Table Of ContentFFFIIINNNAAALLL FFFEEEAAASSSIIIBBBIIILLLIIITTTYYY SSSTTTUUUDDDYYY
DDRRYY RREEDDWWAATTEERR RREEGGIIOONNAALL WWAATTEERR
AAUUTTHHOORRIITTYY
JJUUNNEE 22000066
Submitted By:
interstate engineering, inc.
P . O . B o x 6 4 8
Sidney, MT 59270
Ph: (406)433-5617; Fax: (406)433-5618
www.iengi.com
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
FOR
DRY-REDWATER REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY
DAWSON, GARFIELD, McCONE,
PRAIRIE AND RICHLAND COUNTY
S04-80
Mike McKeever, Chairman – Garfield County
Pat Eggebrecht, Vice-Chairman – McCone County
Roger Meyer, Secretary – Richland County Conservation District
Tod Kasten, Treasurer – McCone County Conservation District
Mayor John Whiteman – Richey Board Representative
Marco Unruh – Dawson County Conservation District
Baan Wille – Jordan
Dean Rogge – Garfield County Conservation District
Harry Helegeson – Circle
I, Brian Milne, hereby certify that this
Feasibility Report was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision. I
further certify that I am a Registered
Professional Engineer under the laws
of the State of Montana.
________________________________
Date 7/3/06
INDEX
Executive Summary & Conclusion i to vi
Chapter 1 Introduction 1-1 to 1-12
Chapter 2 Project Area Resources 2-1 to 2-15
Chapter 3 Existing Facilities 3-1 to 3-7
Chapter 4 Need For Project 4-1 to 4-6
Chapter 5 Permit Requirements and Responsibilities 5-1 to 5-3
Chapter 6 Preliminary Design 6-1 to 6-24
Chapter 7 Cultural and Environmental Issues 7-1 to 7-9
Chapter 8 Project Alternative Cost Estimates 8-1 to 8-7
Chapter 9 Plan Selection 9-1 to 9-4
Chapter 10 Public Involvement 10-1 to 10-9
Chapter 11 Project Financial Plan 11-1 to 11-4
Chapter 12 Implementation 12-1 to 12-2
Appendix (separate document)
FIGURE INDEX
i.1 DRWA Study Area i
i.2 Selected Alternative: Areas Served v
1.1.1 Study Area’s Relative Location 1-1
1.1.2 Original Study Boundary 1-2
1.1.3 Signed Up Users Location Map 1-3
1.4.1 Project Service Area 1-7
1.10.1 Area Roadways 1-12
2.1.1 General Geological Map of Montana 2-1
2.1.2 Land Forms and Groundwater Resources of Montana 2-2
2.1.3 Project Area – Relief Map 2-3
2.2.1 Project Area – Major Surface Water Resources 2-4
2.3.1 Project Area – Land Cover 2-5
FIGURE INDEX continued
2.4.1 Municipal Water Systems 2-13
3.1.1 Town of Circle 3-1
3.2.1 Town of Jordan 3-3
3.3.1 Town of Richey 3-5
3.4.1 Town of Lambert 3-6
6.1 Dry Redwater Service Area 6-1
6.6.1 Mode Segment Map 6-13
6.6.1.1 Major Modeling Symbols 6-14
6.7.1 Circle WTP Model 6-17
6.7.2 Big Dry Arm WTP Model 6-18
6.7.3 Jordan WTP Model 6-19
6.7.4 Circle – Jordan WTP Model 6-20
6.7.5 Garfield WTP Model 6-21
8.2.1 Alternative A 8-1
8.3.1 Alternative B 8-3
8.4.1 Alternative C 8-5
8.6.1 Circle WTP Model 8-7
TABLE INDEX
1.7.1 Sign Up Summary 1-8
2.3.1 Water Quality Limits 2-6 to 2-7
2.3.2 Water Quality of Wells Currently Being Used in McCone 2-8 to 2-9
and Garfield Counties
2.3.3 Secondary Standards for Inorganic Contaminants 2-9
(Partial Listing)
2.5.1 2000 Population by County Subdivision 2-14
2.6.1 Average Median Household Income by County 2-14
2.6.2 Median Household Income by Community 2-15
4.1.1 National Primary Drinking Water Standards 4-3 to 4-4
4.1.2 National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations 4-4 to 4-5
6.1.1 County Populations 6-2
6.1.2 County Housing Units 6-2
6.1.3 Persons/Housing Unit 6-2
6.2.1 Interest Survey Summary 6-3
6.3.1 Estimated Water Use by County 6-4
6.3.2 Estimated Average Water Use by Populated Communities 6-5
6.3.3 Average Water Demand by Populated Communities 6-5
6.3.4 Equivalent Dwelling Units 6-6
6.3.5 Water Demands Summary 6-6
6.4.1 Conventional Water Treatment Processes 6-10
6.6.2.1 Pipe Material, Rating and Roughness 6-15
7.2.1 Land Uses, Cultural Resources and Environmental 7-2
Resources Affected by the Project
9.1.1 Average Median Household Income by County 9-1
9.3.1 Economic Evaluation 9-2
9.3.2 Analysis of Alternatives 9-3
ACRONYMS
A/AUM ACRES / ANIMAL UNIT MONTH
ARM ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF MONTANA
AU ANIMAL UNIT
BOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
CEIC CENSUS AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION CENTER
CMR-NWR CHARLES M. RUSSELL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
DEQ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DNRC DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND
CONSERVATION
DRWA DRY-REDWATER REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY
EA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EDU EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT
EIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
EPA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FONSI FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
GPM GALLONS PER MINUTE
GWR GROUND WATER RULE
HHAs HALOACETIC ACIDS
MCL MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL
MDT MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MEPA MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
MG/L MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
MHI MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
MR&I MUNICIPAL, RURAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY
PROGRAM
NEPA NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
NSDWR NATIONAL SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
O&M OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
PACL POLYALUMINUM CHLORIDE
ACRONYMS continued
PAHS ALUM-POLYALUMINUM HYDROXYL SULFATE
PEMA NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY SYMBOL FOR A
SEASONALLY FLOODED BASIN
PEMC NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY SYMBOL FOR A SHALLOW
SLOUGH
PPB PARTS PER BILLION
RUS RURAL UTILITY SERVICE
SHPO STATE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION OFFICE
SWR SURFACE WATER RULE
TDS TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TSEP TREASURE STATE ENDOWMENT PROGRAM
TTHMs TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANES
USACOE UNITED STATES ARMY CORP OR ENGINEERS
USFWS UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
WTP WATER TREATMENT PLANT
APPENDIX INDEX
A Agreement forming Dry Redwater Regional Water Authority
By-Laws and Rules
B Area Well Quality Information
C Existing Water System Information
D User Sign-up Sheet Summary
E Public Involvement – Newspaper Articles, Public Meeting Rosters,
Information Meeting / Environmental Presentation
F Support Letters / Project Correspondence
G Effects of Water Quality and Performance of Growing Steers / EPA Water
Quality Data
H Good Intention Fee Hook-Up Summary (June 8, 2006)
I Computer Modeling Information and Cost Estimates
J North Richland County / West Glendive Information
Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority - Feasibility Study
i. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
& CONCLUSION
PURPOSE
A feasibility study is the first step in developing a regional water system. In this study a
service area (the counties of Garfield, McCone, Dawson and Richland) was developed
and a study area (Figure i.1) was evaluated. This evaluation included the number of
potential water users, the potential locations, size and type of a water treatment facility, a
potential waterline network, the anticipated operation and maintenance costs and a
proposed water rate structure. The information contained in the feasibility study has the
necessary detail to determine if the project can advance to the next level, which is gaining
authorization from Congress. The formation of a regional water authority is necessary to
secure Federal authorization.
A steering committee working with the McCone County Conservation District did the
ground work to form a water authority. The name of the Authority is the Dry-Redwater
Regional Water Authority (DRWA), which includes the following initial member
entities: Town of Jordan, Town of Richey, Town of Circle, Dawson County Conservation
District, Richland County Conservation District, McCone Conservation District, Garfield
County Conservation District, McCone County and Garfield County. This entity was
formed December 12, 2005. The table below shows the DRWA Board Members as of
May 10, 2006.
Mike McKeever, Chairman Garfield County
Pat Eggebrecht, Vice Chairman McCone County
Roger Meyer, Secretary Richland County Conservation District
Tod Kasten, Treasurer McCone County Conservation District
Mayor John Whiteman Richey Board Representative
Marco Unruh Dawson County Conservation District
Baan Wille Jordan
Dean Rogge Garfield County Conservation District
Harry Helegeson Circle
The general purpose for which the DRWA was formed is to own and operate a regional
water system that will provide a high quality water supply to the users in the service area.
It is the long term solution to provide good quality and quantity of household and
livestock water to the service area. The DRWA is responsible for the financial
administration of the system, operation and maintenance of the billing and collection and
all other duties and or items required for and in the operation of a regional water authority
in the State of Montana.
Executive Summary & Conclusion
i
Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority - Feasibility Study
Figure i.1
DRWA Study Area
NEED FOR THE PROJECT
The rural residents in the proposed project area currently obtain their water, in the
majority of instances, from private wells drilled into shallow aquifers, gravel pockets
or deep confined aquifers. Some rural residents are hauling water either because their
well water is undrinkable or there is not a sufficient quantity to be usable. Many rural
residents do report water quality and/or quantity problems, which is evidenced by the
chart of private well water quality found in Chapter 2, Table 2.3.2 of this study. The
majority of the proposed communities to be served are currently operating their own
municipal water systems; all of the communities are using wells as a source of water.
Three communities must treat their water because of high levels of fluoride which is a
health hazard and a regulated contaminant. The fourth community – Jordan – does
not treat its water but it is high in sodium and total dissolved solids which are not
currently regulated, but has detrimental effects on those drinking it.
Based upon preliminary review of the water quality in the wells of rural users in the
proposed service area it indicated that the majority of them do not have access to a
quality of water needed for a healthy existence. Table 2.3.2 shows a sampling of
water well quality is found in Chapter 2 along with tables showing the National
Drinking Water Standards. One of the wells on that list serves Garfield County
School District No. 15 and it shows that the sodium level is 447 ppm which exceeds
Executive Summary & Conclusion
ii
