Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Resolution No. R23-11
RESOLUTION NO. R23-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO TASK ORDER FOR THE WATER SYSTEM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT WITH KLJ ENGINEERING,LLC. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, Section 1: Approval. The Amendment to Task Order for the Water System Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) (hereinafter "Amendment to Task Order for Water System PER"), by and between the City of Laurel and Engineer KLJ Engineering, LLC,a copy attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby approved. Section 2: Execution. The Mayor is hereby given authority to execute the Amendment to Task Order for the Water System PER, by and between the City of Laurel and Engineer KLJ Engineering, LLC, on behalf of the City. Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 10 day of February, 2023, by Council Member Wilke. PASSED and APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel the 14t' day of February, 2023. APPROVED by the Mayor the 14`h day of February, 2023. CITY OF LAUREL Dave Waggoner, M or ATTEST: oly Of y S er, Clerk-Treasurer � ,r• •`.� �G�' = ' AVt APPROVED AS TO FORM: =;�y�• .��1Q�� Michele L. Braukmann, Civil City Attorney R23-1 1 Approve Amendment to Task Order for Water System PER This is EXHIBIT K, consisting of 2 pages, referred to in and part of the Agreement between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services — Task Order Edition dated 2/9/21. Amendment To Task Order: Water System PER 1. Background Data: a. Effective Date of Task Order: February 9, 2021 b. Owner: City of Laurel C. Engineer: KU Engineering LLC d. Specific Project: Water System Preliminary Engineering Report(PER) 2. Description of Modifications a. Engineer shall perform the following Additional Services: Revising engineering analysis of the water system and draft PER,following initial preparation of these items, as a result of receiving flow data and financial information after scheduled time for completion of deliverables as specified in initial Task Order. b. The Scope of Services currently authorized to be performed by Engineer in accordance with the Task Order and previous amendments, if any, is modified as follows: [NA] C. The responsibilities of Owner with respect to the Task Order are modified as follows: [NA] d. For the Additional Services or the modifications to services set forth above, Owner shall pay Engineer the following additional or modified compensation: $7,500. e. The schedule for rendering services under this Task Order is modified as follows:Anticipated Completion Date is February 28, 2023 f. Other portions of the Task Order (including previous amendments, if any) are modified as follows: [NA] 3. Task Order Summary(Reference only) a. Original Task Order amount: $54,000 b. Net change for prior amendments: C. This amendment amount: 21.500 d. Adjusted Task Order amount: $61,500 The foregoing Task Order Summary is for reference only and does not alter the terms of the Task Order, including those set forth in Exhibit C. Exhibit K—Amendment to Task Order EJCDC® E-505,Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services—Task Order Edition. Copyright©2014 National Society of Professional Engineers,American Council of Engineering Companies, and American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved. Page 1 Owner and Engineer hereby agree to modify the above-referenced Task Order as set forth in this Amendment. All provisions of the Agreement and Task Order not modified by this or previous Amendments remain in effect. The Effective Date of this Amendment is 12 7 2022. OWNER: ENGINEER: KU Engin rin LLC DBy: By: Title: Title: Date a,L Date 3 Signed: �✓ Q'7 �� Signed: Exhibit K—Amendment to Task Order EJCDC® E-505,Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services—Task Order Edition. Copyright©2014 National Society of Professional Engineers,American Council of Engineering Companies, and American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved. Page 2 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF LAUREL, MONTANA, WATER SYSTEM RESOLUTION NO. R23-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE UPDATED WATER SYSTEM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PREPARED BY KLJ ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE CITY OF LAUREL. WHEREAS,the City of Laurel(hereinafter"the City")was in need of an updated Water System Preliminary Engineering Report(hereinafter"Water System PER"); WHEREAS, the City retained KLJ Engineering, Inc. (hereinafter "KLJ") to complete the updated Water System PER; and WHEREAS, KLJ has completed the updated Water System PER and presented the findings in a public manner, open to public comment. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, as follows: 1. Approval. The updated Water System PER, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, is hereby accepted and approved by the City Council. 2. Execution. The Mayor and the Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Laurel are hereby given authority to accept and execute the attached Water System PER on behalf of the City of Laurel. 3. Effective Date. The effective date for the approval is upon adoption of this Resolution. 4. Basis. The Water System PER shall hereinafter serve as the basis for the City's water system improvements planning. Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 9th day of May, 2023, by Council Member Mackay. PASSED and APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel the 9th day of May, 2023. APPROVED by the Mayor the 91n day of May, 2023. ' CITY OF LAUREL EAI, ;zc= Z� ArlilL �.-- :s .•. k Ail Dave Waggoner, Wyor R23-31 Approve and Adopt Water System PER ATTEST: y Sr er, Clerk-Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michele L. Braukmann, Civil City Attorney R23-31 Approve and Adopt Water System PER City of Laurel, MT Water System i Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Project Planning.................................................................................................................................5 2014 Water System Preliminary Engineering Report................................................................................5 Location.....................................................................................................................................................5 Environmental Resources Present............................................................................................................7 LandResources......................................................................................................................................7 BiologicalResources..............................................................................................................................7 Waterresources ....................................................................................................................................7 SurfaceWater....................................................................................................................................7 Groundwater......................................................................................................................................7 Floodplains.............................................................................................................................................7 Wetlands................................................................................................................................................8 CulturalResources.................................................................................................................................8 Socio-economic and Environmental Justice Issues................................................................................8 PopulationTrends.....................................................................................................................................8 CommunityEngagement...........................................................................................................................9 3.0 Existing Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 11 LocationMap...........................................................................................................................................11 History.....................................................................................................................................................11 WaterSupply.......................................................................................................................................11 WaterTreatment.................................................................................................................................11 DistributionSystem ............................................................................................................................. 11 Storage.................................................................................................................................................11 PumpStations......................................................................................................................................12 Condition of Existing Facilities................................................................................................................. 19 WaterDemands...................................................................................................................................19 Metering...........................................................................................................................................19 FireDemand.....................................................................................................................................21 WaterSupply.......................................................................................................................................21 WaterTreatment.................................................................................................................................22 DistributionSystem .............................................................................................................................22 Storage.................................................................................................................................................25 City of Laurel, MT Water System ii PumpStations......................................................................................................................................26 Operation and Management Practices...................................................................................................29 Financial Status of Existing Facilities.......................................................................................................29 UserRates............................................................................................................................................29 CashFlow.............................................................................................................................................32 4.0 Need for Project...............................................................................................................................35 Health, Sanitation and Security...............................................................................................................35 DistributionSystem .............................................................................................................................35 Low Operating Pressures .................................................................................................................35 FireProtection..................................................................................................................................35 Lack of Redundancy and Dead Ends ................................................................................................35 Storage.................................................................................................................................................35 PumpStations......................................................................................................................................36 AgingInfrastructure ................................................................................................................................36 DistributionSystem .............................................................................................................................36 Storage.................................................................................................................................................36 ReasonableGrowth.................................................................................................................................36 5.0 Alternative Consideration................................................................................................................39 Distribution System Alternatives.............................................................................................................39 AlternativeScreening ..........................................................................................................................39 Description & Map...............................................................................................................................39 DesignCriteria .....................................................................................................................................39 Environmental Impacts/Green Infrastructure...................................................................................39 LandRequirements..............................................................................................................................39 Potential Construction Problems.........................................................................................................39 Sustainability considerations...............................................................................................................39 Waterand Energy Efficiency................................................................................................................39 CostEstimate.......................................................................................................................................40 StorageAlternatives................................................................................................................................43 AlternativeScreening ..........................................................................................................................43 Description & Map...............................................................................................................................43 DesignCriteria .....................................................................................................................................43 Operating Water Service Elevation..................................................................................................43 City of Laurel, MT Water System iii Airspace...........................................................................................................................................44 Designvolume..................................................................................................................................44 Design Population Tabulation:.............................................................................................................44 Design Flowrate Feeding Tank.........................................................................................................45 Environmental Impacts/Green Infrastructure...................................................................................45 LandRequirements..............................................................................................................................45 Potential Construction Problems.........................................................................................................45 SustainabilityConsiderations ..............................................................................................................45 Waterand Energy Efficiency................................................................................................................45 CostEstimate.......................................................................................................................................46 PumpAlternatives...................................................................................................................................57 AlternativeScreening ..........................................................................................................................57 Description & Map...............................................................................................................................57 DesignCriteria .....................................................................................................................................57 Environmental Impacts/Green Infrastructure...................................................................................58 LandRequirements..............................................................................................................................58 Potential Construction Problems.........................................................................................................58 Sustainability Considerations ..............................................................................................................58 Waterand Energy Efficiency................................................................................................................58 CostEstimate.......................................................................................................................................58 6.0 Alternative Selection........................................................................................................................67 Methodology...........................................................................................................................................67 LifeCycle Cost......................................................................................................................................67 PublicOpinion......................................................................................................................................67 Sustainability........................................................................................................................................67 ProjectComplexity...............................................................................................................................67 OperationalComplexity.......................................................................................................................67 Environmental .....................................................................................................................................68 Weighting.............................................................................................................................................68 AlternativeScoring..................................................................................................................................68 Recommendation....................................................................................................................................73 DistributionImprovements .................................................................................................................73 StorageImprovements........................................................................................................................73 City of Laurel, MT Water System iv Pumpingimprovements ......................................................................................................................73 7.0 Proposed Project..............................................................................................................................75 PreliminaryProject Design......................................................................................................................75 Distribution Improvements .................................................................................................................75 StorageImprovements........................................................................................................................75 Pumpstation Improvements................................................................................................................75 Construction Sequencing ........................................................................................................................75 Permits ....................................................................................................................................................76 ProjectCost and Funding........................................................................................................................76 CapitalCost..........................................................................................................................................76 Operation and Maintenance Cost .......................................................................................................76 CityFunds ............................................................................................................................................76 UserRates............................................................................................................................................77 Potential Grants and Loan Programs...................................................................................................77 USRural Development(RD).............................................................................................................77 Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) .........................................77 Montana Department of Environmental Quality Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF).77 Montana Department of Commerce Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) ....................77 Montana Department of Commerce Montana Board of Investment INTERCAP Loan (INTERCAP) 78 Montana Department of Commerce Montana Coal Endowment Program (MCEP) .......................78 American Resource Plan Act (ARPA)................................................................................................78 US Economic Development Administration (EDA)...........................................................................78 Montana Department of Commerce Coal Board.............................................................................78 Proposed Funding Package & Debt Repayment..................................................................................78 UserRate Increase...................................................................................................................................79 ProjectSchedule......................................................................................................................................80 8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................................81 9.0 Appendices.......................................................................................................................................83 Appendix A: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost..................................................................................83 Appendix B: Soil, Wetlands and Land Use Data......................................................................................83 AppendixC: Floodplain Data...................................................................................................................83 Appendix D: Water Rights Information...................................................................................................83 Appendix E: Source Water Delineation and Assessment Report............................................................83 City of Laurel, MT Water System v Appendix F: Tank Inspection Reports......................................................................................................83 AppendixG: Sanitary Survey...................................................................................................................83 AppendixH: Environmental Review........................................................................................................83 AppendixI: Public Outreach....................................................................................................................83 City of Laurel, MT Water System vi List of Figures and Tables Table 1.1-Recommended Solutions.............................................................................................................. 1 Table1.2-Proposed Schedule.....................................................................................................................3 Figure2.1: Laurel Planning Area...................................................................................................................5 Figure 2.2: Proposed Land Use Map.............................................................................................................6 Figure 2.3:Topographic Map of the City......................................................................................................6 Table2.1- Historic Sites.................................................................................................................................8 Table 2.2- Historical Population (US Census Data) ......................................................................................9 Table 2.3 - Estimated Current and Future Population (2020 Growth Management Policy) ........................9 Figure 3.1: Existing Water System Layout...................................................................................................13 Figure 3.2 Existing Distribution Pipe Sizes..................................................................................................15 Figure 3.3 Existing Distribution Pipe Materials...........................................................................................17 Table3.1-Meter Inventory........................................................................................................................ 19 Table 3.2-Historical Annual Water Usage .................................................................................................19 Table 3.3-Water Usage Summation ..........................................................................................................20 Table 3.4-Distribution Design Flow Rates .................................................................................................21 Table 3.5 -System Service Elevations.........................................................................................................22 Figure 3.4: Static Pressures (Existing System).............................................................................................23 Table 3.6- Booster Station Pumps..............................................................................................................26 Figure 3.5:Available Fire Flow....................................................................................................................27 Table3.7-Water Rates..............................................................................................................................30 Table3.8-Wastewater Rates....................................................................................................................31 Table 3.9-Water Enterprise Fund Summary..............................................................................................32 Table 3.10-Available Annual Contributions..............................................................................................32 Table 3.11-Available Cash (June 2022).....................................................................................................33 Table 5.1- Engineer's Opinion of Capital Cost for Distribution Alternatives..............................................40 Figure 5.1 Water Distribution System Alternatives....................................................................................41 Table 5.2-Proposed Pressure Zone Elevations.........................................................................................44 Table 5.2- Engineer's Opinion of Capital Cost for Storage Alternatives....................................................46 Figure 5.2a Pressure Zone Improvements..................................................................................................47 Figure 5.2b Proposed Pressure Zones.........................................................................................................49 Figure5.3 Tank Alternative T1....................................................................................................................51 Figure5.4 Tank Alternative T2....................................................................................................................53 Figure 5.5 Tank Alternative T3....................................................................................................................55 Table 5.3 - Engineer's Opinion of Capital Cost for Pump Alternatives .......................................................58 Figure5.6 Pump Alternative P1..................................................................................................................59 Figure5.7 Pump Alternative P2..................................................................................................................61 Figure5.8 Pump Alternative P3..................................................................................................................63 Figure5.9 Pump Alternative P4..................................................................................................................65 Table 6.1- Distribution Alternative Scoring................................................................................................69 Table 6.2-Storage Alternative Scoring.......................................................................................................70 Table 6.3 - Pump Alternative Scoring..........................................................................................................71 Table6.4- Decision Matrix.........................................................................................................................72 Table 7.1-Proposed Funding Strategy......................................................................................................79 City of Laurel, MT Water System vii Table7.2—Proposed Schedule...................................................................................................................80 Table 8.1-Recommended Solutions............................................................................................................81 City of Laurel, MT Water System viii City of Laurel, MT Water System ix 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Significant improvements have been made to the City of Laurel's water supply and treatment system over the last several years, but there are still significant deficiencies in the water distribution system. Many of the current issues pose health and safety risks to the community and issues of non-compliance with Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) health and safety standards. These issues are summarized as follows: 1. Lack of redundancy in water storage tank - The existing water storage tank needs to be taken offline to recoat it's interior, but with a single tank providing water storage, the system cannot function properly during these repairs. 2. Improper pressure zone configuration —Current system configuration includes one main (lower) pressure zone, and two boosted pressure areas, (upper) pressure zones. Portions of the lower pressure zone located adjacent to the upper pressure zones are too high in elevation to meet the minimum pressures required by DEQ standards. The current pump stations supplying the upper pressure zones lack capacity to extend their service to these low-pressure areas. 3. No water storage in the upper pressure zones—Both upper pressures zoned are served exclusively by pumping,with no storage to continue supplying service during pump station outages. This was not as great of a concern when the zones were initially developed to serve small areas, but growth continues to occur in these areas, increasing health and safety exposure that could result from a system outage. 4. Substandard fire protection—At a few locations in the system, available capacity was found to be lower than minimum fire protection standards established by the International Fire Code. Many of the locations with capacity below this standard are due to pressure issues related to pressure zone configuration. Others are due to lack of looping in a few parts of the distribution system. 5. Lack of redundancy in distribution piping—A few dead ends existing in the system,where if a main must be shut down for repairs, large areas will be taken out of service during the repairs. Several alternatives were evaluated in this study to address these deficiencies. Alternatives were compared based on life cycle cost, public opinion, sustainability, project complexity, operational complexity and environmental considerations. Each alternative was ranked based on each of these factors and recommended solutions were selected based on net ranking in comparison to other alternatives addressing the same deficiency. Table 1.1 provides a summary of recommended solutions and estimated capital cost for each. Estimated costs are projected to 2026, based on an assumed 5% annual inflation rate. Table 1.1-Recommended Solutions Alternative Figure Opinion of Estimated Change ProbableReference , . OperatingCost Storage Alternative T-2 in combination with 5.4&5.2a $13,886,000 0 pressure zone configuration improvements Pump Alternative P-1 5.6 $1,973,000 $9,000 Distribution Alternatives D-1A, D-2 and D-3 5.1 $4,971,000 0 City of Laurel, MT Water System 1 The new proposed tank site shown in Figure 5.4 is at a general location and may be shifted to an alternate property in the same vicinity if needed to accommodate landowners. Other sites considered are shown in Figures 5.3 and 5.5. They may be considered as alternates if land and easement acquisition prove to be problematic at the preferred location. Proposed improvements include a 1.0-million gallons on grade or partially buried concrete or steel tank. The exact type of tank would be determined in final design. The proposed size was determined based on future growth potential in the upper pressure zone. The proposed pump station alternative shown in Figure 5.6 involves construction of a new booster station at the existing Murray Height Booster Station site and decommissioning both existing booster stations. The new booster station is to be sized with adequate capacity to supply the upper pressure zone following reconfiguration of the zones and to allow for future growth. This includes supplying the new proposed upper pressure zone tank. During design,the existing Murray Heights Booster Station should be analyzed in more detail to see if any of its components, to include the building, are salvageable. The existing building is in good condition and it should be used if it is adequately sized for the larger booster station. If it is not large enough, the City could construct a new building alongside it and repurpose the existing building for an alternate use. For operational compatibility in the system, proposed tank, pump station and pressure zone reconfiguration, improvements must be completed all as one project. None of these improvements can properly function in the existing system, as standalone projects. Proposed pressure zone configuration improvements are shown in Figure 5.2a. Tank, pump and pressure zone reconfiguration improvements will address most of the identified deficiencies. To address the remainder, distribution looping is needed at a few locations. Proposed distribution improvements are shown in Figure 5.1. Unlike the other improvements,these improvements could be completed as separate projects and be given a lower priority than the other improvements, as they are not addressing an urgent need. The total estimated capital cost of all proposed improvements is $20.8 million (2026 projections). Currently the City's water enterprise funds are not adequate to cover any substantial part of these improvements. All typical state and federal grant and loan alternatives were considered for funding the improvements. Due to the magnitude of the project and the community's financial status,there are few grant opportunities. The City should consider pursuing a Montana Coal Endowment Program (MCEP) grant and a Coal Board grant to soften the financial burden, but if awarded, they would only cover a relatively small portion of the cost. Laurel is not eligible for Community Development Block Grants due to the financial status of residents in the community. The Rural Development (RD) grant/loan program could only be considered for a maximum of 25/75 grant to loan ration. Therefore,securing any RD money would require the City to take out a minimum 75% RD loan amount, and RD loan terms are not as good as other options. Also, a successful application on any of these programs is not for certain. It is recommended the City pursue funds through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) loan program. DWSRF loan rates are currently 2.5% with a 30-year loan term and no prepayment penalty. With potential federal funding allocated to the DWSRF program, it is also possible for these funds to become grants or for there to be loan forgiveness. This makes the DWSRF package more attractive than other possible loan packages. For safe budgeting purposes, it should be assumed the City would be repaying the loan even with a chance of loan forgiveness. City of Laurel, MT Water System 2 Payment amount for the proposed DWSRF loan would be approximately $82,000 per month. Using conservative budgeting and allowing for a 10% contingency for normal operating expenses, the City currently operates at an average surplus of approximately half of this amount. Therefore, the current City's financial status is not adequate to take on this additional loan. It is advisable for the City to consider postponing construction until 2026 to provide time to pay down some current depts and adjust rates to be in a financial position to take on this task. This also aligns with the MCEP construction grant cycle, which can be applied for in the Spring of 2026. It is recommended the City apply for MCEP and Coal Board grants, but not rely upon successfully securing the grants to fund the project. Following is a summary of anticipated expenses in 2026 for the water enterprise fund, including payments to DWSRF for these projects. $4,749,000 Normal Operating Expenses +$984,000 DWSRF Loan +$475,000 10% Buffer+ Un-foreseen Expenses $6,208,000 Normal operating expenses shown above is the current 3-year average, projected to 2026 based on an assumed annual inflation rate of 5%. The current 3-year average annual revenue in the water enterprise fund is $4,742,000. A 31% increase in user rates would be needed to generate the additional needed revenue to cover the DWSRF loan payments. It is recommended the City increase user rates by approximately 7% in 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026. This adjustment is based on the assumed 5% inflation rate mentioned above. It is recommended that the City re-evaluate the needed rate adjustment each year based on actual inflation. The proposed schedule for this project is show in Table 1.2. Table 1.2—Proposed Schedule Register on DWSRF Intended Use May 2023 Plan Easement and Land Acquisition January 2024—December 2024 Apply for an MCEP Construction Spring of 2024 Grant Apply for a Coal Board Grant Summer/Fall of 2025 Preliminary Design May 2025—August 2025 Final Design September 2025—December 2025 Bidding February 2026 Construction April 2026—November 2026 City of Laurel, MT Water System 3 City of Laurel, MT Water System 4 2.0 PROJECT PLANNING 2014 Water System Preliminary Engineering Report A Preliminary Engineering Report was completed for the City of Laurel's water system in 2014 by Great West Engineering (2014 PER). Many of the recommended improvements from the 2014 PER have since been completed as well as a few other improvements to the water system. It is the intent of this Preliminary Engineering Report to utilize the 2014 PER data and provide amendment where needed. Applicable information from the 2014 PER is referenced throughout this report. Location The City of Laurel is in south-central Montana along the north side of the Yellowstone River. Figure 2.1 is a map with the city's location and Planning Jurisdiction boundary as identified in The City of Laurel Growth Management Policy, dated November 2020 (GMP). Figure 2.2 shows the Proposed Land Use Map from the GMP. This map generally defines the current service area for the existing water system as well as the planning area for this water system study. Figure 2.3 is a portion of a USGS Quad map showing the topography in the planning area. The current service area is mostly within the City Limits however, there are a few residential and commercial services located outside of the City Limits. The CHS Oil Refinery which uses a substantial amount of City water is located outside of the City Limits. FiguE a 2.1:Laurel Planning Are- , nesaER RD r E s sowsra RE co_ NEIRAVERRD yl1 T1S R23E $ T1S R25E T1$R24E a _ LAVFEL AIFPORT RD - .r .._.� s of �E. u • 5.,� s w f-1 •, v nP d wcNwnr �oI ePNRni:uano 0a 0 Ci Limits ty T28 R23E ' -» T251R24E(;:�y; ey.-�-�ry 125 R25E Surface Water �14`=.,u.�'�sP✓' 0 Planning J.-do- n Annexation P,brhy Areas County Line AA PLSS Parcels » _. n 3 cREER RD Map Prepared by KLJ _ `, Tt J.ne 202C I R 0.5 2Mile1�'-Rs City of Laurel, MT Water System Figure 2.2:Proposed Land Use Mn a MAR-AND4N 3 City Limits r Surface Writer HIGHWAY_1p_W _ RAILROAO`s _ Proposed Land Use Low ium Dans'ty Residential 1 '. - Med Density Residential Olt •�Mobil.PUD High Density Residential j Industrial Public a Map Prep ared by:KlJ - •i ti June 2020 0 Q.5LI- MII - 4 Figure 2.3:Topographic Map of the City 36 rpDrt tf low 4 - ~ Cem \ �, I , i Cps 4 � 1 1. N +1ery � YaN ►•J� — Spwfinjo 312 , City of Laurel, MT Water System 6 Environmental Resources Present The following sections contain a summary of existing and potentially present, environmental resources within the planning area, as identified by various public data bases. Potential impacts to these resources are evaluated with each alternative and recommendation considered later in this study. Land Resources A Land Cover map published by the Montana Natural Heritage Program is include in Appendix B. The map shows areas within the water service area being primarily developed commercial, industrial and residential land with a few minor areas of open space,farmland and other minor natural areas. Adjacent areas outside of the city limits are primarily composed of crop land with some smaller areas of prairie and other natural eco systems. Biological Resources An inventory of Animal Species of Concern published by the Montana Natural Heritage Program is included in Appendix B. Refer to the Appendix for the detailed list and status ranking by various state and federal agencies. The list includes species of concern that are anticipated to possibly be present within the Township encompassing the planning area. Fourteen species are identified. Two are classified as Threatened, while the others are classified as Sensitive. The Threatened species include Grizzly Bear and the Cuckoos Bird. Prime Grizzly Bear habitat is not present within the planning area. Cuckoos Bird prime habitat is prairie riparian forest, which may be present along the Yellowstone River and other drainages within the planning area. However riparian forest does not appear to exist in the area of any of the projects that are considered with this study. Sage grouse habitat designated as "EO-General Habitat" is present north of the City Limits within areas that are being considered for a new water tank site. Water resources SURFACE WATER Existing surface water present within the water service area include the Yellowstone River, Laurel Pond, Figgins Pond and various irrigation ditches. Both the Laurel Pond and Figgins Pond are located adjacent to Interstate 90 on land owned by the City of Laurel. The Laurel Pond serves as a recreational facility for the City of Laurel and contains a City Park and a fishery that is stocked and managed my Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks. GROUNDWATER The Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology,Groundwater Information Center was reviewed for well data. The data base provided 1334 results for documented wells within T2S, R24E, Sections 2-11 & 15-17, all containing portions of land within City Limits. The average well depth was 43-feet,with an average static water level of 19-feet. Many of the wells are located outside of the City Limits. Most of the wells within the City Limits are for domestic use or irrigation. Some parts of the city are subject to much shallower groundwater. Dewatering is often required to install water and sewer mains. Floodplains Appendix C contain FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps covering the water system service area. A 100-year floodplain is delineated along the Yellowstone River and along a couple other narrow strips of land running through the City. These primarily include the Laurel Drain corridor,a strip of land adjacent to Main Street City of Laurel, MT Water System 7 and areas adjacent to the Nutting Drain. Potential impacts to flood plains and related permitting requirements are considered in analysis of each applicable alternative investigated with this report. Wetlands Appendix B contains a map of wetlands within the water system service area as identified by the National Wetlands Inventory. Several wetland areas are shown outside of the City Limits with only a few minor wetlands within the City Limits, mostly along irrigation ditches. Presence of wetlands within the area of various alternatives analysis with this report is investigated further with alternative analysis. Cultural Resources Three historical sites within the City of Laurel planning area are listed in the Montana National Register of Historic Places. These sites are listed in Table 2.1. Table 2.1-Historic Sites Property Name Address Property Type Erb,Abraham and 110 4th Ave Building Carrie, House Laurel Downtown Roughly bounded by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe District Historic District Railway Company tracks to the S,Third S to the N, Wyoming Ave Mossman Overpass Mi. 57, N. 1-90 Frontage Rd Site Socio-economic and Environmental Justice Issues 2020 Census Data was not yet available at the time of this report. According to 2015 US Census data, Median Household Income in the City of Laurel was $55,503 per year. The Low- and Moderate-Income Ratio (LMI)was 36.5%. This ratio includes the portion of households making less than 80%of the median income in Yellowstone County. This data indicates that the City of Laurel is not an unusually high-or low- income area relative to the median income in the County. Regardless of income levels, cost and related financial impacts to water users is a significant factor in analysis of each alternatives considered. Population Trends Table 2.2 below shows historical population trends from 1990 to 2010 based on US Census Bureau Data. Table 2.3 is a summary of population projections provided in the November 2020, Growth Management Policy (GMP). The GMP projections are based on an estimated annual growth rate of 1.13%, which is accepted as the assumed annual growth rate within the 20-year planning period of this study. City of Laurel, MT Water System 8 Table 2.2-Historical Population(US Census Data) Year Population 1990 5,686 2000 6,255 2010 6,718 Table 2.3-Estimated Current and Future Population(2020 Growth Management Policy) Year Population 2020 7,324 2021 7,407 2022 7,490 2023 7,575 2024 7,661 Community Engagement The findings and recommendations of this Preliminary Engineering Report were presented at the following public meetings: • City of Laurel Public Works Committee Meeting, held 1/30/23 • City of Laurel Council Workshop Meeting, held 5/02/23 • City of Laurel Council Meeting, held 5/09/03 The report was also noticed and published on the City of Laurel website for public review and comment on 4/12/23. Meeting minutes are included in Appendix I. There were a few questions from the City Council, but no public comments related to the recommendations given in this report. The Council adopted a resolution to approve the report at the 5/09/23 meeting. City of Laurel, MT Water System 9 City of Laurel, MT Water System 10 3.0 EXISTING FACILITIES Location Map Figure 3.1 shows the general layout of the City of Laurel's water system. Figure 3.2 provides additional detail regarding the distribution system main sizing and Figure 3.3 shows existing distribution piping materials. History Water Supply The Yellowstone River has served as Laurel's water supply since 1908. A water intake structure constructed in 1955 served as the single intake for about 50-years. A new intake was constructed in 2003 to address issues of river migration caused by flooding in 1996-1997. Flooding again in 2011, caused further river migration, resulting in lowering the river level at the 2003 intake. In 2012, low water levels in the river in combination with icing forced the City to temporarily shut down raw water supply to the CHS refinery to maintain supply to the rest of the City. Both the 1955 and 2003 intakes were located just downstream and adjacent to the Highway 212 Bridge. A third intake was installed in 2016 and the 1955 intake was removed. The new intake is located approximately 3 miles upstream of the Highway 212 bridge in a section of river that is anticipated to be more reliable and less prone to migration. A double 30-inch diameter water main was installed from the new (2016) intake to the water treatment plant. The 2003 intake still exists and serves as a backup. Water Treatment Laurel's existing water treatment facilities consist of portions of the system that were constructed in 1955 as modified with several additions and renovations since then. The 1955 water treatment facilities included sedimentation and filtration of raw water from the Yellowstone River as the only treatment processes. In 1997 a clear-well was added for disinfection along with improvements to the pipe gallery and plant automation. Filter underdrains were added, and filter media was replaced in 2009. Several improvements were completed in 2020, prompted by the 2014 PER. These generally included Replacement of the flocculation and settlement system,addition and automized sludge removal,addition of a new treatment building and pumping system, replacement of an existing 250,000-gallon backwash storage tank, addition of security fencing and other various improvements. Distribution System The City's original water distribution system was installed in 1908 and was comprised of cast iron (CI) water mains. Portions of the system have been rehabilitated and expanded numerous times over the years. The system now includes a mixture of pipe materials from different ages, including the original Cl, as well as asbestos cement(AC), Ductile Iron (DI) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Over the last several years the City has replaced portions of the system still contain Cl and AC pipes. Water replacement projects are typically prioritized by frequency of leaks encountered as well as strategic timing of sewer and road rehab projects. Storage Laurel's water system is gravity fed by an existing 4-million gallon on grade welded steel water storage tank, located on higher ground in the north part of the City (See Figure 3.1 for location). The steel tank was constructed in 1968. An older, decommissioned 1.5 million gallon on-grade concrete water tank is City of Laurel, MT Water System 11 located south of and adjacent to the steel tank, on the same City owned property. The concrete tank was constructed in 1936 and served the City through 1997. The tank exceeded its useful life as demonstrated through excessive leaking and one unsuccessful attempt to line the inside in 1997. Continued leaking lead to sloughing of the supporting hillside. Concerns over foundation stability ultimately led to abandonment of the tank. Pump Stations The City's water distribution system includes two booster pump station to serve higher elevations in the north part of the system. The locations of these booster stations are shown in Figure 3.1. The Murray Heights Booster Station was constructed in the early 1980's. A backup generator and radio telemetry to tie the booster station into the City's SCADA system was add in 2009. The Cherry Hills Booster Station was installed in 2007. This system was designed with the intent that it could be relocated in the future in conjunction with installation of another storage tank and other pressure zone improvements to the distribution system. City of Laurel, MT Water System 12 MENEM � �•�—��,-- �I � ■■ ��� ���11111111► ■■III111�ii■ mill _------ --E_ lion Gallon Water Storage Ta— C ME lion INN 101000 MINE _- Ell -�-__ - ------ --__ ■___ __ __ _— _C'.1 MIN J�� - - I��111 1 ■1■ 11I I=■ ■■ ■� _� II__ 11111 11■11 .1111 - _ =j . == == == ■- -_ - i11 -111- -- -ran - I� ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ��i 111111111 11111111111111111 �IIL' ■� _� ■� e■ ■� � _ I■ _� II 11111 ■■ ■� ■■ ■_ ■ ■_ -i■ 11111 ■Il.ki llllll llla lllll��'�IIIIII ■1■I j% � � 1 111 � ��♦ ��� � • f III: .1: �.'■ :• �;i�, �`�I III I� ■ lip ■i Eli III ,■� ���I ■ ' I- ■ �� ♦ M_ Iola! 11,11 Omni .ougmai l Legend Treatment P Existing Water Mains r i ..■`... ` ��rPressure Parcels 1 ■ ■■ 111! hill ELI. 1 L■ I o D •o ... �• ,07 =? ' • ► . ,ice — — — -- 1440 City of Laurel, MT Water System 14 1.5 Million Gallon Water Storage Tank (Abandoned) 4 Million Gallon Water Storage Tank Murray Heights Booster Station �p EEDT Q 8 Bm9 'Vag] � �❑ 08 8 H ❑ EEH �U ]El- EH 921 o Cherry Hills Booster Station ® � �� ® ® ® � ❑�®N �®®®HM aH �M 9H � El ® gym ® = � E=JE] '101\ reC JD i5AP ❑ oa � ozdE L Legend ® 2 INCH �I Cs ,te 9� 3 INCH 4 INCH LJ������®�®�®®®� �❑ Wastewater Treatment Plant 6INCH 8 INCH 10 INCH 12 INCH Water Treatment Plant ;�\ _� `��, 16 INCH ❑ -, 18 INCH Parcels L Source'Esri, D,C bitaIQI.6e Ge.Eye, Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus DS=USD'A, U'SGS,AeroGRID,'IG t N KLI Figure 3.2: Existing Distribution Pipe Sizes W E S City of Laurel, MT Water System 16 1.5 Million Gallon Water Storage Tank (Abandoned) 4 Million Gallon Water Storage Tank Murray Heights Booster Station o ° y LU ® ® ® 0060000 0 A® O� Cherry Hills Booster Station ° DEW N s a o �TFT'FZa�C ad m 0 0 � a ® 1 D oD 1 - Wastewater Treatment Plant Legend •`^ Unknown Asbestos Cement Water Treatment Plant -� Cast Iron D �.. PVC Parcels Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye E�rfhstar Geographics, CNES/Airb s E t N KLI Figure 3.3: Existing Distribution Pipe Material ,(rW E S City of Laurel, MT Water System 18 Condition of Existing Facilities Water Demands METERING The City's water system is completely metered with exception of park irrigation. Table 3.1 provides an inventory of all meters. Table 3.2 provides a summary of metered water usage on an annual basis from July 2017 through June 2022. Water for the CHS oil refinery is show separately. The city provides water to CHS in three forms: 1) Raw water, directly from the Yellowstone River; 2) Settled Water, which is partially treated at the City's water treatment plant, through settlement only and is not conveyed to the distribution system; and 3) Fully treated. Table 3.1-Meter Inventory Meter Size (in) Number of Meters 0.75 2706 1 93 1.5 30 2 29 3 16 4 4 6 3 8 2 10 2 Table 3.2-Historical Annual Water Usage Metered Water Usage (MG) July 2017 - July 2018- July 2019 - July 2020- July 2021 - June 2018 June 2019 June 2020 June 2021 June 2022 *Commercial (Assumed 840.4 771.3 772.2 716.1 778.8 to Include most of CHS's usage) Institutional 7.3 7.1 6.0 5.9 7.5 Irrigation 10.5 10.3 10.8 28.0 14.0 Residential-Apartment 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.2 Residential-Duplex 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 Residential-Trailer Park 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.2 Residential-All Other 175.1 158.8 249.7 380.0 333.9 Total 1038.2 952.6 1043.7 1135.1 1139.2 City of Laurel, MT Water System 19 CHS Usage(MG) Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 CHS Treated incomplete incomplete incomplete 323.9 258.4 data data data CHS Settled unmetered unmetered unmetered *126.2 *181.8 CHS Raw 319.8 266.4 398.6 425.4 365.0 Total incomplete incomplete incomplete 875.4 805.2 data data data *Note:Metered"Commercial"water usage includes all CHS usage except for settled water. Other Usage (MG) Estimated Unmetered 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Park Usage Table 3.3—Water Usage Summation Summation Year 2021 Estimated Population 7,407 Total Treated Water Excluding CHS (MG) 1.4 Total Residential Water Usage (MGD) 0.9 Average Day Demand Excluding CHS (gpcd) 191 Average Day Demand Residential Only (gpcd) 125 Table 3.3 provides a summation of City water usage for 2020 and 2021,which serve as the basis of design flows used in this analysis. Prior years are excluded due to incomplete data from lack of metering to CHS. The estimated Average Day Demand Excluding CHS(ADD) is the water that enters the distribution system. For distribution system hydraulic analysis,the 2021 estimate of 1.4-million-gallons per day(MGD) is used and distributed to nodes throughout the system. Maximum Day Demand (MDD) and Peak Hour Demand (PHD) are of particular interest in the water distribution analysis. There is no means to measure these directly from historical flow data, so peaking factors are assumed. Table 3.4 summarizes peaking factors and total distribution system design flows that are used in this study. City of Laurel, MT Water System 20 Table 3.4—Distribution Design Flow Rates PF • -• • •• ADD 1.0 1.0 972 MDD 1.5—1.8 1.8 1,750 PHD 2.0—3.0 3.0 2,920 FIRE DEMAND The State of Montana has adopted the 2018 International Fire Code (IFC). For single family residential homes up to 3,600 square-feet in size, the IFC requires a fire protection flow rate of 1,000 gpm for a minimum 1-hour duration. Most single-family residential buildings in Laurel are smaller than 3,600 square-feet. Fire protection requirements for larger homes as well as commercial buildings are based on type of construction, occupancy,and size. The largest fire flow requirement for any building is 8,000 gpm for a 4-hour duration. However, that flow can be reduced to a rate of 2,000 gpm for a 2-hour duration with installation of automatic fire sprinklers. It is a very small proportion of buildings served by Laurel's water system that would require protection by fire flow rates exceeding 2,000 gpm. Buildings that do require greater fire flow rates could be protected by addition of fire suppression systems to avoid burdening other City water users with excessive cost to upgrading the water system. Therefore,the water distribution system is evaluated in this study based on the following criteria: 1. Residential Fire Flow Rates: 1,000 gpm for a 1-hour duration 2. Commercial and Industrial Fire Flow Rates: 2,000 gpm for a 2-hour duration Water Supply The City currently uses water from the Yellowstone River through the following two water right permits: 1. Statement of Claim#45730;3,525 Acre-feet per year maximum volume; 10.67 CFS Maximum Flow Rate 2. Reservation #9939; 7,151 Acre-feet per year maximum volume; 9.88 CFS Maximum Flow Rate General Abstracts for these two water rights are included in Appendix D. As shown previously,the City's total water usage in July 2021 through June 2022,was approximately 1,100 MG or 3,500 acre-feet. It should be expected that usage could increase due to normal fluctuation or growth. Usage could exceed the City's primary water claim. However, there should be adequate water supply under the reserve claim. A Source Water Delineation Assessment Report for the portions of the Yellowstone River watershed contributing flows to Laurel, Billings and Lockwood water treatment plants, was completed in 2007 (included in Appendix Q. The report identifies several sources of potential contaminants. Water quality in the river fluctuates significantly through various seasons with vastly changing flow rates and water temperatures. In-spite of raw water quality issues, the river has proved to be a reliable source of water for the City. City of Laurel, MT Water System 21 The 2016 (new) water intake has been functioning well with no reported problems since it was put into service. The 2003 intake remains in place but is seldom used. Water Treatment With several water treatment rehabilitation projects and upgrades that have been completed over the last several years, the water treatment plant is currently in good operating condition. All recommended water treatment projects from the 2014 PER have been completed,with exception of construction of two new water treatment sludge ponds. Distribution System As shown in Figure 3.3, some of the original cast iron pipes used in the system still exist. Most of these pipes are very old and severely corroded. The City routinely repairs leaks in the older parts of the system. The City has made good progress over the last several years in replacing old mains,and they continue with replacement projects each year. Laurel's water distribution system is gravity fed from a single 4-million gallon on-grade steel storage tank, described in more detail in sections below. Two booster stations serve higher elevation in portions of the system located in the north and northwest parts of the service area. Tank operating levels and service elevations for each zone are summarized in Table 3.5: Table 3.5-System Service Elevations Part of System Operating or Service Elevation 4 MG Steel Storage Tank 3454-3460 Primary Pressure Zone 3272—3407 Cherry Hills Booster Station 3360-3407 Murray Heights Booster Station 3370—3407 DEQ specifies that minimum normal working pressure shall be no less than 35 psi and the maximum working pressure should be approximately 60 to 80 psi (DEQ Circular 1,Section 8.2.1). The upper limit of static pressure in the system is approximately 81 psi,which is acceptable. However,there are some areas within the primary pressure zone falling short of the minimum allowable working pressure, even under static flow conditions. These areas are in the higher elevation parts of the City,adjacent to Murray Heights Booster station. The low static pressure in this area is due to improper pressure zone configuration. Static pressures in the system are shown in Figure 3.4. City of Laurel, MT Water System 22 ��� ■■��� /�� IIIIIIIIIIII�p �11 �� �.`■■■■ • aid■w1 • •�� �� -♦ � 7.�■1 t• /. ■. .■ .. �� ■■ — n I — ��.■■�� ■■■■■■■■ __ — �■ ■ � � `ill-�� �;•..., • ♦ ' . �•� .■ .■ .�� .. v •1�•���� •t•�� r4�,y _-�'+ ���+■++fin �)GIGLLCL +i+i+ Je s•� �■ -;••; �♦ ♦ •���•1i i i■■i i p p p • -`� ■ - •����� IU �• ' ,. �t M�•' 1]]979cv MI VEMEM CJJl]71]]]7J]];�j� on 21111111 � __ __ ■_ _r. __ _ 1■ GIIII 11111 11111 11 1 111�1 11111 IIL' - __ . � " III����������I _■ __ __ __ ■ _ ■i 11111 ■ 1 ■ 1111 111�1 11�11 ,•/11111 ■1■ j%•► no � ,— ,kill■, ,�.■,� , ION „�S • ■c• • ' •' ■ ION V .. I I■ U ��i•� r � ev I' / City of Laurel, MT Water System 24 Fire flow scenarios were simulated at various nodes throughout the distribution system using Info Works water modeling software water modeling software. The software analyses maximum fire flow rates that can be provided at each fire node while maintaining minimum residual pressures of 20 psi at the respective nodes. It should be noted that the fire scenarios were not based on maintaining a minimum pressure of 20 psi at all point in the system, as there is a portion of the system adjacent to the Murray Heights Booster Station that fall below 20 psi with maximum day demand alone. That issue is due to improper pressure zone configuration and is evaluated separately from the fire flow analysis. Resulting fire flow capacities are shown in Figure 3.5. In general, most of the commercial district, along Main Street.,South 1"Avenue and Southeast 4th Street have over 2,000 gpm fire flows. There are several residential areas falling short of the 1,000 gpm fire protection criteria. The most significant shortages in fire flow occur in areas served by both booster station areas adjacent to the booster stations and in the Village Subdivision. DEQ standards specify, "To provide increase reliability of service and reduce head loss, Dead ends must be minimized by using appropriate tie-ins whenever practical." (DEQ Circular 1,Section 8.2.4).A few dead ends exist in the systems. The most notable are as follows: 1. Wastewater treatment plant—Single 2,500 LF, 12" diameter main from water 2. East Railroad Street—Single 2,400 LF, 10" diameter main east of Bernardt Road 3. Village Subdivision—Single 3,500 LF, 8" diameter transmission line serving subdivision Storage Following decommissioning of the 1.5-million-gallon steel tank. The existing 4-million-gallon concrete tank has served as the City's exclusive source of distribution storage. The steel tank was last inspected by LiquiVision in September of 2019. The tank foundation and exterior of the walls were found to be in good condition. The roof's exterior was found to be in fair condition with some rust. A project to recoat the roof's exterior was completed in 2021. The interior of the floor and inlet and outlet penetrations were found to be in fair condition with some rust. The inspection report(included in Appendix F) indicated that the interior coating is too degraded to try to repair and recommended recoating within 5 to 10 years of the date of the inspection. Four years have now passed since the date of the report, so it is assumed the interior coating is near the end of its useful life. The ability to repair and maintain the steel tank has been limited to the tanks exterior due to inability to take it off-line, as the system depends on it to satisfy peak demands and regulate system pressures. Apart from maintenance needs,the steel tank is in good condition and should be adequately sized to serve the City with anticipated growth within the planning period. DEQ Standards specify,the following criteria, establishing the minimum tank size: • "Storage facilities must be sufficient, as determined from engineering studies, to supplement source capacity to satisfy all system demands occurring on the maximum day, plus fire flow demands where fire protection is provided." (DEQ Circular 1, Section 7.01). • "The minimum allowable Storage must be equal to the average day demand (ADD) plus fire flow demand." (DEQ, Circular 1, Section 7.01). As previously shown, ADD for the system is approximately 1.4 MG. The minimum recommended fire volume is 0.24 MG (2,000 gpm for 2 hours). So, the minimum recommend distribution storage for the system is 1.64 MG. Overall storage is adequate. However, the system cannot provide for storage needs in the upper pressure zone. DEQ Circular 1, Section 7.01.d specifies, "Each pressure zone of systems with City of Laurel, MT Water System 25 multiple pressure zones must be analyzed separately and provided with sufficient storage to satisfy the above requirements." The tank is tied directly to the primary pressure zone, with no storage serving Cherry Hills and Murray Heights pressure zones. Pump Stations Both the Cherry Hills and Murray Heights booster stations operate by simple pressure control and are equipped with backup generators and SCADA systems.Table 3.6 provides data for all the pumps contained in both booster stations. Table 3.6-Booster Station Pumps I D Pump Description Horsepower Design Flow Design TDH (ft) �L Rate .. Murray Heights Booster Station 1 Paco DSB51311 15 200 151 2 Paco DSB51311A 25 400 151 3 Paco DSB51311B 25 400 151 Cherry Hills Booster Station 1 Aurora 321 5 50 120 2 Aurora 341 10 200 120 3 Aurora 341 10 200 120 4 Aurora 341 20 1300 40 The Cherry Hills booster station is located on a tract of land that is not owned by the City. The occupancy agreement for the booster station, requires the booster station to be relocated when the system is upgraded with a new pressure zone and storage tank. The booster station was constructed on skids to accommodate this provision. City of Laurel, MT Water System 26 - :;��■1��N ■■p��■►���11111111111111111■'— �on Legend �■�■� 1��i ■■ ���I� 11111�� ■ ■11111■,,1 ��OTEq, ����IIIIII ��• ::111111■♦ NOWPumps E--1 Parcels SEE �1111111 Watermain I�11111�►� ■I� ISO1�11111� ■�111111■■ •• ���f���♦ �_ rlose .. `� ■� MOMMEMiiii mill 1 1•� ,i i i i i i i i M __...■■■.. ■..■...■ =ME 0 _._ C■ �■ ■ ��■■� ,,r , ■■■,-■■■ .� ��♦♦♦♦.� ' ■,■/� r ",;. i`..- a �iii,i,ii,i�ii[[��/ �. l• _ �►CLCCLC']CCLCL[C[LCL i�� I•� ,♦ i No Min ■. _ ._ ■i . - IS -- __ __ �_ __ ___ _ �L'.1 ■ ��B:=1�i • �LL����l�i-I♦ �DD11�11t«`<<<1��1 _ ■■■■■■■■■■■ ■.......�■■■■ �_ __-- _■ _� __ = 7■ III, �_ -i,�►�� —. ■■ ■..■■■■■■1,.� �71]IJ]]]I]7>>j �������t<<��CCO�,���C - III 111■11■: �= =' __ =_ �= •= 11111 :�■11 1111 - -- _ - • �� _— -- -- � == �= _� =nil uln• . •• In .ue =■ _= G •• 1 . •• 1111•11111 =■ _= =_ __ _■ -:• 11111 ■ Il.k. 1111 111.1 11111 111111 ■1■ �� • " " 1101E■ 11 ■_ —= =_ __ __ __ __ __ __ _�: ,;��.. � - - ■- _ -- _ -- ■■ it =,II!� •,!� - - - •• _ M ZOEM - ME \ ' NNE EMMONS ON M Mimi \\ ■ ■ Notes: 1- Fire flows analyzed in combination with Maximum Day Demand, with water treatment and tank at an initial levelof : • simulate draw down toward end of demand. \■■ 1 mmmmKzzz� Feet 1,000500 1 1,000 2,000 - '® �' o _ D o moo- -• - -• .• ' • . �' o °- o Dp o �' o i City of Laurel, MT Water System 28 Operation and Management Practices In the latest Sanitary Survey completed in October 2019 (included in Appendix G), DEQ compliments City operators and water system managers, indicating, "The system is very well managed and certified operators are retained." They also indicated, "Currently the system has many certified operators on staff. The system is commended for the demonstration of knowledge from the operators noted during the inspection." Previously, City staff has worked through many challenges with the system. The most challenging is river fluctuations at the intake due to flooding, drought, and river migration which causes other deficiencies in the treatment system. City staff has also effectively repaired leaks in the distribution system on a routine basis, all the while providing reliable service to the community. With the new water intake recently constructed and deficiencies in the water treatment system being remedied over the last few years, operation and maintenance capabilities of City staff is further increased. One real issue that continues to trouble City public works staff and water operators, is the lack of ability to maintain the welded steel water tank. The need for recoating the interior or the tank was first noted in a 2009 tank inspection report. The City has monitored the condition to avoid a catastrophic failure but has been unable to complete the recoat due to no other means or redundancy to provide water to the community while the tank is out of service. Financial Status of Existing Facilities User Rates Tables 7 & 8 summarize water and wastewater rates for various water meter sizes throughout the City. Both are provided because some funding agency's decisions to fund projects are dependent on both rates. The Montana Department of Commerce establishes Target Rates for water and wastewater based on what they determine to be a fair cost for these services. Target rates are based on a percentage of each communities Median Household Income (MHI) as established by the US Census. Current census data for Laurel shows an MHI of$55,503. Target Rates for water,wastewater, and both combined are established at 1.4%, 0.9%and 2.3%, respectively. This equates to $64.75 for water, $41.63 for wastewater and $106.38 for water and wastewater combined. City of Laurel, MT Water System 29 Table 3.7-Water Rates Meter Meter Type Base Rate Price per EDU's Assumed Monthly Monthly Size (in) 111 gal Monthly • • After First Water 111 gal Usage 3/4 residential $24.61 $2.86 1.00 10,500 $54.64 $54.64 1 residential $41.79 $2.86 1.79 18,795 $95.54 $53.38 11/4 residential $63.33 $2.86 2.78 29,190 $146.81 $52.81 11/2 residential $89.86 $2.86 4.00 42,000 $209.98 $52.50 2 residential $158.16 $2.86 7.14 74,970 $372.57 $52.18 3 residential $350.86 $2.86 16.00 168,000 $831.34 $51.96 4 residential $624.26 $2.86 28.57 299,985 $1,482.22 $51.88 3/4 commercial $24.61 $2.86 1.00 10,500 $54.64 $54.64 1 commercial $41.79 $2.86 1.79 18,795 $95.54 $53.38 11/4 commercial $63.33 $2.86 2.78 29,190 $146.81 $52.81 11/2 commercial $89.86 $2.86 4.00 42,000 $209.98 $52.50 2 commercial $158.16 $2.86 7.14 74,970 $372.57 $52.18 3 commercial $350.86 $2.86 16.00 168,000 $831.34 $51.96 4 commercial $624.26 $2.86 28.57 299,985 $1,482.22 $51.88 6 commercial $1,401.17 $2.86 64.29 675,045 $3,331.80 $51.82 8 commercial $969.39 $1.80 113.78 11194,690 $3,119.83 $27.42 10 commercial $3,869.58 $2.86 177.78 11866,690 $9,208.31 $51.80 12 commercial $1,939.35 $1.80 256.00 21688,000 $6,777.75 $26.48 14 commercial $2,423.84 $1.80 348.44 31658,620 $9,009.36 $25.86 City of Laurel, MT Water System 30 Table 3.8-Wastewater Rates Water Meter Type Base Rate Price per EDU's Assumed Monthly Monthly Meter 111 gal Monthly • • Size (in) After First Water 111 gal Usage 1 residential $19.24 $5.27 1.79 18,795 $118.29 $66.08 11/4 residential $53.49 $5.27 2.78 29,190 $207.32 $74.58 11/2 residential $76.96 $5.27 4.00 42,000 $298.30 $74.58 2 residential $137.37 $5.27 7.14 74,970 $532.46 $74.57 21/2 residential $159.81 $3.42 11.11 116,655 $559.00 $50.32 3 residential $307.84 $5.27 16.00 168,000 $1,193.20 $74.58 4 residential $319.63 $3.42 28.57 299,985 $1,346.18 $47.12 6 residential $1,236.94 $5.27 64.29 675,045 $4,794.43 $74.58 8 residential $1,022.80 $3.42 113.78 11194,690 $5,111.03 $44.92 10 residential $1,534.20 $3.42 177.78 11866,690 $7,922.01 $44.56 12 residential $2,045.60 $3.42 256.00 21688,000 $11,243.94 $43.92 14 residential $2,557.00 $3.42 348.44 31658,620 $15,076.80 $43.27 1 commercial $34.44 $5.27 1.79 18,795 $133.49 $74.58 11/4 commercial $53.49 $5.27 2.78 29,190 $207.32 $74.58 11/2 commercial $76.96 $5.27 4.00 42,000 $298.30 $74.58 2 commercial $137.37 $5.27 7.14 74,970 $532.46 $74.57 21/2 commercial $159.81 $3.42 11.11 116,655 $559.00 $50.32 3 commercial $307.84 $5.27 16.00 168,000 $1,193.20 $74.58 4 commercial $319.63 $5.27 28.57 299,985 $1,900.55 $66.52 6 commercial $1,236.94 $5.27 64.29 675,045 $4,794.43 $74.58 8 commercial $1,022.80 $3.42 113.78 11194,690 $5,111.03 $44.92 10 commercial $153.20 $3.42 177.78 11866,690 $6,541.01 $36.79 12 commercial $2,045.60 $3.42 256 21688,000 $11,243.94 $43.92 14 commercial $2,557.00 $3.42 348.44 31658,620 $15,076.80 $43.27 City of Laurel, MT Water System 31 These user rates are tabulated based on an assumed water usage of 350 gallons per day per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). Actual water usage in Laurel may differ from this assumption. However, this assumption is typical for other Montana Communities and therefore provides a good comparison with other communities, based on normal water usage. Water rates for most of the meter sizes are approximately 15%below target and wastewater rates for most water meter sizes are approximately 80% higher than target. Cash Flow Table 3.9 provides a summary of cash flow and balances in the combined Operating and System Development parts of in the City's water enterprise fund, including fiscal years 2019—2021. Other parts of the fund that are not shown are allocated to debt reserves, user deposits, capital replacements, depreciation and other items that cannot be used for capital improvements identified in this report. Table 3.9—Water Enterprise Fund Summary ReceivedYear Beginning Transfers Disbursed Transfers nding Balance In • 7/2019— $2,211,090 $5,384,150 $820,629 $0 $4,543,163 $3,872,706 6/2020 7/2020— $3,872,706 $3,535,761 $2,999 $205 $3,526,883 $3,884,378 6/2021 7/2021— $3,884,377 $4,473704 $7,817 221 $3,093,359 $5,272,318 6/2022 Table 3.10 provides an estimate of annual contributions that are believed to be available for additional capital improvements. The amount is estimated as the change in operating cash each year,shown above. This accounts for normal transfers from operation cash into capital improvements projects in those years. It is assumed that similar transfers will continue, separate from the improvements recommended in this report. The assumed future annual surplus amount is set lower than the 3-year average for conservative budgeting purposes. This is to help mitigate unforeseen emergencies. Table 3.10—Available Annual Contributions Year Operating Revenue Operating Expense 7/2019—6/2020 $6,204,799 $4,543,163 $1,661,616 7/2020—6/2021 $3,538,759 $3,527,088 $11,672 7/2021—6/2022 $4,481,522 $3,093,581 $1,387,940 3-year Average $4,741,693 $3,721,277 $1.0 million Assumed Future Annual Surplus $0.5 million City of Laurel, MT Water System 32 Table 3.11 shows a summary of available funds in the water enterprise fund in June 2022 to pay for capital improvements identified in this PER. As show,there are currently no additional funds that can be contributed. The account appears to be approximately$2.4-million short of being able to fund all current projects and maintain the desired 18-month operating balance. The shortage will likely come from the operating balance or a reduction in maintenance and replacement projects in the short term. Table 3.11—Available Cash(June 2022) Water Enterprise Found Balance $8,829,372.26 Debt Reserves ($390,551) Deposits and other Allocations ($3,166,502) 18 Month Operating Expenses ($4,640,371) Allocations to South 4t"Street ($1,410,910) Allocations to WTP ($1,657,150) Available Funds $0 City of Laurel, MT Water System 33 City of Laurel, MT Water System 34 4.0 NEED FOR PROJECT Health, Sanitation and Security Distribution System LOW OPERATING PRESSURES Current layout and configuration of pressure zones within the system pose significant health and safety concerns. In upper parts of the system adjacent to the two upper pressure zones,static pressure is as low as 23 psi. In these areas, a minor pressure drop caused by a surge in demand, could cause pressure to go negative and draw outside water into the system through service connections, hose bibs, pipe leaks and other avenues. This subjects the system to harmful contaminates that may be present at the surface or underground from leaks in the sewer system and other potential sources. The negative pressures could result from fire flows or pipe breaks at various locations in the system. The current pressure zone configuration does not comply with DEQ health as safety standards, which require a minimum working pressure of 35 psi and a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi during fire flows. FIRE PROTECTION As discussed in Chapter 3, fire protection at various points of the system falls short of IFC standards. Lack of fire protection in these areas poses a safety risk. The most significant shortages occur at dead ends described below. LACK OF REDUNDANCY AND DEAD ENDS DEQ standards specify, "To provide increased reliability of service and reduce head loss, Dead ends must be minimized by using appropriate tie-ins whenever practical (DEQ, Circular 1, Section 8.2.4). The "increased reliability" from looping dead ends, helps avoid completely shutting service off to an area in the event of a pipe failure or repair. Following is a list of a few notable dead ends or areas where the distribution system lacks redundancy. Several other minor dead ends exist that only affect a few blocks. 1. The residential subdivision east of yard office Road and north of East Main Street is served by a single 3,200-lineal foot main varying in size from 8 to 10-inch. 2. A 2,500 lineal-foot 8-inch dead end water main serves homes and businesses at the east end of East Railroad Street. 3. The Cherry Hills pressure zone in served by a single 2,200 lineal-foot 12-inch transmission main from the Cherry Hills pump station. 4. A 2,000 lineal-foot 8-inch dead end water main serves homes on the west end of West 41h Street. Storage The most pressing concern with the City's welded steel storage tank is the interior coating is nearing the end of its useful life, as identified in the 2019 tank inspection report. As the coating continues to age,the rate of corrosion is expected to accelerate. Without any redundant storage capacity in the system,there is no practical way to isolate the tank from the system to recoat the interior. If the lack of redundancy goes unaddressed, the tank will eventually corrode through and leak. Continued corrosion and abrasion from leaking water could result in foundation instabilities and inability to maintain a storage volume, requiring the tank to be emptied. Since the water supply and treatment facilities are not designed to City of Laurel, MT Water System 35 handle peak flow rates, a failure in the tank would equate to complete loss of water supply to the whole community, likely for several months, while the repairs are being completed. Another concern is the storage is too low in elevation to provide adequate pressure to Cherry Hills and Murray Heights pressure zones without the pump stations in operation. This does not comply with DEQ Circular 1, Section 7.01.d, requiring independent storage for each pressure zone. In the event of a pump station failure, the system would not be able to supply water service to these areas within the pressure range required by DEQ standards. Fire flow protection would also be diminished to near zero due to static pressures being near the minimum allowable residual pressure in these zones when the pumps are not running. Pump Stations Notable health and safety concerns associated with the booster stations are primarily related to pressure zoning issues described above. Aging Infrastructure Distribution System The distribution system still contains many of the original cast iron pipes that were installed in the early 1900's. However, the City has made strides over the last several years in replacing many of the old pipes and these issues should be resolved by the City continuing with current rehabilitation practices. Storage The structure of the existing welded steel tank is in good condition. However, the interior coating is approaching the end of its useful life. Continued operation, without addressing the recoating need identified in the 2019 tank inspection report, will put the tank at risk of leaks that will eventually require it to be emptied. Without redundant storage,this will result in significant loss of water service to the city during repairs. Reasonable Growth As indicated in Chapter 2, the GMP estimates a growth rate of 1.13% which is used by this study for the expected growth rate within the 20-year planning period. However, it should be noted that since the GMP was adopted, there has been an unexpected influx of population into the State of Montana, largely due to the shift in work culture to work from home. This has opened opportunities to live outside of large metropolitan areas and influenced growth demands in rural Montana communities. There is much undeveloped land around the City's peripheral,within the City's planning jurisdiction. The Planning Jurisdiction Map from Laurels GMP(Figure 2.1),shows two large areas of land, located northeast and west of the current City Limits, as Annexation priorities. These large areas of underdeveloped land were identified in the GMP due to their proximity to road access and City facilities. Recent construction of the West Laurel interchange has made the southwest part of the planning area a very attractive opportunity for development. There has also been interest in industrial development in the southeast quadrant of town, largely due to availability of vacant land, and proximity to rail access, highway access and city services. The combination of these factors is in very short supply in other parts of Yellowstone County. City of Laurel, MT Water System 36 Growth in the City is possible, potentially even beyond that predicted by the MGP and projections assumed in this study. Alternatives that are recommended to address health and safety concerns will consider growth to provide sustainable infrastructure, but not as the primary need for the alternative. City of Laurel, MT Water System 37 City of Laurel, MT Water System 38 5.0 ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATION Distribution System Alternatives Alternative Screening The no action alternative is excluded from further consideration. The problems identified in the existing distribution system do not satisfy minimum health and safety standards and taking no-action would perpetuate these problems. Description & Map Extensive distribution system improvements are needed to accommodate a new tank constructed in the upper pressure zone. Improvements would not be technically compatible with the system without installation of the tank. Therefore, those distribution system improvements are considered with various tank alternatives. See Storage Alternatives sub-section below for further clarification. Figure 5.1 shows distribution system alternatives to address health and safety concerns associated with various dead ends mains in the system as identified in Chapter's 3 and 4. Refer to Figure 5.1 for description of each alternative. Design Criteria DEQ Circular 1 requires a minimum main diameter of 6-inches for all mains providing fire protection. Additionally, each alternative was modeled to verify if a large main would be required to remedy fire protection concerns in area they are targeting. For alternatives D-1A, D-113 and D-3 it was determined that upsizing to 8-inch diameter mains significantly improved fire flow conditions with little added cost over 6-inch diameter mains.The new loop provided with Alternative D-2 was upsized to 12-inch diameter for sustainable growth, as it runs through an area where future industrial growth is anticipated. Environmental Impacts/Green Infrastructure All the water main improvements with each alternative would be with each platted ROWS or along existing roadways,where no environmental impacts are anticipated. Land Requirements The improvements with each alternative would primarily be within existing ROWS. Alternative D-2 may require addition ROW or easement acquisition. However,it is anticipated that this would be at no expense to the City, as the looping would significantly benefit the properties along the new main, allowing them to be developed as industrial property. Potential Construction Problems Each distribution system alternative presented involves typical water main installation work. No notable construction problems are anticipated. Sustainability considerations Each alternative presented has been developed to address current deficiencies and provide for system Sustainability. Water and Energy Efficiency No changes in water or energy usage are anticipated with any of the distribution alternatives. City of Laurel, MT Water System 39 Cost Estimate Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost for each alternative are provided in Appendix A. Changes to operation and maintenance costs are expected to be negligible for distribution improvements, so the estimates are based on capital cost only.The total for each alternative is shown in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 -Engineer's Opinion of Capital Cost for Distribution Alternatives Alternative Total Life Cycle Cost D-1A $2,903,000 D-113 $3,713,000 D-2 $1,421,000 D-3 $647,000 City of Laurel, MT Water System 40 :��� ■ ■ ■■��■� OEM 11111111111111■ ■■■■� Legend ='r=:r • • IlllllllINTank 111111 111111 ■■ itExisting .. . ��II Ii�. �� � ■� �� _, ���■ Pump Existing Ron 11 Pipe Diameter ■ . �1� ■� , ■■■■■■■ 4 or Less BLUES mill � 1 ♦ � ■... - --■■■■ ■■■ ■■■■■� -- ---�■,.■ �^�--�.._ . , i. .I it i 1 i I I 1 I/��`%� _ � �� � � �. s•.,.,,,r.--- , II+ IICCLCLLCRC[[L[ �� •• •. ♦♦1 � � ■. .. .. . i i i� p p_� _ - �•���L'p '� ■■.■■■■� �tlt��� \\I I i ]]9]I]']]]]]]7]79791DJ .� ' ■ :_ -�♦ ♦ .. .■ . ... .. ■ —— _ — C , 17i'■ I Q�n�p I . �7���7 �` '✓11 ���^ �t�V�\77�j7�7\C7 ' �■ :_ _ �1 ■ ��■_ _ _� --_ -Ci FII; ►��1i�1 . ■ 1 �■ G■_■ C �, — C 7■ %AEI,i— ��■■■■.■■■r 1,.�� �7111]]]]17I/JJ 07�7�7<LC\�<<����1�7L ■■■■■-I � ■■I ;� ,� � - --_ __�MEMNON _ _ III �_ 12-Inch PVC Extension — 16 18 Distribution Improvements11111 oil Elm 1 �� —� -- ■— �r — — 1� 1111 11111 1111 11111 111�1 1111 IIL' — � �� . D � I, III■��p ■■ ■■ no on -- •■ �� 1111 ■ 11■'.. 1111 111■1 11111 IIIII ■1■ • 111111 _ O= =_1111010 = ____ ___ •_ _ •_ on ■ II �E OMNi �■ ■i :�� =■ ■= %,�\��\� .,`�II III I� � 111■ ■1■ 1■i � .,i� ', � ' �■■ ■■ ■1� FBI � �1 '1 • �. . M Feet 1,000500 0 1,000 2,000 ■ ■7 " �� �*� rt' City of Laurel, MT Water System 42 Storage Alternatives Alternative Screening The following storage alternatives are not analyzed in this study: 1. No Action—Taking no action does not allow the City to isolate their existing tank for maintenance and, given enough time, will lead to failure of their existing tank. 2. Second Tank in Lower Pressure Zone—Storage is needed in the upper pressure zones to comply with DEQ standards to provide storage to each pressure zone. There is also currently more than adequate storage volume in the lower pressure zone. Additional storage in the upper pressure zone will open expansion opportunities within the north and west parts of the planning area, providing a secondary benefit to solving current health and safety concerns. 3. Elevated Steel Tank—An elevated steel tank is usually about double the capital improvement costs of an on-grade or below grade tank. Maintenance cost would be expected to be multiple times greater as well due to access and safety requirement associated with working on elevated structures. The advantage of an elevated steel over on-grade or a buried tank is site elevation is not a design constraint and it could allow a site option with shorter transmission main improvements. However, even if a transmission main must be extended 1.5-miles to a suitable on-grade tank location, the cost of the main extension should be less than the added cost of the steel tank. Additionally,the transmission main will provide added benefit by extending service to areas along its route.An elevated steel tank should only be considered if a suitable site for an on- grade or buried tank cannot be acquired. Description & Map Figure 5.2a shows pressure zone improvements that would be needed in the distribution system to make any of the tank alternatives technically feasible. Additional distribution improvements that are needed exclusively for each tank alternative, are shown in the Figures 5.3 — 5.5 along with the respective tank location. Figure 5.2b shows proposed pressure zones over the entire planning area for reference. Design Criteria OPERATING WATER SERVICE ELEVATION Pressure zone and tank site elevation are key criteria in determination of suitable tank sites to be considered for further evaluation. The highest elevation that can be served by the existing tank without pressure dropping too low during peak demands is about 3,360 feet. Elevations above that would be in the upper pressure zone (Zone 2) and served by the second tank. Table 5.2 provides a summary of optimum elevation ranges for each pressure zone, including a future Pressure Zone 3 that is above elevations currently being served. Figure 5.2b shows each zone across the planning area. It should be noted,that the existing and new propose tanks together,are only adequate to support reasonable growth within the planning period of this study. They are not adequate to support buildout within each respective zone, which is expected to occur beyond the planning period. Additional storage may be needed in the future within each zone. City of Laurel, MT Water System 43 Table 5.2—Proposed Pressure Zone Elevations Zone Service Elevation Normal Tank Range Static Pressure(psi) min max min max min max 1 3280 3360 3454 3460 40.4 77.4 2 3348 3435 3528 3534 40.0 80.0 3 3415 3502 3595 3601 40.0 80.0 The optimum location to separate the existing water system into two pressure zones to accommodate this criteria is shown in Figure 5.2a. The lowest elevation served within the upper pressure zone would be about 3,348 at the intersection of West Maryland Lane and 8t"Avenue. To maximize the service area of the second tank it would be set at an elevation that would result in a maximum recommended static pressure of 80 psi at this location. This is equivalent to a maximum water surface elevation of about 3,534. This is considered the optimum operating point. The level could be slightly lower if necessary, to accommodate site availability.Tank sites ranging in elevation from about 3,490 to 3,510 are ideal for non- elevated tank options. The alternative site locations being considered are the three closest points to the existing distribution system at this elevation. AIR SPACE Some of the tank sites being considered are within a mile to the Laurel Airport. Plans are currently underway for a westerly extension of the main runway. This would place the west end of the runway within nearly one-half mile of a couple optional tank sites. Preliminary air space maps for the expansion have been reviewed for conflicts with the alternative tank locations. Each tank would be lower than the protected air space based on the preliminary plan. DESIGN VOLUME The new tank should be sized to serve the upper pressure zone for growth that occurs within its design life (50-years). There is extensive undeveloped land within the area that could be served by the upper pressure zone. For tank sizing, it is assumed that half of Laurel's future residential growth will occur in the upper pressure zone. Below is a tabulation of the estimated service population in the upper pressure zone over this period based on population projections provided in Chapter 3. Design Population Tabulation: o Current Homes=416 o Average Capita per Home = 3.5 (assumed) o Current Capita =416 x 3.5 = 1,500 people+/- o Anticipated Growth =%x (7,490 x 1.013 A50-7,490) = 3,400 people+/- o Design population = 1,500+ 3,400=4,900 people Design ADD for the upper pressure zone is 0.61 MGD (4,900 x 125 gpcd assumed) Fire demand = 1,000 gpm x 240 minutes=0.24 MG Minimum Tank Volume =0.6 MG +0.24 MG =0.85 MG (1.0 MG tank recommended) City of Laurel, MT Water System 44 This is consistent with the 2014 PER that recommended a new 1.0 MG tank. DESIGN FLOWRATE FEEDING TANK The tank will need to be supplied by a pumping system capable of meeting maximum day demand to the upper pressure zone with the highest capacity pump out of service, exclusive of fire flow (DEQ-1, Section 6.3). Design flow rate=0.85 MGD x 2.5 Max Day Factor x 1/1440 day/min = 1,476 gpm. Environmental Impacts/Green Infrastructure No sensitive environmental resources have been identified within any of the tank sites being considered. However, new transmission mains from each of the potential tank sites may be installed in the vicinity of wetlands identified in the National wetlands inventory. A wetlands delineation will be required for the selected alternative. Avoidance of any significant wetlands could be achieved through pipe boring or alignment selection. Minor wetland disturbances could be otherwise mitigated. Storage Alternative T1 appears to have the greatest potential for conflicts with wetlands. Land Requirements Each of the alternatives considered will require easement and or land acquisition. Assumed land acquisitions costs have been included in the Engineer's Opinion of Cost (EOC) for each alternative. It should be noted that potential tank site locations are not exact. The locations can be modified based on ability to obtain and easement or secure property. The critical component is the general location relative to the rest of the system and the site elevation. Potential Construction Problems Each site under consideration requires a canal crossing. This would likely be completed by boring under the canal and would not likely pose any unique construction problems. Alternative T-3 would require construction of a transmission line up the side of a 50'tall embankment adjacent to the canal. This would likely be completed by extending the canal boring, but it could also complicate construction as it would require a vertical change in direction along the boring. Consequently, Alternative T-3 is believed to be much more complicated than the other two alternatives. The pressure zone improvements associated with any of the tank alternatives pose a unique operational challenge during construction. After the pressure zone improvements are completed in the distribution system,the existing pump stations may not be capable of supplying the larger service area created in the upper pressure zone. A comprehensive solution will need to be developed during design to strategically time tank, distribution and pumpstation improvements. The solution will be very similar with any of the tank alternatives being considered. Sustainability Considerations Each tank alternative would allow growth within the City and provide for sustainable infrastructure. Water and Energy Efficiency Each tank alternative would require additional pumping to lift water from the lower pressure zone to the upper pressure zone. It is pumping that is necessary to increase pressure in the low-pressure parts of the system. Energy costs associated with pumping are included in the pumping alternatives. City of Laurel, MT Water System 45 Cost Estimate Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost for each alternative are provided in Appendix A. Changes to operation and maintenance costs are expected to be negligible except for pumping costs, which are included in the pumping alternatives, so the estimates are based on capital cost only. The total for each alternative is shown in Table 5.2. Table 5.2-Engineer's Opinion of Capital Cost for Storage Alternatives Alternative Total Life Cycle Cost T-1 $17,205,000 T-2 $13,886,000 T-3 $15,110,000 City of Laurel, MT Water System 46 Legend E3 Tanks 4 MG Water Tank Replace Existing 10-Inch AC with 16-Inch PVC • Pressure Reducing Valves T. (Lower Pressure Zone) O Isolation Valves Lower Pressure Zone Imp Upper Pressure Zone Imp Pipe Diameter 1.5 MG Water Tank (Abandoned) 4-Inch or Less 6 - Inch ♦e:ti 8- Inch 10 - Inch 12 - Inch 16 - Inch 18 - Inch New 16-Inch PVC (Lower Pressure Zone) c New 12-Inch PVC (Upper Pressure Zone) TT] I I I I I I I I I New 8-Inch PVC (Lower Pressure Zone) New 8-Inch PVC (Lower Pressure Zone) New 8-Inch PVC (Lower Pressure Zone) Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Ai bus DS, US A, USGS, er GRID, IGN,and the GIS User Communit N 'KLJ Figure 5.2a Pressure Zone Improvements W E S City of Laurel, MT Water System 48 s +.� CITY OF LAUREL PLANNING JURISDICTION PRESSURE BOOSTING _ NEEDED .A yj I 0 LAUREL AIRPORT RD - coy� J���� G\ HIGHWAY 10 0 9 E n 0, .ram :0- - .- _. . . � - - Vic;;. Ilk FP r KLIFigure 5.2b: Proposed Pressure Zones C°° ° 3°°° F6000 EIE SCALE FEET City of Laurel, MT Water System 50 EIIIIII - • - • E3 Existing ♦� Proposed Pressure (PSI) ♦ �� • ♦ . .�r , . r ► . .. Valve 8 Pressure Reducing Valve ... .. ��II 11�� • Close Existing Gate Valve Pipe Diameter (inch) or 10 • ■•��w w■ • ■ 1 : j: :� jam•■ ►��� '�� ■ - 12 16 18 mill Elm Parcels NONNI NONNI MEESE Notes: Z BE 1. Model was run wit Peak Hour Demand ee . . / �♦ ��,.. � �_ ��■�ii� � t �� �� tom, __� � �� � �■ �_ �_�_ ■ ■ �■ ■� III■ • � oe- -e -e .e ' o D D� �- o D . • I • I I City of Laurel, MT Water System 52 - • - • Tank `■� �� Pressure (PSI) nP Existing Proposed 1 MG Water Tank , .� 0 less than 20 ♦ 1 ► .� .8 Pressure Reducing Valve New r, !. • �� Valve •Close Existing Gate Valve Pipe Diameter (inch) 4 or Less . ■ 10 • • �� I12 `■■■■ /I�► ■ 16 18 Pipe Improvements,T2 IN 0 IN MINI Parcels am No INN M No ON 1. Model was run wit Peak Hour Demand III■ � �� � �• � oe- -e -e .o ' o D D �- o D • • I • I l City of Laurel, MT Water System 54 Legend 1 MG Water Tank (Proposed) Tank Existing Proposed New 16-Inch PVC . Pressure (PSI) • less than 20 �1 O 20 —35 O 35-80 ev • 80 —90Ar Valve °® o /4 Pressure Reducing Valve K .� Close Existing Gate Valve ,. Pipe Diameter (Inch) o � 4 or Less 6 .� 8 • - 10 0 12 ( ,• 16 18 Pipe Improvements,T3 0 ° Parcels m@ o pryQ77{QUQO a� le; ♦ C3�Vg� Q � ��pp}l O � O fl C] S O -JCQ �2 INTEIM11 - 00 ■1 1 1 1 1= Mimi Notes: HC 0 1. Model was run wit Peak Hour Demand �� B Feet ° E ® 1 000 500 0 1 000 2 000 �g AitalGlohe, GeoEye, arthstar Geo�raphics, ONES/Airbus�S, USA, SGS,AeroGRIB1IGN, and the GIS User Comrnunit N KLI Figure 5.5: Tank Alternative T3 S City of Laurel, MT Water System 56 Pump Alternatives Alternative Screening The following pump station alternatives were excluded from further evaluation for the reasons as indicated below: 1. No Action: Existing pressure zone configuration in the system does not comply with minimum health and safety standards. Taking no action would perpetuate this problem. 2. Any alternatives using the existing Cherry Hills Pump Station: The 2014 PER recommended relocating the existing Chery Creek pump station to the intersection of Maryland Lane and 8th Avenue to feed a new tank north of the existing system, near the tank T-2 location. As shown previously, the Cherry Hills pump station is equipped with three pumps, one fire pump with a 1,300-gpm capacity, two with a 200-gpm capacity and one with a 50-gpm capacity. With the largest pump out of service the pump station provides a design capacity of only 450 gpm. This is only a fraction of the capacity needed for the Maximum Day Demand rate of 1,500 gpm. Upgrading the existing system to over 3-times its current capacity is not practical. Additionally, the pump station is old. The enclosure needs significant repairs. Relocating the existing pump station would also pose other complications in providing temporary water service to a large area, while the pump station is being moved. 3. All standalone pump station alternatives that do not require storage in the upper pressure zone: Creating a higher-pressure zone without storage would not provide tank redundancy necessary for the City to take the existing tank off-line for maintenance. It would also require much higher pumping demands from the lower pressure zone to supply flows at peak demand rates and fire flow to the upper pressure zone. This would require much more extensive distribution improvements than analyzed in any of the alternatives being considered. Further, without storage in the upper pressure zone, the system would be less reliable and more problematic during maintenance of the pump station. Description & Map The following pump station alternatives are considered in more detail. • Alternative P-1—New Murray Heights Booster Station • Alternative P-2—New Booster Station near 1"Avenue and West 12th Street • Alternative P-3—New Booster Station near 8th Avenue and West Maryland Lane • Alternative P-4—New Booster Station near Existing Tanks along Valley Drive These alternatives are shown in Figures 5.6-5.9. Design Criteria As previously noted, it recommended that the new pump station be sized to pump 1,500 gpm from the lower pressure zone to the upper pressure zone. Provided, piping around the pump station is adequately sized, the upper pressure zone tank will be supplied through the distribution system independently of where the water enters the upper pressure zone. The lower pressure zone at the pump station location must be capable of supplying the design flow rate in combination with peak demands in the system, without the pressure dropping below 35 psi. The upper pressure zone piping at the same location must be adequate to receive the design flow without creating excessive pressures in the system. The four City of Laurel, MT Water System 57 alternative locations for the pump station are locations that can meet this criterion and provide site opportunities where there is vacant land. Environmental Impacts/Green Infrastructure Alternatives P-1 through P-3 include pump station sites that are on City lots. The Alternative P-4 site is on a larger City owned lot that is mostly undeveloped, but the site is next to Valley Drive in a grassy field where there are no apparent environmental concerns. None of the alternatives considered has an apparent environmental advantage over the others. Land Requirements Pump station sites in Alternatives P1 and P4 would be on City Owned property. Alternatives P2 and P3 would require land acquisition. An assumed cost for land acquisition is included in the estimates for those alternatives. Each alternative is viable. If a landowner is not willing to work with the City on land acquisition, the City can change courses to one of the alternate sites. Potential Construction Problems To assure pressure zones function properly during construction, a strategy will need to be developed for timing of the tank, distribution and pumpstation improvements. This may require temporary closing and opening certain valves to adjust the service area of upper pressure zone during construction. This is not anticipated to be problem,but it will require some detailed planning related to the construction sequence. Sustainability Considerations One primary benefit to each pumpstation alternative is that it will allow for growth in the upper pressure zone where there is much undeveloped land. This is necessary for sustainable growth in the City. None of the pump alternatives are expected to have a sustainability advantage over the others. Water and Energy Efficiency Some additional power usage is anticipated due to additional pumping that will be needed to expand the upper pressure zone. Associated power usage costs are included in the life cycle cost estimates for each pumping alternative. Cost Estimate Engineer's Opinion of Probable cost for each alternative are provided in Appendix A. The total for each alternative is shown in Table 5.3. The Life Cycle Cost for each alternative includes opinion of probable capital cost and pumping energy cost over a 20-year planning period, converted to a present worth value. Table 5.3-Engineer's Opinion of Capital Cost for Pump Alternatives Alternative Total Life Cycle Cost P-1 $1,973,000 P-2 $2,179,000 P-3 $2,179,000 P-4 $2,427,000 City of Laurel, MT Water System 58 .# Legend Tank E3 Existing Pressure (PSI) ° • less than 20 noq O 20 —35 O 35—80 AO • 80 —90 O� Valve �- ® Pressure Reducing Valve New Murray Heights Booster Station, 1,500 gpm Close Existing Gate Valve ° Pipe Diameter (Inch) 4 or Less 6 , 8 0 10 12 ppOggpQ 16 -s aE�Ba O 18 g _ ° CO, Cr— Parcels 0 00 1 ° ENE , HE El SP �,a,,, EH RH HH NH �N 9H 90C�IIECPE ;MT;T]-I] Notes: 9E] IT8 EJ8 cElE 1. Model was run wit Peak Hour Demand O O O ` .. Feet HL �� EIF ti 1,000 500 0 1,000 2,000 Source: Esn, DigitalGlobe, Gec rthsiar G.eo.graphics, CNES/Airb.us_DS—U6DA, US!GSAeroGRID.=I,GN -and the-G15tUser Communit N KLJ Figure 5.6: Pump Alternative P1 Wv eE g p S City of Laurel, MT Water System 60 Legend Tank + Proposed Booster Station, 1,500 gpm Existing r%tv, Pressure (PSI) O _ �I • less than 20 ,:, O 20 —35 ti O O 35-80 • 80 —90 O� Valve - ® Pressure Reducing Valve Murray Heights Booster Station (To Be Abandoned) Close Existing Gate Valve Pipe Diameter (Inch) 4 or Less 6 0 , 8 O O ►�� 10 12 p1OggpQ -- 16 O 18 g _ O 0BBn Parcels O O 1 Cherry Hill Booster Station V NE (To Be Abandoned) o �� o - 1 l� Notes: �� �8 �8�� 1. Model was run wit Peak Hour Demand �� �B O O U MT UFeet WC U HP I dn PE H2 EI ti 1,000 500 0 1,000 2,000 Source: Esn, DigitalGlobe, Gec rthsiar G.eo.graphics, CNES/Airb.us_DS—U6DA, US!GS AeroGRID.=I,GN�and the-G15tUser Communit N ,(<KLI Figure 5.7: Pump Alternative P2 Wv eE g p S City of Laurel, MT Water System 62 Legend Tank E3Existing Pressure (PSI) o • less than 20 ,:, O 20 -35 O O 35-80 �O� �` q, • 80 -90 O� Valve - ® Pressure Reducing Valve Murray Heights Booster Station (To Be Abandoned) Close Existing Gate Valve Pipe Diameter (Inch) 4 or Less 6 , 8 O O �. 10 1 LL 12 p 00QE3 16 O 18 El g _ O aBBn Parcels O O 1LLL4 N -- Mimi ���� ���� 1�1� �� ����� ��� IAA H�R PUCIRC, 0 Cherry Hill Booster Station H � I (To Be Abandoned) ILE NE , Ed I I U o n--7 V 2 � �� � � � o Proposed Booster Station, 1,500 gpm PI® CIf�] ®®OEIE ®[ C� Notes: 9E] IT8 EJ8 E� 1. Model was run wit Peak Hour Demand O O O p ` .. Feet 8 ��TM HE W El ti 1,000 500 0 1,000 2 000 Source: Esn, Digital Globe, Gec rthsiar G.eo.graphics, CNES/Airb.us_DS—U6DA, US!GS AeroGRID.=I,GN�and the-G1Skuser Communit N K Ll Figure 5.8: Pump Alternative P3 Wv eE g p S City of Laurel, MT Water System 64 Legend Proposed Booster Station, 1,500 gpm 9 �. Tank -%tv, E3Existing ` y Pressure (PSI) O • less than 20 ,:, O O 20 —35 O 35-80qj 4:Z1 • 80 —90 O ti Valve - ® Pressure Reducing Valve Murray Heights Booster Station Close Existing Gate Valve (To Be Abandoned) Pipe Diameter (Inch) 4 or Lessif: 6 , 8 O 0 �. 10 12 ppOggpQ -- 16 -s a? O 18 a B �g _ 0 �c aBBn Parcels 0 0 O 0 1 cl r) C= N Cherry Hill Booster Station E NE Ed V (To Be Abandoned) �� EH RH HH NH �N 9H go Notes: �� �� �8 �8�� O O O 1. Model was run wit Peak Hour Demand �B ;1E CP=0� ^ , • ` ..-: Feet El ti 1,000 500 0 1,000 2,000 Source: Esn, Digital Globe, Gec rthsiar G.eo.graphics, ONES/Airb.us_D&;Il, US!GS'eAeroGRID.=I,GN�and the-G1- ser Communit N KLJ Figure 5.9: Pump Alternative P4 g p S City of Laurel, MT Water System 66 6.0 ALTERNATIVE SELECTION Methodology Various alternatives that address a given deficiency are compared through a scoring system to achieve the most object approach as practical to alternative selection. The scores are developed based on a ranking of how each alternative performs in each of the criteria described below. The rankings in each criterion bare based on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 representing the greatest benefit. Life Cycle Cost Rankings in this criterion are inversely proportioned to estimated Life Cycle Cost. A score of 1.0 represents the costliest alternative and a score of 5.0 represents a no cost alternative. The scores are determined from the following formula: Score= 5—(Cost/Max Cost) x 4.0 • Max Cost is the maximum Life Cycle Cost within the group of alternatives that the alternative being scored is compared to. • Cost is the Opinion of Life Cycle Cost of the alternative being scored. Public Opinion This criteria is intended to give preference to alternatives that are favored by the public who are affected by alternative selection. However, the findings and recommendations of this Preliminary Engineering Report were presented at three public meetings, as well as published on the City of Laurel website for review, with no public comments. Sustainability In this criterion, higher scores are given to solutions that extend new infrastructure or increase capacity to areas where future growth is anticipated, and the new infrastructure will not require replacement to well beyond the 20-year planning period. It gives low ranking to temporary solutions that will need to be re-visited at the end of the planning period, and do not promote growth. Project Complexity In this criterion, higher scores are given to simple projects that could be completed by numerous local contractors and do not require significant negotiations with third parties or other complicated issues. It gives low rankings to projects that involve specialized contractors from outside of the region or poses high risk scenarios in the event something doesn't go as planned. An example could be loss of water service to a large part of the City if a contractor fails to restore a connection. It also gives low rating to project that require successful negotiation with landowners, in situations where that would stop the project. Operational Complexity In this criterion, higher scores are given to project that are expected to have a net reduction in demands on City staff to operate the system. Lower scores are given to projects that will require the City to implement new operational procedures. City of Laurel, MT Water System 67 Environmental In this criterion,higher scores are given to projects that are expected to provide an environmental benefit. Neutral project that are not expected to provide a benefit, but also avoid any sensitive environmental resources are given a score of 3. Lower scores are assigned to projects that may not be able to completely avoid environmental impacts but will require some amount of mitigation efforts. Weighting Each criterion is weighted to develop a total composite weighted score for each alternative. Life Cycle Cost is given the greatest weight, simply due to the magnitude of cost required to remedy some of the deficiencies. Public Opinion and Sustainability are given equal weights that are the next highest. Public opinion is very important due to the public funding the project and being the primary beneficiary of the project. Sustainability is critical, because the project is expected to serve the City many decades into the future and it must be designed for reasonable growth. Construction Complexity is given a low weight because complicated construction issues are indirectly addressed in the Life Cycle Cost. Operational Complexity if given a low weight because all the alternatives being compared exhibit similar operational requirements. Environmental, while important, is given little weight because no alternatives are being proposed that are expected to pose unmitigated environmental risks. Alternative Scoring Tables 6.1 through 6.3 summarize scoring and provide justification for each alternative in each of the scoring metrics. Table 6.4 provides a summary of the total score for all alternatives. City of Laurel, MT Water System 68 Table 6.1 -Distribution Alternative Scoring Life Cycle Cost 1.9 • Based on Life Cycle Cost scoring formula 7D1131.0 D2 3.5 D3 4.3 Public Opinion D1A 3 • No public comment D113 3 • No public comment D2 3 • No public comment D3 3 • No public comment Sustainability D1A 5 • Extends service to several large adjacent tracts • Improves system reliability with looping D1B 5 • Extends service same as in D1A, but not as close • Improves system reliability with looping D2 5 Extends service along large vacant tracts being considered for industrial development • Improves system reliability with looping D3 4 • Does not extend service to any new areas • Improves system reliability with looping Project Complexity D1A 4 • Improvements within platted rights-of-way • Simple underground pipe installation • Must resolve with landowners if lots along main are be annexed and connected to City water D113 4 • Improvements within platted rights-of-way • Simple underground pipe installation • Must resolve with landowners if lots along main are annexed and connected to City water D2 3 • Simple pipe installation • Easement acquisitions may be required. • Boring required under MDT right of way and under irrigation ditch. D3 5 • Project within platted rights-of-way • Simple underground pipe installation Operational Complexity D1A 5 • Each Distribution alternative improves City's operational capabilities D1B 5 through system looping. D2 5 • Alternative D3 provides operational benefits to a much smaller area D3 4 than the other alternatives. Environmental D1A 3 • Improvements primarily along existing roadways for each alternative. D113 3 No environmental impacts are anticipated. D2 3 City of Laurel, MT Water System 69 D3 3 Table 6.2-Storage Alternative Scoring 7 Life Cycle Cost T1 1.0 • Based on Life Cycle Cost scoring formula T2 1.8 T3 1.5 Public Opinion T1 3 • No public comment T2 3 • No public comment T3 3 • No public comment Sustainability T1 5 • Each tank option provides for sustainable growth and allows for T2 4 maintenance of the existing tank. T3 4 • The alternative T1 tank site is toward the west side of pressure zone where there has been more development interest and it may be slightly better than the other options for growth in that area. Project Complexity T1 2 • Each option requires sophisticated construction sequencing to keep T2 2 system in service during work. T3 1 • Each option involves a large-scale project with multiple specialized contractors in conjunction with pumpstation and distribution work. • Each option requires cooperation with multiple landowners for easement and land acquisitions. • The alternative T3 site requires a challenging boring under an irrigation ditch and then turning vertically to go up a 50-foot-tall hill to the tank site. Operational Complexity T1 5 • Each tank option will significantly improve the City's ability to operate T2 5 and maintain the system and will also simplify the system by T3 5 consolidating the two booster station service areas into one pressure zone. Environmental T1 2 • It is anticipated that any significant wetlands will be avoided. Other T2 3 mitigations may be provided for minor wetland disturbances. T3 3 Alternative T1 appears to have greatest potential for wetland conflicts. General sage grouse habitat is present at each site. Disturbance to this habitat will be kept to a minimum. City of Laurel, MT Water System 70 Table 6.3-Pump Alternative Scoring F Alternative Score Justification Life Cycle Cost P1 1.7 • Based on Life Cycle Cost scoring formula P2 1.4 P3 1.4 P4 1.0 Public Opinion P1 3 • No public comment P2 3 • No public comment P3 3 • No public comment P4 3 • No public comment IL Sustainability P1 5 • Each pump alternative would address capacity/pressure issues in the P2 5 upper parts of the system that are currently restricting growth in the P3 5 system. None of the alternatives have an apparent sustainability P4 5 advantage over the others. Project Complexity P1 2 . Each option requires sophisticated construction sequencing to keep P2 2 system in service during work. P3 2 • Each option involves a large-scale project in conjunction with tank and P4 2 distribution system work,with multiple specialized contractors. • None of the alternative have an apparent project complexity advantage over the others. Operational Complexity P1 4 . Each pump alternative would simplify operational requirements of the P2 4 system by consolidating the two existing pumpstation service areas into P3 4 one pressure zone and provide the ability to meet pressure P4 4 requirements in current low-pressure areas. None of the alternatives have an apparent operational advantage over the others. Environmental IIIF- PI 3 • None of the pumpstation alternatives being conserved are anticipated P2 3 to impact any sensitive environmental resources. None of the P3 3 alternatives have an apparent environmental advantage over the P4 3 others. City of Laurel, MT Water System 71 Table 6.4-Decision Matrix Alternative Life Public Sustainability Project Operational Enviro Cycle Opinion Complexity Complexity Cost 20Yo 20%,Mli6h.�o 10% 10% Total r .9 17 Score Distribution Alternatives D1A 1.9 3 5 4 5 3 3.4 D113 1.0 3 5 4 5 3 3.1 D2 3.5 3 5 3 5 3 3.8 D3 4.3 3 4 5 4 3 3.9 Tank Alternatives T1 1.0 3 5 2 5 2 2.8 T2 1.8 3 4 2 5 3 2.9 T3 1.5 3 4 1 5 3 2.8 Pump Alternatives P1 1.7 3 5 2 4 3 3.0 P2 1.4 3 5 2 4 3 2.9 P3 1.2 3 5 2 4 3 2.9 P4 1.0 3 5 2 4 3 2.8 City of Laurel, MT Water System 72 Recommendation Distribution Improvements Of all the distribution alternatives evaluated, only Alternatives D1A and D1B address a common problem. Of those two options Alternative D1A scores higher and is therefore the recommended option. Alternatives D2 and D3 address problems in different areas, so they are not compared against the other alternatives. Pursuit of both alternatives is recommended to address all issues identified in this study. The scoring may serve as an order of prioritization. The recommended order of priorities is as follows accordingly: • Priority 1—Alternative D-3 • Priority 2—Alternative D-2 • Priority 3—Alternative D-1A Storage Improvements Tank Alternative T2 scores the highest and is the recommended solution for tank improvements. Scoring for all tank alternatives is close, so if unforeseen issues are encountered during design for Alternative T2, the other two alternatives should be considered as contingencies. This is helpful during landowner negotiations for easement and tank site acquisition. With multiple feasible solutions, involving alternate land requirements, success of the project is not dependent on cooperation from one single third party. Pumping improvements Pump Alternative P1 scores the highest and is the recommended pump solution. This alternative involves constructing a new pump station in place of the existing Murray Height Booster Station and abandoning both the existing Murray Heights and Cherry Hills Booster Stations. City of Laurel, MT Water System 73 City of Laurel, MT Water System 74 7.0 PROPOSED PROJECT Preliminary Project Design Distribution Improvements Proposed distribution system improvements are as shown in Figure 5.1. These are in addition to distribution improvements needed as part of tank alternative to modify pressure zones as shown in Figure 5.2a. All improvements are to be designed and permitted through DEQ in accordance with DEQ Circular 1 (DEQ-1) design standards. Any of the alternatives shown in the figure can be completed independently of other distribution, tank or pumpstation improvements. These projects may be prioritized based on available funding with no adverse effect or coordination concerns with other projects recommended by this study. Storage Improvements Proposed water tank improvements and related water distribution improvements, needed to support the tank improvements, are shown in Figures 5.3 through 5.5, respectively. The proposed tank would be a 1.0 MG on grade or partially buried tank, depending on site topography. The tank could be steel or concrete, which would be determined during final design. The proposed site shown in Figure 5.4 is approximate and is based on regional topography that is at a good elevation to serve a second pressure zone. The exact site may be adjusted within the vicinity shown during design to adjust for landowner preferences and unforeseen site conditions. The recommended normal operating water surface elevation in the tank is 3,528 to 3,534 feet. This range will result in the maximum area that can be served by the upper pressure zone. Tank sites ranging in elevation from 3,490 to 3,510 are optimum. All tank improvements are to be designed and permitted in accordance with DEQ-1. Pumpstation Improvements Proposed pumpstation improvements are shown in Figures 5.6 through 5.9. The improvements generally include constructing a new pumpstation at the existing Murray Heights pump station site and decommissioning both the Murray Heights and Cherry Hills existing pumpstations. The existing pump station is located on City owned park land. The existing pump station and supporting infrastructure is in fair condition but lacks capacity to serve the entire upper pressure zone. Therefore, it is recommended to use as much of the existing infrastructure as practical. For the sake of budgeting in this report, it was assumed that an entirely new pumpstation building and supporting infrastructure will be required, but that should be evaluated in detail during design to see if the existing building, any of the existing piping and backup generator can be used. Consideration should also be given to minimizing disturbance to parkland. The new pump station should be designed for a flow rate of 1,500 gpm with redundant pumping capacity and backup power in accordance with DEQ-1 design standards. Construction Sequencing The water system must continue serving the City throughout the duration of construction. This raises a unique challenge, as tank, pump station and pressure zone improvements are completely dependent on each other for proper function. All these most occur together for any of them to be integrated into system operation. City of Laurel, MT Water System 75 Once pressure zone modifications to the distribution system are complete, the existing Murray Heights and Cherry Hills pumpstations will lack the capacity to serve the modified upper pressure zone services area. So, the pump station improvements will need to be completed prior to that. Likewise, the pumpstation will not be able to operate properly until the upper pressure zone tank is in place. Distribution improvements that are not directly related to pressure zone modifications, tank or pumping improvements may occur any time, apart from sequencing of other improvements. Recommended construction sequencing is as follows: 1. Tank Installation 2. Pumpstation Improvements 3. Pressure Zone Improvements to Distribution System 4. Start up on new tank, pressure zone and pumping configuration 5. Other Distribution Improvements Portions of the work described in items 1-3 above could occur at the same time and should be completed in the same construction season. Permits The project will require a construction permit from DEQ and other typical associated permits, such as coverage under the National Permit to discharge stormwater associated with construction activity. These are typical permits that should have no negative implications on the projects. Permitting will also be required for disturbance of sage grouse habitat associated with tank and transmission line installation. There are no known permit requirements that will influence project feasibility or significantly impact the schedule. Project Cost and Funding Capital Cost The total estimated capital cost for recommended pumpstation, tank and related distribution improvements is $15.9 million (2026 cost value). All of this must be completed together as one project for system compatibility. The total estimated capital cost for other distribution system improvements is $5.0 million (2026 cost value). This cost is independent of the tank, pump and pressure zone improvement costs. It may be prioritized and phased based on funding. Operation and Maintenance Cost An annual increase of approximately$9,000 in pumping cost is anticipated due to increased service area in the upper pressure zone. City Funds The current balance in the City's water enterprise fund is approximately$8.8 million. However,the entire amount is allocated to debt reserves, customer deposits, operating balance, current capital projects and other minor financial obligations. None of this amount is usable for the capital improvements identified in this report. City of Laurel, MT Water System 76 It is estimated that the City currently has an average operating surplus of$0.5 million per year that could be used for debt repayment to secure additional funds. User Rates Per Laurel's current rate structure, water rates vary based on water meter size. However, the average rate is approximately$55 per EDU. By comparison the Montana DOC establishes a target rate of$64.75 for Laurel. Adjustments to user rates may need to be considered depending on the project funding package. Potential Grants and Loan Programs US RURAL DEVELOPMENT(RD) RD offers a grant and loan program that is available to municipalities for water improvement projects. A minimum 25% matching funds are required from the grantee.The grant to loan ratio is a function of user rates, poverty level and the Low- and Moderate-Income Ratio (LMI). Laurel would likely qualify for a 15- percent grant ratio,with the remaining 85% being a loan. The current RD loan rate for Laurel would most likely be around 3.5-percent, but this could increase with rising FED rates. Funding applications are received on an open cycle. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION (DNRC) DNRC Grants with a maximum amount of $125,000 are available to municipalities. Ranking is weighted heavily towards projects that benefit natural resources. The recommend projects provide little benefit to natural resources, so securing a DNRC grant is unlikely. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND DWSRF The DWSRF program offers loans for municipal water systems with emphasis on projects that are needed to protect public health. Laurel would qualify. The current DWSRF loan rate is 2.5-percent. Loans have a 30-year repayment period.Applications are received on an open cycle. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) appropriates funds though the DWSRF program from FY22 through FY26. These appropriations will increase funding for DWSRF programs an average of nearly six times the level of previous annual appropriations.These funds will be utilized at the state's discretion for increased loans, additional loan forgiveness, and in some cases grants (particularly for small and/or disadvantaged communities). To secure IIJA funds, projects MUST be on the DWSRF Intended Use Plan. Completing the form to be included in the Intended Use Plan does not obligate a community to utilizing DWSRF, however,failure to be included in the plan will hinder the community's ability to access this money moving forward. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT(CDBG) CDBG offers funding to municipalities for water system improvements with the requirement that at least 51%of the beneficiaries are low and moderate income. Laurel's LMI ratio is 36.5%,so they are not eligible. City of Laurel, MT Water System 77 MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE MONTANA BOARD OF INVESTMENT INTERCAP LOAN (INTERCAP) This is a low interest short term loan program, typically used for interim funding to cover startup period for other funding sources, or gap funding if other sources don't quite cover the full balance. The repayment period is 15-years,and the current rate is 1.55%. The loans are offered on a continuous cycle. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE MONTANA COAL ENDOWMENT PROGRAM (MCEP) MCEP offers construction grants to municipalities for water system improvements,with a strong emphasis on funding projects that are needed for public health and safety. Grant amounts are based on user rates as a percentage of a community's target rate. Amounts are $500,000, $625,000, and $750,000 for projected rates at 100%, 125%and 150%of the target rate, respectively. The project rate is the rate that is expected upon completion of the project being funded. Award requires one-to-one matching contributions from the applicant. Construction grant applications are received in the spring of each even number year. The next application date will be in the spring of 2024. AMERICAN RESOURCE PLAN ACT(ARPA) All ARPA funds previously received by the State have been appropriated. Laurel received some appropriations which have already been allocated to other projects. US ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION (EDA) The EDA provides grants to municipalities for water system improvements that are directed towards job creation and other forms of economic development. The proposed project is not for the purpose of economic development, so this program would not apply. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE COAL BOARD The Coal Board offers grants to coal impacted communities that can be used for a wide array of capital improvements, including water system improvements. Grant applications are received on an open cycle and evaluated on quarterly basis. Laurel is within the designated coal impact area. However, showing coal impacts could be up for interpretation by the Board and there are no clear criteria to know the likelihood of Laurel receiving funds. Current annual appropriations are approximately $3 million distributed through 12-counties. If Laurel is awarded Coal Board funds, it is unlikely that it would be for a significant amount. Proposed Funding Package & Debt Repayment Due to the current financial status of the City, City staff has requested waiting until 2026 to complete the projects recommended in this report. This will give the City a little time to pay down current depts;adjust rates over several years; and build up current operating reserves, to be in a position to responsibly take on additional dept. This is probably reasonable timing for completion the needed tank recoat, based on the life span estimates from the tank inspection report. Therefore, the proposed funding strategy presented in this report is based on construction in 2026. It is recommended that the City pursue funding the project through a DWSRF loan. It is also recommended that the City consider submitting funding application to Coal Board and MCEP to minimize added debt with DWSRF. However, Coal Board and MCEP money should be ignored in budgeting for the project, as odds of securing a sizable Coal Board grant or an MCEP grant are marginal. RD is a consideration, but any City of Laurel, MT Water System 78 awarded funds would be mostly in the form of a loan and at a higher rate than DWSRF. DWSRF also has the added benefit of possible debt forgiveness. Table 7.1 provides a summary of estimated project cost, proposed funding and estimated debt service requirements. Table 7.1—Proposed Funding Strategy Estimated 2026 Capital Cost of all $20.8 million Proposed Projects Current City Funds $0 DWSRF Funds $20.8 million Debt Service Requirement $82,000/month User Rate Increase As shown in Chapter 3, the City is currently only able to commit approximately$0.5-million per year or $42,000 per month to additional loan payments. That is approximately half of what would be needed to cover a DWSRF loan for the proposed project. A rate increased is recommended to cover the difference. Following is an estimate of the total annual revenue needed in 2026: From financial analysis in Chapter 3: Average operating expenses= $3,721,277 (Fiscal Years 2019—2022) Average revenue = $4,742,000 (Fiscal Years 2019—2022) It should be noted that there hasn't been any rate increases in the last few years, so the annual revenue in 2023 should be about the same as shown above. Revenue needed in 2026 is estimated as follows: $4,749,000 (Inflated 5%annually from 2021 to 2026) +$984,000 (DWSRF Loan) +$475,000 (10% Buffer+ Un-foreseen Expenses) $6,208,000 Rate increase to get to Needed Revenue in 2026: $6,208,000/$4,742,000= 1.31 (now till 2026) 7% increase for 4-year It is recommended that the City plan for a 7-percent rate increase in 2023, 2024, 2025 &2026 to fund the required improvements. The rate increase is based an assumed future annual inflation rate of 5- percent and should be adjusted each year based on actual inflation that occurs. City of Laurel, MT Water System 79 Project Schedule Table 7.2 provides a proposed schedule for the project. As discussed previously, it is recommended to postpone construction to 2026 to allow time for needed rate increases and for the City to finish other current water system projects. This positions the City better to responsibly take on additional dept. However, it is also recommended that the City Register on the DWSRF Intended Use Plan immediately to take advantage of any DWRSF grants that may come up if any additional federal stimulus packages are appropriated between now and 2026. Table 7.2—Proposed Schedule Register on DWSRF Intended Use May 2023 Plan Easement and Land Acquisition January 2024—December 2024 Apply for an MCEP Construction Spring of 2024 Grant Apply for a Coal Board Grant Summer/Fall of 2025 Preliminary Design May 2025—August 2025 Final Design September 2025—December 2025 Bidding February 2026 Construction April 2026—November 2026 City of Laurel, MT Water System 80 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The City of Laurel's water supply and water treatment systems are in good operating condition with completion of several upgrades over the last several years. However,there are several deficiencies in the water distribution system that present a public health and safety risk. The primary issues are related to lack of redundancy and inability to take the current water storage tank offline for needed maintenance, as well as low pressures in parts of the system due to improper pressure zone configuration. Other issues involve lack of looping,leading to substandard fire flows in a few areas,as well as reliance on single system components to maintain service to large areas, with no redundancy. Table 8.1 provides a summary of recommended improvements and estimated capital cost to address these deficiencies. The estimated amounts are in 2026 projected values, based on an assumed 5%annual inflation rate. Table 8.1-Recommended Solutions Alternative Figure Opinion of Estimated Change ProbableReference „ Annual Cost Operating Cost Storage Alternative T-2 in combination with 5.4&5.2a $13,886,000 0 pressure zone configuration improvements Pump Alternative P-1 5.6 $1,973,000 $9,000 Distribution Alternatives D-1A, D-2 and D-3 5.1 $4,971,000 0 The new proposed tank site shown in Figure 5.4 is general and may be shifted to an alternate property in the same vicinity if needed to accommodate landowners. Other potential sites are shown in Figures 5.3 and 5.5. They may be considered as alternates if land and easement acquisition prove to be problematic at the preferred location. Proposed improvements include a 1.0-million gallons on grade or partially buried concrete or steel tank. The exact type of tank would be determined in final design. The proposed size was determined based on future growth potential in the upper pressure zone. The proposed pump station alternative shown in Figure 5.4 involves construction of a new booster station at the existing Murray Height Booster Station site and decommissioning both existing booster stations. The new booster station is to be sized with adequate capacity to supply the upper pressure zone following reconfiguration of the zones and to allow for future growth. This includes supplying the new proposed upper pressure zone tank. During design,the existing Murray Heights Booster Station should be analyzed in more detail to see if any of its parts are salvageable in construction of the new station, including the existing building. The existing building is in good condition and it should be used if it is adequately sized for the larger booster station. If it is not large enough, the City could construct a new building next to it and repurpose the existing building for an alternate use. For operational compatibility in the system, proposed tank, pumpstation and pressure zone reconfiguration improvements must be completed all as one project. None of these improvements can properly function in the existing system, as standalone projects. Proposed pressure zone configuration improvements are shown in Figure 5.2a. City of Laurel, MT Water System 81 Tank, pump and pressure zone reconfiguration improvements will address most of the identified deficiencies. To address the remainder, distribution looping is needed at several locations. Proposed distribution improvements are shown in Figure 5.1. Unlike the other improvements,these improvements could be completed as separate projects and be given a lower priority than the other improvements, as they do not address as urgent of a need. The total estimated capital improvement cost of all proposed improvements is $20.8 million (2026 cost value). The City's water enterprise fund does not currently have adequate surplus to contribute toward this amount. Pursuit of a Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) loan is recommended to pay for the recommend capital improvements. DWSRF loan rates are currently 2.5%with a 30-year loan term and no prepayment penalty. It is possible for these funds to become grants or for there to be loan forgiveness. The City should request for these projects to be put on the DWSRF priority list right away to take advantage of any grant or loan forgiveness opportunities that may come. However, for safe budgeting purposes,it should be assumed the City will need to repay the entire balance. Estimated payments would be$82,000 per month. It is estimated a 31% rate increase will be needed by 2026 to cover the loan cost. This assumes a 5%average annual inflation from 2023 to 2026. It is recommended the City increase rates 7% in 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026, but re-evaluate each year based on actual inflation that occurs. It is also recommended that the City apply for MCEP funds in the spring of 2024 and Coal Board funds in the summer/fall of 2025 to help reduce the DWSRF loan amount. However,securing these funds is not certain and should not be depended on for a funding strategy. City of Laurel, MT Water System 82 9.0 APPENDICES Appendix A : Engineer' s Opinion of Probable Cost Appendix B : Soil, Wetlands and Land Use Data Appendix C: Floodplain Data Appendix D : Water Rights Information Appendix E : Source Water Delineation and Assessment Report Appendix F : Tank Inspection Reports Appendix G : Sanitary Survey Appendix H : Environmental Review Appendix I : Public Outreach City of Laurel, MT Water System 83 APPENDIX A Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost Opinion of Probable Capital Cost Alternative D1-A (Distribution Improvement) # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 83,200.00 $ 83,000 2 Taxes, Insurance, Bonds 1 LS $ 41,300.00 $ 41,000 3 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000 4 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000 5 Remove Existing Water Main 339 LF $ 35.00 $ 12,000 6 8" Gate Valve & Box 19 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 43,000 7 Fire Hydrant Assembly 7 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 55,000 8 8" Fitting 10 EA $ 1,450.00 $ 15,000 9 8" Dia. Water Main 5,500 LF $ 95.00 $ 523,000 10 Connect to Existing 8" 6 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 24,000 11 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Patch 9,000 SY $ 70.00 $ 630,000 12 Type 2 P e Bedding 2,000 CY $ 52.00 $ 104,000 13 Imported Trench Backfill 3,000 Cy $ 52.00 $ 156,000 14 Exploratory Excavation 30 HR $ 3,400.00 $ 102,000 Subtotal $ 1,828,000 Contingency 20% $ 366,000 Subtotal: 2024 Construction Cost $ 2,194,000 jEngineering 1 20% $ 439,000 ROW & Land Acquisition 0 AC $ 23,000.00 $ - TOTAL: 2024 CAPITAL COST $ 2,633,000 TOTAL: 2026 CAPITAL COST $ 2,903,000 1 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 2 2026 Capital Cost includes a 5.0%inflation factor Alternative D 1-A Page 1 Opinion of Probable Capital Cost lu�Alternative DI-B(Distribution improvement) # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 106,600.00 $ 106,600 2 Taxes,Insurance,Bonds 1 LS $ 53,300.00 $ 53,300 3 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000 4 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000 5 Remove Existing Water Main 40 LF $ 35.00 $ 1,400 6 8" Gate Valve&Box 16 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 37,139 7 Fire Hydrant Assembly 10 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 81,179 8 8"Fitting 9 EA $ 1,450.00 $ 13,050 9 8"Dia. Water Main 8,000 LF $ 95.00 $ 760,000 10 Connect to Existing 12" 1 EA $ 5,800.00 $ 5,800 11 Connect to Existing 8" 3 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 12,000 12 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Patch 13,000 SY $ 70.00 $ 910,000 13 Type 2 Ppe Bedding 2,000 CY $ 52.00 $ 104,000 14 1 Imported Trench Backfill 4,000 CY $ 52.00 $ 208,000 Subtotal $ 2,338,000 Contingency 1 20%0 $ 468,000 Subtotal: 2024 Construction Cost $ 2,806,000 Engineering 20% $ 562,000 ROW&Land Acquisition 0 AC $ 23,000.00 $ - TOTAL: 2024 CAPITAL COST $ 393689000 TOTAL: 2026 CAPITAL COST $ 3,713,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 2 2026 Capital Cost includes a 5.0%inflation factor Alternative D 1-B Page 1 Opinion of Probable Capital Cost Alternative D-2 (Distribution Improvement) # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 40,100.00 $ 40,000 2 Taxes, Insurance, Bonds 1 LS $ 18,500.00 $ 19,000 3 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 4 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000 5 Remove Existing Water Main 1,700 LF $ 35.00 $ 60,000 6 12" Gate Valve & Box 5 EA $ 4,600.00 $ 24,000 7 Fire Hydrant Assembly 2 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 18,000 8 12" Fitting 3 EA $ 2,700.00 $ 8,000 9 12" Dia. Water Main 1,800 LF $ 115.00 $ 207,000 10 12" Horizontal Bore & Casing 600 LF $ 174.00 $ 104,000 11 Connect to Existing 12" 1 EA $ 5,800.00 $ 6,000 12 Connect to Existing 10" 2 EA $ 5,200.00 $ 10,000 13 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Patch 31 SY $ 70.00 $ 2,000 14 Gravel Road Restoration 4,000 SY $ 46.00 $ 184,000 15 Dryland Surface Resotration 51 SY $ 12.00 $ 1,000 16 Type 2 P e Bedding 540 CY $ 52.00 $ 28,000 17 Imported Trench Backfill 900 CY $ 52.00 $ 47,000 18 Exploratory Excavation 30 HR $ 3,400.00 $ 102,000 Subtotal $ 895,000 Contingency 20% $ 179,000 Subtotal: 2024 Construction Cost $ 1,074,000 jEngineering 1 20% $ 215,000 ROW & Land Acquisition 1 0 AC $ 23,000.00 $ - TOTAL: 2024 CAPITAL COST $ 1,289,000 TOTAL: 2026 CAPITAL COST $ 1,421,000 1 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 2 2026 Capital Cost includes a 5.0%inflation factor Alternative D-2 Page 1 Opinion of Probable Capital Cost 19--Alternative D-3 (Distribution Improvement) # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 17,000.00 $ 17,000 2 Taxes,Insurance,Bonds 1 LS $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000 3 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000 4 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 5 Remove Existing Water Main 100 LF $ 35.00 $ 4,000 6 8" Gate Valve&Box 10 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 24,000 7 Fire Hydrant Assembly 2 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 16,000 8 8"Fitting 6 EA $ 1,450.00 $ 9,000 9 8"Dia. Water Main 1,100 LF $ 95.00 $ 105,000 10 Connect to Existing 6" 5 EA $ 3,400.00 $ 17,000 11 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Patch 1,661 SY $ 70.00 $ 116,000 12 Type 2 Ppe Bedding 330 CY $ 52.00 $ 17,000 13 Imported Trench Backfill 550 CY $ 52.00 $ 29,000 Subtotal $ 407,000 Contingency 1 20% $ 82,000 Subtotal: 2024 Construction Cost $ 489,000 Engineering 1 20% $ 98,000 ROW&Land Acquisition 1 0 AC $ 23,000.00 $ - TOTAL: 2024 CAPITAL COST $ 587,000 TOTAL: 2026 CAPITAL COST $ 647,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 2 2026 Capital Cost includes a 5.0%inflation factor Alternative D-3 Page 1 Opinion of Probable Capital Cost Alternative P1 (1,500 gpm Booster Station) # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 57,500.00 $ 57,500 2 Taxes,Insurance,Bonds 1 LS $ 28,800.00 $ 28,800 3 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 4 11500 gpm Booster Station 1 LS 1 $1,150,000.00 $ 1,150,000 Subtotal $ 1,242,000 Contingency 1 20% $ 249,000 Subtotal: 2024 Construction Cost $ 1,491,000 Engineering 20% $ 299,000 ROW&Land Acquisition 0 AC $ 23,000.00 $ - TOTAL: 2024 CAPITAL COST $ 1,790,000 TOTAL: 2026 CAPITAL COST $ 1,973,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 2 2026 Capital Cost includes a 5.0%inflation factor 19 Opinion of Probable Cost Operation And Maintenanc Cost(20-Year Planning Period) Alternative P1 (1,500 gpm Booster Station) # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Power Usage 75,000 kWh/yr $ 0.12 $ 9,000 Total Annual Cost Present Worth of 20-year O&M Cost Inflation (e) 5.00% Interest Rate(i) 6.00% Discount Factor=(i-e)/(l+e) 0.95% 'Equivalent Annual O&M calculated using discount rate based upon estimated inflation and interest. 2 Present worth based upon a 20 year life cycle using calculated discount rate. Alternative P 1 Pageg 1 Opinion of Probable Capital Cost Alternative P2 (1,500 gpm Booster Station) # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 57,700.00 $ 57,700 2 Taxes, Insurance, Bonds 1 LS $ 28,800.00 $ 28,800 3 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 5,800.00 $ 5,800 4 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 3,400.00 $ 3,400 5 1500 gpm Booster Station 1 LS $1,150,000.00 $ 1,150,000 Subtotal $ 1,246,000 Contingency 20% $ 250,000 Subtotal: 2024 Construction Cost $ 11496,000 Engineering 1 20% $ 300,000 ROW& Land Acquisition 1 LS $ 186,000 $ 186,000 TOTAL: 2024 CAPITAL COST $ 1,976,000 TOTAL: 2026 CAPITAL COST $ 2,179,000 1 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 2 2026 Capital Cost includes a 5.0%inflation factor Opinion of Probable Cost JC0peration And Maintenanc Cost(20-Year Planning Period) Alternative P2 (1,500 gpm Booster Station) # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Power Usage 75,000 kWh/yr $ 0.12 $ 9,000 Total Annual Cost $ 9,000 Present Worth of 20-year O&M Cost $163,000 Inflation (e) 5.00% Interest Rate (i) 6.00% Discount Factor= (i-e)/(1+e) 0.95% ' Equivalent Annual O&M calculated using discount rate based upon estimated inflation and interest. 2 Present worth based upon a 20 year life cycle using calculated discount rate. Alternative P2 Page 1 Opinion of Probable Capital Cost Alternative P3 (1,500 gpm Booster Station) # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 57,700.00 $ 57,700 2 Taxes, Insurance, Bonds 1 LS $ 28,800.00 $ 28,800 3 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 5,800.00 $ 5,800 4 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 3,400.00 $ 3,400 5 1500 gpm Booster Station 1 LS $1,150,000.00 $ 1,150,000 Subtotal $ 1,246,000 Contingency 20% $ 250,000 Subtotal: 2024 Construction Cost $ 11496,000 Engineering 1 20% $ 300,000 ROW& Land Acquisition 1 LS $ 186,000.00 $ 186,000 TOTAL: 2024 CAPITAL COST $ 1,976,000 TOTAL: 2026 CAPITAL COST $ 2,179,000 1 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 1 2026 Capital Cost includes a 5.0%inflation factor Opinion of Probable Cost III Operation And Maintenanc Cost(20-Year Planning Alternative P3 (1,500 gpm Booster Station) # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Power Usage 75,000 kWh/ r $ 0.12 $ 9,000 ioTotal Annual Cost $ 9,000 Present Worth of 20-year O&M Cost ji, ir $163,000 Inflation (e) 5.00% Interest Rate (i) 6.00% Discount Factor= (i-e)/(1+e) 0.95% ' Equivalent Annual O&M calculated using discount rate based upon estimated inflation and interest. 2 Present worth based upon a 20 year life cycle using calculated discount rate. Alternative P3 Page 1 Opinion of Probable Capital Cost Alternative P4 (1,500 gpm Booster Station) # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 57,500.00 $ 57,500 2 Taxes, Insurance, Bonds 1 LS $ 28,800.00 $ 28,800 3 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 5,800.00 $ 5,800 4 12" Gate Valve &Box 1 EA $ 4,600.00 $ 3,582 5 12" Dia. Water Main 623 EA $ 115.00 $ 71,645 6 Connect to Existing 12" 1 EA $ 5,800.00 $ 5,800 7 Connect to Existing 8" 1 EA $ 5,800.00 $ 5,800 8 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Patch 969 SY $ 70.00 $ 67,838 9 Dryland Surface Restoration 485 SY $ 12.00 $ 5,815 10 11500 gpm Booster Station 1 LS $19150,000.00 $ 1,150,000 Subtotal $ 1,403,000 Contingency 1 20%1 $ 281,000 Subtotal: 2024 Construction Cost $ 1,684,000 Engineering 20% $ 337,000 ROW&Land Acquisition 1 -7 LS 1 $ 180,000.00 $ 180,000 TOTAL: 2024 CAPITAL COST $ 2,201,000 TOTAL: 2026 CAPITAL COST $ 2,427,000 1 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 2 2026 Capital Cost includes a 5.0%inflation factor Opinion of Probable Cost Operation And Maintenanc Cost (20-Year Planning Period) Alternative P4 (1,500 gpm Booster Station) 747, QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Power Usage 75,000 kWh/yr 0.12 $ 9,000 Total Annual Cost $ 9,000 Present Worth of 20-year O&M Cost $163,000 Inflation (e) 5.00% Interest Rate (i) 6.00% Discount Factor= (i-e)/(1+e) 0.95% Equivalent Annual O&M calculated using discount rate based upon estimated inflation and interest. 2 Present worth based upon a 20 year life cycle using calculated discount rate. Alternative P4 Page 1 Opinion of Probable Capital Cost Alternative T1 (Pressure Zone Improvements and New 1.0 MGD Tank) # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 428,200.00 $ 428,000 2 Taxes,Insurance,Bonds 1 LS $ 209,700.00 $ 210,000 3 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000 4 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000 5 Remove Existing Water Main 5,000 LF $ 35.00 $ 175,000 6 12" Pressure Reducing Valve 2 EA $ 86,000.00 $ 172,000 7 16" Butterfly Valve 9 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 74,000 8 12" Gate Valve&Box 16 EA $ 4,600.00 $ 72,000 9 8" Gate Valve&Box 27 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 63,000 10 Horizontal Bore 300 LF $ 144.00 $ 43,000 11 Fire Hydrant Assembly 10 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 79,000 12 16" Fitting 7 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 16,000 13 12" Fitting 16 EA $ 2,700.00 $ 43,000 14 8"Fitting 2 EA $ 1,450.00 $ 3,000 15 16" Dia. Watr Main 7,000 LF $ 145.00 $ 1,015,000 16 12" Dia. Water Main 9,000 LF $ 115.00 $ 1,035,000 17 8"Dia. Water Main 1,000 LF $ 95.00 $ 95,000 18 Connect to Existing 16" 1 EA $ 6,900.00 $ 7,000 19 1 Connect to Existing 12" 12 EA $ 5,800.00 $ 70,000 20 Connect to Existing 8" 4 EA 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 16,000 21 Connect to Existing 6" 12 EA $ 31400.00 $ 41,000 22 New Water Service 46 EA $ 3,400.00 $ 156,000 23 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Patch 27,000 SY $ 70.00 $ 1,890,000 24 JDryland Surface Restoration 3,000 SY $ 12.00 $ 36,000 25 Type 2 Ppe Bedding 2,000 CY $ 52.00 $ 104,000 26 Imported Trench Backfill 3,000 CY $ 52.00 $ 156,000 27 Exploratory Excavation 30 HR $ 3,400.00 $ 102,000 28 1.0 MGD Elevated Storage Tank 1 EA $3,100,000.00 $ 3,100,000 29 1 Recoat Existing Tank Interior 1 LS 1 $1,400,000.00 $ 1,400,000 Subtotal $ 10,676,000 Contingency 1 20% $ 2,136,000 Subtotal: 2024 Construction Cost $ 12,812,000 Engineering 20% $ 2,563,000 ROW&Land Acquisition 1 10 AC $ 23,000.00 $ 230,000 TOTAL: 2024 CAPITAL COST $ 15,605,000 TOTAL: 2026 CAPITAL COST $ 17,205,000 t Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 2 2026 Capital Cost includes a 5.0%inflation factor Alternative T 1 Page 1 Opinion of Probable Capital Cost Alternative T2 (Pressure Zone Improvements and New 1.0 MGD Tank) # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE I TOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 337,500.00 $ 338,000 2 Taxes,Insurance,Bonds 1 LS $ 162,600.00 $ 163,000 3 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000 4 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000 5 Remove Existing Water Main 7,000 LF $ 35.00 $ 245,000 6 12"Pressure Reducing Valve 2 EA $ 86,000.00 $ 172,000 7 16"Butterfly Valve 8 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 60,000 8 12" Gate Valve&Box 11 EA $ 4,600.00 $ 52,000 9 8" Gate Valve&Box 22 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 51,000 10 Horizontal Bore 200 LF $ 144.00 $ 29,000 11 Fire Hydrant Assembly 4 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 31,000 12 16"Fitting 9 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 21,000 13 12"Fitting 16 EA $ 2,700.00 $ 43,000 14 8" Fitting 4 EA $ 1,450.00 $ 6,000 15 16"Dia. Watr Main 6,000 LF $ 145.00 $ 870,000 16 12"Dia. Water Main 5,100 LF $ 115.00 $ 587,000 17 8" Dia. Water Main 1,000 LF $ 95.00 $ 95,000 18 Connect to Existing 16" 1 EA $ 6,900.00 $ 7,000 19 Connect to Existing 12" 11 EA $ 5,800.00 $ 64,000 20 Connect to Existing 8" 4 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 16,000 21 Connect to Existing 6" 14 EA $ 3,400.00 $ 48,000 22 Water Serivice Connection 51 EA $ 3,400.00 $ 175,000 23 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Patch 10,000 SY $ 70.00 $ 700,000 24 Dryland Surface Restoration 10,000 SY $ 12.00 $ 120,000 25 Type 2 Ppe Bedding 1,000 CY $ 52.00 $ 52,000 26 Imported Trench Backfill 2,000 CY $ 52.00 $ 104,000 27 Exploratory Excavation 30 HR $ 3,400.00 $ 102,000 28 1.0 MGD Elevated Storage Tank 1 EA $ 3,100,000.00 $ 3,100,000 29 Recoat Existing Tank Interior 1 LS $ 1,400,000.00 $ 1,400,000 Subtotal $ 8,721,000 Contingency 1 20% $ 1,745,000 Subtotal: 2024 Construction Cost $ 10,466,000 Engineering 20% 1 1 $ 2,094,000 ROW&Land Acquisition 2 1 AC $23,000 $ 35,000 TOTAL: 2024 CAPITAL COST $ 12,595,000 TOTAL: 2026 CAPITAL COST $ 13,886,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 2 2026 Capital Cost includes a 5.0%inflation factor Alternative T2 Page 1 Opinion of Probable Capital Cost Alternative T3 (Pressure Zone Improvements and New 1.0 MGD Tank) # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 372,100.00 $ 372,000 2 Taxes,Insurance,Bonds 1 LS $ 181,400.00 $ 181,000 3 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000 4 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000 5 Remove Existing Water Main 5,300 LF $ 35.00 $ 186,000 6 12" Pressure Reducing Valve 2 EA $ 86,000.00 $ 172,000 7 16" Butterfly Valve 9 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 75,000 8 12" Gate Valve&Box 12 EA $ 4,600.00 $ 57,000 9 8" Gate Valve&Box 20 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 47,000 10 Horizontal Bore 100 LF $ 144.00 $ 14,000 11 Fire Hydrant Assembly 4 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 30,000 12 16" Fitting 11 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 25,000 13 12" Fitting 14 EA $ 2,700.00 $ 38,000 14 8"Fitting 4 EA $ 1,450.00 $ 6,000 15 16" Dia. Watr Main 7,500 LF $ 145.00 $ 1,088,000 16 12" Dia. Water Main 3,500 LF $ 115.00 $ 403,000 17 8"Dia. Water Main 1,000 LF $ 95.00 $ 95,000 18 Connect to Existing 16" 1 EA $ 6,900.00 $ 7,000 19 1 Connect to Existing 12" 12 EA $ 5,800.00 $ 70,000 20 Connect to Existing 8" 2 EA 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000 21 Connect to Existing 6" 12 EA $ 31400.00 $ 41,000 22 Water Serivice Connection 46 EA $ 3,400.00 $ 156,000 23 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Patch 23,000 SY $ 70.00 $ 1,610,000 24 JDryland Suface Restoration 400 SY $ 12.00 $ 5,000 25 Type 2 Ppe Bedding 1,000 CY $ 52.00 $ 52,000 26 Imported Trench Backfill 1,067 CY $ 52.00 $ 55,000 27 Exploratory Excavation 30 HR $ 3,400.00 $ 102,000 28 1.0 MGD Elevated Storage Tank 1 EA $3,100,000.00 $ 3,100,000 29 1 Recoat Existing Tank Interior 1 LS $1,400,000.00 $ 1,400,000 Subtotal $ 9,485,000 Contingency 1 20% $ 1,897,000 Subtotal: 2024 Construction Cost $ 11,382,000 Engineering 20% $ 2,277,000 ROW&Land Acquisition 2 AC $23,000 $ 46,000 TOTAL: 2024 CAPITAL COST $ 13,705,000 TOTAL: 2026 CAPITAL COST $ 15,110,000 t Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 2 2026 Capital Cost includes a 5.0%inflation factor Alternative T3 Page 1 APPENDIX B Soil, Wetlands and Land Use Data Montana National Register of Historic Places Property name Address City Listing date Smithsonian NR reference Property type Associated number number Multiple Properties Document Erb, Abraham and 110 4th Ave Laurel 6/9/2005 5000564 05000564 Building Carrie House Laurel Downtown Roughly bounded Laurel 9/16/2010 24YL1855 10000768 District Historic District by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company tracks to the S, Third S to the N, W oming Ave Mossman Overpass Mi. 57, N. 1-90 Laurel vicinity 3/26/2012 24YL0698 12000174 Site Frontage Rd SHPO Inventory Pagel .1 11 1 •11 :11 11 •ill .•11 11 11 He Kg Ec KeHz Sr Fis So: Lb La Hs Th TLa Sr Th .•_ _.,.- - _ - He Lo He Mw An Ec Cg La' .Lb G.P Sr Th La La Th ThLb Lb Hp Te _ W Amgm Ke Mn Hs'�,- Th Sr Am Sr Lb B-m Kh ' - _ K 9 Go Lo He :� 9 Va Th Lb GP LSr Mn LI Wf Lh Tn` AmW Sr L_I `L=1 L _ �W An SrTn Ax _ Wk' o (VVhHX M � r, _dr C LI LI LI.. GP Hx 'Am ; y Sr Bt Sa Mm Bt - Lr Tm H Nd Ax •:�;. _mom ., Ls Ls Th Th - Ls = - q.n Vd Ke Ax r Sa ua GP Sr Lrti, r F � Va Hd ri Lr' Lr Lv - - - /'r , ►� Tn Lr - H,y Hb L'r Tn Lu Hd Hn H'a Le Tn An Lh Lv Hd Hn An Lh - Ls Kit \ AI G I.'0 Ls Kh To Th Ha W AI ql f. Al t Ha Hd Wk Mm W To Hh GI y GI �. , ,�«�• •� °� � Hd Hb qn Ls Lr Le Ha Am Ha GI Hh ,CAI HXGo .:. `AI �" ��-., Lr Tn Au Wf ;AI Ha Go � Hn Go Wf Wf Wf MawGO Mm Hn Hh Go Ha Ha . Wf Wf Wf::: u •1 FF •1 • 1 11 • /11 •11 :11 11 •ill 11 11 1 11 111 111 111 1 1 11 111 .111 •111 Soil Map—Yellowstone County,Montana MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest(AOI) 1:20,000. Stony Spot Soils Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Soil Map Unit Polygons Very Stony Spot measurements. � 0 Soil Map Unit Lines Wet Spot Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Other Web Soil Survey LIRL: p Soil Map Unit Points Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) •� Special Line Features Special Point Features Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Vo Blowout water Features projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts Streams and Canals distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the Borrow Pit Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more Transportation Clay Spot accurate calculations of distance or area are required. � Rails Closed Depression This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as Interstate Highways of the version date(s)listed below. Gravel Pit US Routes Soil Survey Area: Yellowstone County,Montana Gravelly Spot Major Roads Survey Area Data: Version 18,Jun 4,2020 Landfill Local Roads Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales Lava Flow 1:50,000 or larger. Background Marsh or swamp ® Aerial Photography Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Jul 3,2013—Mar 6, 2017 + Mine or Quarry The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Miscellaneous Water compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor Perennial Water shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. IV Rock Outcrop Saline Spot 4 Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip oa Sodic Spot UU� Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/25/2021 � Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 5 Soil Map-Yellowstone County,Montana Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres:-AOI Percent of AOI Al Alluvial land,mixed 350.4 5.1% Am Alluvial land,seeped 114.6 1.7% An Alluvial land,wet 65.8 0.9% Au Arvada clay loam,0 to 1 3.5 0.1% percent slopes Ax Arvada-Bone silty clay loams, 230.0 3.3% 0 to 1 percent slopes Bf Bainville-Elso-Shale outcrop 0.0 0.0% complex,7 to 25 percent slopes Bm Bew silty clay loam,0 to 1 134.6 1.9% percent slopes Bt Bone silty clay,0 to 1 percent 18.3 0.3% slopes Cg Clapper gravelly loam,7 to 15 20.5 0.3% percent slopes Ec Elso clay loam,4 to 7 percent 5.2 0.1% slopes FI Fort Collins-Arvada clay Ioams, 16.2 0.2% 0 to 1 percent slopes GI Glenberg loam,0 to 1 percent 56.7 0.8% slopes Go Glenberg loam,0 to 1 percent 46.4 0.7% slopes GP Gravel pit 12.8 0.2% Ha Haverson loam,0 to 1 percent 197.2 2.8% slopes Hb Haverson loam,clay 84.7 1.2% substratum,0 to 1 percent slopes Hd Haverson silty clay loam,0 to 1 89.0 1.3% percent slopes He Haverson silty clay loam, 1 to 3 270.1 3.9% percent slopes Hh Haverson-Hysham Ioams,0 to 63.7 0.9% 1 percent slopes Hn Haverson loam,gravelly 86.6 1.2% variant,0 to 1 percent slopes Hp Hesper silty clay loam,0 to 1 7.0 0.1% percent slopes Hs Hilly,gravelly land 45.4 0.7% Hv Hydro-Allentine complex,2 to 19.0 0.3% 7 percent slopes USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/25/2021 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 5 Soil Map-Yellowstone County,Montana Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name so Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Hx Hysham-Laurel loams,0 to 2 54.8 0.8% percent slopes Hy Hysham-Laurel silty clay 66.3 1.0% loams,0 to 2 percent slopes Hz Hysham and Haverson soils,0 12.4 0.2% to 4 percent slopes Ke Keiser silty clay loam, 1 to 4 62.9 0.9% percent slopes Kg Keiser silty clay loam,4 to 7 24.9 0.4% percent slopes Kh Keiser and Hesper silty clay 40.1 0.6% loams,0 to 1 percent slopes La Lonna-Vanstel complex,0 to 4 120.7 1.7% percent slopes Lb Lonna silt loam,4 to 8 percent 115.9 1.7% slopes Le Larim loam,0 to 4 percent 5.6 0.1% slopes Lg Larim gravelly loam,0 to 4 25.1 0.4% percent slopes Lh Larim gravelly loam,4 to 7 16.5 0.2% percent slopes LI Larim gravelly loam, 15 to 35 92.4 1.3% percent slopes Lo Lohmiller silty clay,3 to 7 35.6 0.5% percent slopes Lr Lohmiller silty clay,0 to 1 1,423.0 20.5% percent slopes Ls Lohmiller soils,seeped,0 to 2 1,004.1 14.5% percent slopes Lu Lohmiller-Hysham silty clay 6.5 0.1% loams,0 to 1 percent slopes Lv Lohmiller silty clay,gravelly 338.7 4.9% variant,0 to 1 percent slopes Mm McRae loam,0 to 1 percent 53.9 0.8% slopes Mn McRae loam, 1 to 4 percent 161.8 2.3% slopes Mo McRae loam,4 to 7 percent 12.6 0.2% slopes Mw Midway-Razor clay loams,4 to 2.2 0.0% 7 percent slopes Sa Sage clay,0 to 1 percent 7.1 0.1% slopes So Shorey gravelly loam, 1 to 4 9.4 0.1% percent slopes Sr Shorey gravelly loam,4 to 7 124.3 1.8% percent slopes USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/25/2021 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 5 Soil Map—Yellowstone County,Montana Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Te Toluca clay loam,0 to 1 21.8 0.3% percent slopes Th Toluca clay loam, 1 to 4 194.4 2.8% percent slopes Tm Toluca clay loam,4 to 7 11.1 0.2% percent slopes Tn Toluca and Wanetta clay 127.1 1.8% loams,0 to 2 percent slopes To Toluca and Wanetta clay 46.7 0.7% loams,2 to 4 percent slopes Va Vananda silty clay,0 to 1 501.2 7.2% percent slopes Vd Vananda silty clay, 1 to 7 8.3 0.1% percent slopes W Water 163.5 2.4% Wf Wanetta clay loam,0 to 1 88.7 1.3% percent slopes Wh Wanetta-Larim clay loams,0 to 3.7 0.1% 1 percent slopes Wk Wanetta-Larim clay loams, 1 to 16.8 0.2% 4 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 6,938.8 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/25/2021 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 5 of 5 Montana Natural Heritage - SOC Report Species List Last Updated 02/19/2021 V MONTANAural Animal Species of Concern Nat Heritage 14 Species of Concern �dm 1 Special Status Species Filtered by the following criteria: A program of the Montana State Library's Township = 002SO24E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) Natural Resource Information System operated bythe University of Montana. Expand All I Collapse All Introduction Species of Concern Species of Concern 14 Species Filtered by the following criteria: Township=002SO24E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) MAMMALS (MAMMALIA) 2 SPECIES TOWNSHIP = 002S024E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) SCIENTIFIC NAME %OF GLOBAL COMMON NAME FAMILY(SCIENTIFIC) GLOBAL STATE BREEDING RANGE %OF MT THAT IS TAXA SORT FAMILY(COMMON) RANK RANK USFWS USFS BLM FWP SWAP IN MT BREEDING RANGE HABITAT Cynomys ludovicianus Sciuridae G4 S3 Sensitive-Known SENSITIVE SGCN3 15% 71% Grasslands Black-tailed Prairie Dog Squirrels on Forests(CG) Species Occurrences verified in these Counties:Big Horn,Blaine,Carbon,Carter,Cascade,Chouteau,Custer,Fallon,Fergus,Garfield,Golden Valley,Hill,Jefferson,Judith Basin,Lewis and Clark,Liberty,Mccone,Musselshell,Petroleum,Phillips,Powder River,Prairie,Richland,Rosebud,Stillwater,Sweet Grass,Toole,Treasure,Valley,Wheatland,Yellowstone State Rank Reason:Across much of eastern Montana this species occurs in areas with suitable soil and topography.However sylvatic plague has caused the species to decline and has affected colony size and dynamics.Ongoing threats from disease and persecution due to perceived competition with grazing make long-term status of this species uncertain. Ursus arctos Ursidae G4 S2S3 PS:LT;XN Threatened on THREATENED SGCN2-3 1% 22% Conifer forest Grizzly Bear Bears Forests(BD,CG, HLC,KOOT,LOLO) Species Occurrences verified in these Counties:Beaverhead,Broadwater,Carbon,Cascade,Chouteau,Deer Lodge,Fergus,Flathead,Gallatin,Glacier,Granite,Hill,Jefferson,Judith Basin, Lake,Lewis and Clark,Liberty,Lincoln,Madison,Meagher,Mineral,Missoula,Park,Pondera,Powell,Ravalli,Sanders,Silver Bow,Stillwater,Sweet Grass,Teton,Toole,Wheatland, Yellowstone BIRDS (AVES) 7 SPECIES TOWNSHIP = 002SO24E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) SCIENTIFIC NAME %OF GLOBAL COMMON NAME FAMILY(SCIENTIFIC) GLOBAL STATE BREEDING RANGE %OF MT THAT IS TAXA SORT FAMILY(COMMON) RANK RANK USFWS USFS BLM FWP SWAP IN MT BREEDING RANGE HABITAT Ardea herodias Ardeidae G5 S3 MBTA SGCN3 3% 100% Riparian forest Great Blue Heron Bitterns/Egrets/Herons Species Occurrences verified in these Counties:Beaverhead,Big Horn,Blaine,Broadwater,Carbon,Carter,Cascade,Chouteau,Custer,Dawson,Deer Lodge,Fallon,Fergus,Flathead, /Night-Herons Gallatin,Garfield,Glacier,Golden Valley,Granite,Hill,Jefferson,Judith Basin,Lake,Lewis and Clark,Liberty,Lincoln,Madison,Mccone,Meagher,Mineral,Missoula,Musselshell,Park, Petroleum,Phillips,Pondera,Powder River,Powell,Prairie,Ravalli,Richland,Roosevelt,Rosebud,Sanders,Sheridan,Silver Bow,Stillwater,Sweet Grass,Teton,Treasure,Valley,Wheatland, Wibaux,Yellowstone State Rank Reason:Small breeding population size,evidence of recent declines,and declining regeneration of riparian cottonwood forests due to altered hydrology and grazing. Centronyx bairdii Passerellidae G4 S36 MBTA;BCC11; SENSITIVE SGCN3 27% 67% Grasslands Baird's Sparrow New World Sparrows BCC17 Species Occurrences verified in these Counties:Blaine,Carter,Cascade,Chouteau,Custer,Daniels,Dawson,Fallon,Fergus,Glacier,Hill,Judith Basin,Lewis and Clark,Liberty,Mccone, Meagher,Musselshell,Petroleum,Phillips,Powder River,Prairie,Richland,Roosevelt,Rosebud,Sheridan,Stillwater,Sweet Grass,Teton,Toole,Treasure,Valley,Wheatland,Wibaux, Yellowstone State Rank Reason:Montana populations were declining until recently and the species is declining in most or the surrounding states and provinces. Coccyzus americanus Cuculidae G5 S313 PS:LT;MBTA; Threatened on THREATENED SGCN3,SGIN 1% 50% Prairie riparian forest Yellow-billed Cuckoo Cuckoos BCC10 Forests(BRT, LOLO) Species Occurrences verified in these Counties:Big Horn,Carbon,Carter,Chouteau,Custer,Gallatin,Lake,Madison,Missoula,Phillips,Powder River,Richland,Rosebud,Stillwater,Wibaux, Yellowstone Dolichonyx oryzivorus Icteridae GS I S313 I MBTA I I I SGCN3 1 9% 1 100% 1 Moist grasslands Bobolink Blackbirds Species Occurrences verified in these Counties:Beaverhead,Big Horn,Blaine,Broadwater,Carbon,Carter,Cascade,Chouteau,Custer,Daniels,Dawson,Fallon,Fergus,Flathead,Gallatin, Garfield,Glacier,Granite,Hill,Jefferson,Judith Basin,Lake,Lewis and Clark,Liberty,Madison,Mccone,Meagher,Missoula,Musselshell,Park,Petroleum,Phillips,Powder River,Powell, Prairie,Ravalli,Richland,Roosevelt,Rosebud,Sanders,Sheridan,Stillwater,Sweet Grass,Teton,Valley,Wheatland,Wibaux,Yellowstone State Rank Reason:Species has undergone recent large population declines in Montana and a patchwork of declines and increases have been documented in surrounding states and provinces. Gymnorhinus Corvidae G3 I S3 I MBTA;BCC17 I I I SGCN3 1 5% 1 55% 1 Open conifer forest cyanocephalus Jays/Crows/Magpies Species Occurrences verified in these Counties:Big Horn,Blaine,Broadwater,Carbon,Carter,Cascade,Chouteau,Custer,Fergus,Gallatin,Garfield,Golden Valley,Jefferson,Lewis and Pinyon Jay Clark,Musselshell,Park,Petroleum,Phillips,Powder River,Rosebud,Stillwater,Sweet Grass,Wheatland,Yellowstone Pipilo chlorurus Passerellidae G5 I S313 I MBTA I I I SGCN3 3% 60% Shrub woodland Green-tailed Towhee New World Sparrows Species Occurrences verified in these Counties:Beaverhead,Big Horn,Blaine,Broadwater,Carbon,Chouteau,Custer,Deer Lodge,Fergus,Gallatin,Garfield,Granite,Jefferson,Judith Basin,Lewis and Clark,Madison,Meagher,Musselshell,Park,Petroleum,Phillips,Powder River,Silver Bow,Stillwater,Sweet Grass,Valley,Wheatland,Yellowstone State Rank Reason:Populations in Montana and across the Northern Rockies have undergone recent declines. Spizella breweri Passerellidae G5 S313 MBTA;BCC10; SENSITIVE SGCN3 12% 100% Sagebrush Brewer's Sparrow New World Sparrows BCC17 Species Occurrences verified in these Counties:Beaverhead,Big Horn,Blaine,Broadwater,Carbon,Carter,Chouteau,Custer,Dawson,Deer Lodge,Fallon,Fergus,Flathead,Gallatin, Garfield,Glacier,Golden Valley,Granite,Hill,Jefferson,Lake,Lewis and Clark,Liberty,Lincoln,Madison,Mccone,Meagher,Missoula,Musselshell,Park,Petroleum,Phillips,Pondera,Powder River,Powell,Prairie,Ravalli,Richland,Roosevelt,Rosebud,Sanders,Sheridan,Silver Bow,Stillwater,Sweet Grass,Teton,Toole,Treasure,Valley,Wheatland,Wibaux,Yellowstone State Rank Reason:Species faces threats from loss of sagebrush habitats it is dependent on as a result of habitat conversion for agriculture and increased frequency of fire as a result of weed encroachment and drought. REPTILES (REPTILIA) 3 SPECIES TOWNSHIP = 0025024E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) SCIENTIFIC NAME %OF GLOBAL COMMON NAME FAMILY(SCIENTIFIC) GLOBAL STATE BREEDING RANGE %OF MT THAT IS TAXA SORT FAMILY(COMMON) RANK RANK USFWS USFS BLM FWP SWAP IN MT BREEDING RANGE HABITAT Apalone spinifera Trionychidae G5 S3 SENSITIVE SGCN3 2% 26% Prairie rivers and larger Spiny Softshell Softshell Turtles streams Species Occurrences verified in these Counties:Big Horn,Blaine,Carbon,Cascade,Chouteau,Custer,Dawson,Fergus,Garfield,Glacier,Golden Valley,Lewis and Clark,Musselshell, Petroleum,Phillips,Pondera,Prairie,Richland,Rosebud,Stillwater,Sweet Grass,Teton,Toole,Treasure,Wheatland,Wibaux,Yellowstone Chelydra serpentina Chelydridae G5 I S3 I I I SENSITIVE I SGCN3,SGIN 1 1% 26% Prairie rivers and streams Snapping Turtle Snapping Turtles Species Occurrences verified in these Counties:Big Horn,Carbon,Carter,Custer,Dawson,Fallon,Garfield,Mccone,Phillips,Powder River,Prairie,Richland,Roosevelt,Rosebud,Sheridan, Stillwater,Treasure,Wibaux,Yellowstone State Rank Reason:Little is known about native populations of this species in Montana,which makes assessment of threats and trends difficult.This species has a high age of maturity and low recruitment,making populations vulnerable to extirpation. Phrynosoma Phrynosomatidae G5 S3 Sensitive-Known SENSITIVE SGCN3,SGIN 19% 66% Sandy/gravelly soils hernandesi Sagebush/Spiny Lizards on Forests(CG) Greater Short-horned Sensitive- Lizard Suspected on Forests(HLC) Species Occurrences verified in these Counties:Big Horn,Blaine,Broadwater,Carbon,Carter,Cascade,Chouteau,Custer,Dawson,Fergus,Gallatin,Garfield,Glacier,Golden Valley,Hill, Lewis and Clark,Liberty,Mccone,Musselshell,Petroleum,Phillips,Pondera,Powder River,Prairie,Richland,Roosevelt,Rosebud,Silver Bow,Stillwater,Sweet Grass,Teton,Toole,Treasure, Valley,Wheatland,Wibaux,Yellowstone FISH (ACTINOPTERYGII) 1 SPECIES TOWNSHIP = 0025024E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) SCIENTIFIC NAME %OF GLOBAL COMMON NAME FAMILY(SCIENTIFIC) GLOBAL STATE BREEDING RANGE %OF MT THAT IS TAXA SORT FAMILY(COMMON) RANK RANK USFWS USFS BLM FWP SWAP IN MT BREEDING RANGE HABITAT Sander canadensis Percidae G5 S2 SENSITIVE SGCN2 1% 15% Large prairie rivers Sauger Perches Species Occurrences verified in these Counties:Big Horn,Blaine,Carbon,Carter,Cascade,Chouteau,Custer,Dawson,Fallon,Fergus,Garfield,Hill,Liberty,Mccone,Musselshell,Petroleum, Phillips,Powder River,Prairie,Richland,Roosevelt,Rosebud,Stillwater,Teton,Treasure,Valley,Wibaux,Yellowstone State Rank Reason:The Sauger is currently listed as an"52"species of concern in Montana because they are at risk of extirpation in the state,because of limited and/or declining numbers, range and/or habitat,even though it may be abundant in some areas.Population losses from the reservoir sections of the Missouri River and the Bighorn River are likely permanent. Competition and hybridization from the introduced walleye is another threat to native Sauger populations. INVERTEBRATES - INSECTS 1 SPECIES TOWNSHIP = 0025024E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) SCIENTIFIC NAME %OF GLOBAL COMMON NAME FAMILY(SCIENTIFIC) GLOBAL STATE BREEDING RANGE %OF MT THAT IS TAXA SORT FAMILY(COMMON) RANK RANK USFWS USFS BLM FWP SWAP IN MT BREEDING RANGE HABITAT STONEFLIES Isocapnia integra taniidae tandl. 5 S2 20% 5% Mountain Streams to Rivers Alberta Snowfly all Winter Stoneflies ccurrences verified in these Counties:Broadwater,Carbon,Cascade,Flathead,Gallatin,Lincoln,Mineral,Park,Stillwater,Sweet Grass,Yellowstone k Reason:The Alberta snowfly is currently ranked"S2"in Montana because it was thought to be at risk due to very limited and/or potentially declining population numbers,range bitat,making it vulnerable to extirpation in the state.But,recent range extensions due to taxonomic changes may warrant re-evaluating this SOC rank. Potential Species of Concern Special Status Species Additions To Statewide List Species Removed From Statewide List Species of Greatest Inventory Need Citation for data on this website: Montana Animal Species of Concern Report. Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish,Wildlife and Parks. Retrieved on 5/25/2021,from mtnhporg/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a Montana Natural Heritage - SOC Report Species List Last Updated 02/19/2021 V MONTANAural Animal Species of Concern Nat Heritage 14 Species of Concern Program 1 Special Status Species Filtered by the following criteria: A program of the Montana State Library's Township = 002SO24E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) Natural Resource Information System operated bythe University of Montana. Expand All I Collapse All Introduction Species of Concern Potential Species of Concern Potential Species of Concern 0 Species Filtered by the following criteria: Township=002SO24E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) Special Status Species Additions To Statewide List Species Removed From Statewide List Species of Greatest Inventory Need Citation for data on this website: Montana Animal Species of Concern Report. Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish,Wildlife and Parks. Retrieved on 5/25/2021,from mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a �AB r« U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands InventoryWetlands rd oo _`-�� � � ,•-ham'' _/ 100 r - qa ,�J Fr li D 0 jov Ilk n G P 1:57,741 0 0.5 1 2 mi �C,gEye, r ographics, NES/Airbus IDS, IGN, e IS User Commu 0 0.75 1.5 .+ur 3 km to i May 25, 2�2 This map is for general reference only.The US Fish and Wildlife y Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the Wetlands base data shown on this map.All wetlands related data should [l Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. ❑ Estuarine and Marine Deepwater M Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ❑ Other F-1 Estuarine and Marine Wetland ❑ Freshwater Pond ❑ Riverine National Wetlands Inventory(NWI) This page was produced by the NWI mapper i n " Latitude Longitude Natural Heritage 45.63265 -1D8.69656 - Program 45.71754 D8.9415-3 Aprogram ofthe Montana State Library's Natural Resource Information System operated bythe Universityof Montana. Land Cover Summarized by: (Custom Area of Interest) }� f 41 L 4"' i �p - .w 'I L t i WE r� 4 r �r � .��, • , � -� ,. � ry-•tip t, Ir*} r 5 Human Land Use Agriculture OWN Cultivated Crops 34% (6,341 These areas used for the production of crops, such as corn, soybeans, small grains, sunflowers, vegetables, and cotton, Acres) typically on an annual cycle. Agricultural plant cover is variable depending on season and type of farming. Other areas include more stable land cover of orchards and vineyards. Page 1 of 5 Wetland and Riparian Systems Floodplain and Riparian �; ■ Great Plains Floodplain 11Acres)76 This system occurs along the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers and their larger tributaries, including parts of the Little Missouri, Clarks€TMs Fork Yellowstone, Powder, Tongue, Bighorn, Milk, and Musselshell rivers. These are the big perennial rivers of the region, with hydrologic dynamics largely driven by snowmelt and rainfall originating in their headwater watersheds, rather than local precipitation events. In the absence of disturbance, periodic flooding of fluvial and alluvial soils and channel migration will create depressions and backwaters that support a mosaic of wetland and riparian vegetation, whose composition and structure is sustained, altered and redistributed by hydrology. Dominant communities within this system range from floodplain forests to wet meadows to gravel/sand flats, linked by underlying soils and flooding regimes. In the western part of the systems€TMs range in Montana, the overstory dominant species is black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) with narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) occurring as co-dominants in the riparian/floodplain interface near the mountains. Further east, narrowleaf cottonwood and Plains cottonwood become dominant. In relatively undisturbed stands, willow (Salix species), redosier dogwood (Corpus sericea) and common chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) form a thick, multi-layered shrub understory, with a mixture of cool and warm season graminoid species below. In Montana, many occurrences are now degraded to the point where the cottonwood overstory is the only remaining natural component. The hydrology of these floodplain systems has been affected by darns, highways, railroads and agricultural ditches, and as a result, they have lost their characteristic wetland /riparian mosaic structure. This has resulted in a highly altered community consisting of relict cottonwood stands with little regeneration. The under-story vegetation is dominated by non-native pasture grasses, legumes and other introduced forbs, or by the disclimax western snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis) and rose (Rosa species) shrub community. Grassland Systems Lowland/Prairie Grassland IGreat Plains Mixedgrass Prairie 8%(1,568 The system covers much of the eastern two-thirds of Montana, occurring continuously for hundreds of square kilometers, Acres) interrupted only by wetland/riparian areas or sand prairies. Soils are primarily fine and medium-textured. The growing season averages 115 days, ranging from 100 days on the Canadian border to 130 days on the Wyoming border. Climate is typical of mid-continental regions with long severe winters and hot summers. Grasses typically comprise the greatest canopy cover, and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) is usually dominant. Other species include thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus), green needlegrass (Nassella viridula), blue grams (Bouteloua gracilis), and needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata). Near the Canadian border in north-central Montana, this system grades into rough fescue (Festuca campestris) and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) grasslands. Remnants of shortbristle needle and thread (Hesperostipa curtiseta) dominated vegetation are found in northernmost Montana and North Dakota, and are associated with productive sites, now mostly converted to farmland. Forb diversity is typically high. In areas of southeastern and central Montana where sagebrush steppe borders the mixed grass prairie, common plant associations include Wyoming big sagebrush-western wheatgrass (Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis/Pascopyrum smithii). Fire and grazing are the primary drivers of this system. Drought can also impact it, in general favoring the shortgrass component at the expense of the mid-height grasses. With intensive grazing, cool season exotics such as Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), smooth brorne (Bromus inermis), and Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus) increase in dominance; both of these rhizomatous species have been shown to markedly decrease species diversity. Previously cultivated acres that have been re-vegetated with non-native plants have been transformed into associations such as Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis)/western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) or into pure crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) stands. Human Land Use No Image Developed ■ Other Roads 70lo (1,326 County, city and or rural roads generally open to motor vehicles. Acres) Human Land Use hi Developed ■ Low Intensity Residential 71/o(1,223 Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 20-50%of total Acres) cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units in rural and suburban areas. Paved roadways may be classified into this category. Page 2 of 5 Shrubland, Steppe and Savanna Systems Sagebrush Steppe Big Sagebrush Steppe 6%(1,110 This widespread ecological system occurs throughout much of central Montana, and north and east onto the western Acres) fringe of the Great Plains. In central Montana, where this system occurs on both glaciated and non-glaciated landscapes, it differs slightly, with more summer rain than winter precipitation and more precipitation annually. Throughout its distribution, soils are typically deep and non-saline, often with a microphytic crust. This shrub-steppe is dominated by perennial grasses and forbs with greater than 25%cover. Overall shrub cover is less than 10 percent. In Montana and Wyoming, stands are more mesic, with more biomass of grass, and have less shrub diversity than stands farther to the west, and 50 to 90%of the occurrences are dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush with western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) are indicators of disturbance, but cheatgrassis typically not as abundant as in the Intermountain West, possibly due to a colder climate. The natural fire regime of this ecological system maintains a patchy distribution of shrubs, preserving the steppe character. Shrubs may increase following heavy grazing and/or with fire suppression. In central and eastern Montana, complexes of prairie dog towns are common in this ecological system. Human Land Use No Image Developed ■ commercial / Industrial 601,(1,048 Businesses, industrial parks, hospitals, airports; utilities in commercial/industrial areas. Acres) Human Land Use Developed Developed, Open Space 5%(8 j1 Vegetation (primarily grasses) planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes. Acres Impervious surfaces account for less than 20%of total cover. This category often includes highway and railway rights of way and graveled rural roads. Sparse and Barren Systems Bluff, Badland and Dune Great Plains Badlands 4% (675 The Western Great Plains Badlands ecological system occurs within the mixed grass and sand prairie regions of eastern and Acres) southeastern Montana, where the land lies well above or below its local base level, shaped by the carving action of streams, erosion, and erosible parent material. It is easily recognized by its rugged, eroded, and often colorful land formations, and the relative absence of vegetative cover. In those areas with vegetation, species can include scattered individuals of many dryland shrubs or herbaceous taxa, including curlycup gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa), threadleaf snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae) (especially with overuse and grazing), greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), Gardners€T"S saltbush (Atriplex gardneri), buckwheat (Eriogonum species), plains muhly (Muhlenbergia cuspidate), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), and HookerACTMS sandwort (Arenaria hookeri). Patches of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) can also occur. Climate is typical of mid continental regions with long severe winters and warm summers. Precipitation ranges from 7 to 14 inches per year, with two-thirds of the precipitation falling during the summer, and a third falling in the spring. The sedimentary parent material of exposed rocks and the resultant eroded clay soils are derived from Cretaceous sea beds and are often fossil-rich. Dominant soil types are in the order Entisols. These mineral soils are found primarily on uplands, slopes, and creek bottoms and are easily erodible. The growing season is short, averaging 115 days, with a range from 100 days on the Canadian border to 130 days on the Wyoming border. Land use is limited, except for off- highway vehicle recreation and incidental grazing. Grassland Systems Lowland/Prairie Grassland M Great Plains Sand Prairie 3% (536 The sand prairies constitute a very unique system within the western Great Plains. The unifying and controlling feature for Acres) this system is that coarse-textured soils predominate and the dominant grasses are well-adapted to this condition. In the northwestern portion of the systems€—s range, stand size corresponds to the area of exposed caprock sandstone, and small patches predominate, but larger patches are found embedded in the encompassing Great Plains Mixed Grass Prairie, and usually occupy higher positions in local landscapes where former caprock formations have eroded into more subdued and planar topography. In most of eastern Montana, substrates supporting this system have weathered in place from sandstone caprock. Soils can be relatively thin or deep due to varying amounts of downslope movement of weathered sands. Needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata) is the dominant grass species. Other frequent species include little bluestem(Schizachyrium scoparium), often occurring with threadleaf sedge (Carex filifolia) and dominating both sandy sites and actively eroding sites. Prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa longifolia), sand bluestem(Andropogon hallii) and big bluestem(Andropogon gerardii) are sporadically distributed and found generally on the coarsest-textured sands. Other graminoids include bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), sun sedge (Carex inops ssp. heliophila), and purple threeawn (Aristida purpurea). Characteristic forbs differ by occurrence, but species of scurf pea (Psoralidium species) and Indian breadroot (Pediomelum) species are common. Communities of silver sage (Artemisia cana ssp. cana) or skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata) can occur within this system. Wind erosion, fire and grazing constitute the other major dynamic processes that can influence this system. Page 3 of 5 Wetland and Riparian Systems ij Open Water ■ Open Water 3% (513 All areas of open water, generally with less than 25%cover of vegetation or soil Acres) Recently Disturbed or Modified Iroduced Vegetation F Introduced Upland Vegetation -Annual and Biennial Forbland 2% (345 Land cover is significantly altered/disturbed by introduced annual and biennial forbs. Natural vegetation types are no longer Acres) recognizable. Typical species that dominate these areas are knapweed, oxeye daisy, Canada thistle, leafy spurge, pepperweed, and yellow sweetclover. Human Land Use No Image Developed ■ Interstate 20lo (343 National Highway System(NHS) limited access highways and their shoulders and rights of way. Acres) Additional Limited Land Cover 1% (230 Acres) ■Introduced Riparian and Wetland Vegetation 1% (133 Acres) ■Railroad 1% (109 Acres) ■High Intensity Residential <1% (83 Acres) Pasture/Hay <1% (71 Acres) ■Major Roads <1% (31 Acres) ■Great Plains Riparian <I% (15Acres) ■Great Plains Wooded Draw and Ravine <1% (10 Acres) ■Great Plains Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna <1% (3 Acres) ■Oil and Oil/Gas <I% (0 Acres) ■Gas and Gas Storage Page 4 of 5 Introduction to Land Cover Land Use/Land Cover is one of 15 Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure framework layers considered vital for making statewide maps of Montana and understanding its geography. The layer records all Montana natural vegetation, land cover and land use, classified from satellite and aerial imagery, mapped at a scale of 1:100000, and interpreted with supporting ground-level data. The baseline map is adapted from the Northwest ReGAP (NWGAP) project land cover classification, which used 30m resolution multi-spectral Landsat imagery acquired between 1999 and 2001. Vegetation classes were drawn from the Ecological System Classification developed by NatureServe (Comer et al. 2003). The land cover classes were developed by Anderson et al. (1976). The NWGAP effort encompasses 12 map zones. Montana overlaps seven of these zones. The two NWGAP teams responsible for the initial land cover mapping effort in Montana were Sanborn and NWGAP at the University of Idaho. Both Sanborn and NWGAP employed a similar modeling approach in which Classification and Regression Tree (CART) models were applied to Landsat ETM+ scenes. The Spatial Analysis Lab within the Montana Natural Heritage Program was responsible for developing a seamless Montana land cover map with a consistent statewide legend from these two separate products. Additionally, the Montana land cover layer incorporates several other land cover and land use products (e.g., MSDI Structures and Transportation themes and the Montana Department of Revenue Final Land Unit classification) and reclassifications based on plot-level data and the latest NAIP imagery to improve accuracy and enhance the usability of the theme. Updates are done as partner support and funding allow, or when other MSDI datasets can be incorporated. Recent updates include fire perimeters and agricultural land use (annually), energy developments such as wind, oil and gas installations (2014), roads, structures and other impervious surfaces (various years): and local updates/improvements to specific ecological systems (e.g., central Montana grassland and sagebrush ecosystems). Current and previous versions of the Land Use/Land Cover layer with full metadata are available for download at the Montana State Library's Geographic Information Clearinghouse. Within the report area you have requested, land cover is summarized by acres of Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 Ecological Systems. Literature Cited Anderson, J.R. E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach, and R.E. Witmer. 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schulz, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2003. Ecological systems of the United States: A working classification of U.S. terrestrial systems. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Page 5 of 5 Program Map https:Hsagegrouse.mt.gov/ProgramMap Legend Laulcl ■EO-Core Area EO-Connectivity Area EO-General Habitat Not In EO Area OBLM Priority Habitat Management Area N Counties OExempt Community Boundaries MONTANA SAGE GROUSE Habitat Conservation Program o Service Areas 3000 ft Existing Disturbances This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF. 1 of Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 9/27/2022,3:52 PM APPENDIX C Floodplain Data NOTES TO USERS LEGEND 6 000m SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (SFHAs) SUBJECT TO 6 OOOm This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program. It does 674000mE 75 E 1080 45' 00" INUNDATION BY THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly from local drainage 672000mE 73 E 450 41' 15" The 1%annual chance flood(100-year flood),also known as the base flood,is the flood that has sources of small size. The community map repository should be consulted for 671000mE JOINS PANEL 1410 ROCKFORK GIR a 1%chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The Special Flood Hazard Area is possible updated or additional flood hazard information. 1080 48' 45" YeIIIOWStOne COurit ' , the area subject to flooding by the 1%annual chance flood. Areas of Special Flood Hazard 45° 41' 15" - City'Of Laurel Uriiricorporat�ed Areas Q include Zones A,AE,AH,AO,AR,A99,V,and VE. The Base Flood Elevation is the water-surface <. elevation of the 1%annual chance flood. To obtain more detailed information in areas where Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) `' y � w14TH sT ,. . _ ... _ o w z 00142 cL�� and/or floodways have been determined, users are encouraged to consult the Flood,; '� v ZONE A No Base Flood Elevations determined. Profiles and Floodway Data and/or Summary Of Stillwater Elevations tables contained o w N �Rp, O Q Q r. E 1h3T�H ST .� w O 3 within the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Report that accompanies this FIRM. Users ZONE AE Base Flood Elevations determined.o - � w" �� � � m'� � a �_ should be aware that BFEs shown on the FIRM represent rounded whole foot X NI �_ w N w = a� z m ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet(usually areas of ponding); Base Flood Elevations 6 w elevations. These BFEs are Intended for flood insurance rating purposes only and �p,N NCR - � „� _ �; m w � o LIMIT of -y o �� determined. should not be used as the sole source of flood elevation information. Accordingly, . z' DETAILED a m 7 ` � ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet(usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average flood elevation data resented in the FIS Report should be utilized in conjunction with '� sTu�Y m p p 1 , depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding,velocities also determined. +SADZL�AK DR '�, the FIRM for purposes of construction and/or floodplain management. •• ,� . ,, 1%ANNUAL CHANCE .n . . .`� � j �, w � � h FLOOD DISCHARGE RIDGE DR • W 12TH ST .r =- :' - ►W� M CONTiAINED IN CULV ZONE AR Special Flood Hazard Areas formerly protected from the 1%annual chance Coastal Base Flood Elevations shown On this ma apply only landward of 0.0' ° +► ' = LAURMAC LN - T c� 3310 33©5 E T PROFILE flood by a flood control system that was subsequently decertified. Zone _R p pp Y YOr j s' f °j BASE=LINE V AR indicates that the former flood control system is being restored to provide North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Users of this FIRM should be N > M Culvert protection from the 1%annual chance or greater flood. aware that coastal flood elevations are also provided in the Summary Of Stillwater 50 000m c> w w Q w Q; W 11TH ST E 11 HxST W, RDHOUSE 61 N O r, - > ? a A W LN�X � ;w ., ...•..'�_ -- '� :� ..�_ 33030 ,6 Nutting Ditch ZONE A99 Area to be protected from 1%annual chance flood b a Federal flood Elevations table in the Flood Insurance Stud Report for this jurisdiction. Elevations c Clay of Laurel �,� a a _ _ _ uNTgtNv,�E w -� p Y HI w MO QW�O''124 Q r rR-� �R 3307 M Y P 1 -4F �SANTp FE_ protection system under construction; no Base Flood Elevations determined. shown in the Summary of Stillwater Elevations table should be used for construction � .. ,:.-. 4-G r .�r. m ,_ ., wz �• ZONE AE ZONE V Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard wave action no Base Flood Elevations and/or floodplain management purposes when they are higher than the elevations �•. � - �y z � � _� A115-tir � > �Q� _ �. -.: .- - � ►\� c� �' ( )� f determined. v G z - .� SMARYLAND�LN��' . shown on this FIRM. m.. a _ _ �_ - 1 . . W�MARYLAND LNG tr- 0 " `� GOLfDENPIKE w , . . � w � z - _ GOLDEN SPIKE CIR; ���'" � � � � 32�95) •.e.oe 1%ANNUAL ZONE VIE Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); Base Flood Elevations oc •� � . . . determined O Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and interpolated w nnARYLAN�LN w It, > -�- s Y P p ..: . � � _ v� - '��E NINETH ST � 2 .3•.:•. ••.•.•. •` CHANCE FLOOD Q Yellowstorie Cou►rity • • • • • • • DISCHARGE . r between cross sections. The floodways were based On hydraulic considerations with _ u, _ _ :.::: .:::.: FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE 4_ CONTAINED ININ regard to requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Floodway widths .-¢ � �,� = Uri+1riCOrpOrat�e'd Areas �� .•.•.•.• •.•.- .E EIGHTHTr .•.•.•.• .:11. 5 and other pertinent floodway data are provided in the Flood Insurance Study Report ?- w NINETH sT - r - - r , for this urIShcCtlOn. - °C r c� - �-'"r'-'� � -- - _ _. w � � r - '� �.. The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of 1 v - w W�EIGHTH ST w Crty of Lauirel a = ,1 4 ZONE X ° .4, .. > - - • encroachment so that the 1/o annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in F - I 6 flood heights. Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by flood control ] Q ,,. 0111 z - 13 1r2 got 9 Q w W SEVENTH ST o - *!�+ - ZONE X, -• 8. . . . . . . . structures. Refer to Section 2.4 Flood Protection Measures of the Flood Insurance C� _ - �f z ZONE X • • • • • • OTHER FLOOD AREAS Study Report for information on flood control structures for this jurisdiction. • 520000 FT ZONE X Areas of 0.2%annual chance flood; areas of 1%annual chance flood with The projection used in the preparation of this map was Universal Transverse , w w > Q average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square ( ) Q �� TF- _ Q Z E FIFT.H:ST , 3287 mile;and areas protected by levees from 1%annual chance flood. Mercator UTM zone 12N. The horizontal datum was NAD 83, GRS 1980 � ' - r; .� > _ � �. =w FIFTH s�,� , "'-` '' �- , . _ _ _ a RED STREETS spheroid. Differences in datum, spheroid, projection or UTM zones used in the ' ` f �� ~ �o a o > PROFILE 13SELINE 7 p p J � - E AREAS I , w y � - 1. E MARYLAND LN OTHER production of FIRMS for adjacent jurisdictions may result in slight positional a o~ - _ • • T - ° z + � �ri',� Q � ,' =' �p 2. E NINETH ST r QW0220 � �. ° " differences in map features across jurisdiction boundaries. These differences do not �_��_ z Z z o E MAIN ST 3. DATE AVE o 50 000m � O- � �, O Z � 32�93 ZONE X Areas determined to be outside the 0.2/o annual chance floodplain. affect the accuracy of this FIRM. 60 N = R r r -- I, ZONE X ' a w` 4. SUNHAVEN DR Z®NEX ;N Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined,but possible. • ,. =Q 18 •:� QW'_0+12s2c� OHIO AVE - 5. EIGHTH ST �_ 10 ZONE D z 1 ,` ►.cA QW0131 ZONE X 6. E SEVENTH ST Flood elevations On this map are referenced t0 the North American Vertical Datum Of � "� ., ,� ,� ` 33f03 ZONE X .- _ , � -- 1988. These flood elevations must be compared t0 structure and ground elevations West Main Street Ouer ow '° ti r 0`•: l _ 7. FOURTH ST COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS U 3302 0 - - • �-., 8. JUNIPER AVE referenced to the same vertical datum. For information regarding Conversion I ZONE AE S FIRST ST 1 } J Y, 3Q� '; ..- { " E FIRST ST MONT,4NA RAIL LINK 9. HAZEL AVE between the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 and the North American / - t� - `20�' 3 10. FIR AVE \\\ \ OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS /OPAs Vertical Datum of 1988, visit the National Geodetic Survey website at LIMIT of M 1 3309 ' ' � �' 33©0 O Main Street Overflow 11. PINE LN - r DETAILED c+o, \ E RAILROAD ST 12. ELM AVE CBRS areas and OPAs are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas. http://www.ngs.noaa.gov or contact the National Geodetic Survey at the following - �- - 3301 +STUDY 1 __ address: OD AVE ° LD HIGHWAY 10 - - • •WM'AIN-SST•'•• _ ,�. ZONE AE 13 COTTONWOOD o _ � -r � `` ••rt• r � 1/ Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary 300 Q o, 14. BIRCH AVE .•� v 3311 r City Of Laurel 15. IDAHO AVE p Boundary , ,}, �Footbr�dg � •�� . 0.2%Annual Chance Flood lain NGS Information Services v cn r _ • • • • • • • •e• G = - yam- f 16. WASHINGTON AVE o 0 NOAA, N/NGS12 u, / rr- �� �- � Z PROFE' .. . :...•-� / 329'8 ZONE X c� _ �FZE�' �( � •90 17. W FOURTH ST Floodway boundary National Geodetic Survey �"x: a - I �, _ . . J µ . . z z LP �1"C s _ O BASELINE18. W THIRD ST SSMC-3 #9202 r®v\ "- o �'- ,•° •96• �.:- 4 _ � �� E G 19. W SECOND ST Zone D boundary rt �.._ 4 ZONE X 1 3302 32 2, 4.:,.,8rid.e _ F :X Q m G\ •�JS�ON r 20. W FIRST ST 3304` ,3 9, gl., ZO'N E 0 1315 East-West Highway r' s. �• LIMIT®F - ",� �',.-`:�� , '3294 A sE Fou,RTH L" � ZONE 4H ST .{�L ••••••••••••• CBRS and OPA boundary Silver Spring, Mar land 20910-3282 - ZONE A DETAILED o 3293 301 713-3242 STUDY w w - Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Area Zones and boundary _. E dividing Special Flood Hazard Areas of different Base Flood Elevations, ='. p a Q Q W > �. �� Y -Culvert flood depths,or flood velocities. To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for bench marks290 -�' Y: _ z . _. 3287 , ZONE X u . }�, .. A �..� O � � - N Culvert * shown on this map, please contact the Information Services Branch of the National r" '� - - f -o w w J Q z O �''> 513 Base Flood Elevation line and value; elevation in feet 50 OOOm Geodetic Surveyat 301 713-3242 or visit its website at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov. °C M �- ( ) 59 N _ _ _ �� Culvert : W RAILROAD ST � � r o � � = _ V oo "� ltabian Ditch o (EL 987) Base Flood Elevation value where uniform within zone; elevation in - �� ., _ � - _ . � o �X • ZONE AE M z feet* Base map information shown on this FIRM was derived from NAIP Orthophotography - ZONE AE S THIRD STEP �-, S FIRST AVE w 3279 Q" *Referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 produced with a one meter ground resolution from photography dated 2005. S FOURTH STND ST _ AR AVE '� Nm 9U S FIFTH ST �' S SIXTH ST S SEGO CEDAR 3jL� o LIMIT OF This ma reflects more detailed and up-to-date stream channel configurations MAPLE AVE cross section line P P g - : . .,� -.-_ �- s- -_,_ �( i r%ANNUALC;HANC�E � � DETAILED 17 QW0392 X Y_ ZONE • - ZONIE X ,:.- w FLOOD DISCHARGE -�- than those shown on the previous FIRM for this jurisdiction. The flood plains and �; r - -_- �.�� L STUDY 515000 FT p J p ' C0NTrAINED IN CULVERT , PROFI E BASELINE 23 - - - - - 23 Transect line floodways that were transferred from the previous FIRM may have been adjusted - w 4 Q- it to conform to these new stream channel configurations. As a result, the QW0120 '" Q :�' ' - `, o o Geographic coordinates referenced to the North American Datum of X Z 02 08 93 02 Flood Profiles and Floodway Data tables for multiple streams in the Flood _ N ---- ' ' =•` _ 45 12 1983 (NAD 83)Western Hemisphere ONE AE 1 `J Insurance Study Report (which contains authoritative hydraulic data) may reflect - �_ - - ° • , S NINETH ST f 4989000 M 1000-meter ticks: Montana State Plane Zone stream channel distances that differ from what is shown on this ma w <• t ` Y °' '' p• � 3269 =- � (PIPS Zone 2500),Lambert Conformal Conic projection #�, �., SAG i� GRIZZLY CIR ,'' r' ` r r !vim 4s 000m `• 89 N 1000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid values,zone 12N p p ti SEWER PLANT RD W Corporate limits shown on this ma are based on the best data available at the time - LO - e BADGER'SQ °.. `• c r -C. Z DX5510 Bench mark(see explanation in Notes to Users section of this FIRM Of publication. Because changes due t0 annexations Or de annexations may have 4p X -, ,. Y _ ' ZONE X Q panel) occurred after this map was published, map users should contact appropriate J - r + ",� . Y Q1W017 •M1.5 River Mile community officials to verify current corporate limit locations. w _ _ -ram►, Z MAP REPOSITORIES Z _ - - Q i L - 0 Refer to Map Repositories list on Map Index Please refer to the separately printed Map Index for an overview map of the a < county showing the layout of map panels; community map repository addresses; z / r- 9 EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDE - 11 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP and a Listing of Communities table containing National Flood Insurance Program O .; •. � --- _�- - �,, 50 000m � � �>. � W.� � November 6,2013 dates for each community as well as a listing of the panels on which each community 58 N / �. �� :� is located. - - FRANK R� -ZONE -- o � _- ML 2 3278 � �-�� 32aT2 EFFECTIVE DATE(S)OF REVISION(S)TO THIS PANEL 3277 . For information on available products associated with this FIRM visit the Map Service Center (MSC) website at http://msc.fema.gov. Available products mayCn i v? �c include previously issued Letters of Ma Change, a Flood Insurance Stud Report, / _ z (PROFILE -� P Y P g , Y p - w BASELINE ZONE X and/or digital versions of this map. Many of these products can be ordered or ZONE X �`' ZONE X obtained directly from the MSC website. YEM,:W_i,�� TONE THIEL RD If you have questions about this map, how to order products, or the National LsTRECK LN � R�IVER w rZ For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, refer to the Community Flood Insurance Program in general please call the FEMA Map Information = � J Z Map History table located in the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction. O°NfE X' -- - a eXchange (FMIX) at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip. �, �j �,, i p To determine if flood insurance is available in this community,contact your insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Proqram at 1-800-638-6620. ZONE X 3284 r- ZONE ACE z 510000 FT 1 9 MAP SCALE 1" = 1000' _• eA (DEPTH 2�) 500 0 1000 2000 _ a r NEEEEE=FEET 5057000MN METERS y . , i y 300 0 300 600 1 f PR;l ILIE ID ^ 5 I � AE -N E W _ F �, w . _ _ y PANEL 1420E ZONE X �� 0 ZONE X FIRM r- xlV R� m FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ir O ; E AC ti YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, CD ZE �� ,� � � - - ,.: : REITER'DR' _ MONTANA AND INCORPORATED AREAS w Z z � ��, .T � .: ,r � .o •�,� e my� Y llowstorie Cou J "# 2�9 W �4' .�.� � � '' - Uriiricorporatedr`Areas 5056000mN w ,� w:� 00142 ZONE AE PANEL 1420 OF 875 PA 1 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT) U •� O W _ •ram, f CONTAINS: Z ` •" ` �' O y` PROFILE BASELINE Z COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX 0 H gip! .: ® LAUREL,CITY OF 300086 1420 E of > QW0215r - I 32), O m YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, 300142 1420 E W "�A v O 505000 FT Unincorporated Areas J ,.; �a- 3r2 , ?$ 27 w r w A - , • _ Clarks Fork - � � Ye-llowston a Rai uer FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION IS SHOWN �y WITHIN CARBON COUNTY FOR INFORMATION .` F ° ��'� Notice to User: The Map Number shown below ,,� �� PROFILE BASELINE should be used when placing map orders; the Yellowstone County Vertical Datum Offset Table 5055000MN ONLY. FOR FLOOD INSURANCE, REFER"TO c� `��d6s. - Community Number shown above should be Vertical Datum Vertical Datum coo ;.'' . SEPARATELY PRINTED FLOOD INSURANCE RATE �Q�' U TQ R used on insurance applications for the subject Flooding Source Offset(ft) Flooding Source Offset(ft) * �2 ® community. Alkali Creek 2.5 Duck Creek Tributary 2.7 3306 1 f` : 450 37' 30" Blue Creek 2.7 Italian Ditch 2.6 rr 1080 45' 00" 'p AR MAP NUMBER Canyon Creek 2.7 Main Street Overflow 2.6 ? PANEL 1585 2160000 FT ® 30111C1420E Cove Creek 2.7 Nutting Ditch 2.6 450 37' 30" JOINS Clarks Fork Yellowstone River 2.6 Unnamed Creek 2.5 1080 48' 45" 2155000 FT Dry Creek 2.5 West Main Street Overflow 2.6 2145000 FT 2150000 FT °� ��� EFFECTIVE DATE Duck Creek 2.7 Yellowstone River 2.4 NOTE: MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL IS LOCATED WITHIN TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 24 EAST. l4ND stir NOVEMBER 6, 2013 Example: To convert Alkali Creek elevations to NAVD 88,2.5 feet were added to the NGVD 29 elevations. Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTES TO USERS LEGEND SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (SFHAs) SUBJECT TO This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program. It does 6 OOOm 679000mE 1080 41' 15" INUNDATION BY THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly from local drainage 677000mE JOINS PANEL 1430 78 E 450 41' 15" The 1%annual chance flood(100-year flood),also known as the base flood,is the flood that has sources of small size. The communityma repository should be consulted for 676000mE a 1%chance of being equaled or exceeded in an given year. The Special Flood Hazard Area is possible updated or additional flood hazard information. subject to flooding by the 1%annual chance flood. Areas of Special Flood Hazard p p 108 45 00 �. - BUFFALO --- Y c - "-r �' SS c� the area o R 1-►oRN pR Y o 45° 41' 15" � :PINYON DR � °_ = - - and VE. The Base Flood Elevation is the water surface .. ,- �°. �+ #� �O � qP in Zones A,AE,AH,A0,AR,A99,V, o __ Z s ., -_ __ �4� To obtain more detailed information in areas where Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) elevation of the 1%annual chance flood. o• z F Q GRIZZLY TRL ' and/or floodways have been determined, users are encouraged to consult the Flood ;` w ZONE X = ow`DR__-- W W 5 ZONE A No Base Flood Elevations determined. v � MEAD ,, �' O u7 Profiles and Floodway Data and/or Summary of Stillwater Elevations tables contained 3 ,� : N N u. - ZONE AE Base Flood Elevations determined. within the Flood Insurance Stud FIS Report that accompanies this FIRM. Users o2 ' '�' Yellowstone County o s RAnn N should be aware that BFEs shown on the FIRM represent rounded whole-foot o sHORN DR 1�-` o w �,��� _ zoNE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet(usually areas of ponding); Base Flood Elevations elevations. These BFEs are intended for flood insurance ratingpurposes onlyand Unlncor orat d Areas Q — -__ z `'' .- _ n `� F�.��E IL y� determined. should not be used as the sole source of flood elevation information. Accordingly, _`� 'PRONGHORN DR 0\ 300142 RID O _ - ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet usual) sheet flow on sloping terrain , average GE DYR _ o< p (usually p 9 )' 9 k t O flood elevation data presented in the FIS Report should be utilized in conjunction with r - ., w 1 0� - „ +� depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding,velocities also determined. the FIRM for purposes of construction and/or floodplain management. sANTa w �'' '- ALPINE VIEW DR' FE DR Y r - r ' r_. _ -� ' � �• ;p,� ,E ZONE AR Special Flood Hazard Areas formerly protected from the 1%annual chance Coastal Base Flood Elevations shown on this map apply only landward of 0.0 - ►� y - o flood by a flood control system that was subsequently decertified. Zone z ,�,� _:N rn ZONE AE AR indicates that the former flood control system is being restored to provide - e North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Users of this FIRM should be �,; y °' - w �' -� Clt Of Laurel �'` _ *'� protection from the 1%annual chance or greater flood. aware that coastal flood elevations are also provided in the Summary of Stillwater w° N� , ,-�, �•� y .�_ a w -� • • • • • • • - - o ZONE A99 Area to be protected from 1%annual chance flood b a Federal flood Elevations table in the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. Elevations N - • • • • • • • • • • • • • 300086 LIMIT of .- p Y ~, ' ' ' 'SpN'DR ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ►wv t DETAILED w protection system under construction; no Base Flood Elevations determined. 1 shown in the Summary of Stillwater Elevations table should be used for construction c� , , , ,pTCH , , , , , , , , , , , , , z STUDY and/or floodplain management purposes when the are higher than the elevations 50 000m B 32j • •_ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • oo `- Q ZONE V Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); no Base Flood Elevations P g P P Y g 61 N EMARYLANDLN 9 •-" • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . x shown on this FIRM. Cn MARYLAND LN° ° ° ° °-. K ' determined. 00 3281 . . . . . . . . . . .•.•.• pP, . .•••••, • .� �� �' PROFILE BASELINE M •. . ... . •••••••••'�••••••••••••• ,P,RP ZONE VIE Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); Base Flood Elevations ONTPN determined. Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and interpolated -� ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' MILWAUKEE RD` M" between cross sections. The floodways were based on hydraulic considerations with • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • _ _ . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3228 co co NuttangDitch U'� LACKAWANNA LNG _ r FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE regard to requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Floodway widths �,, �,� ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cp. f" and other pertinent floodway data are provided in the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. ZONE AE ;•;•°•° ° E ZONE X R� td ,.,.1 The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of QW0394 N E r• �" Amft encroachment so that the 1%annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in ELEANOR ROOSEVELT DR LIMIT OF - s flood h g ts. - 1 ei h Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by flood control - iX - . ' J i DETAILED - I1 " E structures. Refer to Section 2.4 "Flood Protection Measures" of the Flood Insurance ZONE X y/ -• r 12 7 STUDY - O �-1 . . . . . . - , .�- ,� � -� �� �: -- � � • • • • • • • OTHER FLOOD AREAS Study Report for information on flood control structures for this jurisdiction. LOCUS AVE •' ° ' r• ° ° _ ' w N� - - ZONE X •:• o ,,. - S ZONE X Areas of 0.2%annual chance flood; areas of 1%annual chance flood with The projection used in the preparation of this map was Universal Transverse s w Main Street Overflow `. so ZONE X 520000 FT average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square Mercator (UTM) zone 12N. The horizontal datum was NAD 83, GRS 1980 ZONE AE w ...,Yellows � mile;and areas protected by levees from 1%annual chance flood. w PROFILE BASELINEtO.ne COunty - _ - _ _ -. .� , spheroid. Differences in datum, spheroid, projection or UTM zones used in the o U? OTHER AREAS production of FIRMS for adjacent jurisdictions may result in slight positional City Of Laurel 10 Unincorporated Areas oc differences in map features across jurisdiction boundaries. These differences do not = 300142 - 300086 Cn ZONE X Areas determined to be outside the 0.2%annual chance floodplain. affect the accuracy of this FIRM. - ti g - w r �� �; ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined,but possible. p 50 60000mN , Flood elevations on this ma are referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of � � � COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM CBRS AREAS 1988. These flood elevations must be compared to structure and ground elevations . z _ '-IVA ,- (CBRS) referenced to the same vertical datum. For information regarding conversion �: -'' •.•X between the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 and the North American -- `\ OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (OPAs) Vertical Datum of 1988, visit the National Geodetic Survey website at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov or contact the National Geodetic Survey at the following k-P CBRS areas and OPAs are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas. address: f — - �'w 1%Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary S LAUREL RD PROFILE BASELINE 0.2%Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary NGS Information Services - : r k.. Floodway boundary NOAA, N/NGS12 � ,-� �� �;: _ � � National Geodetic Survey SSMC-3, #9202 c,� `f U? `Jc� ry s' �' Zone D bounds 1315 East-West Highway - -` _ - - - i L - � �c.rj - W� ••••••••••••• CBRS and OPA boundary o � Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3282 , (301) 713-3242 ' ' ' '•' Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Area Zones and boundary _ • •-•'•'•'•'•'•'•'• dividing Special Flood Hazard Areas of different Base Flood Elevations m U'�� . . . . . . . . . flood r flood velocities. To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for bench marks • • • • • • • • • ood depths,o ood p __ - - - . . . . . . . shown on this map, please contact the Information Services Branch of the National - °�. ^-.: YELLOWSTONE RIVER . I - ^^"513 Base Flood Elevation line and value; elevation in feet* Geodetic Survey at (301) 713-3242, or visit its website at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov. - -- _ - - 6 (EL 987) Base Flood Elevation value where uniform within zone; elevation in feet* Base map information shown on this FIRM was derived from NAIP Orthophotography produced with a one meter ground resolution from photography dated 2005. 5059000mN • 13 ", ► *Referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 _ Cross section line This map reflects more detailed and up-to-date stream channel configurations - __ z ' . Q than those shown on the previous FIRM for this jurisdiction. The floodplains and - - 151 n , 1 8 - - - - - Tr n line_ 23 23 a sect e floodways that were transferred from the previous FIRM may have been adjusted _ :: ;.y W ,. 515000 FT to conform to these new stream channel configurations. As a result, the _ a - r ZONE AE �� r 45°02'08", 93°02'12" Geographic coordinates referenced to the North American Datum of Flood Profiles and Floodway Data tables for multiple streams in the Flood -o °° 0D _ • ' 1983 (NAD 83)Western Hemisphere . . . •; � . . . Insurance Study Report (which contains authoritative hydraulic data) may reflect y *:� 4989000 M 1000_meter ticks: Montana State Plane Zone stream channel distances that differ from what is shown on this map. I • •.. .°.°.°•°•° :r (FIPS Zone 2500),Lambert Conformal Conic projection �. ._ _ __ •�'" ••••• • ZONE X 4w • • • 989000m N 1000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid values,zone 12N Corporate limits shown on this map are based on the best data available at the time o '• G, r �-� W of publication. Because changes due to annexations or de-annexations may have "' " { { `` ` �' z _ z DX5510 Bench mark(see explanation in Notes to Users section of this FIRM P g Y . . . . Q X panel) ', , occurred after this ma was published, ma users should contact appropriate ZONE AE- - ` �;> r O 4 _: a • • cn M1.5 River Mile community officials to verify current corporate limit locations. w -' ca ` i __ .• �J� �: z Q r y N :, N 324 I O MAP REPOSITORIES L ��,_ Please refer to the separately printed Map Index for an overview map of the �,,, �:,, Refer to Map Repositories list on Map Index �N { county showing the layout of map panels; community map repository addresses; z rn co N - , = -' :�-;. EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP c+� cv t c+� • •. •• •' and a Listing of Communities table containing National Flood Insurance Program O c�, LO M N . . . November 6,2013 dates for each community as well as a listing of the panels on which each community is located. , tE = w ... f' + EFFECTIVE DATE(S)OF REVISION(S)TO THIS PANEL 50 000M •. a w N W For information on available products associated with this FIRM visit the Map 58 N °• r N w N / ,` w o< �r ,., yr MULEY MEADOWS RD Service Center (MSC) website at http://msc.fema.gov. Available products may -�- -�� � � � , - ,/ J �, r" / include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report, ZONE X � �,� � ;J ZONE X z - M and/or digital versions of this map. Many of these products can be ordered or z J = _ ID ` obtained directly from the MSC website. z If you have questions about this map, how to order products, or the National J _ _ - _ - • • _ �► - For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, refer to the Community Flood Insurance Program in general, please call the FEMA Map Information -THIEL RD -- - • - - - - - - Map History table located in the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction. eXchange (FMIX) at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA = <- ' •-•• •- -- ••••••••• •• _ '; - �• - " 5. 3262 , PROFILE'BASELINE - Yellowstone County To determine if flood insurance is available in this community,contact your insurance agent website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip. r z - 2 - — A •.•.•.• or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620. — ZONE x �' Unincorporated Areas ZONE X 3249 p 4' ~ YELLOWS-"' RIVER C e 300142 °• .a,,. ZONE AO . . 3250 . .�.• •, •• _ -ZONE AE 24 „ _ , (DEPTH 2') 2 - 5, PROFILE BASELINE D '�` f 510000 FT MAP SCALE 1 - 1000 R 19 �i, 1 000 2000 b i •� k FEET Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone Rave '' 2 22 r� a,4�,,, f.�. ;�, � � a�, METERS s,s ' { f 300 0 300 600 50 000M w W v 57 N N)05. 41 f PANEL 1440E 3257 �►ZON�E AO 4 -. i'. _ (DEPTH 2) r g ZONE A,E =, �` 326 m s ' FIRM CNI) 1- { �lJ °� N M m FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP w o�N-c oR -1 YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, w``'c3` LL GLPR�s p A MONTANA CO LOy m AND INCORPORATED AREAS M CV) ... tiI m ' v PANEL 1440 OF 1875 .: (SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT) Nei addilim, yF 5056000mN ZONE X CONTAINS: COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX LAUREL,CITY OF 300086 1440 E YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, 300142 1440 E + Unincorporated Areas ' 505000 FT _ .t T 2i5 , .r I 27 y - N N LO 30 BROHAUGH RD k = / Yelllowstone County z p Notice to User: The Ma Number shown below . Unincorporated Areas should be used when placing map orders; the Yellowstone County Vertical Datum Offset Table Vertical Datum Vertical Datum 300142 � / ZONED Community Number shown above should be used on insurance applications for the subject Flooding Source Offset O community. Flooding Source Offset(ft) g (ft) 70 Alkali Creek 2.5 Duck Creek Tributary 2.7 50 000M / 450 37' 30" Blue Creek 2.7 Italian Ditch 2.6 1080 41' 15" tipART�� Canyon Creek 2.7 Main Street Overflow 2.6 ® 4�1 MAP N U M B E R 2175000 FT 30111C1440Eo Cove Creek 2.7 Nutting Ditch 2.6 450 37' 30" JOINS PANEL 1605 2170000 FT Clarks Fork Yellowstone River 2.6 Unnamed Creek 2.5 ° ►�� Dry Creek 2.5 West Main Street Overflow 2.6 108 45 00 2165000 FT mow, EFFECTIVE DATE Duck Creek 2.7 Yellowstone River 2.4 NOTE: MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL IS LOCATED WITHIN TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH. �l1ND s NOVEMBER 6, 2013 Example: To convert Alkali Creek elevations to NAVD 88,2.5 feet were added to the NGVD 29 elevations. Federal Emergency Management Agency APPENDIX D Water Rights Information June 16,2021 Page 1 of 1 43QJ 45730-00 General Abstract STATE OF MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION 14249THAVENUE P.O.BOX201601 HELENA,MONTANA 59620-1601 GENERAL ABSTRACT Water Right Number: 43QJ 45730-00 STATEMENT OF CLAIM Version: 2--CHANGE AUTHORIZATION Version Status: ACTIVE THIS AUTHORIZATION IS LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE HISTORIC USE RECOGNIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THIS PROCEEDING AS SUBJECT TO CHANGE,AND WILL THEREAFTER NOT EXCEED THAT AMOUNT. IF THE HISTORIC USE IS REDUCED UNDER ADJUDICATION PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO TITLE 85, CHAPTER 2, PART 2,MCA,THIS AUTHORIZATION WILL BE LIMITED TO A LESSER AMOUNT. Owners: LAUREL,CITY OF PO BOX 10 LAUREL, MT 59044 Priority Date: DECEMBER 31, 1908 Enforceable Priority Date: DECEMBER 31, 1908 Purpose(use): MUNICIPAL Maximum Flow Rate: 10.67 CFS Historical Flow Rate: 10.67 CFS Maximum Volume: 3,525.00 AC-FT Historical Diverted Volume: 3,525.00 AC-FT Historical Consumptive Volume: 2,435.30 AC-FT Source Name: YELLOWSTONE RIVER Source Type: SURFACE WATER Point of Diversion and Means of Diversion: ID Govt Lot Qtr Sec Sec Twp Rge Count 1 NWSWSW 15 2S 24E YELLOWSTONE Period of Diversion:JANUARY 1 TO DECEMBER 31 Diversion Means: PUMP 2 6 NENESE 30 2S 24E YELLOWSTONE Period of Diversion: Diversion Means: PUMP Period of Use: JANUARY 1 to DECEMBER 31 Place of Use: ID Acres Govt Lot Qtr Sec Sec Twp Rgee Count 1 4 2S 24E YELLOWSTONE 2 8 2S 24E YELLOWSTONE 3 9 2S 24E YELLOWSTONE 4 10 2S 24E YELLOWSTONE 5 11 2S 24E YELLOWSTONE 6 15 2S 24E YELLOWSTONE 7 16 2S 24E YELLOWSTONE 8 17 2S 24E YELLOWSTONE 9 22 2S 24E YELLOWSTONE Remarks: THE WATER RIGHTS LISTED FOLLOWING THIS STATEMENT ARE ASSOCIATED. THEY SHARE THE SAME OVERLAPPING PLACE OF USE.43QJ 45730-00;43QJ 9939-00. STARTING IN 2008,PERIOD OF DIVERSION WAS ADDED TO MOST CLAIM ABSTRACTS, INCLUDING THIS ONE. June 16,2021 Page 1 of 1 43QJ 9939-00 General Abstract STATE OF MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION 14249THAVENUE P.O.BOX201601 HELENA,MONTANA 59620-1601 GENERAL ABSTRACT Water Right Number: 43QJ 9939-00 WATER RESERVATION Version: 1 --ORIGINAL RIGHT Version Status: ACTIVE Owners: LAUREL,CITY OF PO BOX 10 LAUREL, MT 59044 Priority Date: DECEMBER 15, 1978 at 12:30 P.M. Enforceable Priority Date: DECEMBER 15, 1978 at 12:30 P.M. Purpose(use): MUNICIPAL Maximum Flow Rate: 9.88 CFS Maximum Volume: 7,151.00 AC-FT Source Name: YELLOWSTONE RIVER Source Type: SURFACE WATER Point of Diversion and Means of Diversion: ID Govt Lot Qtr See Sec Twp Rge Count 1 9 2S 24E YELLOWSTONE Period of Diversion:JANUARY 1 TO DECEMBER 31 Diversion Means: UNKNOWN THE BOARD ORDER GRANTING THE WATER RESERVATION TO THE CITY OF LAUREL DOES NOT DEFINE A POINT OF DIVERSION.A POINT OF DIVERSION WAS ASSIGNED AT THE CENTER OF THE CITY AND NOT ON THE YELLOWSTONE RIVER IN ORDER TO CODE THE RESERVATION IN THE DATABASE. Purpose(Use): MUNICIPAL Volume: 7,151.00 AC-FT Perfected Flow Rate: Perfected Volume: 244.00 AC-FT Period of Use: JANUARY 1 to DECEMBER 31 Place of Use: ID Acres Govt Lot Qtr Sec See Twp Rge County THE PLACE OF USE FOR THE WATER RESERVATION IS THE CITY OF LAUREL. Remarks: THE BOXES PERTAINING TO THIS WATER RESERVATION ARE LOCATED AT MERGANTHALERS IN THE NEW APPROPRIATIONS,MISCELLANEOUS SERIES. APPENDIX E Source Water Delineation and Assessment Report City of Billings Public Water System PWSID # MT0000153 City of Laurel Public Water System PWSID # MT 0000270 Lockwood Water and Sewer District Public Water System PWSID # MT 0000156 Date of Report: 02/09/03 Revised Date: 07/18/07 SO UR CE WA TER DELINEA TION AND ASSESSMENT REPORT PWS Contact Person: Boris A. Krizek Environmental Engineer PO Box 30958 Billings, MT 59119 Phone: (406) 247-8517 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................5 INTRODUCTION:..........................................................................................................................................5 WATERQUALITY:.......................................................................................................................................5 SOURCE WATER PROTECTION AREAS:.................................................................................................5 INVENTORYRESULTS: ..............................................................................................................................6 InventoryLimitations......................................................................................................................................6 SUSCEPTIBILITYRESULTS:......................................................................................................................6 Susceptibility Analysis Limitations.................................................................................................................8 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS:..................................................................................................8 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................to Purpose 10 Limitations.....................................................................................................................................................10 CHAPTER 1-BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................................12 TheCommunities..........................................................................................................................................12 GeographicSetting........................................................................................................................................13 General description of the Source Water and Hydrogeologic Conditions.....................................................13 ThePublic Water Supplies............................................................................................................................14 SanitarySewer Systems................................................................................................................................15 Storm Water and Irrigation Systems.............................................................................................................15 WaterQuality................................................................................................................................................17 CHAPTER2-DELINEATION...............................................................................................................................21 Hydrogeologic Conditions—Surface Water..................................................................................................22 Hydrogeologic Conditions—Ground Water..................................................................................................23 Conceptual Model and Assumptions.............................................................................................................24 LimitingFactors............................................................................................................................................24 CHAPTER 3-INVENTORY...................................................................................................................................26 InventoryMethod..........................................................................................................................................26 Inventory Results/Spill Response Region.....................................................................................................27 Inventory Results/Watershed Region............................................................................................................31 InventoryUpdate...........................................................................................................................................32 InventoryLimitations....................................................................................................................................32 CHAPTER 4-SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT...............................................................................................34 Management Recommendations....................................................................................................................64 CHAPTER 5-MONITORING WAIVERS............................................................................................................66 WaiverRecommendation..............................................................................................................................66 Monitoring Waiver Requirements.................................................................................................................66 UseWaivers..................................................................................................................................................66 SusceptibilityWaivers...................................................................................................................................66 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................................68 3 FIGURES...................................................................................................................................................................74 Figure1—General Location Map...................................................................................................74 Figure 2—Climate Summary Graph—Imbedded on Page 13.........................................................74 Figure 3—Public Water Supplies in the Project Area.....................................................................74 Figure 4—Approximate Drainage Areas Contributing Storm Water to Major Ditches and Canals74 Figure 5—General Ground Water Flow Direction Near The Billings and Lockwood Intakes.......74 Figure 6—General Ground-Water Flow Direction Between Laurel and Billings...........................74 Figure 7—Overview of Potential Contaminant Sources In The Project Area.................................74 Figure 8—Significant Potential Contaminant Sources near Billings and Lockwood......................74 Figure 9- Significant Potential Contaminant Sources in the West Billings Area...........................74 Figure 10- Significant Potential Contaminant Sources Near Canyon Creek and Hogan's Slough 74 Figure 11 - Significant Potential Contaminant Sources Near The Laurel Intake Area....................74 Figure 12—Landuse/Landcover In the Project Area.....................................................................74 Figure 13—Septic Density In The Project Area..............................................................................74 Figure 14—Watershed Region Inventory.......................................................................................74 Figure 15—Watershed Region Landuse/Landcover.....................................................................74 APPENDICES............................................................................................................................................................75 APPENDIX A-Potential Contaminant Sources Based On Sic Data............................................................76 APPENDIX B—DEQ Water Quality Monitoring Data................................................................................65 APPENDIX C-List of PWSs in the Project Area......................................................................................151 APPENDIX D—Sanitary Survey................................................................................................................153 APPENDIX E-Concurrence Letter&Other Correspondence...................................................................154 List of Tables Table 1 -Climate Summary for the Billings Area......................................................................................................13 Table 2-Water Quality Data of Raw Water...............................................................................................................18 Table 3-Water Quality of Finished Water.................................................................................................................19 Table 4-Source sensitivity criteria(DEQ, 1999).......................................................................................................21 Table 5—Significant Potential contaminant sources in the Project Watershed Region..............................................32 Table 6-Susceptibility to specific contaminant sources as determined by hazard and the presence of barriers........34 Table 7-Hazard of potential contaminant sources for surface water intakes.............................................................34 Table 8-Susceptibility Assessment Significant Potential Contaminant Sources in the Spill Response Regions......36 CAMy Documents\Delineation ProjectsWellowstone_PA\SW PA 2 Billings\Community PWSs\City_Of Billings_ProjecOSWDAR\MT0000153v5.doc 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The report is required by the 1996 amendments to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Montana's Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) is completing reports like this one for all public water systems in the state. The purpose is to provide information so that the public water systems, consumers, and communities can begin developing strategies to protect their source of drinking water. This information focuses on areas that are most critical to maintaining safe drinking water. The report includes maps of source water protection areas, an inventory of potential contaminant sources within these areas, and an assessment of the relative threat potential contaminant sources pose to the water system. INTRODUCTION: Laurel, Billings, and Lockwood are located in Yellowstone County near the Yellowstone River and have a combined population of over 100,000. The drinking water(source water) for the Laurel, Billings and the Lockwood Water and Sewer District is supplied by three individual surface water intakes. These three public water supplies teamed with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to complete this Source Water Delineation and Assessment Report(SWDAR) for the Yellowstone River watershed upstream of the intakes. There are more than 50 other public water supplies in the vicinity of Billings, Laurel, and Lockwood. Most of these public water supplies use ground water as their source water while others purchase water from other larger public water supplies. The Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology is completing reports for these public water supplies under contract with the DEQ. WATER QUALITY: The three public water supplies are classified as community systems and are required to conduct routine monitoring of the drinking water for contaminants in accordance with the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. According to DEQ records all contaminants are below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and there have been no detections of coliform bacteria in the drinking water of any of the three public water supplies within the past five years. Within the past five years the concentration of nitrate detected in the drinking water of each of the three public water supplies has ranged from 0.12 mg/L to 0.34 mg/L, well below the MCL of 10 mg/L. SOURCE WATER PROTECTION AREAS: Management areas are delineated for the public water supplies and include a 1) Spill Response Region, 2) an Inventory Region generally north of the Yellowstone River and south of the Rims, and 3) a Watershed Region. Normally, the inventory of potential contaminant sources is restricted to just the Spill Response Region. However, due to the extensive network of irrigation canals and drainage ditches throughout the Yellowstone Valley between Laurel and Lockwood, an Inventory Region is added. The canals and drainage ditches have the potential to transport contaminants from outside the Spill Response Region and discharge them directly into the Yellowstone River. In addition, studies of ground-water flow patterns in the valley indicate that ground water in some areas could also transport contaminants to the Yellowstone River in the vicinity of the drinking water intakes. These studies also estimate the volume of ground water discharged to the Yellowstone River is small compared to the year-round flow of the Yellowstone. As a result, dilution plays a significant role in reducing the threat posed by many of the potential contaminant sources in the valley. However, given the network of canals and drains, and the general ground water flow patterns, it is prudent to include an Inventory Region for this report. The goal of management in the Spill Response Region and the Inventory Region is to avoid introducing contaminants directly into the river upstream of the public water supply intakes. The goal of management in the Watershed Region is to maintain and improve water quality over long periods of time. 5 INVENTORY RESULTS: The largest concentration of significant potential contaminant sources is in the Billings/Lockwood area and a smaller number of these contaminant sources are located near Laurel. There are multiple petroleum pipelines,highway and railroad bridges that cross the Yellowstone River, its tributaries, and many of the canals and ditches are within the Spill Response Region. Some of these crossings are of particular concern because they are relatively close to the public water supply intakes. Leaks or spills of fuels or other hazardous materials at these crossings may impact the drinking water supply. There are multiple underground fuel storage tanks, wastewater discharge sites, and municipal sewer lines present within the Billings area. Because of the irrigation canal and drainage ditch network, and the prevailing ground-water flow direction toward the Yellowstone River; potential contaminant sources in and west of the city may pose a threat to the public water supplies. Laurel and Billings operate wastewater treatment plants that are permitted to discharge treated wastewater directly into the Yellowstone River. Laurels discharge point is approximately 16 miles upstream from the City of Billings. The Billings wastewater treatment discharge site is located just down-stream from the Lockwood public water supply intake. Agricultural land is considered to be a significant potential contaminant source when it is located within the source water protection regions. Over-application of fertilizers and/or pesticides can result in those agricultural chemicals infiltrating into ground water and running off in to surface water bodies. It should also be noted that these same issues likely exist on a somewhat smaller scale in urban and suburban areas. Over application of fertilizers and other garden and lawn-care products could have a negative impact the surface and ground water resources. A U.S. Geological Survey study of the Yellowstone River documented low levels of agricultural chemicals are present. Additional studies will be needed to determine whether concentrations are increasing in the long-term or seasonally. Multiple high to moderate septic density areas are located west of Billings and in the Lockwood area. There are also multiple high and moderate septic density areas near Laurel, and between Laurel and Billings. The concern is the septic effluent could increase nitrate and the total dissolved solid load in Canyon Creek, Hogans Slough, and Blue Creek. Household hazardous wastes are also a concern with septic systems in these areas. Under some conditions, the high to moderate septic density areas could be the source of pathogens entering the surface water bodies. The inventory within the Watershed Region identifies large facilities and landuses that could pose a threat to the source water, however, it is assumed that distance and dilution will reduce the hazard or threat these potential contaminant sources pose to the source water and the public water supplies. Inventory Limitations The inventory was developed from readily available public sources of information, some of which are not updated routinely and in some cases may not be current. The inventory of potential contaminant sources in this report should be viewed as a starting point that the communities can expand on to continue their effort to protect their source water. SUSCEPTIBILITY RESULTS: Susceptibility of the source water is determined by two factors: the potential of a contaminant reaching the intake and the resulting health hazard. Barriers that would slow or prevent contaminants from impacting the source water are also identified and used to adjust the final susceptibility ratings for individual potential contaminant sources. Some potential contaminant sources are considered significant based upon the following factors: the volume of potential releases, the volume of hazardous materials typically handled, the potential of the released materials to impact nearby surface water or ground water, and the proximity of the 6 potential contaminant sources to the public water supply intakes. It is important to understand that the some of the pipeline and transportation crossings and canal outflows that are relatively close to the surface water intakes could pose a threat to the public water supplies. In this report, barriers such as dilution, emergency response and automated leak detection have been used to reduce the final susceptibility rating in accordance with the Montana Source Water Protection Guideline Document. There is concern however that some of these barriers may not be effective if a major release or spill occurred close to the intake locations. For some sites like bridges and petroleum pipelines that are close to the intakes,the effectiveness of the barriers listed is in question and the susceptibility rating could be set higher than shown in Table 8 of the main report. It is advisable for the three communities to sponsor or support more detailed studies of the pipeline and transportation crossings and canal outflows near the intakes to better understand and define the hazard they may represent to the public water supplies and the source water. Susceptibility results are summarized below and a more detailed listing is presented in Table 8 of the main report: • Lockwood's Public Water Supply has high to very high susceptibility to: o Multiple highway and rail bridge crossings. o Multiple pipeline crossings. Other potential contaminant sources in the Lockwood Spill Response Region are assigned moderate susceptibility ratings. These include: o Petroleum pipeline crossings. o Conoco Refinery. o Wastewater discharge sites. o One underground storage tank site. o One superfund site. o Two hazardous spill sites. o One regulated toxic release site. o Multiple canal and storm water ditches. Note: Susceptibility ratings for some of these sites may be higher due to their proximity to the intake. All other potential contaminant sources are assigned low susceptibility ratings. • City of Billings Public Water Supply has high to very high susceptibility to: o No sites were assigned high to very high susceptibility. Other potential contaminant sources in the Billings Spill Response Region are assigned moderate susceptibility ratings. These include: o Multiple petroleum pipeline crossings. o Multiple highway and rail bridge crossings. o One hazardous spill site. o One wastewater discharge site. o One underground storage tank site. o One superfund site. o One regulated toxic release site. o Multiple canal and storm water ditches. Note: Susceptibility ratings for some of these sites may be higher due to their proximity to the intake. All other potential contaminant sources are assigned low susceptibility ratings. • City of Laurel Public Water Supply has high to very high susceptibility to: o Multiple highway and rail bridge crossings. o Multiple pipeline crossings. o One hazardous spill site. Other potential contaminant sources in the Laurel Spill Response Region are assigned moderate susceptibility ratings. These include: 7 o Two wastewater discharge sites. o One hazardous spill site. Note: Susceptibility ratings for some of these sites may be higher due to their proximity to the intake. All other potential contaminant sources are assigned low susceptibility ratings. Sites within the Blue Creek, Canyon Creek or Hogans Slough Spill Response Regions are assigned high to very high susceptibility that relate to the Billings Public Water Supply intake susceptibility: o Agricultural land within Hogans Slough Spill Response Region covers 70% of the region. Other potential contaminant sources in the Blue Creek, Canyon Creek or Hogans Slough Spill Response Regions are assigned moderate susceptibility ratings. These include: o Multiple petroleum pipeline crossings. o Multiple highway and rail bridge crossings. o Multiple underground storage tank sites. o Two superfund sites. o One regulated toxic release site. All other potential contaminant sources in the Spill Response Regions are assigned low susceptibility. Susceptibility Analysis Limitations Due to uncertainties related to the ground-water and surface water interactions, the general hydrologic setting, and limited, dated, or inaccurate information, some of the potential contaminant sources assigned low susceptibility ratings, or not identified in the inventory, could pose a threat to the public water supplies and the source water. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: Management options are noteworthy because if they are implemented, they can act as additional barriers that reduce the susceptibility of a public water supply to specific sources of contamination. It is important to recognize that implementation of the management recommendations is beyond the scope of any single community or public water supply within the project area. It will also be important for the three communities and the other 50 or so public water supplies to work together to identify key management actions and to decide how those actions can be effectively implemented. Public Water Supplies could benefit from participating in watershed-level action groups such as the Yellowstone River Conservation Council to help address activities beyond the project area. It is also important to understand that management efforts must not be restricted just to land areas within the Spill Response Region. Due to the presence of the network of irrigation canals and ditches, and the prevailing ground-water flow direction,potential contaminant sources beyond the Spill Response Region and within the Inventory Region could impact the source water. Management and source water protection planning efforts need to consider land areas and potential contaminant sources outside of the Spill Response Region to be effective. Management recommendations fall into the following categories: • Emergency Response Planning—Emergency response planning with an emphasis on the pipeline and transportation crossings will provide a tangible benefit for protecting the source water. An existing effort to develop an inventory of hazardous materials for the City of Billings could be expanded to include other communities and land areas within the project area. • Growth and development planning—It would be advisable to encourage growth and development in areas outside of the Spill Response Region and away from tributaries, canals and ditches. Ground-water flow direction in these areas should also be taken into account. • Sewer maintenance and leak detection—Upgrading old sewer lines and maintaining a program to 8 routinely inspect lines for leaks will help reduce the susceptibility of the public water supplies to contamination from industrial and household wastes. This is especially important for the City of Billings and Lockwood because ground water flows from sewered areas within the City and discharges to the Yellowstone River. • Sewer extension—Areas around Laurel and Billings, particularly west of both cities, have grown substantially in the last 10 years. Extending city services, especially sewer, to these areas would help reduce the volume of household hazardous wastes, nitrate, and pathogens released into the shallow ground water that is hydraulically connected to surface water bodies. • Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) -BMPs addressing application and mixing of fertilizers and pesticides are a viable alternative to prohibition of their use. BMPs for use of garden and lawn-care products in suburbs and urban areas would also be beneficial. • Storm water Management—EPA Phase II Storm Water Rules will soon be implemented in the Billings area and will include identification of outfalls to the canals and ditches, and water quality samples from at least some of outfalls. It is may be advisable to expand the inventory of storm water discharge points to the Yellowstone Valley between Laurel and Billings. • Education - Educational workshops could be provided to the general public to increase awareness and promote safe handling and proper storage, transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. In several larger cities in Montana education efforts and voluntary hazardous waste collection days have helped raise public awareness of source water protection issues. These efforts have also helped reduced the volume of potential contaminants stored and improperly disposed within the community. • Long-term Infrastructural Planning—A component of a 10 or 20 year plan for the Billings Public Water Supply could be to construct a new surface water intake some distance upstream of the City of Laurel. This would move the intake upstream and away from a large number of potential contaminant sources associated with urban, suburban, and industrialized areas near the present intake location. 9 INTRODUCTION Boris A. Krizek, Environmental Engineer,with the City of Billings Public Works Department, in cooperation with Larry McCann, Public Works Director, with the City of Laurel (406-628-4796 ext.3), and Rick Russell, Manager, Lockwood Water and Sewer District(406-259-4120), completed this Delineation and Assessment Report. This report only addresses the delineation and susceptibility assessments and potential impacts on three surface water systems on the Yellowstone River. The Bureau of Mines in conjunction with the Montana State University of Billings have been contracted by the DEQ to perform the delineation and susceptibility assessment reports for all the ground water public systems in the valley. Jim Stimson with the DEQ Source Water Protection Program provided review, editing, and mapping support to complete this report. Purpose This report is intended to meet the technical requirements for the completion of the delineation and assessment report for the City of Billings (COB), City of Laurel (COL), and Lockwood Water and Sewer District(LWSD) as required by the Montana Source Water Protection Program(DEQ, 1999) and the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 104-182). The Montana Source Water Protection Program is intended to be a practical and cost-effective approach to protect public drinking water supplies from contamination. A major component of the Montana Source Water Protection Program is "delineation and assessment". Delineation is a process of mapping source water protection areas, which contribute water used for drinking. Assessment involves identifying locations or regions in the source water protection areas where contaminants may be generated, stored, or transported, and then determining the relative potential for contamination of drinking water by these sources. The primary purpose of this source water delineation and assessment report is to provide information that assists the City of Billings, City of Laurel, and the Lockwood Water and Sewer District, to protect and respond to potential contaminants released in the drinking water source and intake facilities. It is important to note that from a source water protection standpoint, this project area is complicated. The three communities included in this report have relatively high growth rates and the Yellowstone Valley in the project area is becoming increasingly urbanized. In addition, the Valley hosts significant transportation infrastructure and a variety of businesses and industries. Numerous irrigation canals and storm water ditches drain or pass through agricultural land, industrial areas, suburbs, and urban areas before discharging into the Yellowstone River. The canals and ditches have the potential of transporting contaminants from areas that are not immediately adjacent to the river. Studies of the ground water flow patterns in the project areas indicate ground water could potentially have the same impact. Given this complicated setting, Source Water Protection and proactive management of potential contaminant sources will be more effective if they carried out as a joint effort among the three communities on a project area of this scale. Limitations This report was prepared to assess threats to the water supply for the City of Billings, City of Laurel, and the Lockwood Water and Sewer District, to be addressed as PWSs (Public Water Systems). The terms "drinking water supply" or"drinking water source"refer specifically to the source for the PWSs and not any other public or private water supply system. Also, not every potential or existing source of ground water or surface water contamination in the area of the PWSs has been identified. The terms "contaminant" is used in this report to refer to constituents for maximum concentration levels (MCLs)that have been specified under the national primary drinking water standards, and to certain 10 constituents that do not have MCLs but are considered to be significant health threats. 11 CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND The Communities The three public water supplies included in this report are located in southeast Montana with Billings the county seat of Yellowstone County(Figure 1). According to the Census Bureau the population of Yellowstone County in 2002 was 129,400 with a City of Billings population at 92,008 making it the largest city in Montana. The population for the City of Laurel is at 6,268 and the population served by the Lockwood Water and Sewer District is approximately 5,775. The Yellowstone River Valley is the largest population center in a 500-mile radius. Urbanization is rapidly spreading in the Yellowstone River Valley between Laurel and Lockwood converting irrigated cropland to residential and commercial development. This development is outpacing the municipal water and sewer services resulting in the use of wells and septic drain fields in many areas. The valley's economy is primarily a serviced—based economy that includes specialized manufacturing, and professional services to support the regions rural agricultural and energy economies. The sugar beet industry continues to have a strong economic impact in the valley. Three oil refineries, Cenex Refinery in Laurel, Conoco Inc. Refinery in Billings, and the Exxon Refinery and Terminal east of Lockwood are all located on the banks of the Yellowstone River and provide a significant economic impact. The City of Billings has two major medical facilities, Deaconess Hospital and St. Vincent Healthcare. The medical centers support a four state region. The area also has a thriving higher education system, retail and distribution sector, and tourism industry. The schools that provide higher education are the Rocky Mountain College and the Montana State University of Billings. A noticeable feature throughout the valley is the network of irrigation canals. These open waterways (approximately 15 miles in total length) wind through the valley crossing streets and municipal water and sewer lines (facilities). The head-gates are typically opened from mid-April through October and not only supply water to agricultural land, but also for urban irrigation and aquifer recharge in the valley. The largest of the ditches is the Billings Bench Water Association that has flows of 630 cubic feet per second. Drainage ditches or drains also course through many parts of the valley but they intercept ground-water discharge. At this point it is important to recognize a distinction between irrigation canals and drainage ditches or drains. The distinction is important from a source water protection standpoint. The irrigation canals divert Yellowstone River water at their head-gates and transport it to agricultural areas in the valley before they discharge back into the river. These canals typically lose water through their channel-beds and provided recharge to aquifers in the valley (Olson and Reiten, 2002). A few of the irrigation canals apparently collect some volume of storm water but their primary purpose is to transport irrigation water(see page 17, paragraph 2). The drainage ditches on the other hand, intercept ground water to help lower the water table below the root zone for crops and to "dewater" certain tracts of land. Water intercepted by the ditches is ultimately discharged into the Yellowstone River. The drainage ditches are usually considered to be potential sources of contamination. Irrigation canals on the other hand are generally considered to pose less of a threat to the source water because they transport Yellowstone River water that typically is of higher quality than the ground water discharged to the drains. It is important to understand that there can be exceptions to this general principal in some parts of the Yellowstone Valley and in other areas. Irrigation canals and drainage ditches are discussed in more detail later in this report. The major transportation routes into the valley are U.S. Interstate 90, U.S. Interstate 94, U.S. Highway 87, and U.S. Highway 72. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad provides railway service to the area. 12 Figure 2 Geographic Setting Climate Summary for Billings, Montana 2.5 100 The Yellowstone River Valley is located in southeastern Montana in the 2 80 r- Yellowstone Plateau section of the Great y 1.5 60 0 U. Plains physiographic province. The climate in this area is considered semi- 1 , 40 arid. Average daily maximum and a. 0.5 P 20 1 minimum temperatures in the valley are 86.3° F and 13.9° F (Figure 2). Annual o o average precipitation is 14.41 inches with N M It LO `° CO °' o the wettest months typically in May and Average Total Precipitation (in.) June (Western Regional Climate Center, Average Max. Temperature F) Average Min. Temperature ( ) Monthly Climate Summary 7/1/1948 to 12/31/2001). BILLINGS WSO, MONTANA(240807) Period of Record Monthly Climate Suninary Ped od of Record: 7/1/1948 to 3/31/2003 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Amg Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average Max. Temperature(F) 32.4 38.8 45.5 56.6 67.1 76.8 86.3 85 72.6 60.4 44.8 35.8 58.5 Average Min. Temperature 13.9 19.4 24.6 33.8 43.4 51.7 58 56.7 46.9 37.2 25.9 18 35.8 Average Total Precipitation(in.) 0.78 0.62 1.06 1.77 2.29 2.13 1.1 0.89 1.28 1.1 0.73 0.66 14.41 Table I - Climate Summary for the Billings Area General description of the Source Water and Hydrogeologic Conditions The Yellowstone River is a perennial stream, stretching over 670 miles and is the longest free flowing river in the lower 48 states. The headwaters of the Yellowstone River originate from the Continental Divide in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. The hydrologic unit code (HUC) for this watershed is 10070007. This watershed drains approximately 70,000 square miles of land from Yellowstone Park to the Missouri River. The stream flow data in this report is from the U.S.G.S. gauging station 06214500, located downstream of the Lockwood intake and upstream of the City of Billings wastewater treatment plant outfall. Based on stream gauging data collected from 1929 through 2000, the mean monthly discharge at this station varied from 2,491 cubic feet per second(cfs) in January to 25,369 cfs in June (U.S.G.S). The average annual streamflow recorded at this station is 8,444 cfs. The highest recorded monthly average flow of 53,910 cfs occurred in June of 1997. It is important to note that the Yellowstone is a large river in this region and its discharge, even during low flow periods,provides substantial dilution potential and therefore, represents a significant barrier to potential sources of contamination identified in the report. For example, a flow of 8,444 cfs means that 63,172 gallons of water pass by the gaging station in one second. In one hour about 23 million gallons of water pass by the gaging station. This volume of flow should provide sufficient dilution to reduce the hazard posed by the majority of potential contaminant sources located along the river, with the possible exception of sources that are located in close proximity to the public water supply intakes. The Yellowstone River Basin is a study unit within the U.S. Department of Interior's National Water- Quality Assessment Program(NAWQA). The NAWQA on the Yellowstone Basin studies began in 1997. The initial phase addresses the planning, study design, and analysis of existing data. A subsequent phase 13 examines ground-water, surface-water, and biological data incorporating several years of water quality monitoring at selected sites. The study will provide descriptions of land use and land cover, soil, geology, physiography, climate, and drainage characteristics that may influence the water quality on the Yellowstone River study unit. The segment of the river were the three public water supply intakes are located is within the transition segment between the cold and warm water fisheries. The Public Water Supplies Fide 3 shows the public water supplies in the project area. The figure shows that the Billings area has a mixture of community and non-community transient public water supplies. Some of the public water supplies purchase water from the city of Billings, or from some other source. Other public water supplies utilize ground water as their source of water. Source Water Delineation and Assessment Reports (SWDARs) are being completed for all of the public water supplies in the project area. Reports for public water supplies using ground water are being completed under contract with the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology(MBMG), Billings Office. City of Billings staff have written this report for the community public water supplies of Laurel, Billings, and Lockwood. Numbers next to the public water supplies in Fi are also included in the table identifying the public water supplies in Appendix C. The City of Billings is classified as a community public water system(PWS #MT000153)serving a resident population of approximately 92,008. The Yellowstone River supplies 100% of the raw water needs for the Billings Water Treatment Plant through two intakes adjacent to the plant site. The primary intake (Intake No.1) is located along the shoreline of a control levee and draws water through an open channel. Flow from the open channel to the sedimentation basin is through six 48-inch diameter conduits with each having a 36- inch manually operated control gate. The Screen House or Intake No.2 is the plant's secondary feed located in the center of the river channel. This intake has not been used for several years. The plant treatment consists of coagulation, settling, disinfection, and filtration through ten dual media filters. The plant can also operate under direct filtration bypassing the primary settling basin. The nominal plant capacity is approximately 50 million gallons per day (MGD). The Billings distribution system is comprised of approximately 374 miles of transmission and distribution mains with pipe diameters ranging from 4-inches to 42-inches. Intersections or crossings of the distribution system by sewer and storm water lines, or other facilities, are numerous and therefore would be too difficult to individually identify all crossings. The report will attempt to identify crossings that have a significant potential for contamination. The sewer collection system comprises of approximately 363 miles of pipe. Typically the sewer lines are located below the water main crossings and have a minimal horizontal separation of ten feet. Also, the City has a storm drain collection system comprises of 121 miles of pipe. These facility crossings are typically located above the water mains. The City of Laurel (PWSID #MT0000270) draws its' water supply entirely from the Yellowstone River through two submerged screened intakes. Approximately 6,268 citizens are served by the city's public water supply. The intakes are located immediately downstream of highway 212 and the Montana Raillink bridge crossings. The newer of the two intakes is designed with two parallel 24-inch diameter lines rated at 25 mgd. The raw water is pumped from the intake lines to the water treatment plant. The plant is a direct filtration multi-media treatment system with a design capacity of 10 mgd. The distribution system has approximately 53 miles of water lines ranging in diameter from 2 to 24-inches. These water lines cross other lines or facilities including sewer lines, storm drains, gas and oil pipelines, railroad spurs, and irrigation ditches. The following irrigation/drainage ditches that course through the city are; Canyon Creek Ditch, Clarks Fork Ditch, Italian Ditch, Big Ditch,Nutting Drain, and Laurel Drain. The distribution lines cross through previous oil and fuel spill sites, in these areas the pipe material is coated ductile iron with VOC resistant gaskets. 14 The Yellowstone River supplies 100% of the Lockwood Water& Sewer District(PWSID#MT00156-005) needs which serves a population of approximately 5,775 residents. The conventional water treatment plant has a nominal capacity of 3.0 MGD. The raw water intake is a passive intake Johnson screen system with air purge and water scour system to clear debris and sediment. The plant utilizes ferric chloride or alum and polymers for flocculation and coagulation in the sedimentation process. The intake is located directly below the Burlington Northern Railroad crossing and also 1/4 mile downstream of Interstate 90 bridge crossing. The public distribution system comprises of approximately 45 miles of water mains. There are approximately 38 irrigation ditch crossings. The ditches are owned by the Lockwood Irrigation District and the Coulson Ditch Company. Also, gas and oil transmission lines cross distribution mains at five locations. The gas and oil pipelines are owned and maintained by the following companies; Cenex, Exxon, Conoco, and Montana Sulphur and Chemical. Sanitary Sewer Systems City of Billings is served by a municipal sanitary sewer system. The wastewater treatment plant is located down stream of the City's water treatment plant and Lockwood's intake on the north bank of the Yellowstone River. The plant is an activated sludge type secondary treatment facility designed for an average daily flow of 26 (MGD). The original primary treatment plant was upgraded in the 1970's increasing the capacity of the primary treatment and providing an activated sludge secondary treatment system. The treated wastewater effluent discharges to the Yellowstone River and must meet national secondary treatment standards. The City's MPDES permit number is 0022586-003. The collection system includes five lift stations and approximately 363 miles of sewer lines ranging from 6-inch to 60 inches in diameter. Private residential and commercial septic systems are predominately used outside the city limits. Through annexation and extension of the city's utilities,private septic systems are being replaced primarily in the area west of the city. City of Laurel has a municipal sanitary system. The wastewater treatment plant is located on the north bank downstream of the water treatment plant. Design capacity is 0.9 mgd with an average daily influent flow of 0.65 MGD. The plant has a MPDES permit to discharge directly into the river following secondary treatment with rotating biological contactors. The collection system comprises approximately 46 miles of pipe. The Sections of the collection system cross through previous oil and fuel spill sites, in these areas the pipe material is a coated ductile iron with VOC resistant gaskets. Lockwood does not have a municipal collection system. The Lockwood Water and Sewer District(LWSD) wastewater is treated by private and commercial septic tanks and leach fields. The septic systems and drainfields contribute to elevated nitrate concentrations in the shallow ground water in the Lockwood area. Storm Water and Irrigation Systems The City of Billings and Yellowstone County are designated as MS4s that are required to obtain coverage under an MPDES storm Water Discharge Permit. The City adopted a Storm Water Management Manual in 1986 to address detention and retention of storm water runoff from commercial properties and new subdivisions. The manual establishes the criteria and defines the storm water characteristics within the City limits based on historical records. The City operates and maintains approximately 130 miles of main line storm drainage piping discharging at nine major outfall points into the Yellowstone River. The major outfalls are Canyon Creek, Cove Creek, Danford Drain, Hogan's Slough, Blue Creek, City-County Drain, Yegen Drain, Alkali Creek, Hilltop Road Outfall, and Five Mile Creek. The Billings storm drainage collection system receives excess irrigation water and drainage carried into the MS4 permit area from 15 private irrigation ditches. The ditches and drains that collect storm water and those that intercept ground water discharge ultimately empty into the Yellowstone River. Hogan's Slough, City-County Drain, and Yegen Ditch account for approximately 70% of the storm drain collection for the City. Other drainage ditches that course through the valley include the following; Arnold Drain, Kratz Drain, Sacajawea Park Drain, and the North 15th street Outlet. Figure 4 shows the general drainage areas that contribute storm water runoff and irrigation return flows for Canyon Creek, Hogan's Slough, City-County Drain, and Yegen Ditch. Comparing Figure 4 with the Landuse/Landcover maps in Figure 12 shows that the areas that contribute water to Canyon Creek and Hogan's Slough are dominated by rural and agricultural landuse. The City-County Drain and Yegen Ditch on the other hand receive storm water and runoff from developed and urban areas, and their outflows to the Yellowstone River are relatively close to the intakes for the City of Billings and for Lockwood. It is important to note that significant development and subdivision is taking place in the west Billings area that is changing the area to a more urban setting. Many of the developments are using individual septic systems for waste disposal and community-level water systems that rely upon one or more relatively shallow supply wells. Ground-water studies in the area have identified leakage from some of the irrigation canals and ditches, as well as water loss from septic drainfields as sources of recharge to the shallow ground water system in the west Billings area(Olson and Reiten, 2002). For more detail from the cited study see the Hydrologic Conditions—Ground Water section below in Chapter 2. Hogan's Slough is the storm water outfall for the western section of the City with the outfall located along the South 20th Street West alignment. The general limit of this storm water collection area is; west of 37th Street West and 24th Street West, north of King Avenue, and south of Grand Avenue. The ditch is a combination of open channel and box culverts which courses through commercial and residential developments. City-County Drain is the storm water outfall for the central section of the City with an outfall located along Washington Street. The general limits of this storm water collection area are; west of 11th Street, east of 24th Street West, north of King Avenue, and south of Rimrock Road. The ditch is a combination of open channel and box culverts which courses through commercial and residential developments. F V City-County Drain culvert under U.S. 90 City-County Drain with irrigation crossing The Yegen Ditch outfall is located along the eastern edge of a Conoco above ground tank site and discharges upstream of the LWSD intake. This ditch provides storm water drainage for the area generally north of King Avenue East, west to North 32nd Street and south of 12 Avenue North. The ditch is a combination of open channel and box culverts which course through industrial, commercial, and residential developments. Petroleum product pipelines cross the ditch both above and below the ditch channel. 16 �Q �'! (."�'44� •' lt, ���yyyyy�����,,,,'i."1, 'dry +cts 1/ Yegen Ditch next to Conoco Tank Farm Yegen Outfall into Yellowstone River Several irrigation ditches course through the valley totaling approximately 14 miles of open canals provide both irrigation and storm water discharge. Each year the ditches are filled in April/May and dewatered by November. The largest of the ditches is the seven mile long Billings Bench Water Association Canal which flows 650 cfs. Other ditches are the Hi-line, Grey Eagle, The Big Ditch, Cove, Hogan Slough,Arnold Drain, and the Kratz Drain. Both the storm drains and irrigation ditches have numerous waterline crossings through out the City. The irrigation canals that convey irrigation water and storm water ultimately discharge into the Yellowstone River. In Laurel the two primary ditches that serve a combined function of irrigation/storm water drainage are the Laurel Drain that outfalls into the Yellowstone River between the Laurel water and waste water treatment plants. The other main drainage is the Nutting Drain which outfalls downstream of the Laurel waste water treatment plant. Water Quality The three systems are classified as community PWSs and are required to conduct routine monitoring of the drinking water for contaminants in accordance with the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Parameters such as coliform bacteria, lead, copper,nitrate, nitrite, volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) including hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents, inorganic chemicals including metals, synthetic organic chemicals including pesticides, and radiological contaminants must be monitored in accordance with schedules specified in the Administrative Rules of Montana. All contaminant concentrations detected in the required samples must comply with numeric maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) specified in the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The City of Billings has been monitoring the Yellowstone River water quality at the WTP intake for approximately 50 years. The intake is upstream of the United States Geological Survey(USGS) gauging station no.06214500. Table 2 shows the raw water parameters that have been monitored for the year 2002. Table 3 shows the finish/treated water parameters monitored during 2002. 17 Table 2 -Water Quality Data of Raw Water LABORATORY SUMMARY YELLOWSTONE RIVER January 1 THRU December 31 2002 PARAMETER MCL/SMCL a AVERAGE MAXIMUM MINIMUM Physical Properties H s.u. 6.9-9.0 a 8.39 8.80 8.05 Sp. Conductance(umhos) 352 481 131 Temperature F 47 72 32 Turbidity NTU 0.5 21 383 2 Total Hardness as mg CaCO3/1 140 189 57 Calcium as mg Ca/I 37 51 16 Solids m /I Total Dissolved Solids 500 a 209 298 72 Metals u /I Arsenic 50 13.4 18.5 4.9 Magnesium m /I 11.4 14.8 4.4 Manganese 50 a 21 51 *<10 Iron 300 a 367 2050 62 Lead 15 *<5 *<5 *<5 Sodium (mg/1) 20 a 20.8 26.3 6.2 Copper 1300 *<10 *<10 *<10 Inorganic Non-metals m /I Chloride 6.2 10.0 1.7 Fluoride 4 0.45 0.62 0.18 Nitrate+Nitrite as N 10.0 0.19 0.44 <0.02 Sulfate 250 a 54.8 84.1 13.3 Alkalinity as CaCO3 110.8 158.0 42.5 Bacteria Total Coliform col/100 ml 199 1067 1 Fecal Coliform col/100 ml Absent 71 575 <1 Heterotro hic Plate Count cfu/ml <500 1015 4900 11 Total Organic Carbon m /I 2.50 8.28 1.42 Table 3 shows the finish water quality for the year 2002 for the City of Billings Water Treatment Plant. Finish water quality records date back more than fifty years. 18 Table 3 - Water Quality of Finished Water LABORATORY SUMMARY FINISHED WATER QUALITY January 1 THRU December 31 2002 PARAMETER MCL/SMCL a AVERAGE MAXIMUM MINIMUM Physical Properties H s.u. 6.9-9.0 a 7.93 8.24 7.28 Sp. Conductance(umhos) 372 509 124 Temperature F P38 9 75 32 TurbidityNTU 0.5 03 0.07 0.023 Total Hardness as m CaCO3/1 44 191 45 Calcium as mg Ca/I 52 13 Solids m /I Total Dissolved Solids 500 a 203 290 64 Metals (ug/I Arsenic 50 6.1 12.3 *<2 Magnesium m /I 11.9 15.7 2.8 Manganese 50 a *<10 22 *<10 Iron 300 a *<50 *<50 *<50 Lead 15 *<5 *<5 *<5 Sodium m /I 20 a 21.7 28.1 5.2 Copper 1300 *<10 *<10 *<10 Inorganic Non-metals m /I Chloride 10.5 15.2 5.3 Fluoride 4 0.45 0.63 0.16 Nitrate+Nitrite as N 10.0 0.21 0.43 <0.02 Sulfate 250 a 58.3 88.2 11.6 Alkalinity as CaCO3 110.6 160.0 36.5 Free Chlorine 1.04 1.23 0.83 Bacteria Total Coliform Present/Absent Absent ABSENT ABSENT ABSENT Heterotro hic Plate Count cfu/ml <500 <1 <1 <1 Trihalomethane u /I 100 21.1 31.9 11.2 Total Organic Carbon m /I 1.73 2.71 1.14 Organic Chemicals Pesticides/PCB's Less Than MCL 19 Compounds) Varies Volatile Organic Chemicals Less Than MCL (18 Compounds) Varies Source: Public Utilities Department, City of Billings MCL Maximum Contaminant Level SMCL a Secondary Drinking Water Standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency *< Indicates that the value is less than the detection limit of the test. 19 According to the DEQ PWS Database there have been no detections of coliform bacteria in the drinking water of any of the three public water supplies within the past five years. Within the past five years the concentration of nitrate detected in the drinking water of each of the three public water supplies has ranged from 0.12 mg/L to 0.34 mg/L, well below the MCL of 10 mg/L (SDWIS). The segment of the Yellowstone River that the PWSs withdraw from is classified by the State of Montana as 13-1 water meaning, that the water is suitable for drinking, culinary and food processing purposes, after conventional treatment; bathing, swimming and recreation; growth and propagation of fish and associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply. Although this segment of the Yellowstone River is on the proposed 2002 303(d) list of impaired streams(DEQ, TMDL Section), the stream segment is fully supporting of agricultural, drinking water supply, industrial, and recreational uses. This segment of the river is partially supporting aquatic life and cold-water trout fishery. 20 CHAPTER 2 - DELINEATION The source water protection area, the area of surface water and land that contributes water to the three public water supplies, is delineated in this chapter. The purpose of delineation is to map the source of drinking water and define areas within which to prioritize source water protection efforts. Two management areas are identified within the source water protection area defined as the Spill Response Region and the Watershed Region. The Spill Response Region represents the area of surface water upstream of each of the three public water supply intakes where a potential for contamination can occur in a relatively short period of time. The watershed region represents the area of the Upper Yellowstone and Clarks Fork Watershed that is upstream of and contributes water to the valley. The three public water supply systems have surface water intakes located on the Yellowstone River(Figure 1). According to the Montana Source Water Protection Program guidelines, a Spill Response Region for a surface water system extends 1/2 mile down-stream of the system's surface water intake and 10 miles up- stream from the intake. A Spill Response Region also extends 1/2 mile from each riverbank. Figure 1 shows the general areas where the three intakes are located and the Spill Response Region delineated for the project area. In this case, the delineation limits of the study ranges from ten miles upstream of the Laurel WTP intake and about 1/2 mile below the Lockwood WTP intake on the main stem of the Yellowstone River. The delineated Spill Response Region extends 1/2 mile from the banks of the Yellowstone River proper, Blue Creek, Hogans Slough, Canyon Creek, and the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone. The Spill Response Region also includes a section of the Yellowstone River between Laurel and Billings,primarily because portions of this area are being developed and the interstate, railroad, and petroleum pipelines are relatively close to the river in this corridor. Other tributaries of the Yellowstone River in this area include Duck Creek, Pryor Creek, and Alkali Creek. These tributaries are not included in the Spill Response Region because they drain largely undeveloped areas that are not experiencing rapid growth. Because the PWS's obtain their drinking water from the Yellowstone River, a surface water supply, the source water sensitivity is classified as highly sensitive to contamination, in accordance with Montana Source Water Protection Program aquifer sensitivity criteria(Table 4). Table 4 - Source sensitivity criteria(DEQ, 1999) Source Water Sensitivity High Source Water Sensitivity Surface water and GWUDISW Unconsolidated Alluvium(unconfined) Fluvial-Glacial Gravel Terrace and Pediment Gravel Shallow Fractured or Carbonate Bedrock Moderate Source Water Sensitivity Semi-consolidated Valley Fill sediments Unconsolidated Alluvium semi-confined Low Source Water Sensitivity Consolidated Sandstone Bedrock Deep Fractured or Carbonate Bedrock Semi-consolidated Valley Fill Sediments confined The Spill Response Region is divided into multiple segments, three for each of the municipal intakes, three 21 others for the Blue Creek, Canyon Creek, and Hogan's Slough, and one for the area extending between the end of the Billings Spill Response Region and the beginning of the Laurel Spill Response Region. Blue Creek, Canyon Creek and Hogan's Slough are included because they collect water drained from areas where significant development is taking place. Separate sections are presented in the susceptibility table listing significant potential contaminants for each of the intakes, Blue Creek, Canyon Creek, and Hogan's Slough (Table 8). The City of Billings WTP intake and Lockwood Water and Sewer District(LWSD) intake have overlapping spill response zones. Appendix A contains a list of all identified potential contaminant sources within the defined Yellowstone Valley area. Hydrologic conditions for surface and ground water are discussed below. Hydrogeologic Conditions— Surface Water The headwaters of the Yellowstone River and its tributaries originate in the mountain ranges to the west and southwest of the Laurel-Billings-Lockwood(LBL) Project Area and include: the Bridger Range, Crazy Mountains, Absaroka-Beartooth Range, upland areas in Yellowstone National Park, the Prior Mountains, and Bighorn Mountains. Significant tributaries to the Yellowstone draining these land areas include the Shields River, Boulder River, Stillwater River, Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone, and the Bighorn River. Annual precipitation for the Billings area is about 14 inches, however,precipitation is much higher in the mountainous headwaters. Annual precipitation can range between 40 and 60 inches in the higher mountain ranges. A significant portion of that precipitation occurs as snow during the winter months and as spring rain,both of which contribute to high streamflow events. Peak flows for the Yellowstone River commonly occur in spring and early summer, and low flows are more common in late summer through the winter months. Certain land uses and businesses located along the Yellowstone River and its tributaries upstream from the Laurel-Billings-Lockwood Project Area represent potential contaminant sources for the public water supplies. Spills and leaks of contaminants are considered to represent a high hazard to a public water supply if they are located so that they result in direct discharge into Yellowstone River or into one of the its tributaries upstream in the vicinity of one of the public water supply intakes. The concern is that spills or leaks occurring in closer proximity to one of the Laurel-Billings-Lockwood intakes could reach the intake before plant operators can close or isolate the intake. Other contaminant sources may discharge to the river and its tributaries in a less direct manner. These contaminant sources are within the watershed but are farther from the river and contaminants can be flushed into the streams during spring snowmelt or storm events. Indirect discharge to streams can also come from contaminants that infiltrate into aquifers adjacent the river that then discharge to streams via hydraulic connections. Because these contaminants are not discharged directly into the river,they tend to pose a less immediate threat to the public water supply and are usually assigned a lower hazard rating. Seasonal timing of direct contaminant discharges into rivers and streams can complicate the potential threat to the Laurel-Billings-Lockwood public water supplies. Spills occurring during high water periods will tend to travel toward the surface water intake faster than during low water conditions. However, dilution during high flows in the spring and early summer would help reduce the hazard posed to the public water supplies. Direct discharges during low flow conditions would not be diluted as much as during high flow conditions but they would also travel slower and take longer to reach the intakes. In other words, there would be more time to respond to the contaminant incident. Also as mentioned previously, the Yellowstone is a relatively large river and even during low flow periods its discharge provides substantial dilution potential. Dilution will play a major role in reducing the hazard of potential releases or spills of contaminants into the river, and 22 it is considered to be a significant barrier to potential sources of contamination identified in the report. Hydrogeologic Conditions—Ground Water The Yellowstone River valley lies between the sandstone cliffs to the north and rolling hills underlain by a thick sequence of shale to the south. The cliffs are locally known as the "Rims" and are composed of the Eagle Sandstone and the Telegraph Creek Formation, both are Cretaceous in age (Olson and Reiten, 2002; Lopez, 2000). The sandstone formations dip gently to the north and are not present in the valley beneath the river. Within the Yellowstone River valley in the Project Area, the Yellowstone River has cut down into a thick sequence of Cretaceous aged shale. The shale sequence is on the order of 2,000 feet thick and is widely exposed in the hills south of Billings (Lopez, 2000). Within the valley, the Yellowstone River has deposited five distinct terraces with varying thicknesses of gravel. Some of the terraces are more extensive than others and several are important aquifers in the western part of the Project Area between Laurel and Billings (Olson and Reiten, 2002). The terraces are distinguished by their elevation above the modern Yellowstone River flood plain and are described in detail by Olson and Reiten, 2002. Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the ground-water flow direction and general aquifer boundaries for the near the City of Billings Intake and for the area between Laurel and Billings, respectively. Mapping in Figure 5 comes from Hutchinson(1983) and mapping in Figure 6 comes from Olson and Reiten(2002). Some highlights from the Olson and Reiten study, and from an earlier study by Hutchinson, 1983 are summarized below. ♦ Ground water occurs in gravel deposits ranging from 0 to 30 feet thick and lying beneath terraces 1, 2, 3, and 4. Modern alluvium adjacent the Yellowstone River is mapped as part of Terrace 1 in Olson and Reiten, 2002). Terraces 2 and 3 are aerially extensive in the valley occurring in sub- parallel bands adjacent the Yellowstone River flood plain(Fiore 6). Saturated thickness beneath the terraces is approximately 15 feet and the individual terraces do not appear to be hydraulically connected. There is up to 100 feet of silty clay or clayey sand above the saturated gravel units that acts as a confining layer in some areas, mainly in the northwest part of the project area. Ground- water flow direction is generally from the west-northwest to the east-southeast. Flow rate within the gravel units is in the range of 1 to 3 feet per day. Isotopic analysis of Tritium-Helium on water from 9 wells in the area indicate that ground water in the valley is between 0.9 and 32.0 years old. ♦ Water balance isotopic analysis of deuterium and oxygen-18 suggest that between 66 and 84 percent of the water recharging the terrace gravel aquifers originates irrigation return flow and or water lost from canal and stream channels. Smaller contributions to recharge come from infiltration of precipitation, septic effluent, and lawn irrigation. The importance of irrigation return flow for recharge is underscored by the observation that water levels in wells located near flood irrigated fields and irrigation canals rise rapidly after the irrigation season begins in April, peaks in August to September, and decline after the growing season ends. Water levels in wells in non-irrigated areas show a very different pattern; they fall during the irrigation season reaching a minimum in mid- to late summer. Water levels begin to rise again in fall when irrigation and crop production comes to an end. ♦ Ground water discharges to multiple streams and drains in the Project Area providing base flow during the winter for major streams and increased flow as the streams flow across the terrace deposits. Maps included in the Olson and Reiten(2002) and Hutchinson(1983) studies show the general flow paths are toward the major tributaries like Canyon Creek and Hogan's slough, and toward the Yellowstone River(Figure 5 and Figure 6). The streams and drains essentially collect 23 ground-water discharge and transport it to the Yellowstone River. Ground-water contributions to the streams, drains, and the Yellowstone River are estimated to be on the order of 1% of the Yellowstone River's discharge. In other words, ground-water discharge to the Yellowstone River does not represent a large portion of the rivers flow(See Table 7, page 27 of Olsen and Reiten, 2002). Another observation that can be made from the maps included in the Olson and Reiten(2002) and Hutchinson(1983) studies is that the terrace deposits and modern alluvium are truncated just east of Billings where the river flows north for a short distance and the valley becomes narrower. This causes the ground water to flow directly toward the river in the vicinity of the City of Billings intake (Figure 5 and Figure 6). This is important because any contaminant originating in the east side of the city could be entrained by the ground water and carried toward the river near the intake. However, as noted above, the volume of ground-water discharge is small compared to average discharge of the Yellowstone River. Dilution will play a major role in reducing the concentration of potential contaminants delivered to the Yellowstone River via ground water or by streams and drains in the area. Conceptual Model and Assumptions The three public water supply intakes are located on the Yellowstone River near the cities of Laurel, Billings and Lockwood. There are multiple potential contaminant sources that cross the river or located adjacent the river. Contaminants, if spilled directly into the Yellowstone River upstream or are in the immediate vicinity of the three surface water intakes, could potentially reach the intakes before the water operators could isolate the system or shut down intake pumping facilities. Severity of a contaminant impact would depend on the type of contaminant, the location of the spill point relative to the intakes, and the river flow conditions at the time of the spill. River flow is highly variable during the year. Over a longer time frame, contaminants that accumulate throughout the watershed could be flushed into the Yellowstone River during periods of spring run-off. Contaminants in ground water can also enter the Yellowstone River in areas where it is hydraulically connected to sub-surface sediments. The Spill Response Region segments for the City of Billings and the Lockwood intakes overlap based on the %2 mile down stream and 10 miles upstream criteria for each intake. This segment includes two major storm ditch outfalls, the City County Drain and the Yegen Drain. Also, Blue Creek, Canyon Creek and Hogan's Slough outfalls are within this segment upstream of the City of Billings intake. The Spill Response Region for the Laurel intake is about six miles upstream of the end of the Billings Spill Response Region. As mentioned previously, this study includes the inventory and susceptibility for this section between Laurel and Billings. Ground-water discharge provides base flow for the Yellowstone River and its tributaries in the area, and for the streams and some drainage ditches. Overall, ground-water base flow contributions to the Yellowstone River are small. Rough estimates place the ground water recharge on the order of 1 percent of the Yellowstone River discharge. Ground water flows generally from upland areas north and south of the Yellowstone River. In the area west of the City of Billings and Lockwood intakes, ground water is flowing due east toward the River(Fib). In the vicinity of the City of Laurel intake ground water is flowing from the north—northwest to the south—southeast(Figure 6). Limiting Factors The delineation for the spill response and watershed region is based on fixed-distance and watershed mapping. The spill response region represents an approximation of the distance required for contaminants upstream to reach the surface water intake in a short period of time.Numerous assumptions are associated with the Source Water Protection Program criteria for spill response region delineations. Contaminant 24 transport rates and concentrations will vary depending on the physical and chemical characteristics of both the river and the contaminants. Ground-water flow within adjacent riparian areas will also play a role in contaminant transport. As a result, some areas within the spill response region may be more conducive to contaminant transport than others, and should be designated as higher priority areas for source water protection efforts. 25 CHAPTER 3 - INVENTORY An inventory of potential contaminant sources was conducted to assess the susceptibility of each of the public water supplies to contamination, and to identify priorities for source water protection planning. These inventories were conducted within the spill response and watershed regions. The inventory for the Yellowstone valley focuses on facilities that generate,use, store, transport, or dispose of potential contaminants, and on certain land types on which potential contaminants are generated,used, stored, transported or disposed. Additionally, the inventory process identifies potential sources of regulated primary drinking water contaminants and pathogens. Only those potential contaminant sources that pose the most significant threat to human health were selected for detailed inventory. The most significant potential contaminants in the valley spill response region include nitrate,pathogens, fuels, solvents, herbicides, pesticides, and metals. The inventory for the public water supplies also focuses on all activities in the Spill Response Region, as well as general land uses and large potential contaminant sources in the watershed region. The inventory of potential contaminants in this project area is complicated and challenging for several reasons. 1) There are a relatively large number of significant potential contaminant sources in the areas surrounding the three public water supplies and portions of the project area are experiencing relatively rapid development and population growth. 2) A relatively large number of significant potential contaminant sources are located outside the Spill Response Region and normally would not be included in the inventory and susceptibility analysis. However, some of these potential contaminant sources are located close to irrigation canals and storm water ditches that discharge directly, or indirectly, to the Yellowstone River. In addition, the location of the storm water discharge points to canals and to other ditches are not well documented and add an uncertainty to the susceptibility analysis that is difficult to quantify. 3) Ground water is recharged outside of the Spill Response Region and travels beneath agricultural, suburban, industrial, and urban areas toward the Yellowstone River where it discharges and provides baseflow. Ground water could transport contaminant from outside the Spill Response Region and discharge them in the vicinity of the public water supply intakes. 4) Interstate 94, the railroad, and multiple petroleum pipelines are located adjacent the Yellowstone River and cross the river and its tributaries at multiple locations. The interstate, railroad, and pipelines also cross irrigation canals and storm water ditches at multiple locations, some of which are relatively close and up-stream from the public water supply intakes. 5) Many of the sources of information used for the inventory are not current. This is especially true for communities like Laurel, Billings, and Lockwood that are experiencing rapid development and population growth. For these reasons, the Source Water Delineation and Assessment effort needs to consider the hazard posed by potential contaminant sources outside of the Spill Response Region. To address these challenges, a fairly conservative approach was used to develop the inventory and limitations are discussed in several sections of the report. This report should be viewed as a one part of the effort to initiate management of potential contaminant sources in the project area to provide protection to the source water. 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 landcover data collected from the NRIS database. Step 2: The Yellowstone valley geology data was collected from the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology database and various reports. 26 Step 3: A business phone directory was consulted 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. Step 4: Major road and rail transportation routes were identified. Potential contaminant sources are designated as significant if they fall into one of the following categories: • Large quantity hazardous waste generators • Landfills • Hazardous waste contaminated sites • Underground storage tanks • Petroleum product pipelines • Major roads or rail transportation route • Cultivated cropland • Animal feeding operations • Wastewater lagoons or spray irrigation • Septic systems • Sewered residential areas • Storm sewer outflows • Floor drains, sumps, or dry wells • Abandoned or active mines Inventory Results/Spill Response Region The potential contaminant source inventory within the Spill Response Region is intended to help identify sites where release of contaminants could result in a direct discharge in to the Yellowstone River or a tributary. The inventory also helps identify potential sources that could contaminate shallow ground water adjacent the river and that is considered to be hydraulically connected to the river. Significant potential contaminant sources that could release contaminants directly into the Yellowstone River, or one of its tributaries or canals that discharge directly into the river are assigned a high hazard rating. A hazard rating of moderate is assigned to potential contaminant sources that could release contamination to shallow ground water that is flowing toward the river. Usually potential contaminant sources outside of the Spill Response Region would be assigned a low hazard rating however; in the Billings area there are multiple canals that collect storm water runoff and discharge into the Yellowstone River up-stream from the Billings and Lockwood intakes. As a result, a significant potential contaminant source located outside of the Spill Response Region but close to a canal or tributary is assigned a hazard rating of moderate. Significant potential contaminant sources outside of the Spill Response Region and not in close proximity to a canal or stream are assigned a low hazard rating. Figure 7 shows all of the potential contaminant sources identified in the project area,both significant and non-significant sites. While the map shows that there are a relatively large number of potential contaminant sources in the region, it also shows that the number of sites within the Spill Response Region is relatively small, on the order of 100. Most of the sites within the Spill Response Region occur east of Billings and just southwest of the Lockwood area. A second concentration of potential contaminant sources is located in the Laurel area,just south of town. There are multiple potential contaminant sources located within the Blue Creek, Canyon Creek and Hogan's Slough Spill Response Regions (Figure 7) but for the most part they are isolated sites that are not clustered or concentrated at one location. 27 In examining the maps presented in Figure and subsequent figures, it is important to keep in mind that ground water near Billing is flowing generally toward the Yellowstone River and its local tributaries (EiVre 5). Ground water in the vicinity of Laurel also flows toward the Yellowstone and the tributaries (Fib). The ground water is discharging into these surface water bodies and contributes to base flow during the winter months. Studies in the Project Area estimate the volume of ground-water discharge is small compared to the average flow in the Yellowstone River. Ground-water discharge probably represents only about 1% or so of the average flow volume in the river(See Table 7, page 27 of Olsen and Reiten, 2002). Despite this fact, the ground-water flow paths in the Project Area raise the possibility that contaminants could be delivered to the Yellowstone River in the vicinity of the public water supply intakes. While dilution would significantly reduce the hazard posed by such releases, it is still important to stress that source water protection efforts should address managing potential contaminant sources outside the Spill Response Regions (Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9). In short, it is important to understand that the ground-water and surface-water systems in the Project Area are interconnected. Additional studies of ground-water and surface-water interactions may be warranted to more clearly understand and define the threat posed by potential contaminant sources in areas that are relatively close to the public water supply intakes. It should also be noted from Figure 7 that highways, railroads, and petroleum pipelines are located relatively close to the Yellowstone River and cross the river, tributaries, canals and ditches at multiple locations up- stream from all of the intakes. Accidents, spills, and leaks along the transportation and pipeline routes are of concern, especially if they occur at crossings that are located a relatively short distance upstream from the intakes. This is especially true of the railroads and petroleum pipelines because they carry large volumes of product and accidents or spills could result in a significant release to the Yellowstone. Figure 7 and other figures show some of the locations where transportation and pipeline routes cross the Yellowstone River, tributaries, canals and ditches. Some of the crossings are located close to where the canals join the Yellowstone. For example, pipelines cross the City-County Canal and the Yegen Ditch near their outfalls that are a short distance upstream from the Billings and Lockwood intakes. Both canals have the potential to transport contaminants rapidly to the river. As mentioned previously, the Yellowstone is a relatively large river, and it is thought that dilution will act as an effective barrier to prevent contaminant spills and releases from posing a serious threat to the public water supplies and the source water. Emergency response is also considered a barrier that would help reduce the hazard from accidents and spills. However, it would be prudent for the communities to undertake or sponsor additional studies of the transportation and pipeline crossings that are close to the intakes to more clearly understand and define the hazard they may pose to the public water supplies and to the source water. In some cases it is conceivable that dilution would not represent a sufficient barrier to protect the public water supplies, especially for spills or releases that are close to the surface water intakes. Municipal sewer lines and utility corridors in Billings and Laurel within the Spill Response Region pose a hazard to the source water. Municipal sewer lines and utility corridors may constitute preferred contaminant migration pathways that allow contaminants to enter area ground water that eventually may be transported to and discharged into the river. Figure 5 and Figure 6 mentioned previously show the general direction of ground-water flow in the vicinity of the Billings—Lockwood intakes and the Laurel intake. The maps can be used to identify areas that collect ground water recharge that is eventually discharged into the Yellowstone River. Leaks and spills from the municipal sewer lines, and from other potential contaminant sources in these areas,will have the tendency to move with the ground water toward the river. Fi and Fi ure 9 shows enlarged maps with significant potential contaminant sources in the Billings— Lockwood area and near the confluence of Canyon Creek and Hogan's Slough, respectively. Figure shows the significant potential sources in the Canyon Creek and Hogan's Slough area and Figure 11 shows the vicinity of Laurel. The numbers associated with each site on the maps also appear in Table 8. 28 It is important to note from Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure and Figure 11, that some significant potential contaminant sources are located just outside the boundary of the Spill Response Region. For example, Figure 8 and Figure 9 show a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) located about 1 mile south of the West Billings Interstate Exit. There are also multiple underground storage tanks (USTs) located outside the Spill Response Region boundaries as well. While the hazard and susceptibility ratings for these potential contaminant sources are assigned lower that those sites within the Spill Response Region, the community should include such sites in planning and management efforts focused at reducing the source water's susceptibility to contamination. In the event that these sites are located relatively close to tributaries, canals, or ditches, they could pose a significant threat to source water quality. Land cover within the entire Spill Response Region is agricultural land(45%), grassland(20%), forest land (11%), wetlands (9%), open water, (8%) and urban including residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation land comprises only about 4 to 6% (Figure ). Table 8 lists cultivated crop landuse by percent for each of the Spill Response Regions and the percent of agricultural land for the Watershed Region is listed below under the Watershed Inventory Results section. Figure shows that the agricultural land is concentrated in the stream valleys and is located within the Spill Response Regions. The agricultural land is located largely north-northwest of the Yellowstone River in upland areas that contribute runoff and irrigation return flow(Figure 12). Significant but aerially less extensive areas of agricultural land are located south of the Yellowstone River. Agricultural land is considered to be a significant potential contaminant source when it is located within the Spill Response Region or the Watershed Region. Over application of fertilizers and/or pesticides can result in those agricultural chemicals infiltrating into ground water and running off in to surface water bodies that may have hydraulic connection with aquifers that supply water. Based on the Source Water Protection Program criteria, the agricultural land poses a moderate hazard to the three PWSs through non-point discharges to the Yellowstone River both by surface and ground water(Tables 6 and 7). Nitrates and pathogens and additional agricultural chemicals used on the land could enter the Yellowstone River via surface water runoff, irrigation return flow, and the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River. The confluence of the Clarks Fork is located downstream of the Laurel water treatment plant intake. The headwaters of the Clarks Fork River are in the Wyoming Shoshone National Forest and primary flows through agricultural land use areas. Potential contaminants could also leach into area ground water and then enter the river. Studies of the Yellowstone River Basin water quality by the U.S. Geological Survey have verified the presences of low concentrations of pesticides and herbicides in the Yellowstone River. The study included water samples from the Billings area out to the gaging station near Sidney. There are plans to expand this study and continue base level monitoring. While concentrations of the ag-chemicals are low, the study does indicate that the use of pesticides and herbicides in the watershed does have the potential to impact the public water supplies using Yellowstone River as their source water. Details on the Yellowstone River Basin Study can be obtained from the USGS web site at: http://wyoming.usgs.gov/YELL/httns/description.htm. As mentioned previously, the valley has three major refineries along the banks of the Yellowstone River. The Cenex Refinery in Laurel is located immediately upstream of the Laurel WTP intake. The Conoco Inc. Refinery in Billings is located between the Billings Water Treatment Plant and Lockwood Water and Sewer District intakes. East of Lockwood and downstream of the Lockwood Water and Sewer District Water Treatment Plant intake is the Exxon Refinery and Terminal. In the past there have been product releases from the Conoco and Cenex refineries that reached the Yellowstone River. These releases are either remediated or in final stages of remediation and do not pose a threat to the public water supplies. There are several interconnecting crude and product pipelines between the refineries that are within the Spill 29 Response Region on the west bank of the river. Also, there are crude oil and product intra- and inter-state transmission pipelines with some that have river crossings. The pipelines range in diameter from 4-inches to 20-inches. Construction and maintenance of the pipelines follows (DOT—CFR 195). There are a number of safety measures and practices to ensure the integrity of the pipelines. Pipelines are constructed with cathodic protection, which includes scheduled station checks. Ultrasonic tests are conducted to measure metal thickness. Pressure tests using water are conducted on 18-year intervals. Sensors for leak detection and pressure are used and linked to satellite control. Also, auto block valves are used to isolate pipeline sections that are activated by sensors. A pipeline failure, depending on the location, could discharge oil product into the Yellowstone River. The volume of the discharge would depend on the pressure, pipeline diameter, length of pipe between valves, and the response time of the safety devices and emergency response personnel. Automated leak detection and emergency response are counted as barriers to reduce the susceptibility of the public water supplies to potential of contamination from the refineries. As mentioned above, additional studies may be advisable where the refineries and pipelines are located relatively close to the River or to tributaries, canals, and ditches that discharge to the River a short distance from the intakes. While the hazard for contamination is categorized as high for the refineries, the susceptibility is considered moderate due to the safeguards and programs mentioned above that are in place. The three refineries each have Spill Response Plans and also have mutual aid agreements. The CENEX refinery located within 1,500 feet upstream of the Laurel intake has the potential to leach VOC's and hydrocarbons into the Yellowstone River. The plant has a MPDES permit to discharge process water to the river located downstream of the Laurel water treatment plant intake. Off-site storm water runoff is prevented from entering the site by a perimeter berm. The above ground storage tank farm has perimeter containment berms around each tank designed to contain spills. The Conoco refinery is the next downstream facility located below the City of Billing's intake. Above and below ground petroleum product tanks are located throughout the site. The above ground tanks each have perimeter containment berms. The Exxon refinery is located downstream of the Lockwood Water and Sewer District Water Treatment Plant intake and falls outside the spill response region. As a result the tank farm does not pose a threat to any of the three public water supplies. However, there are interconnecting petroleum product pipelines between the three refineries that are within the Spill Response Region. The City of Billings owns a railroad spur off the Burlington Northern Railroad line that is used to deliver bulk chemicals to water treatment plant site. A spill during transfer of chemicals to the bulk chemical building storage tanks could flow into the Yellowstone River or could leach into area ground water and then seep into the surface water. The railroad line poses a high hazard to the City of Billings intake. Underground storage tanks (USTs) and leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTS) are located within the Spill Response Region and may release VOCs to the Yellowstone River. The USTs/LUSTS pose a high hazard to the public water supply intake. Septic system use continues in portions of the Yellowstone Valley, particularly in the areas west of Billings and on the outskirts of Laurel (Figure 13). Most of the project area has a low septic density with large areas being served by the Billings and Laurel municipal sewer systems. There are areas of moderate and high septic density shown on the maps just east of Billings, near the confluence of Blue Creek with the Yellowstone, in the Canyon Creek Spill Response Region, and near Laurel (Figure 13). High and moderate septic density areas west and southwest of Billings occur in areas that are drained by Canyon Creek, as well as several ditches and canals that discharge into the Yellowstone River. Future management of this potential contaminant source could include the extension of city sewer west of its current limit. Overall, septic system densities within the valley pose a moderate hazard. 30 Inventory Results/Watershed Region The inventory within the Watershed Region is used to identify large facilities and general sources of pathogens and nitrate. Hazard and susceptibility ratings are not assigned to each significant potential contaminant source within the Watershed Region because it is assumed that dilution and distance reduce the hazard posed by these sites to the source water. Figure_ 14 shows the inventory results within the Watershed Region. The figure shows that the majority of the potential contaminant sources are located near the major cities in the region and that most of the Watershed Region is quite rural and undeveloped. Oil and gas test wells and producing wells are present within the region,particularly south and east of Laurel (Fi ure 14). Petroleum pipelines and transportation corridors are present throughout the region and are of concern primarily because they are often located near the Yellowstone River and its tributaries. Pipelines,roads, and railroads cross the Yellowstone and its tributaries at multiple locations throughout the region and represent a potentially serious threat to the source water used by the public water supplies in the Watershed Region. Confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are also present within the Watershed Region, and some are relatively close to waterways that discharge into the Yellowstone River. However, Figure. 14 shows that CAFOs located upstream from the public water supply intakes are in the more distal portions of the region. Land use within the Watershed Region consists mainly of grasslands at 52%, agricultural land at 36%, 5% commercial and low density residential, and 5% forest(Fi.u�). Table 5 lists the significant potential contaminant sources located within the Watershed Region and Figure# shows the location of the sites identified in the inventory. Large-scale planning and management efforts like the Montana DEQ Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL)program and other watershed-level groups and organizations can play a major role in helping to manage and reduce the susceptibility of the source water to potential contaminants located throughout the watershed. Multiple groups are active in the Yellowstone watershed and public water supply operators and community leaders can work with the groups to supplement on-going efforts to maintain and improve source water quality. 31 Table 5—Significant potential contaminant sources in the Project Watershed Region. Potential Contaminant Sources Map ID Contaminants Hazard Figure 14& 15 SOCs,Nitrate and Enter river via surface water runoff or irrigation Agricultural Land pathogens return flows Landfills Figure 14& 15 VOCs,nitrates, Contaminated ground water discharging to surface pathogens,metals water Gravel Pits/Mines Figure 14& 15 VOCs,nitrates,metals Interaction of contaminated ground water with surface water Ground-water Remediation Figure 14& 15 VOCs,nitrates Contaminated ground water discharging to surface Site water Highways and Railroads Figure 14& 15 VOCs, SOCs,Nitrates Accidents,leaks,and spills directly into surface and pathogens water bodies or infiltration into ground water hydraulically connected to surface water Oil and Gas Test and Figure 14& 15 VOCs,petroleum product, Release via improperly abandoned wells,faulty Production Wells saline formation constructions,failing packers,and improper wastewater disposal of waste formation water Petroleum Pipelines and Figure 14& 15 VOCs,petroleum product Leaks,and spills directly into surface water bodies Refineries or infiltration into ground water hydraulically connected to surface water Regulated Toxic Release Figure 14& 15 Variety of materials Releases to air adjacent surface water bodies or Sites from disposal ponds. Septic Systems Figure 14& 15 Nitrates and pathogens Effluent discharging directly to river or via contaminated ground water Superfund Sites Figure 14& 15 VOCs, SOCs,metals, Seepage of VOCs directly into river or via TDS interaction of contaminated ground water with surface water UST/LUSTS Figure 14& 15 VOCs,petroleum product, Seepage of VOCs directly into river or via interaction of contaminated ground water with surface water Wastewater Discharges Figure 14& 15 VOCs,nitrates,pathogens Effluent discharging directly to river metals Storm Water Outfalls i I Figure 14& 15 VOCs,nitrates,pathogens Effluent discharging directly to river metals Inventory Update To make this SWDAR a useful document in the years to come, the certified water system operator(s) for the public water supply should update the inventory for their records every 3 to 5 years. Changes in land uses or potential contaminant sources should be noted and additions made as needed. The complete inventory should be submitted to DEQ at least every 5 years to ensure that this report/plan stays current in the public record. It is very important for the Public Water Supplies operators, community leaders, and citizens work to improve and update the inventory in this report. The communities are in the best position to address the limitations of the present inventory that are mentioned below. Inventory Limitations The extent of the potential contaminant source inventory is limited in several respects. The inventory is based on data readily available through state documents, published reports, and other public sources. Documentation is not readily available on some potential sources. The status of remediation efforts at some of the sites is also not readily available. As a result, all potential contaminant sources may not have been identified and in some cases, assumptions are made as to the status of remediation efforts and the 32 effectiveness of some barriers. In some instances, inadequate location information precluded the inclusion of potential sources in the inventory. 33 CHAPTER 4 - SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT Susceptibility of the source water is determined by two factors: the potential of a contaminant reaching the intake and the resulting health hazard. Susceptibility is assessed in order to prioritize potential pollutant sources in the spill response region in order to guide management actions undertaken by local entities, in this case the public water supplies of Laurel, Billings, and Lockwood. The goal of source water management is to protect the source water, manage significant potential contaminant sources in the spill response region, and ensure that land use activities in the watershed region pose minimal threats to the source water. Management priorities in the spill response 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 three community public water supply operators and community governments to reduce susceptibility are also included in this section of the report. 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 reach the public water supply intake (Table 6). The hazard presented by point sources of contaminants in spill response regions depends on whether contaminants can discharge directly to the Yellowstone River, a tributary, or a tributary canal or storm water ditch. Point source hazard is also dependent on the health affects associated with potential contaminants (Table 7). Hazard ratings for nonpoint sources are assigned based on criteria listed in Table 7 for septic systems, sanitary sewers, and cropped agricultural land. Barriers can be anything that decreases the likelihood that contaminated water will reach a public water supply intake. Examples of barriers include: a vegetated riparian area,protective forest management practices, and dilution. Table 6 - Susceptibility to specific contaminant sources as determined by hazard and the presence of barriers. High Hazard Moderate Hazard Low Hazard No Barriers Very High Moderate High Susceptibility Susceptibility Susceptibility One Barrier High Moderate Low Susceptibility Susceptibility Susceptibility Multiple Barriers Moderate Low Very Low Susceptibility Susceptibility Susceptibility Table 7 -Hazard of potential contaminant sources for surface water intakes. Potential Contaminant Source High Hazard Moderate Hazard Low Hazard Potential for direct Potential for discharge to GW Potential contaminant Point Sources discharge to Source Water that is hydraulically connected sources present within to SW the watershed Septic Systems More than 50—300 Less than 300 per s .mi. per s .mi. 50 er s .mi. Municipal Sanitary Sewer More than 50 percent of 20 to 50 percent Less than 20 percent of (percent land use region of region region Cropped Agricultural Land More than 50 percent of 20 to 50 percent Less than 20 percent of (percent land use) region of region region 34 Hazard ratings are presented individually for each significant potential contaminant source (Table 8). Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9 show the inventory results for each of the Spill Response Regions and the Watershed Region. Numbers appearing next to a potential contaminant site correspond to the Map Identification Number listed in Table 8. 35 Table 8 - Susceptibility Assessment Significant Potential Contaminant Sources in the Spill Response Regions Spill Response Region Name Table Page Number City of Billings /Lockwood Water and Sewer District ................................................... 1 Cityof Laurel .................................................................................................... 23 36 Table 8 displays the susceptibility assessment results for each Spill Response Region delineated for Billings Lockwood, Hogan's Slough, Canyon Creek, and Laurel. The intakes are susceptible to a number of different contaminants including sediments, nitrates,pathogens, agricultural chemicals, petroleum products, solvents, and total dissolved solids. Of all of the significant potential contaminant sources listed in Table 8, only a few are discussed below due to the concern that these potential sources under certain conditions could pose a serious threat to the source water and the public water supplies. Blue Creek's Spill Response Region is not included in the discussion below or included in Table 8 because the only potential contaminant sources present there are several limited areas of high and moderate septic density. Petroleum pipelines—As mentioned previously the pipelines are considered to represent a serious potential threat to the source water in the project area because substantial lengths of pipeline are located adjacent the Yellowstone River and cross the River, tributaries, canals and ditches at multiple locations. In addition, the pipelines carry large volumes of product and could result in large releases in the event that an accident or leak is not stopped in a short time frame. Hazard is ranked high because spills could occur directly into surface water. Susceptibility is set at moderate with multiple barriers identified for many of the pipelines. Barriers include city and county emergency response, industry emergency response, dilution related to the Yellowstone Rivers relatively large year-round discharge, and pipeline inspections and leak detection technology used on the pipelines. It is noted in this report that where the pipelines and crossings are located relatively close to the intakes, the possibility exists that the barriers mentioned may not be as effective and at some of these locations it is reasonable to assign a high susceptibility rating. It would be prudent for the communities to undertake or sponsor additional studies of the pipeline crossings that are close to the intakes to more clearly understand and define the hazard they may pose to the public water supplies and to the source water. The same is true of the railroad and highway crossings mentioned below. Active Railroads—Railroads are also considered to pose a serious potential threat to the source water and public water supplies in the project area due to the fact that trains can carry relatively large volumes of hazardous materials and because the lines are located adjacent the Yellowstone River and cross the River, tributaries, canals and ditches at multiple locations. Hazard is ranked high because spills could occur directly into surface water. The susceptibility is ranked from moderate to high depending on the location of the rail line and crossings relative to the intakes. Transportation Routes-Although the volumes of hazardous material hauled by truck-trailer and semi- trucks are smaller than those transported by trains or the petroleum pipelines, the transportation routes a considered to be a serious potential threat to the source water and public water supplies. Hazard is ranked high because hazardous material spill could enter directly into the river at bridge crossings. The susceptibility is moderate to high depending on the location of the crossings relative to the intakes. Irrigation canals and storm water collection ditches—There are a number of stream, canals and ditches that flow through the area and discharge indirectly or directly into the Yellowstone River. The fact that some of the irrigation canals apparently collect storm water runoff raises the possibility that they could transport contaminants to the Yellowstone River up-stream from the intakes. It is also common that streams, canals and ditches lose water through their channel base and sides in some reaches thus providing recharge to the shallow ground water system. This raises the possibility that storm water could have a negative impact on ground water quality. Drainage ditches and drains intercept ground water in many areas of the valley and ultimately discharge the ground water into the river. The intercepted ground water can have higher nitrate and total dissolved solids than the Yellowstone River water. However, the volume of ground water discharged directly into the Yellowstone River or intercepted by the drains is estimated to be small compared to the average flow in the river. The impact to the river appears to be minimal. As mentioned above,petroleum pipelines, railroads, and highways cross some of the canals close to where they discharge into the Yellowstone. Hazard ratings for these canals ranges from low for the Laurel to moderate 63 for Billings and Lockwood. Susceptibility is rated from low for Laurel to moderate for Billings and Lockwood. It would be prudent for the communities to undertake or sponsor additional studies of the storm water—canal interconnections to more clearly understand and define the hazard they may pose to the public water supplies and to the source water. Agricultural land—Based on the amount of ag-land within the Spill Response Regions, hazard is ranked low for Lockwood, moderate for Billings, and moderate to high for Laurel. Dilution and distance from the intakes is applied as a barrier resulting in a moderate to high susceptibility rating. The low concentrations of herbicides have been documented in the Yellowstone River by the USGS study mentioned previously. The study's results could indicate several possibilities including: 1) the agricultural chemicals are being used and applied appropriately so as to minimize the impact to the river, 2)the agricultural chemicals are beginning to impact the river water quality and may increase in concentration over time or seasonally, or 3) the relatively large year-round discharge of the Yellowstone River is capable of diluting the concentration of the agricultural chemicals. Other interpretations are possible but additional studies will be needed to help determine where the chemicals are coming from, how they get into the river, and if there are seasonal or long-term trends in concentration. While the term"agricultural chemicals" is being used in this report, it is important on understand that use of these chemicals is not restricted to agricultural land. Urban and suburban areas within the watershed or in the study area could also be contributing these chemicals to the river. It is advisable for the communities to be aware of additional studies of Yellowstone River water quality and to participate in watershed-level groups actively engaged in monitoring and promoting studies on the Yellowstone River. USTs/LUSTS—Hazard for individual sites ranges from low to moderate based on the location within the Spill Response Region,proximity to a canal, ditch or tributary to the Yellowstone, and the leak history. Susceptibility ranges from low to moderate for most tank sites with a leak history and low for many of the other locations. State Superfund sites—There are multiple state superfund sites in the project area. For some of these sites it is difficult to determine if remediation efforts are complete and it is important for the communities within the project area to verify remediation completion or to press for efforts to continue clean up and monitoring. Hazard is ranked moderate and susceptibility is rated as moderate to high depending on whether remediation is ongoing or incomplete. Hazardous Spill sites/Ground-water Remediation Program sites—Like the superfund sites, there are multiple hazardous spill sites in the project area. Verifying the completion of remediation is difficult and the communities should verify the status of these sites. Hazard ranges from low to high and susceptibility ranges from moderate to high. It is unclear whether releases at some of these sites were restricted to ground water or whether releases were to surface water bodies. Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants—Laurel and Billings have wastewater treatment facilities that discharge to the Yellowstone. The Laurel facility is located near the State Highway 212 bridge (Figure 11). The Billings facility is located about downstream from the Lockwood Intake. Both facilities are regulated and appear to be operating within the requirements of their permits. Hazard is assigned as low and susceptibility is also low with the downstream location counting as a barrier for the Billings plant and distance and dilution counted as a barrier of the Laurel plant. Class V Injection Wells—Hazard has not been ranked because the location and quantity of Class V Injection Wells in project area is unknown. They have been identified in this report because they have the potential to either discharge directly into the river or via ground-water and surface water interaction. The susceptibility is also unknown at this time. Communities can request the U.S. EPA to conduct an inventory 64 of Class V Injection Wells and this would help determine the hazard they may pose to the source water. Management Recommendations Management recommendations are included in the Table 8. If these management or additional recommendations are implemented,they may be considered additional barriers that will reduce the susceptibility of three public water supplies to specific sources and contaminants. Management recommendations fall into the following categories: Emergency Response Plan. Existing plans should be periodically revised and with the review of this report, could be revised to add or increase the emphasis on source water protection. The emergency response plan should be updated annually to reflect changes in emergency contacts,phone numbers, and resources available within the city and county to respond to an emergency situation, such as a hazardous material spill. Growth and development planning. Several areas within the project area are experiencing rapid growth and development. It would be advisable to encourage growth and development in areas that would not pose a threat to source water, that is, in areas that are outside of the Spill Response Region and away from tributaries, canals and ditches. Ground-water flow direction in these areas should also be taken into account. Sewer maintenance and leak detection. Early leak detection and scheduled replacement of older sewer lines will reduce the susceptibility of the intakes to contamination from sanitary wastes. Sewer extension. Annexation and extension of sewers is the only way to reduce contamination from existing unsewered developments. Agricultural Best Management Practices. BMPs that address application and mixing of fertilizers and pesticides are a viable alternative to prohibition of their use. BMPs are voluntary but their implementation can be encouraged through education and technical assistance. BMPs may also be utilized to minimize surface runoff and soil erosion on cultivated fields Stormwater Management. Stormwater planning should address source and drainage control. Source control can be accomplished through educational programs focussing on residential and commercial chemical use, disposal, and recycling. Drainage control and pollutant removal can be accomplished through the use of vegetated retention basins at outfall locations. Education. Educational workshops provided to the general public by the city, county, or state promote safe handling and proper storage,transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Ongoing training provided to designated emergency personnel would promote the efficiency and effectiveness of emergency responses to hazardous material spills. Educational workshops provided to rural homeowners will promote the proper maintenance and replacement of residential septic systems. Educational materials covering these topics are available to the public and can be obtained from the US EPA and the State of Montana. Long-term Infrastructural Planning—A component of a 10 or 20-year plan for the Billings Public Water Supply could be to construct a new surface water intake some distance upstream of the City of Laurel. This would move the intake upstream and away from a large number of potential contaminant sources associated with urban, suburban, and industrialized areas near the present intake location. 65 CHAPTER 5 - MONITORING WAIVERS Waiver Recommendation Based on the general inventory of the project area, the Source Water Protection Program does not recommend water quality waivers for any these public water supplies. The substantial number and diversity of potential contaminant sources within and outside of the Spill Response Regions indicates that monitoring waivers are not advisable. It is important to recognize that based on past monitoring results it appears that the water treatment measures used by all of the Public Water Supplies are effective and result in the ability to deliver high quality water for customers. However, continued monitoring will provide the Public Water Supplies with a first line of defense in identifying and responding to changes in source water quality. In short, the susceptibility assessment of the intakes suggests that the Public Water Supplies may not be eligible for monitoring waivers, however, to be sure that eligibility for all available waivers is considered, the operators are encouraged to carefully review the following section on Monitoring Waiver Requirements. If after reviewing this section it is determined that an additional waivers are feasible,the operators should submit a letter with the proper documentation to DEQ requesting monitoring waivers. Monitoring Waiver Requirements The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require that community and non-community PWSs sample drinking water sources for the presence of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) and synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs). The US EPA has authorized states to issue monitoring waivers for the organic chemicals to systems that have completed an approved waiver application and review process. All PWSs in the State of Montana are eligible for consideration of monitoring waivers for several organic chemicals. The chemicals diquat, endothall, glyphosate, dioxins, ethylene dibromide (EDB), dibromochloropropane (DBCP), and polychlorinated biphenyls are excluded from monitoring requirements by statewide waivers. Following are descriptions of the different types of waivers. Monitoring waiver recommendations for the City of Great Falls follows these descriptions. Use Waivers A Use Waiver can be allowed if through a vulnerability assessment, it is determined that specific organic chemicals were not used, manufactured, or stored in the area of a water source (or source area). If certain organic chemicals have been used, or if the use is unknown, the system would be determined to be vulnerable to organic chemical contamination and ineligible for a Use Waiver for those particular contaminants. Susceptibility Waivers If a Use Waiver is not granted, a system may still be eligible for a Susceptibility Waiver, if through a vulnerability assessment it is demonstrated that the water source would not be susceptible to contamination. Susceptibility is based on prior analytical or vulnerability assessment results, environmental persistence, and transport of the contaminants, natural protection of the source, wellhead protection program efforts, and the level of susceptibility indicators (such as nitrate and coliform bacteria). The vulnerability assessment of a surface water source must consider the watershed area above the source, or a minimum fixed radius of 1.5 miles upgradient of the surface water intake. PWSs developed in unconfined aquifers should use a minimum fixed radius of 1.0 mile as an area of investigation for the use of organic chemicals. Vulnerability assessment of spring water sources should use a minimum fixed radius of 1.0 mile as an area of investigation for the use of organic chemicals. Shallow ground-water sources under the direct influence of 66 surface water(GWUDISW) should use the same area of investigation as surface water systems; that is, the watershed area above the source, or a minimum fixed radius of 1.5 miles upgradient of the point of diversion. The purpose of the vulnerability assessment procedures outlined in this section is to determine which of the organic chemical contaminants are in the area of investigation. Given the wide range of landforms, land uses, and the diversity of ground water and surface water sources across the state, additional information is often required during the review of a waiver application. Additional information may include well logs, pump test data, or water quality monitoring data from surrounding public water systems; delineation of zones of influence and contribution to a well; Time-of- Travel or attenuation studies; vulnerability mapping; and the use of computerized ground-water flow and transport models. Review of an organic chemical monitoring waiver application will be conducted by DEQ's PWS Section and DEQ's Source Water Protection Program. Other state agencies may be asked for assistance. 67 REFERENCES Hutchinson, R.D., 1983, Yellowstone River Valley, South-Central Montana Changes in the shallow ground- water resources near Billings, August 1968-1978, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Hydrogeologic Map 6, 1983 Lopez, D.A., 2002, Geologic map of the Billings area,Yellowstone County, Montana, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Geologic Map 61-A, scale 1:48,000. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Groundwater Information Center. Montana Department of Environmental Quality Public Water Supply Section Safe Drinking Water Information System(SDWIS). Montana Department of Environmental Quality Underground Storage Tank Program web-site. Montana Department of Environmental Quality"303(d)List, Montana List of Waterbodies In Need of Maximum Daily Load Development", 1996. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Water Rights Bureau. Olson, Reiten, 2002, Hydrogeology of the West Billings Area: Impacts of Land-Use Changes on Water Resources. U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Population Dataset, Montana,www.census.gov. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, 1991. Manual of Small Public Water Supply Systems, EPA 570/9-91-003, 211 p, www.epa.gov. United States Environmental Protection Agency"Envirofacts Data Warehouse and Applications". United States Geological Survey. 2000. National Landcover Dataset, Montana. 30-meter electronic digital landcover dataset interpreted from satellite imagery. United States Geological Survey Selected Realtime Stream Flow Stations. Western Regional Climate Center wrcc(&dri.edu, Montana Climate Summaries. Billings WSO, Number 240807,period of record 1/19/1948 to 03/31/2003. 68 GLOSSARY* Acute Health Effect. A negative health effect in which symptoms develop rapidly. Alkalinity. The capacity of water to neutralize acids. Aquifer. A water-bearing layer of rock or sediment that will yield water in usable quantity to a well or spring. Barrier. A physical feature or management plan that reduces the likelihood of contamination of a water source from a potential contaminant source Best Management Practices (BMPs). Methods for various activities that have been determined to be the most effective,practical means of preventing or reducing non-point source pollution. Biennial Reporting System (BRS). An EPA database that contains information on hazardous waste sites. The data can be accessed through the EPA Envirofacts website. Chronic Health Effect. A negative health effect in which symptoms develop over an extended period of time. Class V Injection Well. Any pit or conduit into the subsurface for disposal of waste waters. The receiving unit for an injection well typically represents the aquifer, or water-bearing interval. Coliform Bacteria. A general type of bacteria found in the intestinal tracts of animals and humans, and also in soils, vegetation and water. Their presence in water is used as an indicator of pollution and possible contamination by pathogens. Community. A town, neighborhood or area where people live and prosper. Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act (CECRA). Passed in 1989 by the Montana State Legislature, CECRA provides the mechanism and responsibility to clean up hazardous waste sites in Montana. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Enacted in 1980. CERCLA provides a Federal"Superfund"to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous-waste sites as well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. Through the Act, EPA was given power to seek out those parties responsible for any release and assure their cooperation in the cleanup. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). A database that provides information about specific sites through the EPA Envirofacts website. Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO). Any agricultural operation that feeds animals within specific areas, not on rangeland. Certain CAFOs require permits for operation. Confined Aquifer. A fully saturated aquifer overlain by a confining unit such as a clay layer. The static water level in a well in a confined aquifer is at an elevation that is equal to or higher than the base of the overlying confining unit. 69 Confining Unit. A geologic formation present above a confined aquifer that inhibits the flow of water and maintains the pressure of the ground water in the aquifer. The physical properties of a confining unit may range from a five-foot thick clay layer to shale that is hundreds of feet thick. Delineation. The process of determining and mapping source water protection areas. Glacial. Of or relating to the presence and activities of ice or glaciers. Also,pertaining to distinctive features and materials produced by or derived from glaciers. Geographic Information Systems (GIS). A computerized database management and mapping system that allows for analysis and presentation of geographic data. Hardness. Characteristic of water caused by presence of various calcium and magnesium salts. Hard water may interfere with some industrial processes and prevent soap from lathering. Hazard. A relative measure of the potential of a contaminant from a facility or associated with a land use to reach the water source for a public water supply. The location, quantity and toxicity of significant potential contaminant sources determine hazard. Hydraulic Conductivity. A constant number or coefficient of proportionality that describes the rate water can move through an aquifer material. Hydrology. The study of water and how it flows in the ground and on the surface. Hydrogeology. The study of geologic formations and how they effect ground water now systems. Inventory Region. A source water management area for ground water systems that encompasses the area expected to contribute water to a public water supply within a fixed distance or a specified three year ground water travel time. Leaking Underground Storage Tank(LUST). A release from a UST and/or associated piping into the subsurface. LWSD. Lockwood Water and Sewer District Maximum Contaminant Level(MCL). Maximum concentration of a substance in water that is permitted to be delivered to the users of a public water supply. Set by EPA under authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act to establish concentrations of contaminants in drinking water that are protective of human health. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology—Ground Water Information Center(MBMG/GWIC). The database of information on all wells drilled in Montana, including stratigraphic data and well construction data, when available. Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES). A permitting system that utilizes a database to track entities that discharge wastewater of any type into waters of the State of Montana. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). A national permitting system that utilizes a database to track entities that discharge wastewater into waters of the United States. 70 Nitrate. An important plant nutrient and type of inorganic fertilizer that can be a potential contaminant in water at high concentrations. In water the major sources of nitrates are wastewater treatment effluent, septic tanks, feed lots and fertilizers. Nonpoint-Source Pollution. Pollution sources that are diffuse and do not have a single point of origin or are not introduced into a receiving stream from a specific outlet. Examples of nonpoint- source pollution include agriculture, forestry, and run-off from city streets. Nonpoint sources of pollution, such as the use of herbicides, can concentrate low levels of these chemicals into surface and/or ground waters at increased levels that may exceed MCLs. Pathogens. A microorganism typically found in the intestinal tracts of mammals, capable of producing disease. Phase II (and IIb) Rules. EPA updated or created legal limits on 38 contaminants. The rules became effective July 30, 1992 and January 1, 1993. Some of these contaminants are frequently-applied agricultural chemicals such as nitrate and others are industrial solvents. Phase V Rule. EPA set standards for 23 contaminants in addition to those addressed by the Phase II Rules. The Phase V Rule became effective January 17, 1994. Some of these contaminants include inorganic chemicals such as cyanide and other Phase V contaminants are pesticides that enter water supplies through run-off from fields where farmers have applied them or by leaching through the soil into ground water. Six are probable cancer-causing agents. Others can cause liver and kidney damage, or problems of the nervous system and brain. Point Source. A stationary location or a fixed facility from which pollutants are discharged. This includes any single identifiable source of pollution, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fracture, container, rolling stock(tanker truck), or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged. Pollutant. Generally, any substance introduced into the environment that adversely affects the usefulness of a resource (e.g. ground water used for drinking water). Permit Compliance System (PCS). An EPA database that provides information on the status of required permits for specific activities for specific facilities. The data can be accessed through the EPA Envirofacts website. Public Water System (PWS). A system that provides water for human consumption through at least 15 service connections or regularly serves 25 individuals. Pumping Water Level. Water level elevation in a well when the pump is operating. Recharge Region. A source water management region that is generally the entire area that could contribute water to an aquifer used by a public water supply. Includes areas that could contribute water over long time periods or under different water usage patterns. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Enacted by Congress in 1976. RCRA's primary goals are to protect human health and the environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal, to conserve energy and natural resources, to reduce the amount of waste generated, and to ensure that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner. 71 Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS). Is a database that provides information about specific sites through the EPA Envirofacts website. Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCL). The maximum concentration of a substance in water that is recommended to be delivered to users of a public water supply based on aesthetic qualities. SMCLs are non-enforceable guidelines for public water supplies, set by EPA under authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Compounds with SMCLs may occur naturally in certain areas, limiting the ability of the public water supply to treat for them. Section Seven Tracking System (SSTS). SSTS is an automated system EPA uses to track pesticide producing establishments and the amount of pesticides they produce. Source Water. Any surface water, spring, or ground water source that provides water to a public water supply. Source Water Delineation and Assessment Report(SWDAR). A report for a public water supply that delineates source water protection areas,provides an inventory of potential contaminant sources within the delineated areas, and evaluates the relative susceptibility of the source water to contamination from the potential contaminant sources under"worst-case" conditions. Source Water Protection Areas. For surface water sources, the land and surface drainage network that contributes water to a stream or reservoir used by a public water supply. For ground water sources, the area within a fixed radius or three-year travel time from a well, and the land area where the aquifer is recharged. Spill Response Region. A source water management area for surface water systems that encompasses the area expected to contribute water to a public water supply within a fixed distance or a specified four-hour water travel time in a stream or river. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code.A method of grouping industries with similar products or services and assigning codes to these groups. Static Water Level (SWL). Water level elevation in a well when the pump is not operating. Susceptibility (of a PWS). The relative potential for a PWS to draw water contaminated at concentrations that would pose concern. Susceptibility is evaluated at the point immediately preceding treatment or, if no treatment is provided, at the entry point to the distribution system. Synthetic Organic Compounds (SOC). Man made organic chemical compounds (e.g. herbicides and pesticides). Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). The dissolved solids collected after a sample of a known volume of water is passed through a very fine mesh filter. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The total pollutant load to a surface water body from point, nonpoint, and natural sources. The TMDL program was established by section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act to help states implement water quality standards. Toxicity. The quality or degree of being poisonous or harmful to plants, animals, or humans. 72 Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure. A test designed to determine whether a waste is hazardous or requires treatment to become less hazardous. Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). An EPA database that compiles information about permitted industrial releases of chemicals to air and water. Information about specific sites can be obtained through the EPA Envirofacts website. Transmissivity. A number that describes the ability of an aquifer to transmit water. The transmissivity is determined by multiplying the hydraulic conductivity time the aquifer thickness. Turbidity. The cloudy appearance of water caused by the presence of suspended matter. Unconfined Aquifer. An aquifer containing water that is not under pressure. The water table is the top surface of an unconfined aquifer. Underground Storage Tanks (UST). A tank located at least partially underground and designed to hold gasoline or other petroleum products or chemicals, and the associated plumbing system. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). Chemicals such as petroleum hydrocarbons and solvents or other organic chemicals which evaporate readily to the atmosphere. Watershed. The land area that drains into a stream; the watershed for a major river may encompass a number of smaller watersheds that ultimately combine at a common delivery point. WTP. Water treatment Plant WWTP. Wastewater Treatment Plant * With the exception of the definitions for Lacustrine,Phase II and Phase V Rules, and Standard Industrial Classification Code,definitions were adapted from EPA's Term References System(formerly known as Glossary of Selected Terms and Abbreviations)which can be found at: hllp://www.epa.jzov/trs/index.htm The definitions of glacial and lacustrine were taken from the Glossary of Geology by Robert L. Bates and Julia A. Jackson. The definitions for Phase II and Phase V Rules were adapted from: hILtp://www.epa.jzov/OGWDW/source/therule.html#Phasell htlp://www.el2a.jzov/OGWDW/source/therule.html#PhaseV The definition for Standard Industrial Classification Code was adapted from: EPA/Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance: Guide to Environmental Issues: Glossary of Terms& Acronyms Term Detail 73 FIGURES Figure 1 —General Location Map Figure 2—Climate Summary Graph—Imbedded on Page 13 Figure 3 —Public Water Supplies in the Project Area Figure 4—Approximate Drainage Areas Contributing Storm Water to Major Ditches and Canals Figure 5 —General Ground Water Flow Direction Near The Billings and Lockwood Intakes Figure 6—General Ground-Water Flow Direction Between Laurel and Billings Figure 7—Overview of Potential Contaminant Sources In The Project Area Figure 8— Significant Potential Contaminant Sources near Billings and Lockwood Figure 9 - Significant Potential Contaminant Sources in the West Billings Area Figure 10 - Significant Potential Contaminant Sources Near Canyon Creek and Hogan's Slough Figure 11 - Significant Potential Contaminant Sources Near The Laurel Intake Area Figure 12—Landuse/Landcover In the Project Area Figure 13 — Septic Density In The Project Area Figure 14—Watershed Region Inventory Figure 15 —Watershed Region Landuse/Landcover 74 APPENDICES 75 APPENDIX A - Potential Contaminant Sources Based On Sic Data 76 NAME Standard Industrial Code 1 Standard Industrial Code 2 13th Street Warehouse Warehouses-Merchandise&Self Storage #N/A 17th Street Conoco Service Stations-Gasoline&Oil Automobile Repairing&Service 2 M Co Pumps Wholesale Pumps-Manufacturers 3 G's Convenience Stores #N/A 3 W's Automotive Repair Automobile Repairing&Service #N/A 3-G's Convenience Convenience Stores #N/A 3-G's Convenience Ctr Grocers-Retail Convenience Stores 3-G's Convenience Ctr Convenience Stores #N/A 4 Wheeler Dealer Auto&Home Supply Stores #N/A 5 Corners Kwik Stop Convenience Stores #N/A 7 K Fabrication&Welding Welding #N/A A&E Architects Architects Interior Decorators Design&Consultants A&E Mini Storage Storage-Household&Commercial Business Records&Documents-Storage A&H Turf&Specialties Inc Hardware-Retail Mobile Home Dealers A&I Distributors Oils-Lubricating-Wholesale Mobile Home Dealers A 1 Yellowstone Sewer Septic Tan ks/S stems-Cleanin /Re a iri ng Sewer Contractors A A Small Engine Repair Lawn Mowers-Sharpening&Repairing #N/A A B Dick Co Printing Equipment Wholesale #N/A A B Seed&Co Seeds&Bulbs-Wholesale #N/A A Bar B Business Brokers #N/A A C Appraisal Consultants Real Estate Appraisers Appraisers A J Gravel&Trucking Sand&Gravel Wholesale General Contractors A No 1 Accredited Batteries Batteries-Storage-Retail #N/A A Plus Electric Motor Repair Electric Motors-Dlrs/Re airin Whol Bearings-Manufacturers A Plus Rv&Mini Storage Storage-Household&Commercial Warehouses-Merchandise&Self Storage A To Z Tire Tire-Dealers-Retail Tire-Distributors A-1 Drilling Automobile Repairing&Service Special Trade Contractors Nec A-1 Glenn's Welding/Mach Welding Air Conditioning Equipment-Repair A-1 Mobile Home Svc Mobile Homes-Repairing&Service Windows A-1 Mobile Wash Truck-Washing&Cleaning #N/A A-1 Mobile Wash Truck-Washing&Cleaning #N/A A-1 Pest Control Pest Control Bee Removal A-1 Plus 1 Carpet Care Carpet&Rug Cleaners Cleaners-Upholstery A-1 Vern's Plumbing&Heating Plumbing Contractors Heating Contractors Aaa Antiques Oxford Hotel Antiques-Dealers Estates Aaa Auto Rental Automobile Renting&Leasing Auto&Home Supply Stores Aaa Bie el's Svc Plumbing Contractors Heating Contractors Aaa Mini Storage Storage-Household&Commercial Warehouses-Merchandise&Self Storage Aaa Transmissions Transmissions-Automobile Automobile Repairing&Service A-All Purpose Storage Storage-Household&Commercial Warehouses-Merchandise&Self Storage Aaron's Transport Svc Trucking #N/A Abc Liquidations Liquidators Estates Abco Supply Inc Heating Equipment&Systems Wholesale Controls Control S sts/Re ulators Whol Abell Hobby&Mfg Hobby&Model Constr Supplies-Mfrs Hobby&Model Constr Supplies-Wholesale Abf Freight System Inc Trucking-Motor Freight Trucking Accu-Count Inventory Svc Inventory Service #N/A Accurate Dental Laboratory Inc Laboratories-Dental #N/A Ace Lowe Rent-A-Car Automobile Renting&Leasing #N/A Ace Storage Ctr Storage-Household&Commercial Recreational Vehicles-Storage Aces All Color Embroidery Embroidery Monograms Acme Towing Svc Wrecker Service #N/A Acorn Plumbing&Heating Heating Contractors Plumbing Contractors Action Medical CorpMetals Service Centers&Offices Metals Service Centers&Offices Active Auto Auto&Home Supply Stores Auto&Home Supply Stores Ad Smith Petroleum Meters Meters Wholesale #N/A Ade Real Estate Appraisers Inc Real Estate Appraisers Appraisers Adriane's Portrait Designs Photographers-Portrait Wedding Supplies&Services Act Security Svc Inc Security Control Equip&S stems-Whol Burglar Alarm Systems Wholesale Adt/Pro Pump&Equipment Special Trade Contractors Nec Pumps Wholesale Advanced Hearing Aid Ctr Hearing Aids #N/A Advanced Hydraulic Cylinder R Contractors-Eg ui pment&Su Is-Re air Cylinders-Air&Hydraulic Wholesale Advanced Radon Systems Radon Testing&Correction #N/A Advanced Sprinkler Designs Mobile Home Dealers #N/A Advantage Line Telemarketing Services #N/A Advantage Machine&Tool Machine Tools Wholesale #N/A Adventure Scuba Diving Instruction #N/A Affordable Heating&Air Cond Air Conditioning Contractors&Systems Mobile Homes-Repairing&Service Ag Express Trucking #N/A Agri Systems Fabricated Structural Metal Mfrs Feed Mill Equipment&Supplies Mfrs Aikido Of Billings Martial Arts Instruction #N/A Air Products&Chemicals Inc Chemicals Wholesale #N/A Airli uide America Inc Gas-Indstrl/Med-Cylinder&Bulk Whol Welding Equipment&Supplies Wholesale Air a e Telephone Answering Service Radio Paging/Signaling Eqpt S sts Whol 77 NAME Standard Industrial Code 1 Standard Industrial Code 2 Culligan Water Conditioning Water Softening Equipment Svc&Su Is Salt Culligan Water Conditioning Water Companies-Bottled Hot Tubs&Spas Cummins Rocky Mountain Inc Truck-Repairing&Service Engines-Diesel Wholesale Custom Auto Repair Automobile Repairing&Service Automobile Air Conditioning Equipment Custom Auto Sales Auto&Home Supply Stores #N/A Custom Commercial Svc Restaurant Equipment-Repairing&Svc Air Conditioning Contractors&Systems Custom Sprinkler Svc Mobile Home Dealers Landscape Contractors Cutting Edge Sharpening Svc Sharpening Service Saws-Sharpening&Repairing Cycler Cyclery Bicycles-Repairing #N/A Cy-Corp Trailer Optical Instruments&Lenses Trailer Hitches D&D Automotive Auto&Home Supply Stores #N/A D&D Transport Refrigeration Truck Refrigeration Equipment Whol Trailers-Repairing&Service D&H Spring Machine&Welding Machine Shops Springs-Coil D&L Construction General Contractors #N/A D&L Lock&Key Svc Locks&Locksmiths Keys D&M Svc Process Servers #N/A D&P Enterprises Motion Picture&Tape Distribution #N/A D&R Fire&Safety Equipment Fire Department Equipment&Su Is Whol Fire Extin uishers Wholesale Dae Myung Tendokan Judo Martial Arts Instruction Karate Judo Jiu-Jitsu&Kung Fu Instr Dahl Funeral Chapels Funeral Directors Funeral Plans(Pre-Arranged) Dale&Jax Door&Glass Inc Door&Gate Operating Devices Glass-Auto Plate&Window&Etc Dana Motors Saab Volkswagen Auto&Home Supply Stores Automobile Renting&Leasing Dana Saab Auto&Home Supply Stores #N/A Dance Factory Dancing Instruction Gymnastic Instruction Dancing Oven Bakery Wedding Supplies&Services #N/A Danette's Pet Grooming Pet Washing&Grooming Pet Services Dan's Body Shop Automobile Body-Repairing&Painting #N/A Dan's Detail Automobile Detail&Clean-Up Service #N/A Darb 's Professional Pest Pest Control #N/A Darcova Inc Gaskets-Manufacturers Gaskets Wholesale Data Designs Designers #N/A Data Imaging Systems Scanning Service Microfilming Service Equipment&Su Is Dave's Garage Automobile Repairing&Service #N/A Dave's Machine Machine Shops #N/A David Cunningham Construction General Contractors #N/A Davidson Home Furnishings Ltd Furniture-Dealers-Retail Interior Decorators Design&Consultants De Mint Motor Co Auto&Home Supply Stores #N/A Deaconess Billings Clinic Hospitals Physical Therapists Deaconess Billings Clinic Clinics Optometrists Od Deaconess Billings Clinic Hospitals Physicians&Sur eons Deaconess Billings Clinic Hospitals Physicians&Surgeons Deaconess Billings Clinic Home Metals Service Centers&Offices Metals Service Centers&Offices Deaconess-Health Ctr Clinics Hospitals Deck The Walls Picture Frames-Dealers Art Galleries&Dealers Decker Music Svc Musical Instruments-Repairing Musical Instruments-Dealers Denmar Computer Software Microfilming Service Equipment&Supls DennyMenholt Frontier Auto&Home Supply Stores Auto&Home Supply Stores Denny Menholt Frontier Chev Auto&Home Supply Stores Automobile Parts&Supplies-Retail-New Dent Works Automobile Body-Repairing&Painting #N/A Deutz Diesel Engines Engines-Diesel (Wholesale) #N/A Dew Drop Sprinkler Systems Mobile Home Dealers #N/A Diamond Parking Svc Parking Stations&Garages #N/A Diamond Truck Detailing Truck-Washing&Cleaning #N/A Dick's 24th St Conoco Service Stations-Gasoline&Oil Automobile Repairing&Service Dick's Project Meat Svc Sausage&Other Prepared Meat Products Butchering Dietz Auto&Truck Salvage Inc Automobile Parts-Used&Rebuilt(Whol) Truck Equipment&Parts-Used&Rebuilt Dignity Orthotics Plus Hearing Aids #N/A Dillon Sprinkler Svc Mobile Home Dealers #N/A Discovery Publishing Books-Publishing &Printing #N/A Dismas Pumps Pumps&Pumping Equipment Mfrs Paints Varnishes Lacquers&Enamels Ditch Witch Of Montana Contractors-Equip/Supls-Dlrs/Svc Whol Mobile Home Dealers Diversified Transfer&Storage Trucking-Motor Freight General Warehousing&Storage Dixon Brothers Inc Trucking-Liquid&Dry Bulk #N/A Doc's Speed&Custom Motorcycles&Motor Scooters-Rpr&Svc #N/A Dollar Rent A Car Automobile Renting&Leasing #N/A Don Charleson Realty Business Brokers Real Estate Investments Don Wicker's Body Shop Automobile Body-Repairing&Painting #N/A Don's Car Wash Car Washing&Polishing Service Stations-Gasoline&Oil Don's Car Wash Car Washing&Polishing Service Stations-Gasoline&Oil Don's Car Wash Car Washing&Polishing Service Stations-Gasoline&Oil Don's Xpress Lube Automobile Lubrication Service I #N/A Donut Hole Doughnuts lWedding Supplies&Services Dove's Transportation Inc Trucking-Contract Hauling I #N/A 78 NAME Standard Industrial Code 1 Standard Industrial Code 2 Lockwood Primary School Schools #N/A Lockwood Schools Admn Office Schools #N/A Locomotive Inn Motels&Hotels Reservations #N/A Lohrenz Enterprises Inc Auctioneers #N/A Lomco Inc Trucking-Liquid&Dry Bulk Road Oiling Lone Wolf Certified Home Build Home Builders Real Estate Inspection Lone Wolf Photo Express Business Services Nec Business Services Nec Longhorn Auction Co Auctioneers Estates Lon's Lawn Svc Lawn&Grounds Maintenance #N/A Los Gus Lawn Svc Lawn&Grounds Maintenance #N/A Louie's&Dean's Montana Truck Automobile Parts-Used&Rebuilt Whol Truck Equipment&Parts-Used&Rebuilt Lube Center Automobile Lubrication Service #N/A Lynch Motorcycle Salvage Motorcycles&Motor Scooters-Rpr&Svc Motorcycles&Motor Scooters-Supplies Lynn Scheeler Photography Photographers-Portrait Photographers-Commercial L stad's Janitorial Products Janitors Supplies Wholesale Janitors Equipment&Supplies-Mfrs M&M Firewood Florists #N/A M&M Mufflers Automotive Glass Replacement Shops Automobile Racing Car Equipment M P&E Rental&Supply Rental Service-Stores&Yards Contractors-E ui /Su Is-Dlrs/Svc Whol M W Mc Coy Cattle Co Livestock Buyers #N/A Maaco Auto Painting&Bodywork Automobile Body-Repairing&Painting Automobile Repairing&Service MackayAppraisal Svc Real Estate Appraisers Appraisers Maclean Trucking Inc Trucking Trucking-Liquid&Dry Bulk Mad Mac's Auto Inc Auto&Home Supply Stores #N/A Madsen Door Svc Inc Doors-Garage Doors-Repairing Magic Carpet Recreational Ctr Recreational Vehicles Trailers-Camping&Travel Magic City Glass Glass-Auto Plate&Window&Etc Notaries-Public Magic City Lawn&Landscape Mobile Home Dealers Landscape Contractors Magic City Periodicals Telemarketing Services #N/A Magic City Plumbing&Heating Plumbing Contractors Water Heaters-Dealers Magic City Repair Refinishing Automobile Body-Repairing&Painting Glass-Auto Plate&Window&Etc Magic City Welding Welding Aluminum Fabricators Ma trac Bolus Livestock Equipment&Supplies Whol #N/A Mail Boxes Etc Packaciinci Service Photocopying&Duplicating Services Mail Drop Photocopying&Duplicating Services Notaries-Public Mail Room Photocopying&Duplicating Services Refuse Systems Main Street Efx Photography Photographers-Portrait Photographers-Commercial Main Street Printers Printers Wedding Announcements&Invitations Main Street Storage Storage-Household&Commercial #N/A Market Basket Convenience Stores #N/A Marketing Specialties Service Station Equipment Wholesale Pumps Wholesale Martial Arts Academy-Billings Martial Arts Instruction #N/A Mary Kay Cosmetics Cosmetics&Perfumes-Retail #N/A Mary Kay Cosmetics Cosmetics&Perfumes-Retail Skin Treatments Mary Kay Cosmetics Cosmetics&Perfumes-Retail #N/A Mary Kay Cosmetics Cosmetics&Perfumes-Retail Cosmetics-Wholesale Mary Sue Gunnufson Design Interior Decorators Design&Consultants #N/A Master Lube Automobile Lubrication Service #N/A Master Lube Automobile Lubrication Service #N/A Master Lube Automobile Lubrication Service #N/A Master Lube Automobile Lubrication Service #N/A Master Movers Inc Mobile Homes-Transporting #N/A Masterlube Automobile Lubrication Service #N/A Mat&Frame Shop Picture Frames-Dealers #N/A Maxim Technologies Inc Engineers-Consulting Laboratories-Testing Maximum Security Storage Storage-Household&Commercial Recreational Vehicles-Storage Mayes Drilling Inc Special Trade Contractors Nec Automobile Repairing&Service Mayfair Auction Schools Auctioneers Mayflower Transit Co Movers Storage-Household&Commercial Mc Call Aquatech Pool&Patio Swimming Pool Contrs Dealers&Designers Furniture-Outdoor Mc Clelland&Assoc Attorneys Arbitration Services Mc Donald North American Junior Colleges&Technical Institutes Movers Mc Dowall Agency Liqhtinci Fixtures-Wholesale #N/A Mc Junkin Corp Valves-Wholesale Pipe(Wholesale) Mc Kell Brothers Hauling Movers #N/A Mc Kinley Elementary School Schools #N/A Mc Tech Dental Lab Laboratories-Dental #N/A Meadow Green Lawn Svc Lawn&Grounds Maintenance Weed Control Service Meadow Lark Agency Trucking-Motor Freight Trucking-Transportation Brokers Meadowlark Elementary Schools #N/A Meadowlark Gallery&Frame Art Galleries&Dealers #N/A Mechanical Technology Inc Controls Control Systs/Regulators(Whol) Boilers-Repairing&Cleaning Mega Mini Storage Storage-Household&Commercial I Recreational Vehicles-Storage Memorable Occasions I Bakers-Retail lWedding Supplies&Services 63 NAME Standard Industrial Code 1 Standard Industrial Code 2 Signs Now Signs Manufacturers Banners Silent Knight Custom Exhuast Automobile Repairing&Service Automotive Glass Replacement Shops Silver Eagle Shuttle Svc Buses-Charter&Rental #N/A Silver Hill Florists-Retail Antiques-Dealers Silver Tip Taxidermy Taxidermists #N/A Sims Stoves Stoves-Wood Coal Etc-Manufacturers Camping Equipment Six Robblees' Inc Trailers-Equipment&Parts Wheels&Wheel Covers Skate City Skating Rinks #N/A Skate World Skating Rinks Membership Sorts&Recreation Clubs Skate World West Skating Rinks Skating Equipment&Supplies Ski Station Skiing E ui ment-Rental Snowboards-Retail Skyview High School Schools #N/A Smith Funeral Chapel Funeral Directors Funeral Plans(Pre-Arranged) Smith Funeral Chapel-Laurel Funeral Directors Funeral Plans(Pre-Arranged) Smith Funeral Chapels Funeral Directors Crematories Smiths Food&Drug Grocers-Retail #N/A Smith's Food&Drug Ctr Grocers-Retail #N/A Soco Marketing Petroleum Products Wholesale #N/A Soelter Auto Sales Auto&Home Supply Stores #N/A Soft Touch Automatic Car Wash Car Washing&Polishing #N/A Sorlie Trucking Inc Trucking Trucking-Liquid&Dry Bulk SOS Automotive Glass Replacement Shops #N/A Sott Homes General Contractors #N/A South Elementary K-5 School Schools #N/A South Elementary School Schools #N/A Southgate Mini Storage Storage-Household&Commercial #N/A Spanish Interpreting Svc Translators&Interpreters #N/A Specialized Construction General Contractors-Residential Bld s #N/A Specialized Construction Home Builders #N/A Specially For You Photographers-Portrait #N/A Specialty Piping Sprinklers-Automatic-Fire Wholesale #N/A Speedometer&Auto Electric Automobile Repairing&Service Automobile Air Conditioning Equipment S f Stores Convenience Stores #N/A Spoke Shop Bicycles-Dealers Bic cles-Re airin Sports Dome General Merchandise-Retail Baseball Sports Cards&Memorabilia S rocket's Machine&Welding Machine Shops Welding St Francis Intermediate Schools #N/A St Francis Primary School Schools Schools-Nursery&Kindergarten Academic St Francis Upper School Schools #N/A St Francis West Day Care Child Care Service Schools St Vincent Healthcare Hospitals #N/A St Vincent Healthcare-Lab Med Laboratories-Medical #N/A St Vincent Hospital Hospitals Nursing&Convalescent Homes St Vincents Hospital Hospitals #N/A Stagecoach Ranch Rv&Mini Storage-Household&Commercial Recreational Vehicles-Storage Stainless Steel Specialties Co Stainless Steel Manufacturers Sheet Metal Fabricators Stale 's Tire&Automotive Inc Automobile Repairing&Service Tire-Dealers-Retail Stale 's Tire&Automotive Inc Tire-Dealers-Retail Automobile Repairing&Service Stale 's Used Tire Store Tire-Dealers-Retail #N/A Standard Porcelain Refinishing Bathtubs&Sinks-Repairing&Refinishing Porcelain Enamel-Repairing/Refinishing Starlite Roller Rink Skating Rinks #N/A Starter Alternator Specialists Starters-Engine Automobile Electric Service State Avenue I a Grocers-Retail Bakers-Retail Staudinger's Inc Wire Springs Springs-Coil Ste Von's Landscape Landscape Contractors Mobile Home Dealers Stebbins Trucking Inc Trucking #N/A Steel Etc Hardware-Retail Automobile Parts&Supplies-Retail-New Steffes Auction&Appraisal Auctioneers Appraisers Steffes Auto Sales Auto&Home Supply Stores #N/A Steiner Transport&Leasing Refuse Systems #N/A Steorts Garage Doors Doors-Repairing #N/A Step'n Out Formal Wear-Rental Wedding Supplies&Services Steve Nelson Trucking Inc Trucking-Heavy Hauling Livestock Hauling Stevens Door&Specialty Co Door&Gate Operating Devices Doors-Garage Stevens Fire Protection Svc Fire Protection Equipment&Supls(Whol) #N/A Steve's Auto Sales Auto&Home Supply Stores Auto&Home Supply Stores Stillwater West Interior Decorators Design&Consultants #N/A Stix Billiards Billiard Parlors #N/A Stocker Paralegal Svc Paralegals #N/A Stockton Oil Co Oils-Lubricating-Wholesale Automobile Parts&Supplies-Wholesale Storage Place Storage-Household&Commercial Warehouses-Merchandise&Self Storage Stor-It Mini Warehouses Storage-Household&Commercial Warehouses-Merchandise&Self Storage Stratus Consulting Inc IlBusiness Brokers I #N/A 64 APPENDIX B—DEQ Water Quality Monitoring Data Note: The Billings Water Quality Monitoring Report is over 200 pages in length and is not included in this report. Copies of the report can be made available upon request to the DEQ. 65 APPENDIX C -List of PWSs in the Project Area 151 List of PWSs in the Project Area PWS ID Name Class SOURCE NAME ACTIVITY SOURCE TYPE Map ID NUMBER MT0003408 Albertsons#2021 N Billings,City of A Purchased 1 MT0003931 Albertsons#2026 N Billings,City of A Purchased 2 MT0003380 Albertsons#2027 N Billings,City of A Purchased 3 MT0003409 Albertsons#2030 N Billings,City of A Purchased 4 MT0003650 Albertsons Grand Ave#2041 N Billings,City of A Purchased 5 MT0003552 Aldinger Acres Subdivision C NW Well#2 A Groundwater 6 MT0003552 Aldinger Acres Subdivision C NE Well#1 A Groundwater MT0000155 Billings Heights Co Water District C Billings,City of A Purchased 8 MT0000464 Blains Mobile Home Court C Most E Well#1 A Groundwater 10 MT0000464 Blains Mobile Home Court C 2nd Most E Well#2 A Groundwater MT0000464 Blains Mobile Home Court C 2nd Least E Well#3 A Groundwater MT0000464 Blains Mobile Home Court C Least E Well#4 A Groundwater MT0001712 Blue Creek School District#3 P Billings,City of/Fisher Water Service A Purchased 14 MT0004093 Blue Grass Water Users Association C West Well#1 A Groundwater 15 MT0004093 Blue Grass Water Users Association C East Well#2 A Groundwater MT0001724 Canyon Creek School District#4 P Boiler Rm Well#1 A Groundwater 17 MT0000625 Cedar Park Subdivision C Yellowstone River A Surface Water 18 MT0003654 Cornerstone Community Church P Well#1 1 Groundwater 19 MT0004096 County Market#206 N Billings,City of A Purchased 20 MT0004097 County Market#207 N Billings,City of A Purchased 21 MT0004100 County Market#208 N Billings,City of A Purchased 22 MT0003986 Crystal Springs Water System C S Well#1 A Groundwater 23 MT0003986 Crystal Springs Water System C N Well#2 A Groundwater MT0003688 Culligan of Billings C Billings,City of-Distilled A Purchased 25 MT0003688 Culligan of Billings C Billings,City of-Purified (Ro) A Purchased MT0004068 Culligan, Billings Heights N Billings,City of-Distilled A Purchased 27 MT0004068 Culligan, Billings Heights N Billings,City of-Purified (Ro) A Purchased MT0001786 Duck Creek Mobile Home Park C Center Well#2 A Groundwater 29 MT0001786 Duck Creek Mobile Home Park C South Well#3 A Groundwater 29 MT0001786 Duck Creek Mobile Home Park C North Well#1 A Groundwater MT0004089 Elder Grove Elementary School P Billings,City of A Purchased 32 MT0004089 Elder Grove Elementary School P Elementary School Cistern#3 A Purchased MT0003620 Elder Grove School, New Bldg P Billings,City of/Fisher Water Service A Purchased 32 MT0003620 Elder Grove School, New Bldg P New Building Cistern 2 A Purchased MT0001725 Elder Grove School, Old Bldg P Billings,City of/Fisher Water Service A Purchased 32 MT0001725 Elder Grove School, Old Bldg P Old Building Cistern 1 A Purchased MT0001723 Elysian School District#23 P Well#1 1 Groundwater 38 MT0004017 Emmanuel Baptist Church N Well#1 A Groundwater 39 MT0004140 Evergreen IGA-Sparkling Pure N Billings,City of A Purchased 40 MT0003107 First Student N Well A Groundwater 41 MT0001848 Fisher Water Service C Billings,City of A Purchased 42 MT0002895 Fox Water Service C Laurel, City of A Purchased 75 MT0002840 Golden Eagle Water Users Association C Secondary Well#1 A Groundwater 43 MT0002840 Golden Eagle Water Users Association C Primary Well#3 A Groundwater 43 MT0004054 Holiday Store#280 N Billings,City of A Purchased 45 MT0003726 Hope Evangelical Church N Well#1 A Groundwater 46 MT0004151 IGA-Sparkling Pure N Lockwood W&SD A Purchased 47 MT0001754 Laurel Golf Club N Well#1 1 Groundwater 76 MT0003955 Little Tykes Academy P E Well#1 A Groundwater 48 MT0004152 Mary's Health Store-Sparkling Pure N Billings,City of A Purchased 50 MT0004032 Mountain Mudd N Billings,City of A Purchased 51 MT0004175 Mountain Mudd Water Truck C Billings,City of A Purchased 52 MT0003164 New Life Assembly Church N Well#1 A Groundwater 53 MT0003697 Pelican Motel N Well#1 A Groundwater 78 MT0003322 Pelican RV Campground N Well A Groundwater 54 MT0002831 Pelican Truck Plaza N Well A Groundwater 55 MT0003748 Peter Yegen Jr Golf Club N Well#1 A Groundwater 56 MT0001735 Pioneer School District#41 P Well#1 A Groundwater 79 MT0003467 Reliable Water Service C Billings,City of A Purchased 57 MT0000123 River Grove Estates Trailer Court C E Well#1 A Groundwater 58 MT0000123 River Grove Estates Trailer Court C W Well#2 A Groundwater MT0001756 RIVERS EDGE N Well No 1 A Groundwater 80 152 APPENDIX D—Sanitary Survey 153 APPENDIX E - Concurrence Letter & Other Correspondence 154 APPENDIX F Tank Inspection Reports ,y a • 1 � 1'i.4a i aim fF�Y i 4MG Tank City of Laurel Report of Findings From the Diving Operations Conducted on September 23, 2019 by LiQuiViSION _ TECHNOLOGY DIVING SERVICES 711 Market Street, Klamath Falls, OR 97601 , (800) 229-6959 www.divinaservices.com I iQuiVi i N TkCHNOLOGY D I V I N Cr S E R V I C E .S 'Ape lk4ailirra Address Wastarr')paratiors Tall Free:f8i O)229- 711 MarkatStraet 535A'arkatStr�t PFane: (541)8A'.8473 Klamath Falls,ORD7601 KlarratF Falls,OR77^D' Fax (-r41)8831381 xavl.divirkasenviss.xrc li,ritiisior aitiinoseni s.xrc Underwater Inspection of 4MG Tank September 23, 2019 Tim Reiter City of Laurel P.O. Box 10 Laurel, MT 59044 Following is the report of findings during the underwater work conducted on your storage tank. It will focus on issues of concern or areas that need attention. In order to see a complete and detailed inspection, please view each video. Color images of all plumbing fixtures, components and areas of concern were taken via underwater digital camera. The images should give you a clear view of the conditions described. The video may give you another view and a clearer understanding of any area that you may wish to look at more closely. METHODOLOGY: Disinfection of All Equipment With 200ppm+ Chlorine Solution Immediately Prior to Entering System: This process prevents contamination of the water supply. All LVT equipment was properly disinfected prior to entering the potable water system. Full-Time Voice Communication between surface and Diver. The system allowed for constant communication between the diver, and all surface personnel. In addition, customers were able to communicate with the diver at any time. For purposes of a more efficient inspection, cleaning, and repair program, that enabled the diver to immediately discuss any observations he made inside the storage tank. Full-Time Live High-Resolution Color Video: Allowed for constant viewing of the diver's work and observations. This also enabled the district personnel to view what the diver in the storage tank was witnessing. LiquiVision Technology - Inspection Report - September 23, 2019- Page 2 4MG Tank TERMINOLOGY: When describing the features or areas of interest inside the storage tank, an image number is placed next to the description that corresponds with the inspection findings. The diagram is shown in a view looking from the top down. The entry hatch is referred to as the 12:00 o'clock position. Following the diagram are pictures of the pertinent areas of the storage tank and the locations where the pictures were taken. Each picture is described and numbered. The standards used to evaluate the condition of the storage tank include: Standard Method of Evaluating Degree of Rusting on Painted Steel Surfaces— SSPC-Vis 2-82 & ASTM D 610-85 NACE Standard RP0196-96 & RP0388-2001 or Condition of Concrete In-service —ACI 201.1 R-92. LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report - September 23, 2019- Page 3 4MG Tank OVERVIEW OF STORAGE TANK INSPECTED: Customer Name: City of Laurel Tank Name: 4MG Reservoir Manager: Tim Reiter Construction: OG Welded Job Number: MT80872R1T1 Capacity (gal.): 4,025,000 Date of Inspection: September 23, 2019 Diameter or L x W: 138' Report Writer: NIKOLAS SALAS Height: 36' Diver: Tyler Johnson Floor Square FT: 14956.7 Tender: Chris Westphal Date Built: Unknown N/A—not applicable Excellent (Ex.) —like new condition, no repairs needed. Good —Cosmetic only problems, repairs if wanted. Fair-Minor problems, repairs needed, not immediate. Poor—Major problems, structural or like, immediate repairs needed. 1 . Rust Grades Grades %of Surface Rusted Description 10 0%- 0.01% No rusting or less than 0.01%of surface rusted 9 0.01% - 0.03% Minute rusting, less than 0.03%of surface rusted 8 0.03% - 0.1% Few isolated rustspots, less than 0.1% of surface rusted 7 0.1%- 0.3% Less than 0.3%of surface rusted 6 0.3% - 1% Extensive rustspots, but less than 1% of surface rusted 5 1%- 3% Rusting to the extent of 3% of surface rusted 4 3% - 10% Rusting to the extent of 10% of surface rusted 3 10%- 16% Approximately one sixth of the surface rusted 16% 2 16%- 33% Approximately one third of the surface rusted 33% 1 33%- 50% Approximately one half of the surface rusted 50% 0 50% - 100% Approximately 100% of the surface rusted 2. Concrete Deformities Unable to Good Cracks Blistering Chalking De Pitting Pop outs Scaling Spalling Warping Evaluate Condition Lamination UE GC CK BL CH DL PT PO SC SP WA LiquiVision Technology - Inspection Report - September 23, 2019- Page 4 4MG Tank RECOMMENDATIONS: Estimated Time - Recommendation Hrs. Remove the existing interior coating and apply a new NSF approved epoxy type coating Within 5-10 Years. The existing interior coating was LiquiVision does not in such disrepair that it would not be cost effective to attempt to patch all provide this service. of the problem areas. Perform a regular cleaning, inspection and repair cycle every 2-3 years Please contact our in order to ensure superior water quality and proper maintenance of sales office for an coating condition and appurtenances is performed. estimate. LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report - September 23, 2019- Page 5 4MG Tank Tank Diagram 1 12:00 2 3,4 11:00 O �:00 • 22"0 21,28 Y6, 1 1 24C 12F 13W 10:00 10S 2:00 27C 15F 16W 9:00 9R 7R 3:00 25C 20F 21 W 8:00 4:00 O� 26C 17F 18W 7:00 5:00 6:00 5 Drawing Not to Scale ❑ Entry Hatch O Overflow O Outlet OInlet ` Man Entry 0 Capped off Penetration LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report - September 23, 2019- Page 6 4MG Tank Image#1 Exterior Ladder 12:00 Condition: Rust Grade' 8. Description: Exterior Ladder appeared to be in good condition with a minor amount of corrosion. Image#2 Exterior Manway 12:30 Condition: Rust Grade' 8. Description: 24" Exterior Manway appeared to be in good _. condition with a minor amount of corrosion. - LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report - September 23, 2019- Page 7 4MG Tank Image#3 Exterior Base 1:00 Condition: Concrete Deform3 GC. Description: Exterior Base appeared to be in good condition with no concrete problems. Image#4 Exterior Wall 1:00 Condition: Rust Grade' 9. Description: Exterior Wall appeared to be in good condition with a minor amount of corrosion. I LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report - September 23, 2019- Page 8 4MG Tank Image#5 Capped Off Penetration 6:00 Condition: Rust Grade' 9. Description: 24" Capped Off Penetration appeared to be in good condition with a minor amount of corrosion. Image#6 Entry Hatch 12:00 I . + Condition: Rust Grader 7. Description: 24"x24" Entry Hatch appeared to be in fair condition with a minor amount of corrosion. Weather stripping was observed. Mumma LiquiVision Technology - Inspection Report - September 23, 2019- Page 9 4MG Tank Image#7 t Roof 3:00 s .r Condition• Rust Grade' 7. Description: Roof appeared to be in fair condition with a � v moderate amount of " corrosion. 7 l Image#8 Roof 9:00 Condition• Rust Grade' 7. �� Description: Roof appeared to be in fair condition with a moderate amount of ! \ corrosion. " LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report - September 23, 2019- Page 10 4MG Tank Image#9 Diver Sanitation Diver was sanitized with �. a 220ppm Chlorine �►`,Mr Solution. ' �a Lao 41 1 Image#10 J Sediment Description: 1/8" of sediment was removed from reservoir floor. _ LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report- September 23, 2019- Page 11 4MG Tank Image#11 Interior Ladder 12:00 Condition: Rust Grade' 7. i Description: Interior Ladder appeared to be in fair condition with a minor amount of corrosion. Image#12 Floor 12:00 Condition: R Rust Grade' 7. - Description: Floor appeared to be in fair condition with a minor amount of corrosion. R, LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report- September 23, 2019- Page 12 4MG Tank Image#13 Wall 12:00 Condition• Rust Grade' 8. Description: Wall appeared to be in good condition with a minor amount of corrosion. Image#14 Interior Manway 12:30 Condition• Rust Grade' 7. Description: 24" Interior Manway appeared to be in good condition with a minor - amount of corrosion. LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report- September 23, 2019- Page 13 4MG Tank Image#15 Floor 3:00 ' Condition• Rust Grade' 7. - Description: Floor appeared to be in fair condition with a minor amount of corrosion. LM I Image#16 _- _ Wall 3:00 Condition• Rust Grade' 8. Description: - Wall appeared to be in - good condition with a minor amount of s. corrosion. LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report- September 23, 2019- Page 14 4MG Tank Image#17 • � i Floor 6:00 :r Condition: Rust Grade' 7. Description: Floor appeared to be �! in fair condition with a minor amount of corrosion. Image#18 Wall 6:00 Condition: Rust Grade' 8. - Description: Wall appeared to be in good condition with a minor amount of corrosion. Mi LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report- September 23, 2019- Page 15 4MG Tank Image#19 Outlet 7:00 Condition• " ` Rust Grade' 7. - Description: 16" Outlet appeared to be in fair condition with a minor amount of corrosion. .. Image#20 t _ Y . Floor 9:00 Condition• Rust Grade' 7. Description: Floor appeared to be in fair condition with a minor amount of corrosion. LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report- September 23, 2019- Page 16 4MG Tank Image#21 Wall 9:00 Condition• Rust Grade' 8. Description: Wall appeared to be in good condition with a minor amount of corrosion. Image#22 Inlet 11:45 Condition• Rust Grade' 7. Description: _ 12" Inlet appeared tobe in fair conditionwith a moderate - amount of corrosion. � s � U14 LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report- September 23, 2019- Page 17 4MG Tank Image#23 R Overflow 11:50 Condition: Rust Grade' 7. Description: 12" Overflow appeared to be in fair condition with a minor amount of corrosion. Image#24 Ceiling 12:00 _ Condition: Rust Grade' 8. Description: OF Ceiling appeared to be in good condition with a minor amount of corrosion. LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report- September 23, 2019- Page 18 4MG Tank Image#25 Ceiling 3:00 Condition: Rust Grade' 8. Description: Ceiling appeared to be in good condition with a minor amount of corrosion. Image#26 Ceiling 6:00 Condition: Rust Grade' 8. Description: Ceiling appeared to be in good condition with a minor amount of corrosion. LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report- September 23, 2019- Page 19 4MG Tank Image#27 Ceiling 9:00 Condition• Rust Grade' 8. f Description: Ceiling appeared to be in good condition with a minor amount of corrosion. Image#28 Overflow 11:50 Condition• Rust Grade' 8. Description: 12"-24" Overflow appeared to be in good condition with a minor amount of corrosion. r LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report- September 23, 2019- Page 20 4MG Tank REFERENCES: Standard Method of Evaluating Degree of Rusting on Painted Steel Surfaces — SSPC-Vis 2-82 & ASTM D 610-85 (1989) The graphical representations show examples of area percentages, which may be helpful in rust grading. The use of photographical reference standards requires the following precautions: 1. Some finishes are stained by rust. This staining must not be confused with the actual rusting involved. 2. Accumulated dirt or other material may make accurate determination of the degree of rusting difficult. 3. Certain types of deposited dirt that contain iron or iron compounds may cause surface discoloration that should not be mistaken for corrosion. 4. It must be realized that failure may vary over a given area and discretion must therefore be used in applying these reference standards. 5. In evaluating surfaces, consideration shall be given to the color of the finish coating, since failures will be more apparent on a finish that shows color contrast with rust, such as white, than on a similar color, such as iron oxide finish. 6. The photographic reference standards are not required for use of the rust-grade scale since the scale is based upon the percent of the area rusted and any method of assessing area rusted may be used to determine the rust grade. Rust Grades Description Graphical Representation 10 No rusting or less than 0.01% Unnecessary of surface rusted 9 Minute rusting, less than 0.03% of surface rusted �+ . Few isolated rust spots, less 8 than 0.1% of surface rusted , ■ 7 Less than 0.3% of surface rusted , 6 Extensive rust spots, but less than 1% of surface rusted F LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report- September 23, 2019- Page 21 4MG Tank F Rusting to the extent of 3% of 5 surface rusted ,# ;A�f` 4 Rusting to the extent of 10% of surface rusted rF FI d ;, ■ !� , - r 3 Approximately one sixth of the surface rusted (16%) r 4 i 2 Approximately one third of the , surface rusted (33%) # 4 1 1 Approximately one half of the Zed surface rusted (50%) go. 4 0 Approximately 100% of the Unnecessary surface rusted LiquiVision Technology- Inspection Report - September 23, 2019- Page 22 APPENDIX G Sanitary Survey Montana Department QMM, of Environmental Quality October 31, 2019 Laurel Municipal Water System Heidi Jensen PO Box 10 Laurel MT 59044 Re: Sanitary Survey Inspection for the Laurel Municipal Water System, PWSID: MT0000270; Class C Dear Ms. Jensen, I would like to thank Nathan Herman for assisting my colleague, Lisa Kaufman and me during the sanitary survey inspection of the Laurel Municipal Water System. As a community public water supply system, your facility is required to have inspection every three years. These regular inspections offer us an opportunity to look for sanitary deficiencies that have the potential to cause contamination in the water system, as well as pointing out operation and maintenance concerns. The city of Laurel is located near the intersection of Highway 212-310 and Interstate 94 approximately 15 miles west of Billings MT. The town supports the surrounding agricultural and industrial community. The public water supply is classified as Community due to the nature of the population served. The following report contains descriptions of each of the sections of the water system comments relating to the sanitary survey conducted on October 16, 2019. SOURCE: IN003 —Intake Yellowstone River 2003 The intake consists of a 2003 constructed submerged intake system with air purge cleaning capability. The intake structure utilizes Johnson Screens within a concrete structure. The covers for the structure are bolted and strapped and secured in place. The intake lies in the southern channel of the Yellowstone River approximately 75 feet from the south shoreline and east of the Highway Bridge. According to reports two 20 Inch lines provide flooded suction to the raw water pump station. The Laurel Municipal Water System has worked with the Army Corps of Engineers, Montana FWP, and other regulatory agencies to address concerns with the intake structure. The original intake, IN002—Intake on Yellowstone River, is inactive and has been removed. Yellowstone River water is the source water for the City of Laurel. The water is treated through a conventional surface water treatment process and delivered to its customers. Since the Laurel Municipal Water System obtains its drinking water from a surface water supply, the source water is classified as highly sensitive to contamination, in accordance with Montana Source Water Protection Program criteria (1999). (Excerpt from source water delineation report 2003 system using Yellowstone River) Steve Bullock,Governor I Shaun McGrath,Director I Lee Metcalf Building, 1520 East 6ch Ave,PO Box 200901 1 Helena,MT 59620-09011(406)444-4400 1 www.deq.mt.gov Page 2 of 3 TREATMENT: TP001 —TP for Yellowstone River Treatment consists of a conventional surface water treatment plant utilizing coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation with filtration and disinfection. Yellowstone River water is obtained from the submerged intake and gravity feeds to the low service pumping station. It is important to note that dedicated raw water pumps serving the nearby refinery also share this structure and demand on the intake. Water is lifted with the low service pumps into the WTP Parshall flume structure where the primary coagulant chemical is applied. The Parshall flume and a slight hydraulic drop provides limited mixing before water enters a conduit that flows into six uncovered concrete flocculation basins where some sedimentation and floc formation takes place. After water serpentines through the floc basins, it enters a concrete, baffled sedimentation basin. Water leaves the sedimentation basin and enters another covered sedimentation basin with similar serpentine flow prior to entering a collection header that provides the flow to the filters. The filters consist of 24 inches of sand overlain with 18 inches of anthracite. The underdrains were installed with air scour piping. Backwashes are completed based on head loss or filter run time. The plant has filter to waste capability and filter aid is fed only while seasoning in the filters after backwashing before placing on line. Backwash water is not returned or re-used and the plant retains a discharge permit for the ponds discharge. Finished water is directed from the filtration process and dosed with chlorine gas disinfectant before entering the lift pump station wet well. Lift pumps then transfer water to the clearwell where adequate contact time is obtained. Water from the clearwell contact basin is directed back to the original WTP building for High Service Pumping prior to entering the distribution system. DISTRIBUTION: DS001 The system consists of various types of piping. The distribution system is old and in need of ongoing upgrades and replacement. PVC is used for replacement piping. The distribution system includes two booster stations that serve to enhance lower pressure zones. Plans include moving the package pump station in place on W. Maryland to allow service to a greater area and to benefit some homes in upper elevations who experience less than desirable pressures. A single 4 MG welded steel reservoir rides the distribution system otherwise and provides pressure by elevation. There is a total of 312 fire hydrants maintained by the city. STORAGE: ST002—Storage tank 4 MG The storage tank consists of a welded steel reservoir with capacity of 4 MG located on city owned property north of the town center and slightly elevated. The overflow is screened. The operator indicated that the hatch is sealed and locked and the vent screened. The ladder was locked and secure. New fencing has been added to aid in securing the site. PUMPS,PUMP FACILITIES and CONTROLS: PF001—Murray Park Booster-This booster station consists of end suction centrifugal pumps in line on the distribution system serving a pressure zone not adequately served by pressure from storage. Current operation is two 25HP 400 gpm and one 15HP 200 gpm pumps. PF002—W Maryland Booster This booster station consists of a package skid of end suction centrifugal pumps in line on the distribution system serving a pressure zone not adequately served by pressure from storage. Current operation is one 3HP 50 gpm jockey pump, two 7.5HP 200 gpm pumps and one 20HP 1300 gpm pump. All pumps are connected to telemetry and able to be controlled via the WTP. Page 3 of 3 MONITORING,REPORTING and DATA VERIFICATION: Monitoring and reporting appeared adequate. Monitoring forms submitted by the city and the PWS file were reviewed prior to this inspection. The system has no outstanding violations noted in the database at the time of this inspection. MAINTENANCE,MANAGEMENT, SAFETY and OPERATION: The system is very well managed and certified operators are retained. OPERATOR COMPLIANCE WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS: Currently the system has many certified operators on staff. The system is commended for the demonstration of knowledge from the operators noted during the inspection. SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES No significant deficiencies were observed during this inspection. WASTEWATER Wastewater from the community is collected in a sanitary sewer system. SDWIS Database Inventory Changes Made During This Inspection: No changes have been made to Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) during this inspection. If you have any questions about this report or public water supply regulations please give me a call at 406-444-5 8 8 1. Sincerely, Gerard Gernand Surface Water Treatment Inspector Public Water and Subdivision bureau Phone: 406-444-5881 Email: ggernand@mt.gov CC: Helena PWS file Yellowstone County Sanitarian SANITARY SURVEY FORM - INVENTORY Page 1 of 11 PWSID MT0000270 SYSTEM NAME Laurel Municipal Water System DATE OF SURVEY 10/16/2019 COUNTY Yellowstone SURVEYOR NAME-Gerard Gernand and Lisa Kaufman (SYSTEM REPRESENTATIVE) Nathan Herman (OTHER REPRESENTATIVE) SYSTEM ADDRESS—ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT SYSTEM OWNER Addressee Heidi Jensen Addressee CitV of Laurel Primary Address Owners Address Street PO BOX 10 Street PO BOX 10 City Laurel State MT Zip 59044 City Laurel State MT Zip 59044 System Phone(406)628-4796 Fax( ) Owner Phone(406)628-7431 Fax( ) LOCATION OF SYSTEM ❑ seasonal operation Nearest City Laurel MT Description or Physical Address Interstate 90 and Highway 212-310 dates: to ® year round operation OPERATOR OF SYSTEM ALTERNATE OPERATOR OF SYSTEM Name Nathan Herman-Chief Operator Name Too numerous to list 6 main staff all certified Certified Operator? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Not required Certified Operator? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ Not required Copy of Certificate? ® Yes ❑ No Certification#5949 Copy of Certificate? ❑Yes ❑ No Certification# Phone#(406)628-1987 Cell Phone#( ) Phone#( ) Cell Phone#( ) Fax#( ) SYSTEM STATUS SYSTEM CLASS ® A=Active ❑ P=Pending(Add New System) ® C=Community ❑ NTNC=Non-Transient Non-Community ❑ I=Inactive ❑ TNC=Transient Non-Community Total Service Connections: Residential/Non-Transient:2797 Resident Population 6339 Transient: (Number of permanent residents utilizing PWS daily) Total Active Connections: Residential/Non-Transient:2797 Non-Transient Population Transient: (Maximum number of non-transient persons utilizing PWS daily) Transient Population Service Connections Metered? ®Yes ❑ No (Maximum number of transient persons served by PWS daily) Percent Metered 100 OWNER TYPE ❑ 1 Federal Government ® 4 Local Government Authority,Commission,District,Municipality,City,etc. ❑ 2 Private Subdivision,Investor,Trust,Cooperative,Water Association,etc. ❑ 5 Mixed Public/Private ❑ 3 State Government ❑ 6 Native American SERVICE AREA CHARACTERISTICS LIST Comments:The city of Laurel is located near the intersection of Highwav ❑ BR Bar ❑ PA Recreation Areas 212-310 and Interstate 94 approximately 15 miles west of Billings MT. The ❑ DC Day Care Center ❑ RA Residential Area town supports the surrounding agricultural and industrial community. The ❑ DI Dispenser ❑ RE Retail Employees public water supply is classified as Community due to the nature of the ❑ HS Head Start ❑ IRS Restaurant population served.Some upgrades are planned for this system. ❑ HA Homeowners Assoc. ❑ RV RV Park ❑ HM Hotel/Motel ❑ SC School ❑ HR Highway Rest Area ❑ SI Sanitary Improvement District ❑ IA Industrial/Agricultural ❑ SK Summer Camp ❑ IC Interstate Carrier ❑ SR Secondary Residences ❑ IN Institution ❑ SS Service Station ❑ MF Medical Facility ❑ SU Subdivision ❑ MH Mobile Home Park ❑ WBWater Bottler ® MU Municipality ❑ WH Wholesaler(Sells Water) ❑ OA Other Area ❑ ON Other Non-Transient Area( Average Daily Visitors TNC) ❑ OR Other Residential Area ❑ OT Other Transient Area Service Category Description City of Laurel SANITARY SURVEY FORM -WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES Page 2 of 11 PWSID MT0000270 SYSTEM NAME Laurel Municipal Water System Water System Facilities(WSF)numbers are WSF Type Codes plus an assigned number. (i.e.source facility numbering starts with 002 and all non-source facilities start with 001). See instruction sheet for a list of WSF Type Codes. When a source is operational it is considered Active,this includes systems that are seasonal. Inactive sources are those which are shut down but can return to active status,such as a system out of business. Proposed sources are those that have been identified through the Plan Review process,but are not connected to the water system. A water source facility is a well,spring,intake,infiltration gallery or consecutive connections from which a system draws or purchases water. Total Number of Source Facilities 1 WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES SUMMARY(WSF) Water WSF ID Facility Name Type Code Purchased Seller PWSID Activity Status* IN002 Intake Yellowstone River SW ❑Yes ❑ No I ❑Yes ❑ No IN003 Intake Yellowstone River SW ❑Yes ® No A ❑Yes ❑ No TP002 Treatment Plant for Yellowstone River ❑Yes ❑ No A ❑Yes ❑ No CW001 Clearwell contact basin ❑Yes ❑ No A ❑Yes ❑ No DS001 Distribution system ❑Yes ❑ No A ❑Yes ❑ No PF001 Pump Facility Murray Park Booster ❑Yes ❑ No A ❑Yes ❑ No PF002 Pump Facility W Maryland Booster ❑Yes ❑ No A ❑Yes ❑ No ST002 Storage Facility MG ❑Yes ❑ No A ❑Yes ❑ No ❑Yes ❑ No ❑Yes ❑ No ❑Yes ❑ No ❑Yes ❑ No ❑Yes ❑ No ❑Yes ❑ No ❑Yes ❑ No ❑Yes ❑ No ❑Yes ❑ No Description of Water System Facility flow: IN003>TP002>CW001>DS001>PF001>PF002>ST002>DS001 Example: Well 1 (WL002)to common header(CH001),Well 2(WL003)to common header(CH001)to treatment plant(TP001)to pressure control assembly (PC001)to distribution system(DS001)to storage tank(ST001)to distribution system(DS001). *(A)Active,(I)Inactive,(P)Proposed EMERGENCY POWER Does the system have emergency power? ®Yes ❑ No If yes,what type: 800 KW diesel fired generator Frequency of testing:monthly Record of primary power failures:2=3 in last year Switchover: ®Automatic ❑Manual Comments:This generator is located in the low service pumping building next to the main WTP building SANITARY SURVEY FORM - SURFACE WATER, SPRINGS Page 3 of 11 & INFILTRATION GALLERIES PWSID MT0000270 SYSTEM NAME Laurel Municipal Water System SOURCES STATUS OF SOURCE ®(A)ctive ❑(I)nactive ❑(P)roposed WSF ID IN003 Entry Point ID 502 Location of Entry Point Treatment Average Production N/A These are State assigned identification numbers plant indicate units Source Name Intake Yellowstone River 2003 Maximum Production N/A Name of Source-Example:Well 1 or South well,etc. Available ® Perm❑ Emerg indicate units Location of Water Source(TRS or street address)Yellowstone River at ❑ Interim❑Seasonal ❑Other Highway 212 310 crossing If seasonal: to Latitude 45.6542510 in decimal degrees Entry Point Name EP for TP Yellowstone River GWUDISW PA Completed? Longitude 108.75858' Name of EP-Example:Entry point for North Well 1&South Well 2 ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ Unk ® N/A in decimal degrees SURFACE SOURCES What is the nature of watershed? ®Agricultural Name Yellowstone River ❑ Industrial ❑ Forest ❑ Residential ❑Other What is the size of the owned/protected area of the watershed?N/A How is watershed controlled? ❑Ownership ❑Ordinances ❑Zoning ❑Other Yes No Unk N/A Has a source water protection plan been developed? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Has management had a watershed survey performed? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is there an emergency spill response plan? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Is the source adequate in quantity? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the source adequate in quality? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the intake protected from sources of contamination? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are multiple intakes,located at different levels, utilized? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Is the highest quality water being drawn? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Can the raw water transmission line bypass treatment? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ How often are intakes inspected?N/A What conditions cause fluctuations in quality?rain events,run-off,spills Comment:This intake is located in the southern channel of the river. An old intake located near the center and north side of the river has been removed.A new intake further upstream has been approved by DEQ and the Army Corps of Engineers.Construction on the gravity line is underway- weather permitting-with completion due in 2017. SANITARY SURVEY FORM - TREATMENT Page 4 of 11 PWSID MT0000270 SYSTEM NAME Laurel Municipal Water System Treatment Objective WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES B =Disinfection Byproduct Control WSF ID Treatment Plant Name Treatment Objectives and Code C =Corrosion Control D =Disinfection TP002 Treatment Plant for Yellowstone River P240 P360 P660 E =Dechlorination P345 D401 F =Iron Removal =Inorganics Removal M =Manganese Removal N =No Treatment at Source O =Organics Removal P =Particulate Removal R =Radionuclides Removal WSF ID Location S =Softening(Hardness Removal) Latitude 0 Longitude ° T =Taste/Odor Control TP002 Latitude 45.6552890 Longitude 108.76009' Z =Other Latitude 0 Longitude ° Latitude 0 Longitude ° Latitude 0 Longitude ° Treatment plant description:Treatment plant consists of a conventional process utilizing coagulation,flocculation,sedimentation and filtration followed by disinfection. The plant is able to switch into a direct filtration mode however this capability is not used due to the lack of water quality available and limited treatment processes associated with the direct filtration mode. FOR SYSTEMS EMPLOYING FULL-TIME DISINFECTION IF USING GAS CHLORINATION Yes No Unk N/A Yes No Unk N/A Is a manifold provided to allow feeding gas from What disinfectant is used?gaseous chlorine more than one cylinder? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the disinfectant used NSF approved? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is there automatic switchover from cylinder to cylinder? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Is the amount of disinfectant used recorded? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are scales provided for weighing of containers? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ If Yes,amount used:X Ibs/day ppm other(give units) Are chlorine storage and use areas isolated from Is the amount of disinfectant used compared to water other work areas? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ pumped to verify concentration? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are stored cylinders capped and labeled? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is chemical storage adequate and safe? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is room vented to the outdoors with suction located If No,explain no more than 6 inches above the floor level? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is disinfectant residual being monitored daily? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ However the vent discharges above doorway! Are residual reports submitted monthly? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is vent inlet near the ceiling? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the disinfection equipment being operated and Is room containing chlorination treatment labeled maintained properly? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ sufficiently(DANGER signs,etc.)? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is operational standby equipment provided? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is a view port provided into the room storing chlorine? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is a means of leak detection provided? ® ❑ El El not,are critical spare parts on hand? ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Type?sensor alarm Has disinfection system been free from failure Is a self-contained breathing apparatus available for during the past year—no interruption? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ use during repair of leaks? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ If No,give dates of interruptions Where?multiple locations Describe provisions for providing contact time between disinfection point and Are personnel trained to use apparatus? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ the first point of use:Clearwell contact basin-baffling with factor of.5 Are all doors hinged outward and equipped with panic bars? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are all gas cylinders restrained near the top and about half way down by chaining to wall or by other means? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: SANITARY SURVEY FORM - SURFACE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS (Direct and Conventional and other) Page 5 of 11 PWSID MT0000270 SYSTEM NAME Laurel Municipal Water System Latitude 45.655289° Longitude 108.760090 Type: ❑Direct ❑In-Line ®Conventional ❑CAC ❑Other(describe) Peak instantaneous flow experienced:2000-4000+gpm Chemicals Added Points of Application Purpose Feed Rate(range) 1) AlumPolymer blend-WC2195 prior to parshall flume Primary Coagulant 8-25 ppm,depends 2) EC-462 Polymer into filter when filling Filter seasoning low 3) Chlorine upon entering lift pumps to clearwell Disinfection 40-80 Ibs/day 4) Caustic upon entering lift pumps to clearwell PH Adjustment not needed with Polyblend 5) How are process control decisions made?turbidity readings,control tests ran every 4 hours in plant. Backwashes based on head loss and filter run times Describe the following unit processes: Rapid Mix:There is no mixing other than the flow through the parshall flume and a slight hydraulic drop prior to the piping leading to the flocculation basins Flocculation: Theoretical hydraulic detention time:variable Min Tapered? ❑Yes ® No Description: 6 basins of capacity 21,500 gallons each allow formation of floc as water serpentines throughout prior to entering the sedimentation basins Sedimentation: Surface overflow rate:variable gpm/ft2 Description:Two basins with serpentine baffle construction of capacity of 750,000 gallons each prior to collection in a header that leads to the filters Filters: Type: ®Rapid Sand ❑Dual Media ❑Multi-media ❑Other(describe) Depth of Media:24 inches of sand overlain with 18 inches of anthracite,atop new Ieupold underdrains Surface wash? ®Yes ❑ No If Yes,type:hydraulic rotating arms with nozzles(typical) Air scour? ❑Yes ® No The new underdrains have provisions for the addition of air scour capability Disinfection Log inactivation required: 3_Olog Inactivation credit for treatment: 2_5log Inactivation credit for disinfection:.5log Is CT adequate under all conditions of flow,temperature and pH? ®Yes ❑ No ❑ Unk Explain:clearwell effective volume and baffling factor of.5 granted allows for consistant CT adequacy, If the plant is ever operated in direct filtration mode there are provisions for meeting CT. The clearwell consists of two chambers and one can be isolated for cleaning-there are provisions to meet CT during this process due to additional piping enhancing detention time Comments on process control and finished water quality:It appears that the plant consistently produces a high quality effluent. Process controls are adequate. If a CPE is needed,please comment: SANITARY SURVEY FORM - SURFACE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS (Direct and Conventional and other) Page 6 of 11 PWSID MT0000270 SYSTEM NAME Laurel Municipal Water System Provide a schematic. Show all chemical application points. ptiw yn CLfAAWE�L SCDIUEnTdTION q $�N��i'�"A11"�N 1i� � BASIN y 3d5 U u ; 4 FiLTEG sm7L y FLAPS `'W O PUMR WASTE � {alE 'MLl'C {�U�SThrWH 222}}} !kf 8LIVERFtr wALYE �' PARSHU,4 FLUME f�l Gr�CK waLvE a _ o PRESSUq[ REGULATING vALvE �K � � I ALTIfUff/tH CK Vkvl I C J Puma CONTROL '+ALvE RW aE:AHr SURGE RELIEF WALV{ ANP NrUN m FLOW METER TO ct%x �d{KW�ItiH C� VEi TWRI KTER REGM ' PL•NP SIA1�V f{TIT�GE VALVE M X9WASH SJPPLY ON BACKWASH WASTE7�YA'E HIGH sE�Ice �` T uPS RE( WERYFi FILTDII FLUENT Q �E00�+ERrFk FILTERED -TER P POO 17& $dW rraTEQP }] 0 DWAIN I Fh4 rq•'ER-�9-41dS�C ��� ���' TO M'NuT¢R# L 250AOpL, JhIY�I�� rAHK r�Q ���:�#(I,�r¢l�1 •aid/O p TO PLT[R LAUREL WER IRS' NINT HTAX€ lkrq SQRFKE WASH PAT fir RiUSt k,Y�.nIrc I7r,a,d ,-P SANITARY SURVEY FORM - PUMPING FACILITIES Page 7 of 11 [HMT0000270 SYSTEM NAME Laurel Municipal Water System WSF ID PF001 Location,Description Murray Park Booster WSF ID PF002 Location,Description W.Maryland Booster Latitude 45.6847590 Latitude 45.679411° in decimal degrees in decimal degrees Longitude 108.778100 Longitude 108.791020 in decimal degrees in decimal degrees Type end suction centrifugals Type end suction centrifugals (example: 30 hp line shaft turbine) (example: 30 hp line shaft turbine) Rated Capacity(2)25 HP 400gpm,(1)15HP 200gpm Rated Capacity(1)3 HP 50gpm,(2)7.5 HP 200gpm,(1)20 HP 1300gpm How frequently are pump(s)replaced?as needed How frequently are pump(s)replaced?as needed Yes No Unk N/A Yes No Unk N/A Is redundancy provided? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is redundancy provided? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are backup pumps/motors provided? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are backup pumps/motors provided? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is there a pressure relief valve? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Is there a pressure relief valve? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Does each pump have compound gauge Does each pump have compound gauge on suction side? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ on suction side? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Is there automatic cutoff for low suction pressure? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is there automatic cutoff for low suction pressure? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Does each pump have standard pressure gauge Does each pump have standard pressure gauge on discharge side? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ on discharge side? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Does low pressure level provide adequate pressure? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Does low pressure level provide adequate pressure? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are controls functioning properly and adequately Are controls functioning properly and adequately protected? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ protected? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Do underground compartments have a drain? ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Do underground compartments have a drain? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is facility properly protected against trespassing and Is facility properly protected against trespassing and vandalism? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ vandalism? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are pump records maintained(amp,discharge, Are pump records maintained(amp,discharge, pressure,maintenance schedule,manuals,etc.)? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ pressure,maintenance schedule,manuals,etc.)? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the plumbing adequately painted to prevent Is the plumbing adequately painted to prevent excessive corrosion? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ excessive corrosion? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are adequate heating,lighting,and ventilation provided? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are adequate heating,lighting,and ventilation provided? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is a preventive maintenance program in operation? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is a preventive maintenance program in operation? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are recommended spare parts on hand? ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Are recommended spare parts on hand? ❑ ❑ ❑ Controlled bypressure and telemetry Controlled bypressure and telemetry Comments:Equipped with backup generator 100 KW natural gas fired Comments: Equipped with backup generator 80 KW diesel fired Cummins Kohler SANITARY SURVEY FORM - STORAGE Page 8 of 11 PWSID MT0000270 SYSTEM NAME Laurel Municipal Water System COMPLETE ONE SECTION FOR EACH STORAGE FACILITY Total storage provided? 4 MG gallons How much treated storage is provided 4 MG gallons Storage provides 1 days of water reserve STORAGE FACILITY WSF ID ST002 Location: Description North side of Town,Above ground welded steel reservoir Latitude:45.6889260 Longitude: 108.778050 Storage Volume?4.OMG gallons Year constructed:unsure-placard has been removed Condition: ®Good ❑Fair ❑Poor Yes No Unk N/A Does surface runoff and underground drainage drain away? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site protected against flooding? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the site protected against trespass/vandalism? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Ladders caged and locked? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are overflow lines,air vents,drainage lines or clean out pipes turned downward or covered,screened and terminated a minimum of 3 diameters above the ground or storage tank surface? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Overflow pad? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Is access hatch sealed properly and locked? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are surface coatings in contact with water ANSI/NSF approved? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is tank protected against icing and corrosion? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Can tank be isolated from system? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Is all treated water storage covered? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are tanks disinfected after repairs are made? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ What is cleaning frequency for tanks? routine Is tank inspected every 5 years by a structural engineer for structural integrity? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 2008 Contracted Date of last inspection By whom Comments:The overflow line for this tank was extended to control damage to nearby property in the event it is used. The overflow piping is internal and returns to atmosphere and the extension culvert southwest of the tank.The area around the tank has been fenced to improve security. SANITARY SURVEY FORM - MISCELLANEOUS Page 9 of 11 PWSID MT0000270 SYSTEM NAME Laurel Municipal Water System DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION SAFETY Yes No Unk N/A Distribution description Distribution consists of various piping Were confined spaces observed? ® ❑ El ❑ Yes No Unk N/A Describe any confined spaces observedvalve pits etc System drawings available? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Accurate As-Built drawing(s)on-site? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Confined space safety adequate? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Lines adequately sized? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Fall risks adequately mitigated? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Adequate pressure maintained? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Note all safety deficiencies(consider items such as ladders,tank supports, Mains protected from freezing? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ guards on rotating electrical equipment,lightning protection for pumps, Distribution system free of leaks? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ etc.) Asbestos concrete pipe used? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Fire hydrants? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Dead end lines minimized by looping mains? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Flushing program? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Pressure reducing stations? Number 0 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Booster stations? Number 2 ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are individual booster pumps on any service lines? (see DEQ-1 8.9.2) ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Were cross connections observed? ❑ Comments:Discussed updating the Lead&Copper sample site plan to make sure that all requirements are met. MONITORING AND RECORDKEEP/NG EVALUATION MANAGEMENT Yes No Unk N/A Yes No Unk N/A Does the system have a current Monitoring Schedule? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are there sufficient personnel? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Bacti monitoring records maintained?(5 years) ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are operators properly certified? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Bacti Sample Site Plan submitted? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Are personnel adequately trained? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Familiar with repeat sampling? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Chemical monitoring records maintained?(10 years) ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Is there a current O&M manual on-site? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ System specific records/plans maintained? Is an emergency plan on-site and workable? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ (DBP,PB/CU,treatments,waivers,violations,etc.) ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Has system addressed concerns from previous Familiar with Public Notice requirements? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ sanitary survey(s)or technical visit(s)? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Did Surveyor take a bacteriological sample? ❑ ® Budget exists? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ If Yes,date of Sample: Time of Sample: Does system maintain an emergency fund? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Comments: Does system contribute to facility replacement fund? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Are abandoned wells present? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Do abandoned wells appear to be properly abandoned? (see ARM 36.21.670) ❑ ❑ ❑ Comments: REPORT SUMMARY Page 10 of 11 PWSID MT0000270 SYSTEM NAME Laurel Municipal Water System The State, or an authorized agent, must conduct sanitary surveys for all public water supply systems in Montana. DEQ believes that periodic sanitary surveys, along with appropriate corrective actions, are indispensable for assuring the long-term quality and safety of drinking water. When properly conducted, sanitary surveys can provide important information on a water system's design and operations and can identify minor and significant deficiencies for correction before they become major problems. Minor deficiencies do not pose serious health threats. However, corrective action of minor deficiencies can be critical in the long-term operation and safety of a public water system. Minor deficiencies are generally described as suggested or recommended corrections in the letter to system owner(s). Significant deficiencies can be defined as a defective water supply component(s) having or likely to have an adverse influence on public health. Significant deficiencies require immediate corrective action in efforts to protect consumers. EPA and ASDWA guidance identifies eight broad components that should be covered in a sanitary survey. Using these eight broad components as a guide, minor and significant deficiencies should be described in the letter to system owner(s). 1) Source 5) Pumps, pump facilities, and controls 2) Treatment 6) Monitoring and reporting, and data verification 3) Distribution system 7) System management and operation 4) Finished water storage 8) Operator compliance with State requirements With consideration that significant deficiencies may influence regulatory decisions and monitoring requirements, please list all significant deficiencies observed and corrective action(s) taken below. Comments: No significant deficiencies noted. SANITARY SURVEY FORM - DIAGRAMS Page 11 of 11 PWSID MT0000270 SYSTEM NAME Laurel Municipal Water System Draw brief site plan showing location of well(s),springs(s),water storage,distribution system,pumphouse(s),entry point(s),treatment,etc. and label with appropriate facility designation. Include interconnections with other PWSs. Add sheets as needed. Cie M T0000270-ST002 M_T0000270-PF009 —} d CCSr E •1 _ T0000270-PF002 LF 4� r - T0000270-IN003 AT_0000270-IN00200 — - __ - . - � Gr gel.�'• � , )pjr- f -Y gg Draw brief schematic of pumphouse facilities(pressure control assemblies,treatment(s)valves,filters,meters,electrical controls,etc.) FI � • _ City of Laurel - ; ST002 4 Million Gallon , rY I PWS I D: MT0000270 .r . J L " ` FA 40 } r y 1 r _ ' ■ �' i ''f 7.6 e. kit R r a 1�1 sex, .caa�aa!'t+j4•! •�_. r,' 5 2 - Booster I 5 00 .� PF001 Booster, Jk a y v4 01 ' r - 4 Park k f p f + _� TPO ent Plant _� - v r r MIER C:d+1�fu 1 4 FI0fR � 4 � !y L EGENO FL "" D< CArE vgvE PUMP *mot# hl ur IV �.rCRFLX war[ � F,49$rY�LX RlL1WE d OUWP CONTIQL "M I I Ir C-h L=j WNTLMd KT[A i *ECWE F PLW P $;�G"mil B%5 Q+LMaS'I '3,"POIT' " SIG"SH YNSTC + 4v{x K1113H !: DVEA "I," rk radEkfo "IN Kom -D DIU4 rrw rRtfq—rg-=SrE TQ C�3'•RrBLK�rI 750.ow rm. r�r.e ru'rr A E TIX;'F+L To Mfirtrxg !k +iR�uS�+ LAUREL WATER TRFATMENT Ti►7 Y 7J �r F:ice. n r. 4 -D F 4 49matic Diesel Generat r wer C aim zaj � .. ... ........ : i — '4` 11 a ` a 0 _ _ E 4c• a '14W AV Air Burst Intake I aning System Hig� Pumps For DistribWilb&stem d' Distr*tion System Pipirig er Pipe Galley io ■ a . - . .- _ ! ■ J� La u re WTR • ". �� % 10116/ �19 Filtration Piping d Monitoring D VOLT N - 101161.2019 10/16/201 _ 1 SE S_D n1C, 4.: 1 ti 101 2�1 10116/2019 EV tric Motor Control go 11 , RON IN a an ,yIs SCADA • • • Slush Ice P 12.9 lFtvar, LI7-11 1D.36 Ft - 3 AE-11L 7.7 NTUval'Ve Jode® _ 51ush Ice %V-11 l de R ® Train 1 History13. LlIT-12 14.81 Ft LIT-13 14.57 Ft . . P Setpoints FIT-11 1633 GPM FIT-12 GPM FIT-11 GP M FIT-12 G Rapid d ® _ • AE-12 1.0 NTU AE'13 1.8 NTU ® NTU AF-i3 NTUAuto _ EBasinffluent -AE-12 Effluent . „• PDT-21 6.1 Ft We PDT-31 3fi 9 PSI Sludge ., Totals PDT-21 Ft We PDT-3.1 36.9 _ AE-21 0.6 NTU Basin Flows FilterAE-21 NTu Basin Flws MEN FIT-21 1594 GPM Influent 1634 GPM FIT-21 GPM rfluent i3PV FAT-31 GPM 1601 FIT-31 0 GPM Etfluerrt 1593 C$ - O ° Chemical Storage b o �; T AAL illy sin 3 10/ 612 1"9 10/16/2019 act Isin prior to High Service Distribution • - KUL f 7 .r ' - L Igo,, 1. 000 Chemical Mixin and a Yl ll X .. A - - aOL f \ +'q - y ti j' 10/16/2019 One Ton Chlorination Cylinder Room and Safety Equipment IL Roof Vent Blower Chlorine Injection vp 4 ' u • . Turbidity Monitoring Equipment e r- SETTLES W ATER 1 6/1 6/2 Q 1 9 r a e TZY. 10116-12 9� Storag Tank I tl� ' T � ➢ N 1 1 : - �1Q1-1612Q19 nd Booster Station Centrifugal Pumps , I_ I s v� � 1�/"" �,r,+��� •� 3:,�, �.1 �r°,�,p W j�°' d7F �'� f b�.�����T 4^y� f tx� w rarSr� (.���f ` �y :J 1�8r:-•,p ,�;.. . �� ,. #r ,..: 'fA .4�' �•+ � ,� " ` "n t* � � y ,�►��;. ,, •� fig.. J. . W 2 M W r.•' a' 1 n �`, 47 Cu'�i `f�nci�ng t nd STOO ? �..�i:i ,n�i�� yr' .� ` �. ? ��^ t4 ,.S' !'-. 1{i � 6v, � .: fa�c�.•a, Y .. _�'44•�. fj �v�w,�� gyp ;' _ - �• ���1)k'� � '!� /r �„� �', a y�,,ta,�` �'' °�•� �', ' �,,. y` } r� v -. 11 APPENDIX H Environmental Review Environmental Checklist Instructions Purpose of This Document: All applicants must consider the potential environmental impacts of their projects as all projects will be subject to a NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and MEPA (Montana Environmental Policy Act) review. Consideration of these impacts on the location, design, or construction actions may help avoid expensive costs. A project may not be eligible for funding if it results in significant environmental degradation even with mitigation. Per Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, any Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment must complete a NEPA review and prepare either an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) and a ROD (Record of Decision); EA (Environmental Assessment) and a FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact);or document a Categorical Exclusion(CE). Major Federal actions may include: any projects within Federal jurisdiction and/or triggering Federal permits; Federal funding in whole or part; projects on Federal land or affecting Federal facilities; Continuing Federal actions with effects on land or facilities; and new or revised Federal rules, regulations, plans, or procedures. Montana state agencies are required to comply with the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) per state law and associated agency-specific Administrative Rules (ARM 36.2.523). MEPA requires state agencies to prepare a detailed statement on any project, program, or activity directly undertaken by the agency; a project or activity supported through a contract, grant, subsidy, loan, or other form of funding assistance from the agency; and a project or activity involving the issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use or permission by the agency (MCA Title 75, Chapter 1). Instructions: Complete the Environmental Checklist on the following pages after the instructions below. Example Impact Code Impact Type Permits/ Explanation of Impact to Resource Pr Mitigation Required? 1. Soil Suitability,Topographic and/or Geologic Constraints(example:soil slump, steep slopes, subsidence,seismic activity) ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation ❑Adverse ❑Cumulative ❑ NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: 1. Impact Code: In the first column, identify the impact that the preferred alternative will have on each resource (e.g. 1. Soil Suitability,Topographic and/or Geologic Constraints) in the project area. Select from the following impact codes: ■ No Impact: No impact to the resource is anticipated or this is not applicable to this project. ■ eene icial: Potentially beneficial impact to the resource. ■ Adverse: Potentially adverse impact to the resource. Please note that a resource may have more than one impact. Identify all possible impacts to the resource in the space provided. For example, the preferred alternative may have a short-term direct negative impact and a long-term direct and indirect positive impact on the resource. Check all boxes that apply and use the space provided in the final column "Explanation of Impact to Resource"to explain. Example Impact Code Impact Type Permits/ Explanation of Impact to Resource Mitigation Required? 1. Soil Suitability,Topographic and/or Geologic Constraints (example: soil slump, steep slopes, subsidence,seismic activity) ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect El Mitigation ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑ NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: 2. Impact Type: In the second column, identify the type(s) of impact to the resource from the preferred alternative. (Impacts may be direct, indirect or cumulative). ■ Direct impacts: Occur at the same time and place as the proposed project. ■ Indirect or secondary impacts: Occur at a different location or later time than the proposed project. ■ Cumulative impacts: Collective impacts on the environment when considered in conjunction with other past, present, and future actions related to the proposed project. Cumulative impact analysis includes a review of all state and nonstate activities that have occurred, are occurring, or may occur that have impacted or may impact the same resource as the proposed project. Just as above,please note that a resource may have more than one impact. Identify all possible impacts to the resource in the space provided. For example, the preferred alternative may have a short-term direct negative impact and a long-term direct and indirect positive impact on the resource. Check all boxes that apply and use the space provided in the final column "Explanation of Impact to Resource"to explain. Example Impact Code Impact Type Permits/ Explanation of Impact to Resource IV Mitigation Required? 1. Soil Suitability,Topographic and/or Geologic Constraints(example:soil slump, steep slopes, subsidence,seismic activity) ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation ❑Adverse ❑Cumulative ❑ NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: 3. Permits/Mitigation Required: In the third column, please select if a permit and/or mitigation is required for the project (e.g., 310, USACE Section 404 Nationwide). a. Please make sure to include which permits (if any) are required for the particular resource and what mitigation techniques will be used if impacts are to occur. Example Impact Code Impact Type Permits/ Explanation of Impact to Resource Mitigation Required? 1. Soil Suitability,Topographic and/or Geologic Constraints(example:soil slump, steep slopes, subsidence,seismic activity) ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct El Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation Click or tap here to enter text. ❑Adverse ❑Cumulative El Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Click or tap here to enter text. 4. Explanation of Impact to Resource: In the final column, use the space provided on the Environmental Checklist to summarize the following information: a. Current Conditions • Describe the current environmental resources of the affected area including the impact of no action.Your description of the current natural resources will provide a baseline to compare all alternatives and their associated environmental impacts. b. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: • Describe the impact of the preferred alternative or indicate why there is no impact from the project. • Identify any reasonable cumulative impacts that may result from implementing the preferred alternative. Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts on the environment when considered in conjunction with other past, present, and future actions related to the proposed project. • If a potentially adverse impact is identified for the preferred alternative,the applicant must provide the following: o An analysis of the severity, duration, extent, and frequency of the impact. Please specify and describe the following: ■ Severity: negligible, minor, or major. ■ Duration: short-term or long-term. ■ Extent: local, regional, or statewide. ■ Frequency: non-recurring or recurring. o An explanation of short-and/or long-term measures to mitigate the impact with a discussion on the effects of those mitigative measures on the proposed project. • Identify any required permits. 5. Additional Information: Underneath the table the following information must be provided: a. Sources of Information: Identify all sources consulted for the completion of the Environmental Checklist. Sources may include studies, plans, documents, or the persons, organizations, or agencies contacted for assistance. Environmental Checklist Environmental Checklist Prepared by: On: 9/27/2022 Travis Copper KU Engineering Name of Person 1 Organization 406-245-5499 travis.copper@kljeng.com Phone Number Email Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap hcrc to enter text. Name of Person 2 Organization Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Phone Number Email Click or tap here to enter text. List additional people above. Include organization,phone number and email for all. As the engineer that prepared the preliminary engineering report, I _Travis Copper , (print name of engineer) have reviewed the information presented in this checklist and believe that it accurately identifies the environmental resources in the area and the potential impacts that the project could have on those resources. In addition, the required state and federal agencies were provided with the required information about the project and requested to provide comments on the proposed public facility project. Their comments have been incorporated into and attached to the Preliminary Engineering Report. Engineer's Signature: Date: Physical Environment Permits/ Mitigation Impact Code Impact Type Required? Explanation of Impact to Resource 1.Soil Suitability,Topographic and/or Geologic Constraints(example:soil slump, steep slopes, subsidence,seismic activity) ❑X No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation Transmission main from new tank site in Alt 2 and 3 ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑X NA crosses steep hillside. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Bore portion of line across steep hillside 2. Hazardous Facilities (example: power lines, hazardous waste sites,acceptable distance from explosive and flammable hazards including chemical/petrochemical storage tanks, underground fuel storage tanks, and related facilities such as natural gas storage facilities and propane storage tanks) ❑X No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation None identified in area of proposed improvements. ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑X NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Hazardus areas will be avoided or corrected as appropriate,if discovered during design. 3.Surrounding Air Quality(example:dust,odors, emissions) ❑X No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation Normal dust conditions should be anticipated with ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑X NA construction. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Dust will be controled during construction by watering. 4. Groundwater Resources and Aquifers(example:quantity, quality, distribution, depth to groundwater,sole source aquifers) ❑X No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation Groundwater may be present in some pipe trenching. ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑X NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Dewatering during construction will be provided as needed. 5. Surface Water/Water Quality, Quantity and Distribution (example: streams,lakes,storm runoff, irrigation systems,canals) ❑X No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation Some irrigation ditches cross proposed pipe alignments. ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑X NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Pipe will be bored under ditch crossings. 6. Floodplains and Floodplain Management (Identify any floodplains within one mile of the boundary of the project.) ❑X No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation The only floodplains occurring within the area of any of ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑X NA the proposed work is contained within irrigation ditches. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: These will be avoided by boring. 7. Wetlands (Identify any wetlands within one mile of the boundary of the project and state potential impacts.) ❑X No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation Some wetlands are shown in National Wetland Inventory. All ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑X NA appear to be outside of proposed work. Potential for other wetland that are not identified will be evaluated during design. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: If unknown wetlands are discovered, avoidance measures will be assessed during design. 8.Agricultural Lands, Production,and Farmland Protection (example:grazing,forestry,cropland, prime or unique agricultural lands) Identify any prime or important farm ground or forest lands within one mile of the boundary of the project. ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑X Mitigation Tank Site Alternativ T3 is on farm land. Portions of ❑X Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑ NA proposed transmission lines cross grazing land. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Transmission lines will cross grazing land in easements that may remain as grazing areas. If Alternative T3 is selected,tank site disturbance should be limited and be located on edge of farmed area as to not break up existing field. 9.Vegetation and Wildlife Species and Habitats, Including Fish (example:terrestrial,avian and aquatic life and habitats) ❑ No Impact O Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect OMitigation Most of the work will be within existing streets. Tank O Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑ NA sites are each in areas of open range land as well as portions of the transmission mains to the tank sites. Each site is within Sage Grouse Generl Habitat as determined by the Montana Sage Grouse Conservation Program. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Areas where transmission mains cross open range will be kept to a minimum and restored with vegetation after construction. Wetland habitat will be avoided by pipe routing and/or boring where needed. Disturbance to sage grouse habitat will be kept to a minimum and all required permitting will be obtained prior to construction. 10. Unique, Endangered, Fragile, or Limited Environmental Resources, Including Endangered Species (example: plants,fish or wildlife) O No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation The only threatened or endangered species identified by ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative O NA the Natural Heritage data base for this area is the Grizley Bear, which is not anticipated to be present in any of the work area. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: 11. Unique Natural Features (example:geologic features) ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct El Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect El Mitigation None identified in project area ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative O NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: 12.Access to,and Quality of, Recreational and Wilderness Activities, Public Lands and Waterways (including Federally Designated Wild &Scenic Rivers), and Public Open Space O No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation None identified in project area ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative O NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Human Environment Impact Code I Impact Type Resource 1.Visual Quality—Coherence, Diversity,Compatibility of Use and Scale,Aesthetics O No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation Proposed project involves mostly underground work; ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative O NA the only exception being the proposed water tank, which is compatible with and necessary to serve the City. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: 2. Nuisances(example:glare,fumes) 0 No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation No nuisances anticipated from proposed projects. ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative 0 NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: 3. Noise—Suitable Separation Between Housing and Other Noise Sensitive Activities and Major Noise Sources (example: aircraft, highways and railroads.) ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect OMitigation Normal impacts from construction noise are anticipated 0 Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑ NA on a temporary basis. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Noise will be mitigated by limiting work to normal working hours established by the City of Laure for work occurring in residential areas. 4. Historic Properties,Cultural,and Archaeological Resources 0 No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation None identified ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative 0 NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: S. Changes in Demographic(Population)Characteristics (example:quantity,distribution,density) ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: 0 Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation Population growth in the City is currently limited by ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative 0 NA capacity of the water distribution system. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Proposed project will increase capacity and allow for growth. 6. General Housing Conditions—Quality,Quantity,Affordability ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: 0 Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation Affordability is currently impacted by limitations on housing, ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑ NA partially due to lack of capacity in the water system. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Proposed projects will allow for new housing. 7. Businesses or Residents(example: loss of, displacement, or relocation) 0 No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect El Mitigation All proposed projects are primarily within streets and ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative 0 NA areas of undeveloped land. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: 8. Public Health and Safety ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: 0 Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation Significant health and safety concerns have been identified in ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative 0 NA the PER associated with deficiencies in the distribution system. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: The proposed projects will correct these deficiencies. 9. Local Employment—Quantity or Distribution of Employment, Economic Impact ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: 0 Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation Growth in the City, including growth to commercial and ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative 0 NA industrial areas, is currently limited by deficiencies in the water distribution system. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: The proposed projects will correct these deficiencies. 10. Income Patterns—Economic Impact 0 No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative 0 NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: No affect anticipated. 11. Local and State Tax Base and Revenues ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: 0 Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation Limitation on growth apply to tax revenue. ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative 0 NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: The proposed projects will generally promote growth,thereby increasing tax revenue. 12. Community and Government Services and Facilities (example: educational facilities; health and medical services and facilities; police; emergency medical services; and parks, playgrounds and open space) ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: 0 Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation A new school site is under consideration in an area that ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative 0 NA is currently in too low of a pressure zone to be served. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: This issue will be corrected with the proposed projects. 13. Commercial and Industrial Facilities—Production and Activity,Growth or Decline ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: 0 Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation Several existing commercial and industrial sites are ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative 0 NA underserved by lack of fire protection capacity. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: This issue will be corrected with the proposed projects. 14.Social Structures and Mores (example: standards of social conduct/social conventions) 0 No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative 0 NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Proposed projects not anticipated to have any influence on social structure. 15. Land Use Compatibility(example:growth, land use change,development activity,adjacent land uses and potential conflicts) ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: 0 Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation The existing water distribution system is inadequate to serve ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative 0 NA much of the area identified in the City's growth policy for the identified uses. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: The proposed projects will strengthen the backbone of the system,allowing for future expansion into those areas. 16. Energy Resources—Consumption and Conservation ❑X No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative 0 NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: No significant changes are anticipated resulting from proposed projects. 17.Solid Waste Management ❑X No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative 0 NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: No changes are anticipated from proposed projects. 18. Wastewater Treatment—Sewage System ❑X No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative 0 NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: No changes should result from proposed projects. 19. Storm Water—Surface Drainage ❑X No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑X NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Most of the work will be underground. Proper grading and drainage will be provided with tank site improvements. 20. Community Water Supply ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑x Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation Significant health and safety concerns have been identified as ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑X NA a result of deficiencies in the water system. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: The proposed projects will correct these deficiencies. 21. Fire Protection—Hazards ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑X Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation Fire flow capacity in portions of the existing system falls short ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑X NA of minimum standards adopted by the State of Montana. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: The proposed projects will bring the distribution system into compliance with these standards. 22. Cultural Facilities, Cultural Uniqueness and Diversity ❑X No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation No cultural facilities were identified within any of the ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑X NA proposed project areas. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Proposed project will not impact any cultural facitlities. 23.Transportation Networks and Traffic Flow Conflicts(example: rail; auto including local traffic; airport runway clear zones—avoidance of incompatible land use in airport runway clear zones) ❑X No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑X NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Propoosed projects will have no influence on current transportation facilities, other than normal traffic disturbances during construction,which will be temporary and controlled. 24. Consistency with Local Ordinances, Resolutions,or Plans(example:conformance with local comprehensive plans, zoning, or capital improvement plans.) ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑X Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation Click or tap here to enter text. ❑ Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑ NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Proposed projects are neccessar for City to grow in conformance with current growth policy. 25. Private Property Rights (example: a regulatory action or project activity that reduces, minimizes, or eliminates the use of private property.) ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑X Mitigation Each tank alternative will require easement and land ❑x Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑ NA acquisitions from private owners. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Landowners will be compensated. Easements will allow for continued use of the land at it's current capacity. Land area for a tank site will be kept to a minimum. 26. Environmental Justice(example: does the project avoid placing lower income households in areas where environmental degradation has occurred,such as adjacent to brownfield sites?) ❑ No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑x Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation Low pressure areas have been identified in portions of ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑X NA the existing system. Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: The proposed projects will improve the low pressure areas without regard to social or economical classes. 27. Lead Based Paint and/or Asbestos (example: does the project replace asbestos-lined pipes? Do any structures qualify as containing lead-based paint?) ❑X No Impact ❑ Direct ❑Permit Current Conditions: ❑ Beneficial ❑ Indirect ❑Mitigation None identifiec ❑Adverse ❑ Cumulative ❑X NA Preferred Alternative Environmental Narrative: Not relevant to proposed work. Additional Information List all sources of information used to complete the Environmental Checklist. Sources may include studies, plans, documents, or the individuals, organizations, or agencies contacted for assistance. For individuals, groups, or agencies, please include a contact person and phone number. List any scoping documents or meetings and/or public meetings during project development. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Natural Resource Information Center(Species of Concern) Montana Natural Heritage Program, Natural Resource Information Center(Land Cover) National Wetlands Inventory State Historical Preservation Office Inventory USDA Web Soil Survey MT Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Program Map Service Federal Emergency Management Agency, Map Service Center Below is a list of electronic resources available for data gathering to aid in the development of the Environmental Checklist: Abandoned Mines (DEQ): https://deg.mt.gov/cleanupandrec/Programs/aml Agricultural Statistics (USDA): USDA- National Agricultural Statistics Service- Data and Statistics Air Quality • Nonattainment Areas: Plan and Rule Development I Montana DEQ(mt.gov) • Opening Burning Guidelines: Open Burning I Montana DEQ(mt.gov) Army Corps of Engineers: http://www.usace.army.mil/Home.aspx Bureau of Business and Economic Research, UM: http://www.bber.umt.edu/ Cadastral (for property ownership info): http://svc.mt.gov/msl/mtcadastral Census Information, MT Dept. of Commerce: http://ceic.mt.gov Conservation Districts, MT: http://macdnet.org/ Cultural Records • Montana Historical Society: https://mhs.mt.gov/Shpo/Cultural Records DEQ data search tools: Montana DEQ's GIS Portal (mt.gov) • Including Clean Water Act Info Center, Hazardous Waste Handlers, Petroleum Release Fund Claims, Unpermitted Releases, Underground Storage Tanks, Source Water Protection EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online http://echo.epa.gov/ Farmland Classification: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Fish (Also See Wildlife) • Montana Fisheries Information System: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks GIS Data (arcgis.com) • Aquatic Invasive Species: Montana FWP AIS Surveys Dashboard 2021 (arcgis.com) Floodplain Maps, FEMA: https://msc.fema.gov/portal Geographic Information, Natural Resources Information System: http://nris.mt.gov/gis Geologic Information - MBMG - Publications- Download Geologic Maps (mtech.edu) Maps of Montana for species observations, land cover, wetland and riparian areas, land management: Montana Natural Heritage Program (mtnhp.org); http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer/?t=6 Montana Department of Transportation: https://www.mdt.mt.gov/ • Environmental Manual: http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/manuals/env/preface.pdf • Environmental Manual -Chapter 29, Permits Required: https://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/manuals/env/Chapter%2029%20PERMITS%20REQ UIRED.pdf Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation Information System: • http://bogc.dnrc.mt.gov/webApps/DataMiner/ Plants • Plant database, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service: http://plants.usda.gov/iava • Plant Species, MT Field Guide: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/default.aspx • Plant Species of Concern: http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/Default.aspx?AorP=p • Threatened, Endangered and Rare Plants, USDA: https://plants.usda.gov/home/raritySearch Soils • USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service database: https://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/ • Montana soil and water conservation districts: http://swcdmi.org/ State Historic Preservation Office: http://mhs.mt.gov/Shpo Tourism, UM—Institute of Tourism & Recreation Research: http://www.itrr.umt.edu Tribal Resources: • Blackfeet Tribal Environmental Permits: http://www.blackfeetenvironmental.com • CSKT Natural Resources Department: http://nrd.csktribes.org/ • Montana Office of Indian Affairs: http://tribaInations.mt.gov/ • Tribal Historic Preservation Officer List: Search - NATHPO • Tribal Directory Assessment Tool (TDAT): https://egis.hud.gov/tdat/ Vehicle Traffic Count (MDT): http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/datastats/traffic.shtml Water • Stream Record Extension Facilitator, USGS: USGS I National Water Dashboard • Streamstats basin characteristics, USGS: http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/ • Water Resources Division, DNRC: http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/water; ArcGIS Web Application mt. ov • Water Rights Bureau, DNRC: http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/water/water-rights • Water Right Query System, DNRC: DNRC Water Right Query System (mt.gov) • Wetlands database, USFWS: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/mapper.html Wild and Scenic Rivers: http://www.rivers.gov/montana.php Wildlife • Animal Species, MT Field Guide: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/default.aspx • Animal Species of Concern: http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/Default.aspx?AorP=a • Aquatic Invasive Species: Montana FWP AIS Surveys Dashboard 2021 (arcgis.com) • Critical Habitat Mapper, USFWS: http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/ • Crucial Areas Planning System/Habitat Assessment Tool: Habitat MT(HB 526) Funded Lands (arcgis.com) • FWP Contact Map: http://fwp.mt.gov/gis/maps/contactUs/(includes biologist responsibility areas) • Maps and GIS Data, FWP: Montana Fish, Wildlife& Parks GIS Data (arcgis.com) • Sage grouse management, FWP: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks GIS Data : Sage-grouse Habitat/Current Distribution (Montana) : Sage-grouse Habitat/Current Distribution (Montana) (arcgis.com) • Sage grouse habitat conservation program, DNRC: http://sagegrouse.mt.gov/ • Sage grouse habitat map: https://sagegrouse.mt.gov/Program Map KLI 2611 Gabel Road Billings,MT 59102-7329 406 245 5499 KLJENG.COM September 1, 2022 Montana Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620 Re: City of Laurel, MT, Water System Preliminary Engineering Report To whom it may concern: KU is currently preparing a Preliminary Engineering Report(PER) for the City of Laurel's water system. As part of the PER, we are evaluating potential environmental impacts associated with various alternatives being considered and request your comments accordingly. Enclosed for your reference are exhibits showing proposed improvements for each alternative being considered. Proposed improvements primarily include installation of new water mains, a new storage tank and a new water pumping station to improve the City's existing water distribution system. Please provide comments related to any know environmental issues within the project areas considered with each alternative. Please mail comments to us by October 3, 2022 to allow for them to be considered in the proposed project scope. Feel free to call me at 406-247-2902 if you have any questions. Sincerely, KU Travis Copper, PE Project Engineer KLI 2611 Gabel Road Billings,MT 59102-7329 406 245 5499 KLJENG.COM September 6, 2022 Montana Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620 Re: City of Laurel, MT, Water System Preliminary Engineering Report To whom it may concern: This letter is an update to our request for comment pertaining to any know environmental issues pertaining to the above referenced project. Please be advised,we are considering two additional alternate tank sites. Attached are exhibits showing these locations. Please include these in your review. Sincerely, KU Travis Copper, PE Project Engineer KLI 2611 Gabel Road Billings,MT 59102-7329 406 245 5499 KLIENG.COM September 1, 2022 Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 1420 E 6th Helena, MT 59620 Re: City of Laurel, MT, Water System Preliminary Engineering Report To whom it may concern: KU is currently preparing a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER)for the City of Laurel's water system. As part of the PER,we are evaluating potential environmental impacts associated with various alternatives being considered and request your comments accordingly. Enclosed for your reference are exhibits showing proposed improvements for each alternative being considered. Proposed improvements primarily include installation of new water mains, a new storage tank and a new water pumping station to improve the City's existing water distribution system. Please provide comments related to any know environmental issues within the project areas considered with each alternative. Please mail comments to us by October 3, 2022 to allow for them to be considered in the proposed project scope. Feel free to call me at 406-247-2902 if you have any questions. Sincerely, KU Travis Copper, PE Project Engineer KLI 2611 Gabel Road Billings,MT 59102-7329 406 245 5499 KLIENG.COM September 6, 2022 Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 1420 E. 6th Helena, MT 59620 Re: City of Laurel, MT,Water System Preliminary Engineering Report To whom it may concern: This letter is an update to our request for comment pertaining to any know environmental issues pertaining to the above referenced project. Please be advised,we are considering two additional alternate tank sites. Attached are exhibits showing these locations. Please include these in your review. Sincerely, KU Travis Copper, PE Project Engineer KLI 2611 Gabel Road Billings,MT 59102-7329 406 245 5499 KLIENG.COM September 1, 2022 Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation P.O. Box 201601 Helena, MT 59620 Re: City of Laurel, MT,Water System Preliminary Engineering Report To whom it may concern: KU is currently preparing a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) for the City of Laurel's water system. As part of the PER, we are evaluating potential environmental impacts associated with various alternatives being considered and request your comments accordingly. Enclosed for your reference are exhibits showing proposed improvements for each alternative being considered. Proposed improvements primarily include installation of new water mains, a new storage tank and a new water pumping station to improve the City's existing water distribution system. Please provide comments related to any know environmental issues within the project areas considered with each alternative. Please mail comments to us by October 3, 2022 to allow for them to be considered in the proposed project scope. Feel free to call me at 406-247-2902 if you have any questions. Sincerely, K-_U��� Travis Copper, PE Project Engineer K L� 2611 Gabel Road Billings,MT 59102-7329 406 245 5499 KLIENG.COM September 6, 2022 Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation P.O. Box 201601 Helena, MT 69620 Re: City of Laurel, MT,Water System Preliminary Engineering Report To whom it may concern: This letter is an update to our request for comment pertaining to any know environmental issues pertaining to the above referenced project. Please be advised, we are considering two additional alternate tank sites. Attached are exhibits showing these locations. Please include these in your review. Sincerely, KU Travis Copper, PE Project Engineer ,( : K LJ 2611 Gabel Road Billings,MT 59102-7329 406 245 5499 KLJENG.COM September 1, 2022 Federal Aviation Administration 2725 Skyway Dr. Helena, MT 59602 Re: City of Laurel, MT, Water System Preliminary Engineering Report To whom it may concern: KU is currently preparing a Preliminary Engineering Report(PER)for the City of Laurel's water system. As part of the PER,we are evaluating potential environmental impacts associated with various alternatives being considered and request your comments accordingly. Enclosed for your reference are exhibits showing proposed improvements for each alternative being considered. Proposed improvements primarily include installation of new water mains, a new storage tank and a new water pumping station to improve the City's existing water distribution system. Please provide comments related to any know environmental issues within the project areas considered with each alternative. Please mail comments to us by October 3, 2022 to allow for them to be considered in the proposed project scope. Feel free to call me at 406-247-2902 if you have any questions. Sincerely, KU Travis Copper, PE Project Engineer KLI 2611 Gabel Road Billings,MT 59102-7329 406 245 5499 KLJENG.COM September 6, 2022 Federal Aviation Administration 2725 Skyway Dr Helena, MT 59602 Re: City of Laurel, MT,Water System Preliminary Engineering Report To whom it may concern: This letter is an update to our request for comment pertaining to any know environmental issues pertaining to the above referenced project. Please be advised, we are considering two additional alternate tank sites. Attached are exhibits showing these locations. Please include these in your review. Sincerely, K_.U��� Travis Copper, PE Project Engineer KLI 2611 Gabel Road Billings,MT 59102-7329 406 245 5499 KLIENG.COM September 1, 2022 State Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 201202 Helena, MT 59620 Re: City of Laurel, MT, Water System Preliminary Engineering Report To whom it may concern: KU is currently preparing a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) for the City of Laurel's water system. As part of the PER,we are evaluating potential environmental impacts associated with various alternatives being considered and request your comments accordingly. Enclosed for your reference are exhibits showing proposed improvements for each alternative being considered. Proposed improvements primarily include installation of new water mains, a new storage tank and a new water pumping station to improve the City's existing water distribution system. Please provide comments related to any know environmental issues within the project areas considered with each alternative. Please mail comments to us by October 3, 2022 to allow for them to be considered in the proposed project scope. Feel free to call me at 406-247-2902 if you have any questions. Sincerely, KU P>= Travis Copper, PE Project Engineer KLI 2611 Gabel Road Billings,MT 59102-7329 406 245 5499 KUENG.COM September 6, 2022 State Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 201202 Helena, MT 59620 Re: City of Laurel, MT,Water System Preliminary Engineering Report To whom it may concern: This letter is an update to our request for comment pertaining to any know environmental issues pertaining to the above referenced project. Please be advised,we are considering two additional alternate tank sites. Attached are exhibits showing these locations. Please include these in your review. Sincerely, KU Travis Copper, PE Project Engineer KLI 2611 Gabel Road Billings,MT 59102-7329 406 245 5499 KLJENG.COM September 1, 2022 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers 10 West 15th Street Ste. 2200 Helena MT 59626 Re: City of Laurel, MT,Water System Preliminary Engineering Report To whom it may concern: KU is currently preparing a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) for the City of Laurel's water system. As part of the PER,we are evaluating potential environmental impacts associated with various alternatives being considered and request your comments accordingly. Enclosed for your reference are exhibits showing proposed improvements for each alternative being considered. Proposed improvements primarily include installation of new water mains, a new storage tank and a new water pumping station to improve the City's existing water distribution system. Please provide comments related to any know environmental issues within the project areas considered with each alternative. Please mail comments to us by October 3, 2022 to allow for them to be considered in the proposed project scope. Feel free to call me at 406-247-2902 if you have any questions. Sincerely, KU Travis Copper, PE Project Engineer KLI 2611 Gabel Road Billings,MT 59102-7329 406 245 5499 KUENG.COM September 6, 2022 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 10 West 15th Street Ste. 2220 Helena, MT 59626 Re: City of Laurel, MT,Water System Preliminary Engineering Report To whom it may concern: This letter is an update to our request for comment pertaining to any know environmental issues pertaining to the above referenced project. Please be advised,we are considering two additional alternate tank sites. Attached are exhibits showing these locations. Please include these in your review. Sincerely, KU Travis Copper, PE Project Engineer KLI 2611 Gabel Road Billings,MT 59102-7329 406 245 5499 KLJENG.COM September 1, 2022 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 585 Shepherd Way Helena, MT 59601 Re: City of Laurel, MT, Water System Preliminary Engineering Report To whom it may concern: KU is currently preparing a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER)for the City of Laurel's water system. As part of the PER,we are evaluating potential environmental impacts associated with various alternatives being considered and request your comments accordingly. Enclosed for your reference are exhibits showing proposed improvements for each alternative being considered. Proposed improvements primarily include installation of new water mains, a new storage tank and a new water pumping station to improve the City's existing water distribution system. Please provide comments related to any know environmental issues within the project areas considered with each alternative. Please mail comments to us by October 3, 2022 to allow for them to be considered in the proposed project scope. Feel free to call me at 406-247-2902 if you have any questions. Sincerely, KU Travis Copper, PE Project Engineer KLI 2611 Gabel Road Billings,MT 59102-7329 406 245 5499 KLJENG.GOM September 6, 2022 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 585 Shepherd Way Helena, MT 59601 Re: City of Laurel, MT, Water System Preliminary Engineering Report To whom it may concern: This letter is an update to our request for comment pertaining to any know environmental issues pertaining to the above referenced project. Please be advised, we are considering two additional alternate tank sites. Attached are exhibits showing these locations. Please include these in your review. Sincerely, KU Travis Copper, PE Project Engineer DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,OMAHA DISTRICT HELENA REGULATORY OFFICE 100 NEILL AVENUE,SUITE 200 HELENA,MONTANA 59601-3329 October 28, 2022 SUBJECT: City of Laurel - Water System Improvement Alternatives - multiple waters (Yellowstone County), USACE File No. NWO-2022-01653-MT Travis Copper KLJ Engineering 2611 Gable Road Billings, Montana 59102 Dear Mr. Copper: This letter is in response to correspondence we received requesting comments or permitting information regarding the above-referenced project. Specifically, the project involves improvements to the water system throughout the City of Laurel. The project is located on or near Latitude 45.674558°, Longitude -108.771606°, in Section 9, Township 2 S, Range 24 E, Yellowstone County, Montana. This letter contains our initial comments on this project for your consideration. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that based on the information provided in your submittal, we are unable to ascertain if regulated activities are proposed or if jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are present within the project area. A Department of the Army (DA) permit may be required for the proposed activity. In lieu of a specific response, please consider the following general information concerning our regulatory program that may apply to the proposed project. If the proposal involves activity in navigable waters of the United States, it may be subject to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA). Within the state of Montana, portions of the Kootenai River, the Missouri River, and the Yellowstone River' are considered a navigable water of the U.S. Section 10 prohibits the construction, excavation, or deposition of materials in, over, or under navigable waters of the United States unless the work has been authorized by a DA permit. Structures or work outside the limits defined for navigable waters of the United States require a Section 10 permit if the structure or work affects the course, location, or condition of the water body. The law applies to any dredging or disposal of dredged materials, excavation, filling, rechannel ization, or any other modification of a navigable water of the United States, Section 10 waters in Montana are the Kootenai River(from the International Border between the United States and Canada downstream to Jennings Rapids near Jennings, Montana), the Missouri River and its impoundments (from its headwaters near Three Forks to the North Dakota state line), and the Yellowstone River (from Emigrant to the North Dakota state line). and applies to all structures, from the smallest floating dock to the largest commercial undertaking. If the proposal involves a discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, it may be subject to USACE jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Discharges of fill material generally include, without limitation: placement of fill that is necessary for the construction of any structure, or impoundment requiring rock, sand, dirt, or other material for its construction; site-development fills for recreational, industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways or road fills; dams and dikes; property protection or reclamation devices such as riprap, weirs, bulkheads, and revetments; levees or berms; fill for intake and outfall pipes and trenched utility lines; fill associated with the creation of ponds; and any other work involving the discharge of fill or dredged material. A DA permit is required whether the work is permanent or temporary. Waters of the U.S. include the area below the ordinary high water mark of stream channels, lakes or ponds connected to the tributary system, and wetlands adjacent to these waters (33 CFR § 328.3). Isolated waters and wetlands, as well as man-made channels, may be waters of the U.S. in certain circumstances, which must be determined on a case-by-case basis. CWA Section 301(a) prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, unless the work has been authorized by a Department of the Army permit under Section 404. Information about the USACE permitting process can be obtained online at http://www.nwo.usace.army.miI/Missions/RegulatoryProgram/Montana. The mission of the USACE Regulatory Program is to protect the Nation's aquatic resources while allowing reasonable development through fair, flexible and balanced permit decisions. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, we work to protect the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the Nation's aquatic resources. Projects are evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the potential benefits and detriments that may occur as a result of the proposal. Before a permit is issued or verified, the Corps must ensure that we've met all our obligations under any related federal and state laws. For all projects, the Corps will consult with other state and federal agencies and Native American tribes, as appropriate. USACE evaluation of a Section 10 and/or a Section 404 permit application involves multiple analyses; please see the attached document for additional information and resources for permitting. Useful documents, links, and information about Jurisdictional Determinations, Pre- Application Meetings, Permit Exemptions, Nationwide Permits, Regional Permits, Individual Permits, and Permit Applications and Permit Resources are available on our webpage: http://www.nwo.usace.army.miI/Missions/RegulatoryProgram/Montana. Prior to applying for a DA permit, the project proposer may request a pre-application consultation meeting with USACE (virtual or in-person, on or off-site) to obtain information regarding the information needed, alternatives, and options for permitting before an applicant makes irreversible commitments of resources (funds, detailed designs, materials, etc.). A pre-application meeting is strongly recommended if the proposal has substantial impacts to waters of the U.S., or if it is a large, unique, or controversial project. USACE Section 10/404 permits do not cover other potential authorizations that are often required. Others may include state or local permits such as a 310 Permit, SPA 124 Permit, 318 Authorization or 401 Water Quality Certification, Navigable Rivers Land Use License, or Floodplain Permit. Local and state governments issue permits or other authorizations to ensure compliance with local and state laws and regulations. The Corps permitting program is in place to ensure your project is in compliance with federal laws and regulations. Note that this letter is not a DA authorization to proceed. It only informs you of the need to obtain a DA permit if waters of the U.S. will be affected. If the final design includes the placement of fill material in any jurisdictional area described above, or otherwise requires authorization by a DA permit, please submit a Montana Joint Permit Application to this office prior to starting any work. After a review of the materials submitted, we will determine what type of permit, if any, will be required. If waters of the U.S. will not be affected by a jurisdictional activity a DA permit will not be required for the project. Please refer to identification number NWO-2022-01653-MT in any correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact the Montana Regulatory Office by email at Montana.Reg(a-)_usace.army.mil, or by telephone at (406) 441-1375. Sincerely, M o v"to vo rzee)LXLotor� Tea wt. The Omaha District, Regulatory Branch is committed to providing quality and timely service to our customers. In an effort to improve customer service, please take a moment to complete our Customer Service Survey found on our website at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/. Paper copies of the survey are also available upon request for those without Internet access. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Omaha District, Montana Additional Information and Resources for Permitting 1. Geographic and Activity Jurisdiction: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Regulatory Program, administers and enforces Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Under Section 10 of the RHA, a permit is required to do any work in, over or under a navigable water of the United States or to do any work that affects the course, location or condition of the waterbody in such a manner as to impact on its navigable capacity. Navigable waters in Montana include the Missouri River, most of the Yellowstone River and a portion of the Kootenai River, their impoundments and side channels. Under Section 404 of the CWA, a permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (WOTUS). WOTUS includes the area below the ordinary high water mark of river and stream channels, lakes or ponds connected to the tributary system, and wetlands adjacent to these waters. Isolated waters and wetlands, as well as man-made ditches and channels, may be WOTUS in certain circumstances, which must be determined by the Corps on a case-by-case basis. There are some activities that have been determined to be exempt from USACE regulation. For example, discharges resulting from normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities (plowing, seeding, cultivating, etc.) are generally not subject to regulation under Section 404 of the CWA. To be considered exempt, these activities must occur in the context of established (on-going) farming operations. You should obtain confirmation from the Corps to avoid a potential violation of federal law before conducting any discharge you believe is exempt. UPLAN S UPLANDS SECTION 404 SECTION 10 ----W (IF NAVIGABLE) BankTull Channel Width ? ORDINARY —- - _ HIGH WATER --___---- 1 Ordinary High Rater Normal Flow Upper Bank -I--Lower ; 'I'hatweg Bank 2. Pre-Application Meeting: Applicants can request a pre-application consultation or meeting —virtual or in- person, on or off-site. This is an optional step, but helpful in determining the information needed for permitting, additional authorizations that may be needed, alternatives, and options for permitting before an applicant makes irreversible commitments of resources (funds, detailed designs, materials, etc.). Send requests for Pre- App meetings to Montana.Reg(aDusace.army.mil and include information on point of contacts, location, and preliminary project details. 3. Application Submission: Applicants should submit their application package, including maps, plans and drawings to Montana.Reg(cD-usace.army.mi1. Submit complete, detailed, and thorough information regarding the project. Processing time cannot begin until the Corps receives complete application information, including proper drawings. We need to be able to locate the project (detailed location map) and easily determine and verify dimensions and position of the project (site plan and cross section drawings). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Omaha District, Montana Additional Information and Resources for Permitting 4. Aquatic Resource Inventory: The application package must include a delineation of waters of the United States and special aquatic sites, including wetlands or pool and riffle complexes, and other waters, such as lakes, ponds and ditches, and perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, on the project site. Wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with the current method required by USACE to include the use of the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and appropriate Regional Supplements. USACE can perform the delineation upon request; however, this may take time to schedule due to often high workloads in USACE District Regulatory offices. Therefore, delineations are typically performed by a consultant hired by the property owner and verified by USACE personnel. 5. Project Evaluations & Alternatives: USACE evaluation of a Section 10 and/or a Section 404 permit application involves multiple analyses, including (1) evaluating the proposal's impacts in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (33 CFR part 325), (2) determining whether the proposal is contrary to the public interest (33 CFR 320.4), and (3) in the case of a Section 404 permit, determining whether the proposal complies with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) (40 CFR part 230). If the proposal requires a Section 404 permit application, the Guidelines specifically require that "no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences" (40 CFR 230.10(a)). Time and money spent on the proposal prior to applying for a Section 404 permit cannot be factored into the Corps' decision whether there is a less damaging practicable alternative to the proposal. 6. Endangered Species and Critical Habitat: The Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the National Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate, if an activity that requires Federal authorization (such as a USACE permit) may affect endangered or threatened species or critical habitat. For non-Federal permittees, if any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the activity, or if the activity is located in designated critical habitat, the application must include the name(s) of those endangered or threatened species that might be affected by the proposed activity or utilize the designated critical habitat that might be affected by the proposed activity. The Service has developed an online system that allows users to find information about sensitive resources that may occur within the vicinity of a proposed project. The "Information, Planning and Conservation System," (IPaC), is located at: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/. 7. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires the Corps to take into account the effects that activities authorized by Department of the Army permits are likely to have on historical properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Any structure over fifty years of age is considered historic and is potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP unless it has been previously determined ineligible. State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO) are provided the opportunity to review and comment on all individual permit activities and certain general permit activities. For non-Federal permittees, if the activity might have the potential to cause effects to a historic property listed on, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on, the NRHP, the application must state which historic property might have the potential to be affected by the proposed activity or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic property. Inquiry with the Montana SHPO is recommended to determine the presence of any associated historic resources in the area. Contact information can be found at http://mhs.mt.gov/shpo. 8. Water Quality Certification: Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires any applicant for a permit for an activity that may result in the discharge of a pollutant into WOTUS to obtain a certification that the discharge will comply with applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. Applications for water quality certifications are reviewed by states, Tribes, or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Water quality certifications are required for USACE permits that authorize discharges of dredged or fill materials into WOTUS. Some of the Nationwide Permits (NWP) or Regional General Permits (RGP) have WQC granted for them already; individual permits and other NWP/RGP will require individual certification. Contact our office to determine the appropriate Water Quality Agency for your project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Omaha District, Montana Additional Information and Resources for Permitting 9. Mitigation: Mitigation consists of avoidance, minimization, and compensation. USACE requires that applicants consider and use all reasonable and practical measures to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources. You are required to submit a mitigation plan/statement with an application if impacts will occur to 0.10 acre of wetlands and/or 0.03 acre of stream. Compensatory mitigation is the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and in certain circumstances, preservation of aquatic resources to offset unavoidable adverse impacts. Compensatory mitigation is accomplished through purchase of credits from a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program, or permittee- responsible mitigation. During the application review process, the Corps will determine whether compensatory mitigation is necessary, and may require the applicant submit a plan for conducting proposed compensatory mitigation. 10. Activities Affecting Structures or Works Built by the United States: If any aspect of your proposed project is located within the vicinity of an existing USACE federally authorized Civil Works project (a "USACE project"), you may be required to seek permission from USACE pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408) and/or real estate related permissions. Alterations/modifications to completed USACE projects requires a USACE permission pursuant to Section 408. In addition, real estate permissions may be necessary if the proposed project would affect United States real estate interests managed by USACE. For information on our Section 408 request process or to determine whether a Section 408 or real estate permission is required, please contact: Section408NWO(@usace.army.miI 11. United States Coast Guard (USCG): In Montana, the Missouri River, portions of the Kootenai River, and the majority of the Yellowstone River are considered navigable waters of the U.S. as determined by USACE. The state of Montana considers additional waterways to be navigable waterways. The USCG is the agency with the authority to regulate the construction, operation, and maintenance of bridges and causeways in or across navigable waters under Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Aerial trams and conveyors, aqueducts, utility lines, overhead pipelines, and similar structures that are affixed to a bridge span over waters of the U.S., are themselves considered a bridge structure. If the proposed work involves bridging or crossing of a navigable water the work may be regulated by the USCG. To determine USCG requirements, please contact: Mr. Steven Fischer Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District (dpw) Federal Building 915 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98174-1067 (206) 220-7282 1 Steven.M.Fischer3(abuscg.mil 12. Other Federal, State, or Local Permits: A USACE Section 10/404 permit does not cover other potential authorizations that may be required. Others may include state or local permits such as a 310 Permit, SPA 124 Permit, 318 Authorization or 401 Water Quality Certification, Navigable Rivers Land Use License, or Floodplain Permit. Local and state governments issue permits or other authorizations to ensure compliance with local and state laws and regulations. The Corps permitting program is in place to ensure your project is in compliance with federal laws and regulations. See the Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation —Stream Permitting website for details: http://dn rc.mt.gov/divisions/cardd/conservation-districts/the-310-law APPENDIX I Public Outreach MINUTES CITY OF LAUREL PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MONDAY,JANUARY 30,2023 The Public Works Committee meeting was called to order at 6:00pm on Monday, January 30, 2023,by Committee Chair, Heidi Sparks. Members Present: Heidi Sparks- Chair, Iry Wilke- Vice-Chair, Jodi Mackay, Mary Carter,Jon Gotschall, Aron Kostelecky Others Present: Ryan Welsh-KLJ, Jesse Norman- Golf Course Board Member Public Input: None General Items 1. Approval of Minutes from December 19,2022. Iry Wilke made a motion to approve the minutes of December 19, 2022. Motion was seconded by Mary Carter. Motion carried 6-0 to approve the minutes. New Business 2. Emergency Call Out Report- Report attached 3. KLJ Report- Report attached ■ Items to note: o Splash Park has been added as a project. Looking at end of March for construction to begin. Permitting through DPHHS o S 4t' St Reconstruction- anticipate beginning April Old Business: 4. PER Water System Report discussion-report will be presented at City Council meeting in February ■ Background- Water storage tank only has 5-10 years left on the interior coating. Because this is the only water storage tank, cannot take offline due to fire suppression. PERS is to review current system, needs assessment, potential funding. ■ Needs have been assessed o Lack of redundancy o Areas of higher pressure and lower pressure in the system ■ Located 3 potential tank alternative sites o Recommended site is location 2, which is just north of the existing site o All options can support growth on the west end of Laurel o Jon state he would like to see an exhibit of future west-end growth against all 3 tank locations to determine service capability • Located 4 potential pump alternative sites o Recommended site is location 1, which utilizes parts of existing Murray Heights pump and currently owned City property ■ Located 3 areas of necessary redundancy • Jon made a motion to recommend to the city council to move forward with redundancy options D-IA, D-2 and D-3. Aron seconded. Motion carried 6-0 • Aron made a motion to recommend to the city council to move forward with pump alternative location 1. Iry seconded. Motion carried 6-0 • Aron made a motion to recommend to the city council to move forward with tank location 2. Iry seconded. Motion carried 6-0 Other Items 5. Mary asked about garbage cans without lids. Will these be replaced now that garbage rates have been increased? 6. Mary asked about the weeds at Anytime Fitness parking lot. He stated the new Code Enforcement officer stated that he is responsible for ensuring weeds are cut and taken care of. Will these be addressed by code enforcement? Announcements February Meeting cancelled due to holiday Next Meeting will be Monday,March 20, 2023, at 6:OOpm in Council Chambers Meeting adjourned at 7:31pm Emergency Call Out for January 30, 2023, Public Works Committee Meeting 12-20-2022 Water turn ❑ff 610 Washington 12-22-2022 Water turn off 215 Forrest 12-24-2022 Water turn off Roundhouse 1-27-2022 Jet rod sewer lines West 1"Street J. City of Laurel Project Status Update ` K L January 30, 2023 Splash Park Installation (KLJ#2204-01898) Reason for Project:To Replace the existing pool with a splash pad recreation area. Project Scope: To Construct a splash pad at the site of the existing City pool. Current Status: • Work Order Signed by City in January 2023 • Playspace Designs met with Parks Dept. Committee and Presented to City Council on tan. 17th • Timeline for Jan. 2^d Opening starts construction at the end of March. 2022 Pavement Maintenance Project (4E"Street Reconstruction) (KLJ#2104-00862) Reason for Project:To provide yearly maintenance and improvements to the City of Laurel Roads Network. Project Scope: Miscellaneous annual pavement maintenance design, bidding and construction in locations throughout the City of laurel Current Status: • Project Bid Opened on 5.5.22 • Contracts Executed 6.8.22 • Suspend Work Order issued 6.8.22 (Contractor to begin in Spring of 2023 • DEQ Approved on 10.7.22 • Pre-Construction Meeting held on 11.10.22 • Final Public Meeting held 11.9.22 • Working with MDT&M R L on getting RR crossing approved. • Contractor is scheduled to begin work in April Water System PER (KLJ#2104-00147) Reason for Project:To update the Preliminary Engineering Report that was completed in April 2014 with the most current information. Project Scope: To Update the existing computer model for the water distribution system; Review pressure zone,tank and booster station alternatives;Analyze up to 3 different sites for a new water tank and explore funding alternative for all potential projects. Page 1 of 4 ENGINEERING, REIMAGINED r City of Laurel Project Status Update KLI January 30, 2023 Current Status: • Draft PER near complete;currently evaluating potential funding sources ■ Being Presented to Public Works Committee on Jan. 301h, 2023 ■ Final PER report Southside Storm water Study (KLJ#2004-01470) Reason for Project:Analyze Laurels South side to determine needed improvements for storm water. Proiect Scope: :To complete a stormwater master plan for the areas south of the train tracks and west of Highway 212. Current Status: ■ Completed, need to discuss next steps in resolving outfall. WTP Lift Well Replacement (KLJ#2004-01487) Reason for Project.To replace a lift well at the Laurel Water Treatment Plant. Protect Scope: Reconstruction and rehabilitation of the lift well at the City of Laurel Water Treatment Plant. Current Status: • 100%review with Nathan completed February gth ■ ❑ECtapprovaI received March 14th ■ Pre-Bid conference was held on May 121n ■ Bid opening was held on May 1911 • Construction agreements executed • Submittal reviews are ongoing ■ Pre-Construction held 12.6.22 ■ Construction scheduled to start in January Laurel Planning Services (KLJ#1804-00554) Reason for Protect: KLJ has been retained to provide City of Laurel planning services as needed. Proiect Scope: Planning services may include;subdivision,zoning,development,floodplain hazard management, miscellaneous reviews and other related work. KU will prepare staff reports, recommendations, and attend meetings upon request. Curren t Sto tus: • Zoning Regulations Update. Task order sent to Kurt Page 2 of 4 ENGINEERING, REIMACINED •� KLI^ City of Laurel Project Status Update January 30, 2023 ■ Subdivision Regulations Update. In house project Planning Jurisdiction issues moving forward. • West Interchange Plan. Local match not budgeted • Downtown Pa rki ng Stud V.Waiting on building use information ■ Planner/Project Transition. Ongoing Laurel Capital Improvement Plan (KLJ##2104-00649) Reason for Project: KU has been retained by the City of Laurel to develop a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Project Scope: The CIP is primarily a planning tool for annual budgeting to assist Departments and the Governing Body establish project priorities and funding. Current Status: • Task Order executed • Kick-off meeting Department Heads • Initial structure of CIP generated • Department Heads contacted for additional projects. • Document is being drafted. • A meeting with City Department Heads needs to be scheduled in late November. • The document will be presented to a City Council Work Session • A Public Hearing before the City Council needs to be scheduled. Other Notes and Information Other pate ntial projects have been identified during recent conversations between City staff and KU. City Public Works staff and KU task leaders meet bi-weekly to discuss current and future projects.As these are tentative,the timing and extent of KU's services are TBD, unless noted otherwise. Anticipated FY22 Projects 1. Water System Planning a. Booster station rehabilitation or replacement(task order forthcoming) b. Water storage tank Preliminary Engineering Report 2. 7th Street reconstruction 3. Riverfront Park walking trail 4. Updates to Zoning regulations 5. Updates to Subdivision Regulations 6. West Interchange Neighborhood Plan 7. Grant writing assistance for the city. Other Potential Future Proiects Page 3 of 4 ENGINEERING, REIMAGINE❑ �4 J1� i City of Laurel Project Status Update KLI January 30, 2023 1. West Side TIFF Page 4 of 4 ENGINEERING, REIMAGINED MINUTES CITY OF LAUREL CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP TUESDAY, MAY 02, 2023 A Council.Workshop was held in Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Dave Waggoner at 6:30 p.m. on May 2, 2023. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Emelie Eaton _x_Heidi Sparks Michelle Mize _x_Richard Herr _x_Casey Wheeler _x_Iry Wilke _x_Richard Klose �x_Jodi Mackay OTHERS PRESENT: Michele Braukmann, Civil City Attorney Brittney Moorman, Council Administrative Assistant Kurt Markegard, Planning Director Ryan Welsh, KLJ Public Input: There were none. General Items 1, Poppy Day Proclamation There was no discussion on the agenda item. Executive Review 2. Resolution -A Resolution.Of The City Council Approving Amendments To Appropriations And Revenues For The City Of Laurel's Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget. It was questioned if these were revenues that were unexpected in General Fund. It was clarified that one is a revenue adjustment, and one is an expenditure adjustment. They are for this fiscal year. 3. Resolution- A Resolution Of The City Council Authorizing The City Of Laurel- Yellowstone City-County Planning Board To Work With City Staff To Prepare Comprehensive Updates To The City Of Laurel's Growth Management Plan. The County Commissioners tasked the City/County Planning Board with updating the Growth Management Plan, and it needs to be for the Laurel Planning jurisdiction, not the City of Laurel. This resolution is to task the City/County Planning Board with the task so that City Council and. the County Commissioners can adopt it simultaneously. Council Issues 4. Council Workshop Scheduled July 4th. Council asked that the July 4"'meeting be moved to July 11`h at 6:30 p.m., with City Council. Meeting to follow directly. 5. Savage Cat Rescue Presentation Laurie Savage Howard, with Savage Cat Rescue, presented the attached PowerPoint. It was questioned if cats are chipped during the TNVR process, and it was clarified that friendly cats are chipped. Council noted that many vaccinations only last for one to three years. It was questioned are these cats retrapped to be vaccinated again. It was clarified that the average lifespan of an outdoor cat is three to five years. Right now, the focus is on getting the initial vaccinations. Once a cat is trapped, they don't like to be retrapped. It was questioned if the rescue took pictures of the cats to identify them. It was clarified they do take pictures upon intake. They use a database called rescuregroups.org to keep track of the cats they trap. Mindy Bausch, 1845 Paynes Place, stated she moved onto their property in 2012. They had burned a brush pile, and unbeknownst to them, there was a litter of kittens in the pile, which were all killed. At that time, she took it upon herself to catch all the feral cats in the area and take them in to get spayed or neutered and get current on their vaccinations. She cared for 17 cats; of those 1.7, only one remains. Chloe Finn moved into an apartment in 2021. She didn't think the cat problem was her problem. However, that first year two kittens were killed because of cars. She is a college student and can't take care of all the cats. She started working with Savage Cat Rescue, and they went from 20 cats down to no cats by doing the TNVR process. Mayor Waggoner read the attached letter of support for Savage Cat Rescue. Council noted the ask was for$3,500. It was clarified that this was correct. It is 1/3 the overall expense to take care of the cats within Laurel. Other Items • Resolution—Small. Service Contract with True North The State requires the use of flowable fill, and it was not included in the original estimate. This small service contract is to cover the additional costs associated with the flowable fill. • Resolution—Preliminary Engineering Report Ryan Welsh, KLJ, presented the attached PowerPoint to Council. It was questioned what the life expectancy is for the booster stations, and it was clarified they are engineered for a 20-year life. However, the current booster stations have lasted 25 to 30 years. There will, however, be annual maintenance. It was questioned if all the options provided for the growth of the City. It was clarified that the new reservoir was engineered to accommodate growth for the next 50 years. The recommendations presented tonight mirror the recommendations presented to the Public Works Committee in January of this year. It was questioned if the airport could receive water from this new reservoir. It was clarified that the airport would be located above this water reservoir, and it is not cost-effective to build water out to the airport at this time. This reservoir will resolve the pressure issues in Murray Heights and Elena subdivisions. It will also allow for growth. This design allows for two established pressure zones. It was further clarified that having a 2"d reservoir will allow for redundancy to allow for maintenance to be done on the first reservoir. Attendance at Upcoming Council Meeting All Council Members present will attend next week's City Council meeting. Announcements Park Board's next meeting will be Thursday at 5:30 p.m. in Council Conference Room. The council workshop adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfull submitted, Brittne#Adnmilinistrati n Counci Assistant NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of the Council for the listed workshop agenda items. AGENDA CITY OF LAUREL NEXT RES.NO. a CITY COUNCIL MEETING R23-28 AU� R� TUESDAY,MAY 09, 2023 NEXT ORD.NO. 6:30 PM 023-03 COUNCIL CHAMBERS WELCOME . . . By your presence in the City Council Chambers, you are participating in the process of representative government. To encourage that participation, the City Council has specified times for citizen comments on its agenda --once following the Consent Agenda, at which time citizens may address the Council concerning any brief community announcement not to exceed one minute in duration for any speaker;and again following Items Removed from the Consent Agenda, at which time citizens may address the Council on any matter of City business that is not on tonight's agenda. Each speaker will be limited to three minutes, unless the time limit is extended by the Mayor with the consent of the Council. Citizens may also comment on any item removed from the consent agenda prior to council action, with each speaker limited to three minutes, unless the time limit is extended by the Mayor with the consent of the Council. If a citizen would like to comment on an agenda item, we ask that you wait until the agenda item is presented to the Council by the Mayor and the public is asked to comment by the Mayor. Once again, each speaker is limited to three minutes. Any person who has any question concerning any agenda item may call the City Clerk-Treasurer's office to make an inquiry concerning the nature of the item described on the agenda. Your City government welcomes your interest and hopes you will attend the Laurel City Council meetings often. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call of the Council Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes of April 25, 2023. Correspondence 2. Police Monthly Report - April 2023. Council Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications Public Hearing Consent Items NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The Consent Calendar adopting the printed Recommended Council Action will be enacted with one vote. The Mayor will first ask the Council members if any Council member wishes to remove any item from the Consent Calendar for discussion and consideration. The matters removed from the Consent Calendar will be considered individually at the end of this Agenda under "Items Removed from the Consent Calendar."(See Section 12) The entire Consent Calendar, with the exception of items removed to be discussed under"Items Removed from the Consent Calendar,"is then voted upon by roll call under one motion. 3. Claims Entered through May 5, 2023. 4. Approve Payroll Register for PPE 4/30/2023 totaling $232,672.19. 5. Council Workshop Minutes of November 15, 2022. 6. Closed Executive Session Minutes of November 15, 2022. 7. Council Workshop Minutes of December 6, 2022. 8. Council Workshop Minutes of December 20, 2022. 9. Council Workshop Minutes of January 3, 2023. 10. Council Workshop Minutes of January 17, 2023. 11. Council Workshop Minutes of February 7, 2023. 12. Council Workshop Minutes of February 21, 2023. 13. Special Council Workshop of February 28, 2023. 14. Council Workshop Minutes of March 7, 2023. 15. Council Workshop Minutes of March 21, 2023. 16. Closed Executive Session Minutes of March 28, 2023. 17. Council Workshop Minutes of April 4, 2023. 18. Council Workshop Minutes of April 18, 2023. 19. Council Workshop Minutes of May 2, 2023. Ceremonial Calendar 20. Poppy Day Proclamation Reports of Boards and Commissions 21. Budget/Finance Committee Minutes of April 25, 2023. Audience Participation (Three-Minute Limit) Citizens may address the Council regarding any item of City business that is not on tonight's agenda. Comments regarding tonight's agenda items will be accepted under Scheduled Matters. The duration for an individual speaking under Audience Participation is limited to three minutes. While all comments are welcome, the Council will not take action on any item not on the agenda. Scheduled Matters 22. Resolution No. R23-28: A Resolution Of The City Council Approving Amendments To Appropriations And Revenues For The City Of Laurel's Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget. 23. Resolution No. R23-29: A Resolution Of The City Council Authorizing The City Of Laurel- Yellowstone City-County Planning Board To Work With City Staff To Prepare Comprehensive Updates To The City Of Laurel's Growth Management Plan. 24. Resolution No. R23-30: A Resolution Of The City Council Authorizing The Mayor To Execute An Independent Contractor Service Contract With True North Contracting. 25. Resolution No. R23-31: A Resolution Of The City Council Approving And Adopting The Updated Water System Preliminary Engineering Report Prepared By KLJ Engineering, Inc. For The City Of Laurel. Items Removed From the Consent Agenda Community Announcements (One-Minute Limit) This portion of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for citizens to address the Council regarding community announcements. The duration for an individual speaking under Community Announcements is limited to one minute. While all comments are welcome, the Council will not take action on any item not on the agenda. Council Discussion Council members may give the City Council a brief report regarding committees or groups in which they are involved. Mayor Updates Unscheduled Matters Adjournment The City makes reasonable accommodations for any known disability that may interfere with a person's ability to participate in this meeting. Persons needing accommodation must notify the City Clerk's Office to make needed arrangements. To make your request known,please call 406-628-7431,Ext.2,or write to City Clerk,PO Box 10,Laurel, MT 59044,or present your request at City Hall, 115 West First Street,Laurel,Montana. DATES TO REMEMBER