risk and improving frac performance in unconventional gas and oil wells: Soci- ety of Petroleum Engineers Hydraulic Fracturing Conference, Woodlands, Tex., February 6–8, 2012, 80 p. McMahon, P.B., Caldwell, R.R., Galloway, J.M., Valder, J.F., and Hunt, A.G., 2014, Quality and age of shallow groundwater in the Williston basin, Montana and North Dakota: Groundwater. doi: 10.1111/gwat.12296 Montana Board of Oil and Gas, 2015, Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Board of Oil and Gas Conservation, http://bogc. Figure 1. The Shields River Basin is located north of Livingston in south-central Montana. About 1,300 well records dnrc.mt.gov/ [Accessed 5/24/2016]. show that 83 percent of wells serve domestic purposes and 8 percent provide stockwater. The remaining 9 percent serve irrigation, fi re protection, and commercial uses. There are 24 public water supply wells; Clyde Park and Wilsall Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, 2014, 2016 Ground Water Information Center, http://mbmggwic.mtech.edu/ [Accessed 5/24/2016]. both use groundwater for their town supplies. For more information, contact: Dan Blythe, 406-496-4379, [email protected] targets, although in the southern part of the basin their bases are nearly RESULTS 10,000 ft below land surface. North and west of Wilsall the formations are about 3,100 to 5,800 ft below land surface (fi gs. 2, 3). Between 2007 and Concentrations of arsenic, fl uoride, and nitrate 2009, seven oil and gas exploratory wells were drilled (fi gs. 3, 4; MBOG, were below drinking water health standards. The 2016). The drilling raised concerns about potential degradation of ground- selenium concentration of 87 micrograms per water quality. Since 2009, all seven exploratory wells have been plugged liter (μg/L) in one sample exceeded the health and abandoned (fi g. 4). standard of 50 μg/L. Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations of 803 and 557 milligrams per liter WATER-QUALITY SAMPLING (mg/L) in two samples exceeded the aesthetic quality standard of 500 mg/L (fi g. 5). In cooperation with the Shields Valley Watershed Group and the Park County Conservation District, the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology’s Results for organic constituents in samples (MBMG) Ground Water Assessment Program sampled wells, springs, and from 24 wells, 2 springs, and 3 surface-water surface water in the basin to assess impacts from the recent drilling and to locations showed no detectable concentrations establish current baseline water quality. The MBMG selected sample loca- of BTEX, DRO, GRO, or ethane. Low-level meth- tions based on an aquifer susceptibility analysis, the current distribution of ane concentrations were detected in 6 wells, and water wells, depths to oil and gas target formations, and the hydrogeologic ethylene was detected in 3 wells. The methane setting (Blythe, 2015). For comparative purposes, locations were selected concentrations ranged from 0.0139 to 0.184 mg/L, near and distant from the 2007–2009 oil and gas drilling (fi g. 3). and ethylene ranged from 0.0075 to 0.0138 mg/L (fi g. 6). All results were below the recommended In 2013, 33 domestic wells, 2 springs, and 3 surface-water sites across threshold value of 10 mg/L for potentially explo- the basin were sampled. Samples were analyzed for major ions, trace Figure 4. Oil and gas exploration companies drilled seven oil and gas wells in sive environments (Eltschlager and others, 2001). 18 2 the basin between 2007 and 2009. By 2013, the companies had plugged and metals, water isotopes ( O and H), and tritium. Additionally, a subset of There is no human health standard for methane. samples was analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene (BTEX), abandoned six of the seven wells. One well (pictured here) was “shut-in.” By 2016, the owner had also plugged and abandoned this well (MBOG, 2016). The MBMG resampled three of the wells with de- methane, ethane, ethylene, diesel range organics (DRO), and gasoline tectable methane in 2014; methane and ethylene range organics (GRO). were below detection in these samples. STUDY LIMITATIONS The absence of methane and eth- Figure 2. A geologic stratigraphic ylene in the 2014 resampling does not column for the Shields River Basin shows that water wells are com- negate the low-level results from 2013. pleted within about 300 ft of land Error in sample collection or laboratory surface. Oil and gas exploration analysis may have occurred. Readers targets, the Cody and Mowry shale should consider the analytical results explored between 2007 and 2009, are as much as 12,000 ft below land for organic constituents in the context surface. of groundwater fl ow paths, groundwa- ter velocities, and the ability of widely distributed wells to characterize aquifer systems at the basin-wide scale.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1JI4P3S, REGISTRATION FORM A
    NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORI 1JI4P3S, REGISTRATION FORM a 1. Name of Property historic name: Oliver and Lucy Bonnell Gothic Arch Roofed Barn other name/site number: 2. Location street & number: 247 Shields River Road East not for publication: n/a city/town: Clyde Park vicinity: X state: Montana code: MT county: Park code: 087 zip code: 59047 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the desig nated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amend ed, 1 hereby certify that this X nomination _ request for determjhatio n of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in tl ie National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural i nd professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the p operty X meets _ does not meet the National Register Criteria! 1 re commend that this property be considered significant _ nationally _ .statewid^j X locally. L\-s^?l«Jl*s/£HTo /H^w:f 2-, Z~oo*l /1U'r •• / • • y • i i • Signature of certifying official/Title / Date 1 Montana State Historic Preservation Office State or Federal agency or bureau ( _ See continuation sheet for additional comments.) In my opinion, the property _ meets _ does not meet the National Register criteria. Signature of commenting or other official Date State or Federal agency and bureau 4. Narional Park Service Certification Ij f if\ tf I, hereby certify that this property is: Date of Action J/entered in the National Register _ see continuation sheet _ determined eligible for the National Register _ see continuation sheet _ determined not eligible for the National Register _ see continuation sheet _ removed from the National Register _see continuation sheet _ other (explain): _________________ Oliver and Lucy Bonnell Bam Park County.
    [Show full text]
  • Related Stream Factors on Patterns of Individual Summer Growth of Cutthroat Trout
    Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 148:21–34, 2019 © 2018 American Fisheries Society ISSN: 0002-8487 print / 1548-8659 online DOI: 10.1002/tafs.10106 ARTICLE Effects of Climate-Related Stream Factors on Patterns of Individual Summer Growth of Cutthroat Trout P. Uthe*1 Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Ecology Department, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA R. Al-Chokhachy U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, 2327 University Way, Suite 2, Bozeman, Montana 59715, USA B. B. Shepard2 Wildlife Conservation Society, 301 North Willson Avenue, Bozeman, Montana 59715, USA A.V. Zale U.S. Geological Survey, Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA J. L. Kershner U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, 2327 University Way, Suite 2, Bozeman, Montana 59715, USA Abstract Coldwater fishes are sensitive to abiotic and biotic stream factors, which can be influenced by climate. Distribu- tions of inland salmonids in North America have declined significantly, with many of the current strongholds located in small headwater systems that may serve as important refugia as climate change progresses. We investigated the effects of discharge, stream temperature, trout biomass, and food availability on summer growth of Yellowstone Cut- throat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri, a species of concern with significant ecological value. Individual size, stream discharge, sample section biomass, and temperature were all associated with growth, but had differing effects on energy allocation. Stream discharge had a positive relationship with growth rates in length and mass; greater rates of prey delivery at higher discharges probably enabled trout to accumulate reserve tissues in addition to structural growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Inactive Mines on Gallatin National Forest-Administered Land
    Abandoned-Inactive Mines on Gallatin National Forest-AdministeredLand Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Abandoned-Inactive Mines Program Open-File Report MBMG 418 Phyllis A. Hargrave Michael D. Kerschen CatherineMcDonald JohnJ. Metesh PeterM. Norbeck RobertWintergerst Preparedfor the u.s. Departmentof Agriculture ForestService-Region 1 Abandoned-Inactive Mines on Gallatin National Forest-AdministeredLand Open-File Report 418 MBMG October 2000 Phyllis A. Hargrave Michael D. Kerschen Catherine McDonald John J. Metesh Peter M. Norbeck Robert Wintergerst for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service-Region I Prepared Contents List of Figures .V List of Tables . VI IntToduction 1 1.IProjectObjectives 1 1.2AbandonedandInactiveMinesDefined 2 1.3 Health and Environmental Problems at Mines. 3 1.3.1 Acid-Mine Drainage 3 1.3.2 Solubilities of SelectedMetals 4 1.3.3 The Use of pH and SC to Identify Problems. 5 1.4Methodology. 6 1.4.1 Data Sources : 6 1.4.2Pre-Field Screening. 6 1.4.3Field Screening. 7 1.4.3.1 Collection of Geologic Samples. 9 1.4.4 Field Methods ' 9 1.4.4.1 Selection of Sample Sites 9 1.4.4.2 Collection of Water and Soil Samples. 10 1.4.4.3 Marking and Labeling Sample Sites. 10 1.4.4.4ExistingData 11 1.4.5 Analytical Methods """"""""""""""""'" 11 1.4.6Standards. 12 1.4.6.1Soil Standards. 12 1.4.6.2Water-QualityStandards 13 1.4.7 Analytical Results 13 1.5 Gallatin National Forest 14 1.5.1 History of Mining 16 1.5.1.1 Production 17 1.5.1.2Milling 18 1.6SummaryoftheGallatinNationaIForestInvestigat~on 19 1.7 Mining Districts and Drainages 20 Gallatin National Forest Drainages 20 2.1 Geology "' ' '..' ,.""...' ""." 20 2.2 EconomicGeology.
    [Show full text]
  • WDAFS-2017-Electronic-Progam.Pdf
    STURGEON ($3,000 OR >) BULL TROUT ($2,000 OR >) WESTSLOPE CUTTHROAT TROUT ($1,000 OR >) SAUGER ($500 OR >) 2 Letters of Welcome .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Additional Meeting Sponsors ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Planning Committees ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 Missoula Walking Map ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 UM University Center Map ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Schedule At A Glance .............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Monday, May 22………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10 Continuing Education (University Center) varied schedules.....……………………………………………………………………..10 Tuesday, May 23 ................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Plenary Session (Dennison
    [Show full text]
  • South Fork Horse Creek Fish Passage, Habitat Enhancement, and Entrainment Prevention Initial Project Assessment
    South Fork Horse Creek Fish Passage, Habitat Enhancement, and Entrainment Prevention Initial Project Assessment April 20, 2007 Prepared by: Carol Endicott MFWP Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Restoration Biologist Landowner Incentive Program 111 ½ North 3rd Street Livingston, MT 59047 South Fork Horse Creek Project Assessment March 2007 1.0 Introduction The Landowner Incentive Program/Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout project (LIP/YCT) assists private landowners seeking to improve habitat for Yellowstone cutthroat trout on their property. This report, or project assessment, documents preliminary evaluations for a potential project on South Fork Horse Creek, a small stream within a tributary drainage to the Shields River near Wilsall, Montana. The objectives of the project assessment are to describe relevant literature and data, describe existing conditions and potential, and provide recommendations to landowners. If landowners agree to proceed with conservation activities, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks’ Yellowstone cutthroat trout restoration biologist will provide technical, financial, and planning assistance to implement restoration activities on these private lands. 2.0 Project Background South Fork Horse Creek flows to the west from the foothills of the Crazy Mountains until its confluence its main stem, a tributary of the Shields River downstream from Wilsall (Figure 2-1). The property in question lies in T3N R9E Section 24, and encompasses a reach of South Fork Horse Creek that flows under Horse Creek Road in two locations (Figure 2-2). Wilsall South Fork Horse Creek Figure 2-1: Map of the Shields River watershed showing location of South Fork Horse Creek. 1 South Fork Horse Creek Project Assessment March 2007 Horse Creek Road Culvert Area of Corrals and Irrigation Diversion Figure 2-2: Aerial view of project area.
    [Show full text]
  • The Yellowstone Your Guide to Conservation R E C R E a T I O N E D U C a T I O N R E S O U R C E S
    The Yellowstone Your Guide to Conservation R e c r e a t i o n E d u c a t i o n R e s o u r c e s presented by EXPERIENCE EcoBlu™ The Yellowstone - No Better Place “In the end we will conserve only what we love. We will love only what we understand. We will understand only what we are taught.” – Baba Dioum The legendary Yellowstone River is the view from the windows of our Paradise Valley, Montana, headquarters. For Trout Headwaters, sponsoring the river adventure film “Where the Yellowstone Goes” was a perfect fit. The film captures the magnificence and the spirit of the Yellowstone River along with the characters the small crew encounters as they float more than 600 miles in a hand-built drift boat. We believe this film will continue to advance understanding, love and, most importantly, conservation of this precious resource. Conservation is at the very core of our efforts at THI where we work to restore, renew and repair rivers, streams and wetlands. Whether you enjoy walking along the Yellowstone’s banks, resting a fly on its surface, or finding inspiration in the panoramic vistas, know that you, too, can contribute to the conservation of this national treasure. The Yellowstone – there’s no better place. -THI Trout Headwaters, Inc. TROUTHEADWATERS.COM 1 YELLOWSTONE RIVER VALLEY What’s in a Name? A Land of Extremes Named Mi tse a-da-zi, or Yellow Rock River by the Minnetaree Indians for the yellow sandstone bluffs • Elevations in the Yellowstone River Basin range along its lower reaches, and later called "Roche from Granite Peak at 12,799 feet in the Jaune" or "Pierre Jaune” by French fur traders, Beartooth Mountains to about 1,850 feet near it was explorers Lewis and Clark who used the the Yellowstone’s mouth in North Dakota.
    [Show full text]
  • Livingston, Montana Parks & Trails Recreation Map F OLD IS H ERE
    LIVINGSTON, MONTANA parks & TRAILS RECREatION MAP ere H is old F Funding generously provided by: PARK COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL THE KENDEDA FUND THE LORE KANN SCAN FOUNDATION to view an interactive version Arbor Dr of this map 9 S y 8 wa gh Sw Hi livingston PARKS & TRAILS s in U g le y R d r Me e i re rn Ave d a i G t h B en R net a t S n t ch Livingston R HealthCare d St e a Av n ta r d n A D n o b u M s w o E r a e ro i k G a V h St g i is H w Le E St St n r rk er L D St a d rs tin P n R E e e a l i ll l i r a d i a C Mye g G a e r E E v i P e S w S H K T r ScenicT St S l r S St l S t r I e S G S r Fle F t ys shm N St e D an C t St S S G a ree N 5 E t k Rd mi E t is 7 th Je m t St S V N Su th St n ep o t w T 1 St r e ra 1 W N F i i t V l h 8 W St t rk St h S a St l St k M C Park County oo E in a h S in Fairgrounds C 2 St n Rd W d s St S t Y S St h a e ig r S 3 L St ll rd R er 5 o n d d t w r n h st St e le St h l o t a S n r C Pool 6 e o W t St N S h e t legend S Av S St 7 St un s t k i h r w e St a L Civic Center P W St 0 W ark y 1 W l Parks hwa C s Hig W U to yellowstone national park St BLM & Chico Hot springs resort rd fo w S ra 1 C 2 W th Local Government S St 1 3 th St Bike Routes r D Bend Ln w d o n ill Trails a W l s I Rogers Ln St h T Miles 9 0 .25 0.5 1 I-90 Loves Ln mp I 90 On Ra park name trail name miles amenity key SacajaweaBillma nPark Ln Highway 89 South Bike Path 5.77 Miles Park Alpenglow Trail 0.37 Trails Baseball l r r T D Mayors Landing/Moja Dogr Park Bitterroot Trail 0.40 o r l e Restrooms Basketball l D l a
    [Show full text]
  • Custer Gallatin
    CUSTER GALLATIN United States Department of Agriculture R1-97-104 Revised 2019 WEST SIDE OF FOREST EAST SIDE OF FOREST Welcome to the Custer Gallatin National Forest To ensure that everyone has a safe and enjoyable visit, please remember: Dispose of garbage appropriately. Camping is limited to 16 days Keep our waters clean by disposing in any one campground or location of dishwater far away from any 14 day limit in the South Dakota units of ( water source. the Sioux District) Recycle your recyclables. Keep a clean camp. Store all food and wildlife attractants properly. CAR CAMPING OUTSIDE OF DEVELOPED Food Storage Order requirements CAMPGROUNDS -“dispersed” car camping in locations with no facilities is allowed ONLY are in effect Forest-wide March 1- as specified in the Custer Gallatin National Dec 1 (except in the Ashland and Sioux Forest Motor Vehicle Use Maps. Where car Ranger Districts). The safety of others camping is limited to designated campsites depends upon you!! only, all legal car campsites are marked. Camping with stock is not allowed in most developed campgrounds. Call the local ranger districts for more information, or check our web site for stock facilities. Be aware that natural hazards exist, even in developed campgrounds and recreation sites. Federal Recreation Passes are accepted at all fee campgrounds and apply only to the basic campsite fee. For more information, visit our website http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/custergallatin ASHLAND RANGER DISTRICT, PO Box 168, 2378 US HWY 212, Ashland, Montana 59003, (406) 784-2344 Along with multi-colored buttes and wildlife galore, Ashland District’s topography contrasts from rolling grasslands to steep rock outcroppings.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    United States Department of Agriculture Environmental Assessment Forest Service May 2014 South Bridger Interface Project Bozeman Ranger District, Gallatin National Forest Gallatin County, Montana The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, an where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derive from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. South Bridger Interface Project ii South Bridger Interface Project Environmental Assessment Gallatin County, Montana Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: Mary Erickson, Forest Supervisor Gallatin National Forest PO Box 130 Bozeman, MT 59771 Summary: The Bozeman District, Gallatin National Forest proposes to commercially thin up to 250 acres of national forest system lands within and adjacent to Bridger Bowl to reduce susceptibility to damage from western spruce budworm, Douglas-fir beetle and mountain pine beetle, and to enhance growth, quality, vigor, and composition of treated stands. Units would be tractor logged on sustained slopes that are less than 35 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Resources of the Livingston and Lower Shields River Valley Areas, Park County, Montana
    GROUNDWATER RESOURCES OF THE LIVINGSTON AND LOWER SHIELDS RIVER VALLEY AREAS, PARK COUNTY, MONTANA Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 680 John Olson, Shawn Kuzara, and Elizabeth Meredith 2016 CONTENTS Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Location .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Methods ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Watershed issues.......................................................................................................................................... 6 Land and Water Use ............................................................................................................................... 6 Population Growth and Rural Residential Development ........................................................................6 Energy Development ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
    MONTANA BACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS AND ANGLERS Recommendations for Montana’s Rivers and Streams Prepared for Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers March 2016 1 MONTANA BACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS AND ANGLERS Table of Contents I. Introduction to the Quiet Waters Initiative ........................................................................................ 4 II. Overview of Current Restrictions and Recommendations .............................................................. 4 III. Recommendations for Off-Highway Vehicle Regulation ............................................................... 5 IV. Recommendations by Watershed Area ............................................................................................. 7 Clark Fork River watershed .................................................................................................................. 7 Upper Flathead River watershed: ........................................................................................................ 8 Upper Missouri River – Three Forks to Pelican Point FAS ............................................................ 14 Missouri River – Pelican Point FAS to Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument ..... 17 Upper Yellowstone River watershed.................................................................................................. 22 IV. Further Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 25 A Note on Horsepower Restrictions .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shallow Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry in the Shields River Basin, South-Central Montana Daniel D
    Montana Tech Library Digital Commons @ Montana Tech Graduate Theses & Non-Theses Student Scholarship Spring 2015 Shallow Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry in the Shields River Basin, South-Central Montana Daniel D. Blythe Montana Tech of the University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.mtech.edu/grad_rsch Part of the Geology Commons, and the Hydrology Commons Recommended Citation Blythe, Daniel D., "Shallow Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry in the Shields River Basin, South-Central Montana" (2015). Graduate Theses & Non-Theses. 14. http://digitalcommons.mtech.edu/grad_rsch/14 This Non-Thesis Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Montana Tech. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses & Non-Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Montana Tech. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shallow Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry in the Shields River Basin, South-Central Montana by Daniel D. Blythe A non-thesis project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master’s in Geoscience: Hydrogeology Montana Tech of The University of Montana 2015 ii Abstract Water samples were collected from 33 domestic wells, 2 springs, and 3 streams in the Shields River Basin (Basin) in southwest Montana. Samples were collected in 2013 to describe the chemical quality of groundwater in the Basin. Sampling was done to assess potential impacts to water quality from recent exploratory oil and gas drilling and to establish baseline water quality conditions. Wells were selected in areas near and away from oil and gas drilling and in areas susceptible to contamination.
    [Show full text]