Loading...
2010 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING CLANCY WASTWATER 10.1.2 B Clancy,Jefferson County FUNDING OPTIONS FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION&TREATMENT PROJECT WITH ELKHORN(PRESSURIZED) SCE.NAR10#1 SCENARIO#2 SCENARIO#3 SCENARIO#4 SCENARIO#5 No Grants Market TSEP,DNRC,CDBG, TSEP,DNRC,CDBG, Rate Loan SRF TSEP,DNRC,Federal TSEP,DNRC,Federal Federal GRANTS w/RD Federal GRANTS w/RD Loan (4.25%/40 GRANTS w/RD Loan GRANTS w/RD Loan Gran (Loan(3.375%/40 Grant/Loan(3.375%/40 ITEM yrs) (3.375%/40 yrs) (3.375%/40 yrs) yrs) yrs) Collection&Treatment System $5,984,000 $5,984,000 $5,984,000 $5,984,000 55984,000 Rounded Total $5,984,000 $5,984,000 $5,984,000 $5,984,000 $5,984,000 TSEPCmmt SO $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 5750.000 DNRC Grant $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 5100,000 CDBG Gram $0 $0 50 $0 54511,000 S IAG/WRDA Grant $0 $0 $0 $0 511 Additional Federal Appropriation RD Grant $1,900,000 $1,900,000 SKE Loan(30 Years) $5,984,000 $5,234,000 $5,134,000 RD Loan(40 Years) $0 $0 $0 $3,234,000 $2,784,000 Total Project Funds $5,984,000 $5,984,000 $5,984,000 $5,984,000 $5,984,000 SRE Bond Reserve(I car a menq 5430,938 $376,927 $369,725 50 $0 Total Loan Amount $6,414,938 $5,610,927 $5,503,715 $3,234,000 $2,784,000 Annual Loan Paymcm $421,470 $258,110 $253,180 $148,770 $128,070 1 Loan Payments Over Life of Loan $8,429,400 $10,324,400 S 10,127200 $5,950,800 $5,122,800 Total Interest Paid Over Life of Loan $2,014,462 $4,713,473 $4,623,475 $2,716,800 $2,338,800 Annual Loan Coverage $84,294 $25,811 $25,318 $14,877 $12,807 TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL DEBT'SERVICE COST $505,764 $283,921 $278,498 $163,647 $140,877 User Capital CosVMowh $271.92 $152.65 $149.73 $8298 575.74 Current Annual O&M' $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Current Annual Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Additional O&M Due To Project $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 548,000 $48,0811 TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS $34,500 $34,500 $34,500 $34,500 $34,500 User 0&if Cost/Month 518.55 518.55 518.55 $18.55 518.55 USER COST/MONTH FOR PROJECT $290.46 $171.19 $168.28 $106.53 $94.29 Existing Average User Cost/MOnth11)tI $0.00 50.00 5000 50.00 50.00 COST/MONTH INCREASE/EDU $290.46 $171.19 $168.28 $106.53 $94.29 Existing Otber System Cost/Month SO.00 $0.110 $0.00 $0.0f1 50.00 Total Proposed Sewer Cost/Month $290.46 $171.19 5168.28 $106.53 $94.29 Target Rate(Clancy CDP) $39.70 $39.70 539.70 539.70 $39.70 PERCENT OF COMBINED TARGET RA IT 731.6% 431.2% 423.9% 268.3% 237.5% Based on 2010 budgeted annual water O&M less budgeted depreciation values for facilities,pwnping equip,venL and dnb,b.u,,cyulpt.uk. 'Table as band on an estimated 155 EUU's 10.1.2 B Clancy,Jefferson County FUNDING OPTIONS FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION&TREATMENT PROJECT-SOUTH AREA SCENARIO#1 SCENARIO#2 SCENARIO#3 SCENARI0#4 SCENARIO 05 No Grants Market TSEP,DNRC,CDBG, Rate Loan SRF TSEP,DNRC,Federal TSEP,DNRC,Federal TSEP,DNRC,Federal Federal GRANTS w/RD Loan (4.25%/40 Grants w/SRF Loan Grants w/SRF Loan GRANTS w/RD Loan Grant(Loan(3.375%/40 ITEM yrs) (2.75%/20 yrs) (2.75%/30 yrs) (3.375%140 yrs) yrs) Collection&TreatmentS .tem $1,940,000 $1,940,000 $1,940,000 $1,940,000 $1,940,000 Rounded Total $1,940,000 $1,940,000 $1,940,000 $1,940,000 $1,9409000 'TSEP Grant $0 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 5750,000 DNRC Grant $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 CDBGGrant $0 $0 $0 $0 5450,000 STAG/WRDA Grant $0 $O $0 $0 $0 Additional Federal Appropriation RD Grant $490,500 $288,000 SRFLcan $1,940,000 $1,190,000 $1,090,000 $0 RD Loan(40 Years) $0 $0 $0 $599,500 $352,000 Total Project Funds $1,940,000 $1,940,000 $1,940,000 $1,940,000 $1,940,000 SRF Bond Reserve(I year payment) $139,709 $85,698 $78,496 $o $0 Total Loan Amount $2,079,709 $1,275,698 $1,168,496 $599,500 $352,000 Annual Loan Payment $136,640 $83,820 $61,580 $27,580 516,200 I Loan Payments Over Life of Loan $2,732,800 $1,676,400 $1,847,400 $1,103,200 $648,000 "1"otal Interest Paid Over Life of Loan $653,091 $400,702 $678,904 $503,700 $296,000 Annual Loan Coverage $27,328 $16,764 $12,316 $2,758 $1,620 TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL DEBT SERVICE COST $163,968 $100,584 $73,896 $30,338 $17,820 User Capital Cntr/Month $153.04 $155.22 $114.04 $46.81 $27.50 Current Annual O&M' $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Current Annual Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Additional O&M Due To Project $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 User O&M Cost/Month $50.93 550.93 $50.93 550.93 550.93 USER COST/MONTH FOR PROJECT $303.96 $206.15 $164.96 $97.74 $78.43 Existing Average User Cost/Month/EDIT $0.00 $0.00 $11.00 50.00 $0.00 COST/MONTH INCREASE(EDU $303.96 $206.15 $164.% $97.74 $78.43 Existing Other System Cost/Month $0.00 S(wo 50.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Proposed Sewer Cost/Month $303.96 $206.15 $164.96 $97.74 $78.43 Target Rate(Clancy CDP) $39.70 $39.70 $39.70 $39.70 $39.70 PERCENT OF COMBINED TARGET RATE 765.6% 519.3% 415.5% 246.2% 197.5 Bascdon 2011)budgetad annual water O&M Icss budgeted depredation values for facilitic..pumping equipment,and distribution equipment. 'Tablc is bared on an estimated 54 EDU's 10.1.2 B Clancy,Jefferson County FUNDING OPTIONS FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION&TREATMENT PROJECT-NORTH AREA SCENARIO#1 SCENARIO#2 SCENARIO#3 SCENARIO#4 SCENARIO#5 No Grants Market TSEP,DNRC,CDBG, Rate Loan SRF TSEP,DNRC,Federal TSEP,DNRC,Federal TSEP,DNRC,Federal Federal GRANTS w/RD Loan (4.25%/40 Grants w/SRF Loan Grants w/SRF Loan GRANTS w/RD Loan Grant/Loan(3.375%140 ITEM Yrs) (2.75%/20 yrs) (2.75%/30 yrs) (3.375%/40 yrs) yrs) Collection&Treatment Systent $3,966,000 $3,966,000 $3,966,000 $3,966,000 $3,966,000 Rounded Total $3,966,000 $3,966,000 $3,966,000 $3,%6,000 $3,966,000 TSEP Grant SO $750,000 5750,000 $750,000 $750,000 DNRC Giant $0 SO $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 CDBG Giant $0 $0 $0 $0 $450,000 STAG/WRDA Grant $0 $0 $0 $0 Additional Federal Appropriation RDGrant $1,402,200 51,199,700 SRF Loan $3,966,000 53,216,000 $3,116,000 RD Loan(40 Years) 50 $0 $0 $1,713,800 $1,466,300 Total Project Funds $3,966,000 $3,966,000 $3,966,000 $3,966,000 $3,966,000 SRF Bond Reserve(1 year payment) $285,611 5231,600 $224,399 50 $0 Total Loan Amount $4,251,611 $3,447,600 $3,340,399 $1,713,800 $1,466,300 Annual Loan Payment $279,340 $226,510 $176,040 $78,840 $67,450 Total Loan Pa is Over Life of term $5,586,800 $4,530,200 $5,281,200 $3,153,600 $2,698,000 Total Interest Paid Over Life of Loan $1,335,189 $1,082,600 $1,940,801 $1,439,800 $1,231,700 Annual Loan Coverage $55,868 $459302 $359208 $7,884 $6,745 TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL DEBT SERVICE COST $335,208 $271,812 $211,248 $86,724 $74,195 User Capitol Cost/Month $276.57 $224.27 $174.30 $71.55 861.22 Current Annual O&M' $0 50 $0 $0 $0 Current Annual Debt Service $0 $0 $0 50 $0 Additional O&M Due To Project $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 User 0&M CosUMonrh $27.23 $27.23 $27.23 $27.23 $27.23 USER COST/MONTH FOR PROJECT $303.80 $251.50 $201.52 $98.78 $88.44 F,xisting Avenge User C'ost/Month/EDU $0.00 $11.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 COST/MONTH INCREASE/EDU $303.80 $251.50 $201.52 $98.78 $88.44 Existing Other System Cost/Month $0.011 $0.00 50.00 WA) $0.00 Total Proposed Sewer Cost/Month $303.80 $251.50 S201.52 $98.78 $88.44 Target Rate(Clancy CDP) $39.70 539.70 $39.70 $39.70 $39.70 PERCENT OF COMBINED TARGET RATE 765.2% 633.5% 507.6% 248.8% 222.8 Based on 2010 budgeted annual water O&M lets budgeted depreciation values for facilities,pmopinF cyuipment.and distribution equipment. lable is based on an estitosted 101 EDUs is °� �e �- � ���dl - �,� JEFFERSON COUNTY - CLANCY Preliminary Engineering Report Wastewater System Improvements July 2010 Prepared for: Jefferson County Commission ON T Prepared by: 70 0 K Rich Filibach, PE KUXHAUSJ it rzN Todd Kuxhaus, PE V%. �s�3 QA/QC by: jr, G' Fred Phillips, PE engineering Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary 1 1.1 Introduction and Background 1 1.2 Problem Definition 1 1.3 Alternatives Considered 2 1.4 Preferred Alternative 2 1.5 Project Costs and Budget 4 2.0 Introduction and Problem Definition 5 2.1 Planning Area and Existing/Potential Service Area 6 2.2 Location 8 2.3 Physical Characteristics of the Area 9 23.1 Topography 9 2.3.2 Area Soils and Geology 11 2.3.3 Groundwater 11 • 2.3.4 Surface Water 11 23.5 Vegetation 13 14 Environmental Resources Present 13 1 Land Resources _.�._ Bioloeical Resoui,,:es. 14 x.4.3 `Ykater Resources 14 2.4.4 Floodplains 14 2.4.5 Wetlands 15 2.4.6 Cultural Resources 15 2.4.7 Socio-economic and Environmental Justice Issues 15 2.5 Growth Areas and Population Trends 16 3.0 Evaluation of Existing System 18 3.1 Analysis of Existing System 18 3.1.1 Existing Flows is 3.1? Hydraulic and Organic Loading 19 3.1.3 Treatment Stanaards 20 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 3.1.4 Operational and Management Practices 20 3.2 Financial Status of Existing System 20 4.0 Need for The Project 21 4.1 Health and Safety 21 4.2 System O&M 21 4.3 Growth 21 4.4 Unresolved Problems 22 5.0 General Design Requirements 23 5.1 Montana Public Water Supply Act 23 5.1.1 Circular DEQ-2: Design Standards for Wastewater Facilities 23 5.1.2 Circular DEQ-4: Standards for Subsurface Wastewater Treatment Systems 23 5.2 Existing and Design Flows 24 5.3 Hydraulic and Organic Loading 24 5.4 Regulatory Requirements and Permits �4 5.4.1 U.S. Clean Water Act 24 5.4.2 Montana Water Quality Act 25 5.4.3 Montana Waste«ater Treatment Reyoly ine Fund 26 54.4 Montana Public Water Supple Act 26 5.4 5 Public Health Laws '-6 5.4.6 Construction Pennits 26 5.4.7 Numeric Nun lent Water Quality Standards 26 5.4.8 TMDL Considerations 29 5.4.9 Surface Water Discharge 31 5.4.10 Groundwater Discharge 32 5.4.1 1 Land Application 32 5.5 Treatment 32 5.6 Collection 33 5.7 Lift Stations 33 5.8 Sludge 33 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • 6.0 Alternative Screening Process 34 6.1 Collection System Alternatives 34 6.1.1 Gravity Collection 34 6.1 .2 Pressurized Collection System 34 6.1.3 Gravity / Pressurized Hybrid System 35 6.2 Lift Station Alternatives 35 6.3 Treatment Alternatives 35 6.3.1 No Action Alternative 36 6.3.2 Total Retention Ponds (Evaporation) 36 6.3.3 Storage and Irrigation (Low Rate Land Application) 36 6.3.4 Naturally Aerated Facultative Lagoons with Surface Water or Groundwater Discharge 37 6.3.5 Mechanically Aerated Lagoons with Surface Water or Groundwater Discharge 38 6.3.6 Septic Tank/Pressure Dosed Drainfield 39 6.3.7 Septic Tank / Level 2 / Pressure Dosed Drainfield 39 6.3.8 Constructed Wetlands 40 63.9 Biolouical Nutrient Removal (BNR) Mechanical Treatment Plant with Discharge to either Surface Water or Groundwater 41 7.0 Alternative AnalYsis 44 7.1 Collection System Alternatives 44 7.1.1 Alternative CS-1 : Gravity Collection — Street Layout 44 7.1.2 Alternative CS-2: Gravity Collection—Alley Layout 48 7.2 Lift Station Alternatives 53 7.2.1 Alternative L-1: Single Centralized Lift Station 53 7.3 Treatment Alternatives 57 7.3.1 Alternative T-1 : No Action Alternative 57 7.3.2 Alternative T-2: Storage and Irrigation (Low Rate Land Application) 59 73.3 Alternative T-3: Septic Tank / Level 2 Treatment Pressure Dosed Drainfield 68 7.3.4 Alternative T-5: Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Mechanical Treatment Plant 74 i 4 Project Site Alternatives 80 iii Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • 7.4.1 Alternative S-l: Chokecheny Lane 80 7.4.2 Alternative S-2: Lump Gulch 81 7.4.3 Alternative S-3: Marks Bench 84 7.4.4 Alternative S-4: Sunnyside Lane 86 7.4.5 Alternative S-5: Across 1-15 88 8.0 Selection of Preferred Alternative 90 8.1 Ranking Criteria 90 8.1.1 Technical Feasibility 90 8.1.2 Environmental Impacts 90 8.13 Financial Feasibility 91 8,1.4 Public Health and Safety 91 8.1.5 Operational and Maintenance Considerations 91 8.1 .6 Public Comments 91 8.2 Scoring of Collection System Alternatives 92 82.1 Technical Feasibility 9_1- • 8?2 Environmental Impacts 92 I 82.3 Financial Feasibility 92 8.14 Public Health and Safety 92 82.5 Operational and Maintenance Considerations 93 82.6 Public Comments 93 8.3 Scoring of Lifi Station Alternatives 93 8.4 Scoring of Treatment Alternatives 93 8.4.1 Technical Feasibility 93 8.4.2 Environmental Impacts 94 8.4.3 Financial Feasibility 94 8.4.4 Public Health and Safety 95 8.4.5 Operational and Maintenance Considerations 96 8.4.6 Public Comments 96 85 Scoring of Project Site Alternatives 96 8.5.1 Technical Feasibility 97 8.5.2 Environmental Impacts 97 iv Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 8.5.3 Financial Feasibility 97 8.5.4 Public Health and Safety 97 8.5.5 operational and Maintenance Considerations 97 8.5.6 Public Comments 97 8.6 Decision Matrix and Selection of Preferred Alternative 98 9.0 Detailed Description of Preferred Alternative 99 9.1 Site Location and Characteristics 99 9.2 Operational Requirements 100 9.3 Impact on Existing Facilities 100 9.4 Design Criteria 101 9.4.1 Treatment 102 9.4.2 Lift Stations 103 9.4.3 Collection System Layout 103 9.4.4 Hydraulic Calculations 104 9.5 Environmental hnpact, and Mitigation 105 9.6 Cost Summary 106 9.61 Project Cost Estimate 106 9.6? Annual Operating Budget 108 9.6.3 Reser\es :;09 10.0 Recommendations and Implementation Ito 10.1 Funding 110 1 0.1.1 Funding Sources I I I 10.1.2 Funding Strategy 114 10.2 Implementation 116 10.3 Public Participation 117 11.0 References 118 v Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: NRCS Soils Data Appendix B: TMDL Water Quality Information Appendix C: Surface Water Calculations (7QIO Flow. Dilution) Appendix D: Uniform Environmental Checklist Appendix E: Montana Natural Resources and Information System (NRIS) Search Appendix F: Agency Response Letters/ County Sanitarian Information Appendix G: Floodplain Maps Appendix H: Wetlands Map Appendix 1: Census Data Appendix J: GW1C Well information / PWS Wells Appendix K: Nondegradation Calculations Appendix L: Climate Data Appendix M: Total Retention — Preliminary Design Calculations Appendix N: Facultative Lagoon with Storage & Irrigation —Preliminary Design calculations Appendix O: Aerated Lagoon with Storage & Irrigation — Preliminary Design calculations Appendix P: Level 2 Treatment — Preliminary Design calculations Appendix Q: Pump Sizing Calculations Appendix R: Documentation of Public Meeting LIST OF FIGURES Fi<_ure 2.1 : Planning Area & Proposed District Boundary Figure 2?: Location Map Figure 2.3.1 : Topouraphica! '„ap Figure 2.3.4: Water Features Figure 5.4.7: Omerick Level Ill Ecoregions in Montana Figure 7.1.1: Gravity Collection System —Street Layout Figure 7.1.2: Gravity Collection System —Alley Layout Figure 7.2.1 : Packaged Submersible Lift Station Figure 73.2: Storage & hrigation (Low Rate Land Application) —Aerated Figure 7.3.3: Septic Tank / Level 2 Treatment/ Pressure Dosed Drainfield Figure 7.3.4: Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) — SBR with Groundwater Disposal Figure 7.4: Project Site Alternatives fiev figures that con be found in the appendices: Figure A NRCS Soils and Site Alternative Figure C USGS Quad with Drainage Basin Figure J Public Water Supply Wells & Hydraulic Gradient • Vi Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER LIST OF TABLES Table 2.5: Population Data Table 3.1 .L Existing/Design Wastewater Flows & EDUs Table 3.1.2A: Organic Loading (Existing Flow) Table 3.1.2B: Organic Loading(Design Flow) Table 5.4.7: Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards Table 5.5: Wastewater Treatment Technologies Table 7.1.1: Opinion of Probable Cost —Collection System Alternative CS-1 Table 7.1 .2: Opinion of Probable Cost—Collection System Alternative CS-2 Table 7.3?: Opinion of Probable Cost— Treatment Alternative T-2 (Facultative) Table 7.3.2A: Opinion of Probable Annual O&M Costs—Treatment Alternative T-2 (Facultative) Table 7.3.213: Opinion of Probable Cost—Treatment Alternative T-2 (Aerated) Table 7.3.20: Opinion of Probable Annual O&M Costs—Treatment Alternative T-2 (Aerated) Table 7.3.3: Opinion of Probable Cost—Treatment Alternative T-3 (Level 2) Table 73.3A: Opinion of Probable Annual O&M Costs—Treatment Alternative T-3 (Level 2) Table 73.4: Opinion of Probable Cost—Treatment Alternative T-4 (BNR) Table 7.3.4A: Opinion of Probable Annual O&M Costs —Treatment Alternative T-4 (BNR) Table 8.2.1: Present Worth Analysis —Collecton System Table 8.4.3A: Present Worth Analysis —Preferred Alternatives Table 8.4.3B: Financial Ranking—Preferred Alternatives Table 8.4.6: Public Comments Ranking TahIc 5.6: Decision Matrix Table 9.6.1 A: Opinion of Probable Cost— Preferred alternative Table 9.6.1 B: Opinion of Probable Administration Costs— Preferred Alternative Table 9.6.1 C: Present Worth .Analysis— Preferred Alternative Table 9.6?: Opinion of Probable Annual O&M Costs — Preferred Alternative Table 10.1.2A: Funding Strategy Table 10.1.2B: Funding Scenarios Table 10.2: Implementation Schedule • Vii Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER . 1 .0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction and Background The community of Clancy has reached a point where the water quality is a serious concern and the community is unable grow in a reasonable and prudent manner due to inadequate wastewater treatment and disposal. The county health department is constantly dealing with septic systems that are out of compliance with current health regulations, and many of these existing systems are out-dated and failing at an increasing rate. This situation has brought the need for a centralized wastewater system to the forefront. The local citizens are becoming more aware of their water quality problems and the potential health hazards they faced with older congested onsite septic systems. Jefferson County has taken an active role to find solutions for this problem and has sought the assistance of Great West Engineering, Inc. to help move forward toward building a community wastewater treatment system. If a community wastewater collection and treatment system were to move forward and required the financial assistance of grants, a legal Water and Sewer District would need to be formed. The formation a Water and Sewer District must be approved by the voters in accordance with Montana State law. • 1.2 Problem Definition Clancy is an unincorporated community that for the most part was built prior to the establishment of Health Department regulations, thus many individual septic disposal systems do not comply with current regulations. One of the most prominent non-compliance issues is the close proximity of drinking water wells to septic systems (less than 100-feet separation). The small lots sizes within the proposed District does not allow for adequate separation between well and drainfields. The majority of these systems are cesspools, seepage pits or metal septic tanks with drainfields that have either failed, or have a high potential of failing in the near future. The soils in this particular area consist of coarse grained decomposed granite that lacks e organic material necessary to reduce the levels of nitrate and phosphorous. Coupled with }ioutYeatment characteristics of the soils is a high groundwater table and close proximity of Prickly Pear Creek, so there is an increasingly high probability of contaminating the groundwater and water supply wells. The existing conditions are a public health hazard for the community and warrants the need for a centralized wastewater collection and treatment system. Without this type of system in place, the local residents face a serious health risk. Additionally,the Jefferson County Environmental Health Department will continue to have an increasingly difficult time allowing the construction of new homes or businesses in the area unless the proposed septic systems can meet all the required regulations. The end result could be a moratorium on new construction, and a very difficult dilemma for the health officials when pre-dated septic systems fail. 1 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 1.3 Alternatives Considered The alternative screening process considered numerous alternatives aimed at resolving the problems faced by the community of Clancy to ensure that the best possible solution was not overlooked. After an initial evaluation, it was determined that several of the potential alternatives were not viable options for Clancy and were eliminated from further review. The lack of suitable wastewater treatment sites within a reasonable distance of the proposed District and project feasibility were the primary reasons for the initial eliminations. Alternatives that were considered for a more detailed review include: Collection System Alternative CS-1: Gravity Collection — Street Layout Alternative CS-2: Gravity Collection—Alley Layout Lift Station Alternative L-1: Single Centralized Lift Station Treatment System -. Alternative T-1: No Action Alternative Alternative T-2: Storage and Irrigation (Low Rate Land Application) Alternative T-3: Septic Tank / Level 2 Treatment / Pressure Dosed Drainfield Alternative T-4: Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Mechanical Treatment Plant Site Selection Alternative S-1: Chokecherry Lane Alternative S-2: Lump Gulch Alternative S-3: Marks Bench Alternative S-4: Sunnyside Lane Alternative S-5: Across 1-15 1 .4 Preferred Alternative Each of the alternatives presented in Section 1.3 were analyzed in detail. A decision matrix was . developed to compare alternatives and help select a preferred alternative. The decision matrix included environmental impacts, technical feasibility, 20-year life cycle costs, public health and safety, operation and maintenance, and public opinion. A public meeting was held by the 2 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER . County, and Great West Engineering presented the preliminary engineering report to the public in order to get their opinion and support of the project. Based upon the results of the decision matrix, the preferred alternative was determined to include: Alternative CS-2: Gravity Collection System — Alley layout Alternative L-l: Single Centralized Lift Station — Packaged Submersible Alternative T-3: Septic Tank/ Level 2 Treatment / Pressure Dosed Drainfield Alternative S-3: Marks Bench Alternative CS-2 includes the installation of collection system infrastructure primarily in the alley ways of the community grid. The majority of the existing septic systems are located in the back of the lots so the new service line construction will have less impact and be more feasible to connect to the central system. Alternative L-1 includes installation of a new centralized raw sewage lift station located in the far northwest corner of the proposed District, which is the low point of the system. The entire service area consistently slopes to the northeast, allowing for a single lift station design. After evaluating different types of lift stations, a packaged submersible type was selected. Alternative T-3 consists of a centralized septic tank, level 2 treatment system (AdvanTex), and discharge to groundwater via a pressure dosed drainfield (subsurface infiltration galleries). Although this treatment technology has been used for decades, in recent years manufactures such as Advantex have began building packaged systems. These manufacturers have compiled an extensive amount of data a�ailable to support the effectiveness of their respective treatment systems. Disposal to groundwater works well given the soils found in this region, and the ability to incrementally expand this system as needed in the future gives support in making this a good altemative for Clancy. This treatement method will require the proposed District to obtain a groundwater discharge permit form MDEQ. Although the pennit process can be rigorous, discharge permits are normally obtainable. Alternative S-3 consists of the suitable land west of Sunnyside Lane and north of Lump Gulch Road. This site is owned entirely by Marks Ranch, Inc. and was selected primarily because the land is assumed to be suitable for groundwater infiltration and because of its separation distance from existing well heads. Based on the available soils information, this site will provide adequate treatment to be in compliance with Montana's nondegradation limitations. It should be noted that although site S-3 was selected, site S-5 located across Interstate 15 would be a suitable alternative. Final site selection will depend largely on site specific testing and investigations. The site specific testing and investigation would occur during the design phase of the proposed project. 3 I Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • 1.5 Project Costs and Budget The total estimated capital cost for the preferred alternative is $5,192,000 with an annual operations and maintenance cost of$33,000. This includes construction of the collection system, lift station, treatment and disposal systems, land acquisition, financing, engineering, and administration costs. A detailed line-item breakdown of these costs can be found in Tables 9.6.1 A, 9.6.1 B and 9.6.2. Various funding scenarios were considered with a variety of grant and low interest loan sources available to the proposed District. The recommended funding strategy includes grant funds from She Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP), the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, as well as STAG/WRDA grants. Additional project funding would be through the Rural Development (RD) grant and loan program. Table 10.1.2A in Section 10 presents the proposed funding strategy and Table 10.1.2B presents a detailed breakdown of the proposed funding strategy with user rates. Funding source eligibility would be determined by an income survey which will need to be performed prior to applying for any grants. User rates were calculated using the proposed funding scenario and the equivalent dwellirqunit (EDU) methodology. This methodology breaks-down the debt service and O&M costs to/ individual residential users on the system. The monthly rate per EDU is estimated to be$$$.45, whereby $22.00 is attributable to O&M. Larger users (commercial properties, school, etc.) would pay more based on their usage. These users would be assigned an EDU multiplier based on standard practice of the industry using building size and use as criteria for assigning a multiplier. 4 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM DEFINITION This Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) investigates and addresses wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal alternatives that will likely result in a successful wastewater management system for Clancy. The PER is being prepared under the direction and approval of Jefferson County and in accordance with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality's (MDEQ) design requirements and regulations. Criteria for wastewater PER's have previously been established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-500) and the amendments of 1977 (PL 95-217), 1981 (PL 97-117), and 1987 (CWA Section 319). The purpose of this act is to establish a comprehensive approach to maintain and enhance the quality of the nation's water resources. The Act established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. It gave the EPA authority to implement pollution control programs such as setting industry standards for wastewater. The Clean Water Act also continued requirements for setting water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. The Act made it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained under its provisions. The emphasis of the EPA in implementing this act is to maximize the effectiveness of actions taken in restoring water resources to acceptable quality. This PER meets the EPA criteria for wastewater facility plans. The Act originally provided for a three-step program of grants for the construction of improvements to public-owned treatment works. The development of a PER was Step 1 of the original three-step process. Step 2 involved the engineering design of the improvements, and Step 3 encompassed the actual construction of the recommended impro\emcnts. The act iw Iontier P roVides ,rants for the design and construction of projects but does prov ide for low- interest loans through the State Rcvol.ing Fund Loan (SRF) as amended in 1987. The SRF Pronram in Montana is administered by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC). Communities may still receive grants for design and construction through other federal and state programs such as the Department of Commerce's Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP) and the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), the Rural Development Grant and Loan Program (RD), and the Department of Natural Resources (DNRC) Resource Development Program. Low-interest loans are available through the previously mentioned RD program and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality's SRF program. The Act mandates alternative wastewater management technologies be evaluated to ensure that the most cost-effective alternative is implemented. An integral part of this PER is the development, consideration and cost-effectiveness of alternatives. The PER includes an analysis of those alternatives considered to be technologically feasible and politically acceptable to Jefferson County and the community of Clancy. • State and federal funding agen, ic, that are members of the Water. Wastewater and Solid Waste Action Coordination Team (W,ASACT) have adopted the Uniform Preliminary Engineering 5 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Report for Montana Public Facility Projects. Members of W�ASACT include the CDBG, TSEP, RD, SRF, INTERCAP, and DNRC funding programs. Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) requirements must be met by communities that are planning on using any of these funding agencies. Meeting the standard PER criteria is a condition of all planning and construction grant funds that may be received from TSEP, CDBG, DNRC, and RD as well as the SRF loan program. This PER meets the requirements of the Preliminary Engineering Report Outline and other applicable requirements of W?ASACT and has been authorized by Jefferson County. The County is utilizing a DNRC Planning Grant and County funding sources to fund the PER. The County retained Great West Engineering, Inc., to complete the PER. The firm is responsible for preparing the Wastewater Preliminary Engineering Report in accordance with state and federal guidelines. The scope of this PER is to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing wastewater management systems; review existing reports and collect data to identify and document problems; evaluate alternatives for the correction of such problems; select a recommended plan of improvements; and outline an implementation strategy. Recommended improvements are addressed so they meet the conditions forecasted over the 20-year planning period. This plan is intended to result in the most cost-effective and environmentally sound wastewater management system appropriate for the community of Clancy. 2.1 Planning Area and Existing/Potential Service Area The planning area included a proposed District boundary. This boundary has been defined in coordination \a ith the Jefferson County S;rnitarian and Great West Enaineering. The determination of the proposed district boundary was muck b} deg cloning seN-era1 criteria for each potential user in the district. These criteria included the followinu: 1. Groundwater shatlower than 7 feet: 2. Depth to bedrock shallower than 7 feet; 3. Density of the more than 1 residence per z acre; 4. Existing drainfields closer than 100 feet to an existing well; 5. History of septic problems; 6. Existing drainfields not inside the property boundaries; 7. No documentation of how the systems are constructed; 8. Distance to surface water of less than 100 feet; and, 9. Lack of a suitable area for drainfield replacement. The wastewater planning area is shown in Figure 2.1, and includes the proposed District boundary and adjacent property suitable for future expansion and annexation. The proposed District boundary is the result of the areas defined as having the most immediate need. The planning area boundary is more of an approximation simply based on adjacent properties within reasonable proximity to a centralized system. Since the area inside the proposed District boundary includes several vacant lots. it is assumed that most of the initial growth will occur inside the proposed District. and this expanded planning area is more likely to grow long-tern. 6 \�<.m.me a�a sen�gsb,'+�eoen\oaex,ov\uro+-OS,s"-raFi ne.w vm\Fxn�d,.\�-��5"-rapx-gsrptt fl ai.wxme uaFwag yam{• t 7!' T�I"R1�,yrf3S`.J;�, Y c Y r Fw r 4N I ` **dd a r - � Lss V� •v i * �t a m " - z f• ,r;�, a o N a m � t dry.• �,�1�� �� I7 � u � C l .• � � °�'f fg't� gro,y�, �"4' °,�i"�'y't I .$V.4+t �kl i . ,� .'• 4^� . ' �: � �,tt� li` !fir �^;: s � Z , • J ,,. A7 P, t,.• n` � G - fr.)^•.. _ / s"„ q';�;x17 <�7¢�!'�9�Y>9 i�'rC r� ' i a m r D T 7� e.,� a: T D cn s mm z —I ,w + k ao z m ..y, !,� •J,•i his, } \ <• F } f •+� g i 2�Y 11 � � r � °`k1�71f!� •�► i� �r k x�'�l I 't. :�...~„•'_ N'�[li, d''"•� �`�'1�. , `\' Y Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 2.2 Location Clancy is located in the northern part of Jefferson County in southwestem Montana. The nearest large city is Helena, which lies roughly 13 miles to the north. Figure 2.2 shows the approximate location of Clancy, Montana. Clancy is situated along Interstate 15, and is adjacent to Prickly Pear Creek. More specifically, the community is located at: Elevation 4,240 feet Latitude/Loneitude 460 27' 2" N latitude and -111' 57'41" W longitude Township/Ranee/Section Township 8 North, Range 3 West, Section 9 State Plane Coordinates 5146110 North and 424440 East The proposed wastewater District, and surrounding planning area, encompasses the entire town of Clancy. The proposed District is bound by Interstate 15 and Prickly Pear Creek to the east, and steep mountainous country to the west. The proposed District also extends to the south along Prickly Pear Creek and West along Clancy Creek. The community is primarily situated in the low lying valley areas adjacent to these predominant watercourses. • 8 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER HELENA,MT EAST HELENA,MT I i rG nwarn GY = o RYIYM F- � L9NY A 1 r y , \\ :YPoL�NG +PROJECT LOCATION CLANCY,MT �i FIGURE 2.2 LOCATION MAP 2.3 Physical Characteristics of the Area 2.3.1 Topography Clancy is located at the convergence of Clancy Creek and Prickly Pear Creek. The area is mountainous with minimal terrace along the creek corridors. The proposed District is consistent with the developed areas, which follow the relatively flat areas adjacent to the creek corridors. There are approximately 126-feet of relief from one end of the proposed District to the other with a relatively consistent slope of 1.8-percent. Therefore, the topography is conducive for gravity sewer collection systems, which are typically more cost effective to operate than pressurized collection systems. The proposed District contains slopes exceeding 50-percent in the south west portions that extend into the mountains; however, there are no services planned-in those locations. Figure 2.3.1 shows the topography of the site. 9 �'� ��� 4. 'p 1 ° X are f li" � '✓e\r�T C " �f a 4 r i , _ r ,.s y ✓rrt d < ^'-./"'+" x... -.✓e'r'g .v @� '.-'� c 4 y w n i ) • i`Fr L it Zu WIN t, LEGEND ++°a--- MAJOR CONTOUR IfO(YINTERVAL) CONTOUR SOURCE:ELECTRONIC OEM FIGURE 2.3.1 - DATA FROM USGS QUADRANGLES - MINOR CONTOUR(20'INTERVAL) TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP Gr/ it e o0o PROPOSED DISTRICT BOUNDARY JEFFERSON COUNT CLANCY WASTEWATER PRELIM/NARY ENGINEERING REPORT $C+1£IH IEEI engineering Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • 2.3.2 Area Soils and Geology Soils information from the subject area was obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Smivey/ online database. Soils maps of the area and information on soil characteristics from the Web Soil SurveP area are attached in Appendix A. The majority of the soils found in the best suited treatment/disposal sites are Placerton-Famuf sandy foams with approximately 45% Placerton, 45% Farnuf, and the remaining 10%minor components. The setting for these soils ranges from alluvial fans to terraces. The parent material is derived from weathered granite and sandstone-shale. They are well drained,have moderately high to high saturated hydraulic conductivities, with a depth to limiting layers in excess of seven feet. Typical profiles consist of a sandy clay loam (0"-14") underlain by gravelly coarse sandy loam (14"-60+"). These soils are supportive of many different types of septic applications and are not likely to be the limiting factor for wastewater treatment alternatives. 2.3.3 Groundwater Groundwater research was concluded via Montana's Ground-Water Information Center(GW1C) online data base of well logs'. Depth to groundwater varies across the proposed District and planning area,but generally gets shallower toward the creek channels. This is typical in areas where higher ground steps down toward a creek channel. Depth to groundwater is anticipated to be 5 to 20-feet below ground surface in the center of community, and 5-feet or less below ground surface in portions of the proposed District along the creek corridors. The groundwater flow direction is generally flowing to the northeast at a estimated gradient of 0.006 ft/ft. Groundwater will likely be encountered during construction of proposed collection system. The amount and elevation of groundwater encountered will be dependent on the time of year that construction takes place and the specific location of the work. Any construction of the proposed wastewater improvements will be planned to avoid encountering groundwater as much as possible. If needed, a detailed geotechnical assessment of the area will be completed prior to design. 2.3.4 Surface Water Surface water is an important natural resource for Jefferson County and the community of Clancy. Prickly Pear Creek and Clancy Creek flows directly adjacent t �'6mmunity. These creeks are used for agricultural irrigation needs and recreation for both local residents and tourists alike. Another major water feature within the area is Buffalo Creek (along Lump Gulch), which is in the northern portion of the proposed District and flows east into Prickly Pear Creek. This creek is the closest surface water to some of the wastewater disposal sites proposed for Clancy. • Water features are shown on Figure 2.3.4. 11 • 0 0 `:\1-05154-JEFC.-0nCall\T0#42 Clancy WW PER\CADD 1-05154—TO{42 Clancy VFH\FxhNTs\1 05154—TON42—Fig 2_3_4 Wtr Feat Map.dwg t y . CREE/C O u �J y n LEGEND DISTRICT BOUNDARY FIGURE 0 1000 2000 WATER FEATURES MAP WATER BODY SCALE IN FEET GreatWest IMAGE SOURCE:2005 NAIP JEFFERSON COUNTY engineering COLOR ORTHOPHOTOS CLANCY WASTEWATER PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Under the Federal Clean Water Act, the DEQ maintains a list of water bodies that fail to meet water quality standards, called the 303(d) list after the section of the act, and develops total maximum daily loads (TMDL's) for water bodies on the list. The TMDL planning area for this section of Prickly Pear Creek (Spring Creek to Lump Gulch) is referred to as Lake Helena (Refer to Appendix B). At this point in time the Water Quality Category for this area is 5 — One or more uses are impaired and a TMDL is required. A TMDL may have a significant impact to a centralized sanitary sewer system discharging to surface water because of high nutrient levels in the effluent discharge. The 7Q10 flow for Little Prickly Pear Creek at Clancy was calculated to be 5.4 cubic feet per second (efs) or 3.5 million gallons per day(mgd). The 7Q10 flow is defined as the lowest average flow rate for a 7-day period that has a 10%probability of occurring in any given year. This calculation of flow is common for dilution calculations, which help determine the viability of a surface water type of discharge. 7Q10 flow calculations are in Appendix C. 2.3.5 Vegetation The vegetation within the proposed District and planning area is typical of rural agricultural communities located in the mountainous regions of western Montana. Native Montana grasses common to the area' are found in the undisturbed areas along with corridors of cottonwood trees and willows adjacent to the streams. Areas under cultivation typically produce alfalfa hay, with some occasional grain production, and smaller amounts of grass. The most suitable areas for disposal of treated wastewater effluent are the irrigated crop lands in the northern half of the planning area. Any areas disturbed by construction of a new facility will be re-vegetated upon completion of the project, and noxious weed control measures shall be employed. 2.4 Environmental Resources Present The impacts of potential projects on the surrounding environment should be considered and provisions made to mitigate any negative impacts. The Uniform Application streamlines the process by utilizing a standard procedure called the Uniform Environmental Checklist (UEC)". The UEC process includes sending letters to pertinent local, state, and federal agencies requesting comments on any potential environmental impacts as a result of potential improvements. A completed UEC for the potential sanitary sewer improvements is included in Appendix D. 2.4.1 Land Resources Prime farmland is defined by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)3 as the land best suited to food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. It may be cultivated land, pasture, woodland, or other land, but it is not urban and built-up land or water areas. Prime farm land is used for food or fiber crops, or is available for those crops. Land use within the community of Timoth,vgrass, Brame grass, Bve grass, etc. is "Environmental Checklist established by the MEPA and NEPA required in the Uniform Application. - 13 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • Clancy includes residential homes, commercial businesses, churches, schools, parks, museum, post office, etc. Planning area land use adjacent to the community of Clancy is dominated by agricultural uses and a few residential homes. Open space consists of forest, croplands or pasture. The proposed wastewater collection system will primarily be in already disturbed areas within the community core. Conversely, the wastewater treatment and disposal area will most likely be located in one of the nearby open areas and will likely affect continued use of croplands. However, the proposed treatment and disposal system will generally preserve the open space and maintain the rural character of the land. 2.4.2 Biological Resources Wildlife in the area generally consists of elk, deer, coyote, fox, mountain lion,bobcat, rabbit, porcupine, skunk,raccoon, mice, other small mammals, and a wide variety of birds. A Montana Natural Resources and Information System (NRIS)4 search was conducted and revealed several species of concern in the planning area: Gray Wolf, Wolverine, Canada Lynx,Northern Goshawk, Great Blue Heron, Flammulated Owl, and the Westslope Cutthroat Trout. The search also revealed one potential animal of concern: Uinta Ground Squirrel. There were no plants of concern found in the search. Refer to Appendix E for the NRIS search results. Since most of the proposed wastewater system construction will take place within the existing community streets, alleys, and within previously disturbed areas, little adverse impacts are anticipated for the listed species of concern. The treatment site is located ? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service stated, -An in v riuble astewaier treatment option(s) that are likely to result in improved quality of the waters in the State ofA4ontmra are generally beneficial to fish, wildlife. and habitat resources..... This letter of support is included in Appendix F. 2.4.3 Water Resources Groundwater and surface water resources were discussed in detail in Sections 2.3.3 and 23.4. The proposed improvements will improve the quality of groundwater within the Clancy service area by eliminating the congested and failing individual septic systems currently in use. Additionally, the infiltration galleries associated with the preferred alternative will recharge the groundwater after treatment and preserve the groundwater quantity. Since groundwater is likely in connection with surface water in the area of the project, surface water quality is anticipated to improve by eliminating the source of groundwater contamination. Temporary impacts from construction activity are possible. This project will require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control surface water runoff related to construction activity. This permit is part of the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) program administered by the DEQ. 2.4.4 Floodplains The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) has issued floodplain maps for Jefferson County. The project site is located in Zone C (area of minimal flood hazard) as shown on the index map for Jefferson County. Panel 300154 0150B, which encompasses the project site, has not been printed by FEMA. This FIRM index map is included in Appendix G. 14 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • The entire project is located in areas of minimal flood hazard. Portions of the proposed system are presumably within or close to the assumed floodplain since the system must be constructed to serve existing development in the area. Precautions shall be taken for any parts of the proposed system that are within close proximity of the creek corridors. This will be especially true for the proposed centralized lift station. 2.4.5 Wetlands Wetlands are common along the streams and rivers in the area. The National Wetlands Inventory(NW I)s does not have data for the project site or surrounding area. A snap of the NWI wetlands is included in Appendix H. There are no major wetlands expected to be disturbed during this project. A site specific wetlands inventory will be conducted prior to construction for all stream crossings or low lying areas. The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC)provides a list of permits associated with stream and wetland crossing in Montana. The most likely permits for this project will be the Montana Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act 310 Permit and the Federal Clean Water Act 404 Permit. 2.4.6 Cultural Resources Cultural resources include historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, historic architecture, engineering features and structures, and resources of significance to Native Americans. The • Montana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was given a map of our planning area and the proposed improvements in order for them to determine whether there are significant historical and cultural resources in this area. SHPO identified a few sites in the Clancy area of historic significance. No disturbance of structures fifty years of age or older is anticipated and SHPO stated a cultural resource inventory is unwarranted at this,time. Please refer to Appendix F for documentation. 2.4.7 Socio-economic and Environmental Justice Issues The proposed improvements will be impacting the entire proposed District equally; favorable to both human health and environmental resources. Temporary disproportionate effects could be perceived with construction activities depending on the final collection system layout. Some residents/business owners may have construction activity in the street in front of their place, while others may only be impacted in the alley way behind their place. Although the Clancy area does have a Census Designated Place (CDP),the CDP boundary is much larger than the proposed District and is therefore not representative for this project specifically. The population information is reasonably accurate because it was gathered utilizing much smaller blocks. In order to get good income data, an me me survey... will be necessary. Until a specific income survey is completed,other sources will�te used to help estimate the median household income(MHI). The income sun+et.fo my shall be reviewed and approved by the Montana Department of Commerce. 15 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Clancy is not considered a minority or low-income community according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, based on the 2000 Census information. Research in order to determine the MHI for Clancy yielded the following results: • Jefferson County MHI = $56,650 • School District Demographics System (SDDS)`' MHI = $53,712 • American Fact Finder, Clancy CDP MHI = $52,938 • Census and Economic Information Center(CEIC)7 Tract 982202, Block Group 2 MHI = $36,818 It should be noted that all the defined areas listed above extend well beyond the proposed District boundary, which appears to be an area with significantly lower income levels than the remainder of the Block Group. Of the MHI's presented above, the closest fit(geographically) to the proposed District is the Clancy CDP at $52,938. However, this income level is thought to be too high for the proposed District, and Block Group 2 would be more representative of the proposed District,but still higher than anticipated for the proposed District. An income survey of the proposed District is necessary to get an accurate MHI level. For the purpose of selecting a funding strategy, the MHI for Clancy is assumed to be less than $33,000; however, an income survey is required to verify that assumption. A map showing the above mentioned Block Group, and the other information presented is attached in Appendix 1. 2.5 Growth Areas and Population Trends Historically, Clancy was established as a mining town and in the late 1800's was flourishing. The community was centrally located in the valley among the ore mines and grew along the creek corridors of Clancy Creek and Prickly Pear Creek. For the most part, growth still occurs primarily within close proximity of these valley terraces. However,because of health concerns with individual septic and well separation distances, and impacts to groundwater, this growth pattern is diminishing. Development and enforcement regulations through MDEQ and Jefferson County Environmental Health Department have nearly stopped growth in these areas. Installing a centralized wastewater system is expected to define the growth pattern to a certain degree. It is anticipated that once the immediate health concerns are alleviated with the proposed District connecting into the system, growth will be most prominent with infill of the remaining vacant lots in this area. Subsequently, new development projects are expected, but developable land is still hard to come by due to the steep terrain surrounding Clancy. The current population of the proposed District is estimated at 223 persons. Many different sources were looked at to determine the past and present population including: the Census and Economic Information Center (CEIC), American Fact Finder—U.S. Census Bureau (AFF)K, School proposed District Demographics System (SDDS), etc. However, for this project a physical count of livable dwellings with an applied average number of persons per,household • (2.5) was used to get the most reasonable current population estimate. The average number of 16 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • persons per household was determined by reviewing: School proposed District data—(2.67 persons per home), U.S. Census Bureau Clancy CDP — (2.6 persons per home), Jefferson County —(2.62 persons per home), and results from Harrison, MT survey (similar community) —(2.5 persons per home). The projected population for the 20-year planning period of the proposed District is 360 persons. This equates to roughly 60% growth over the next 20-years. This growth was rationalized by looking at the past four decades of economic trends, and looking forward based on the desirability of this area in conjunction with the past growth limitations from water resource related health concerns. Additionally, the Jefferson County Growth Policy states the County is growing at 3%per year. Back calculating the annual growth rate for this planning area yields approximately 2.4%per year, compounded annually. It is very reasonable to assume that Clancy would grow at a slightly lower rate than the County as a whole due to the limited suitable land around the community. For the purpose of this PER, it was assumed that all projected growth would occur by infilling of vacant areas within the proposed District boundary. This results in a 20-year planning period population of 360 persons for the proposed District. The following Table 2.5 illustrates past population trends, current estimated population, and projected populations for the proposed District compared with Jefferson County and the State of Montana. It should be noted that the population of the proposed District in 2000 (160) is from the 2000 Census data blocks, which are not consistent A,itb the proposed District boundary. Table 2.5- Population Data Prolsosed District & District Jefferson Co. Montana YEAR Planning Area Population Population Population Population 1970 5,261 694,000 1980 7,029 786,690 1990 7,939 799,065 2000 160 - 10,049 903,283 2010 223' 573 11,572 984,152 2020 292 745 - - 2030 360 917 *Current Estimated Population in Proposed District Notes: 1. Projected population for the proposed District is estimated by complete residential similar r infill within the proposed District assuming further subdivisions of sim a densities. 2. Projected population for proposed District &Planning Area is based on 60% growth factor over the 20-year design period. 3. Jefferson County and Montana populations for 2010 are projections estimated from the most current CEIC information (July 1, 2008). 17 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 3.0 EVALUATION OF EXISTING SYSTEM The existing wastewater system consists of individual onsite septic systems. There is no existing centralized wastewater or water system for this community. The specific locations of the individual systems are also largely unknown because they were installed prior to any health regulations or pennitting systems being in place. Each resident utilizes aAon-site well for their drinking water/water supply. 3.1 Analysis of Existing System Many of the existing on-site wastewater disposal system(s) are in poor condition, and most cannot meet current standards ie. Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, and other federal, state, local, requirements. According to the Jefferson County Sanitarian, the majority of these systems are not suitable for continued use and are jeopardizing the public's health by groundwater contamination. See Appendix F for a copy of the County Sanitary letter. Additionally, no growth can occur without addressing the issue of wastewater`treatment and disposal. As septic systems fail the residence request septic system variances in order to continue disposing of wastewater without the need for a holding tank. The main type of variance request is with setback distances from wells and property lines. 3.1.1 Existing Flows Existing wastewater flows within the proposed District were calculated to be 32,000 gallons per day (gpd)based on the estimated population of the proposed District. State design standards require a minimum wastewater flow of 100 gallons per day per capita (gpdc) unless flow monitoring demonstrates otherwise. In this case, the 100 gpdc guideline was used to calculate the residential flows. The non-residential and commercial flows were calculated by utilizing the DEQ-4° Tables 5-1 and 5-2 for uses such as: school,bar, restaurant, fire station, post office, etc. In order to utilize flow information strictly from a quantity (gallons)perspective; all the flows were converted to Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU). An EDU is equal to 250 gpd and is representative of a single residential home. 100 gpdc X 2.5 persons per residence = 250 gpd = 1 EDU In addition to existing flows, it is important to calculate the projected flows for the planning period as well. For this analysis, the flows were projected based on complete infill of existing parcels within the proposed District for residential and similar percentage based increase for non- residential and commercial flows. Additionally, the projections included re-opening the Legal Tender bar and restaurant. It should be noted that if the proposed District expands or additional connection are made beyond those design flows shown below, we have assumed that connection fees would be used to finance expansion of the proposed treatment system, as necessary. 18 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Table 3.1.1 -Existing /Design Flows and EDU's TYPE Existing Septic Systems I Existing EDU's Existing Flow(gpd) Design Flow(gpd) Residential 89 89 22,500 25,000 Non-Residential 7 30 7,500 8,500 Commercial 7 6 1,500 2,000 Total 125 31,500 35,500 Design 32,000 35,000 gpd—Gallons Per Day EDU=Equivalent Dwelling Unit • Residential line-item includes all types of currently occupied residences; ie. single family homes,rental units, apartments, duplex, cabin, etc. • Non-Residential line-item accounts for all uses that are not residential or commercial. This count includes: 1. Fire Station 4. School 2. Post Office 5. Church 3. Museum 6. (2) Shop • Commercial line-item is all the businesses within the proposed District boundary, and • includes the following: 1. Chubby's Bar and Grill 2. RI's Bar R Restaurant (currently closed) 3. (5) other businesses 3.1.2 Hydraulic and Organic Loading Wastewater loads are based on the existing EDU's of 125. Wastewater load multipliers are published within Circular DEQ-210. Table 3.1.2 details the estimated design wastewater loads for the proposed District. Organic Loading for Domestic Waste (Existing Flow) Pollutant Design (EDU) *Load Multiplier Design Waste Load (lbsldaylEDU)* (lb/day) BOD5 125 0.50 62.50 TSS 125 0.55 68.75 Phosphorus, Total (as P) 125 0.025 3.13 Nitrogen, Total (as N) 125 0.10 12.50 *Waste load multipliers are per capita equivalents of the values published within Circular DEQ-2,Chapter 10. 19 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Organic Loading for • . (Design Pollutant Design (EDU) Load Multiplier Design Waste Load (Ibs(day/EDU)' (lb/day) BOD5 140 0.50 70.00 TSS 140 0.55 77.00 Phosphorus, Total (as P) 140 0.025 3.50 Nitrogen, Total (as N) 140 0.10 14.00 'Waste load multipliers are per capita equivalents of the values published within Circular DEQ-2,Chapter 10. 3.1.3 Treatment Standards Individual onsite septic systems (and individual wells) are not required to be tested, therefore it is unknown if treatment standards within DEQ-4 are being met, not to mention that many of the existing on-site septic systems at Clancy predate most of the regulations. Conversations with the Local Health Department have revealed their strong concerns of health risks for this very reason. Unfortunately, there is no way to implement a monitoring program. To further investigate, a search within the MDEQ database for public water supply (PWS) wells was conducted from 1990 to 2010. The search revealed five PWS wells within the proposed District, three of which have active online system reports. All three of these wells have repeatedly tested positive for Total Coliform (TCR) and the PWS well for Chubby's Bar and Grill (MT0001400) tested positive for E. soli in August 2007. This is a serious health and safety issue for the residents of Clancy. See Appendix J for well information. 3.1.4 Operational and Management Practices Individual onsite septic systems are managed solely by the individual home or business owner. In many areas of Montana people responsible for on-site septic system maintenance may neglect to maintain their system unless a problem arises. Typical maintenance usually consists of periodic pumping of septic tanks and inspection of the ow capabilities of the drainfields. Typical on-site septic system problems are back-up due to an obstruction in the outfall line, full septic tank, or a failed drainfield area. 3.2 Financial Status of Existing System Currently there is not public system. Therefore there is no financial capability to report. 20 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 4.0 NEED FOR THE PROJECT 4.1 Health and Safety Without a doubt,the community core area presents the biggest concern for public health and safety in Clancy. Wastewater treatment for the area is provided by individual septic systems that pre-date any septic regulations. According to the County Sanitarian (see Appendix F), there have been many health and safety related problems related to seepage pits, cesspools, and metal septic tanks with drainfields have been failing. This is a very serious concern as all of these residents are also supplied by individual water wells that are in close proximity of the failing septic systems. As shown on Figure 2.1, lot sizes in the proposed District are very small and do not allow for adequate separation of wells and onsite septic systems. Most lots in the proposed district are less than 0.5 acres. In addition, in recent years several drainfields have failed and sewage has surfaced in yards and adjacent properties. This surfacing of sewage is a very serious health and safety concern due to the potential diseases related to humans coming in direct contact with sewage. Appendix F contains a phone log from the Jefferson County Sanitarian indicating surfacing sewage. The soils in this particular area consist of coarse grained decomposed granite that lacks the organic material necessary to reduce the levels of nitrate and phosphorous. In addition. shallow groundwater also increases the probability of contaminating the groundwater and water supply wells. Since individual wells are not PWS systems, they are not required to be tested or disinfected. As discussed in Section 3.1.3. all the PWS wells that have been monitored tested positive for Total Coliform. and the most centralized PWS in the area ofconcern also tested positive for E. coil. (See Appendix .1). 4.2 System O&M The operation and maintenance responsibilities associated with individual onsite septic systems are left up to each homeowner and/or business owner. This usually includes cesspool sludge removal or septic tank pumping, and occasional unclogging of effluent lines when obstructions cause the systems to back-up. There is no enforceable regulation of period septic system maintenance, so systems lacking maintenance are very common. Unfortunately this practice leads to premature system failure and substandard treatme t capability. 4.3 Growth Clancy is a community that has experienced a very slow growth rate and perhaps even a slight decline in the community core area within the last decade or so. A key factor for this has been the difficulty in permitting of new or replacement individual septic systems. Appendix F contains correspondence between the Jefferson County Sanitarian and individuals requesting permits to install on-site septic systems. In general, most individuals requesting a permit to install on-site septic systems will be denied. These correspondences represent examples of what 21 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER individuals or developers would typical receive if requesting a permit to install an on-site septic system in most area of the proposed District. Implementing a centralized wastewater treatment system will relieve the community of this problem, and encourage growth. Growth, especially in the proposed District, is not perceived as a negative and is encouraged to keep the existing business operable and community more sustainable. The collection system and lift station will be sized to handle flows for the anticipated growth over the 20-year planning period. The treatment system will be sized for only slightly greater than the existing flows (35,000 gpd). If additional connections are made and/or the proposed District expands, the treatment system will be expanded to accommodate the addition flow. Financing of this expansion will be performed by connection fees. It is important not to under- size the collection system and lift station because they have a long design life and cause the most disturbances and interruption of service to the community during new construction and/or replacement. For this project, the extent of the collection system is limited to users within the proposed District. phasing is not part of this design other than the logical placement of collections mains for future annexations. 4.4 Unresolved Problems Implementation of a public sewer system in Clancy will eliminate the sources of groundwater well contamination and allow the community to grow. The project will result in the discontinued use of existing non-standard wastewater disposal systems. Discontinuing use of on-site septic systems will proeide an immediate improvement to the groundwater quality in the area. 22 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 5.0 GENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Alternatives identified to meet the needs and requirements for Clancy will need to be sized to handle existing and anticipated future wastewater flows. Any improvements to the system will need to comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulations as well as accepted industry standards for the design of wastewater facilities. This section addresses some of the regulations and design criteria that will be considered as part of the alternative analysis. 5.1 Montana Public Water Supply Act The Montana Public Water Supply Act establishes design standards for public water and wastewater equipment and processes. The law requires the Department of Environmental Quality to review and approve all plans and specifications for water and wastewater facilities prior to construction. Upon completion of the construction the Engineer must certify to DEQ that the facilities were constructed in conformance with the approved plans and specifications. The law applies to public systems (15 or more service connections) as defined by this act. Hundreds of design standards and policy requirements are promulgated under this law. These requirements must be considered in characterizing the condition of existing facilities, developing and evaluating alternatives for wastewater improvements, and in the final design of the selected plan of improvements. The state design standards enforced under this law are described in DEQ Circulars DEQ-2, DEQ-4, and DEQ-7. i 5.1.1 Circular DEQ-2: Design Standards for Wastewater Facilities Circular DEQ-2 provides the minimum state requirements for wastewater system facilities. Chapter 30 is of particular significance for the proposed alternatives as it covers the design of sewers. Also applicable is Chapter 100, which covers disinfection. Many specific sections of Circular DEQ-2 are referenced in the alternative analysis, as appropriate. All improvements will require review by the state for compliance with Circular DEQ-2. Any deviations from the standards in DEQ-2 would require a written request with justification for the requested deviation to be submitted along with the plans. 5.1.2 Circular DEQ-4: Standards for Subsurface Wastewater Treatment Systems Circular DEQ-4 provides the minimum state requirements for subsurface wastewater treatment systems. Chapter 8, which defines the sizing for subsurface treatment though the soil matrix by providing applications rates based on soil types, is especially important. Also applicable is Chapter 5, which lists recommended flows for a variety of uses in order to develop current and projected design flows for all alternatives considered. All treatment and disposal elements with standard or Level 2 treatment will require review by the state for compliance with Circular DEQ- 4. Any deviations from the standards in DEQ-4 would require a written request with justification for the requested deviation to be submitted along with the plans. Is 23 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 5.2 Existing and Design Flows Existing wastewater flows and projected design flows were presented in Section 3.1.1, Existing flows are estimated at 32,000 gpd and the 20-year projected design flow was calculated to be 35,000 gpd. All improvements considered in the alternative development will take into account both existing and projected flows. Providing the capacity to handle the 20-year design flow is the basis of analysis with any alternative considered and is the wastewater flow basis for comparison. 5.3 Hydraulic and Organic Loading Hydraulic and organic loading was presented in Section 3.1.2. All improvements considered in the alternative development will take into account both existing and anticipated hydraulic and organic loading. 5.4 Regulatory Requirements eg y and Permits In addition to the Montana Public Water Supply Act, any improvements must also be compliant with the local, state, and federal regulations. Public systems are defined by the State of Montana as having 15 or more service connections and serving 25 or more persons for 60 days or more during the year. The federal regulations for public systems are often enforced through state • agencies which have been delegated primary enforcement authority. The laws of primary importance with respect to wastewater management for Clancy are: • U.S. Clean Water Act; PL 92-500, PL 95-217, PL 97-117, PL 100-4 (Federal Authority) • Montana Water Quality Act; 75-5-101 through 641, MCA (State Authority) • Montana Wastewater Treatment Revolving Fund Act; 75-5-1101 through 1106, MCA (State Authority) • Public Water Supply Act; 75-6-101 through 121, MCA (State Water and Wastewater Design Standards) • Public Health Law; 50-2-116, MCA (County Authority) 5.4.1 U.S. Clean Water Act This law was originally passed by the U.S. Congress in 1972 as the Water Pollution Control Act. Since then, the law has been amended numerous times and is now referred to as the Clean Water Act. The law is quite comprehensive. It regulates point and non-point sources of pollution such as industrial and mine discharges, municipal sewage, construction and agricultural runoff, sludge storage and disposal, storm water runoff, and many other potential sources of water pollution. The law also establishes in-stream water quality based standards and requires that streams and . rivers be classified according to existing water quality and potential uses. 24 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER This law is applicable to central wastewater systems that serve 15 or more connections, which under the law are defined as public wastewater systems. The law established the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process. The NPDES process requires each public wastewater system to obtain a discharge permit if that system discharges municipal wastewater to a surface water source or to groundwater. The NPDES discharge permit defines specific concentration limits for contaminants that must not be exceeded prior to discharge to the surface water or reaching the end of the mixing zone. These permit discharge requirements largely establish the design requirements for wastewater treatment facilities. The Clean Water Act is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, in many states including Montana, the enforcement authority for the U.S. Clean Water Act is delegated to state agencies. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has enforcement authority and issues discharge permits to public wastewater systems in Montana. 5.4.2 Montana Water Quality Act To qualify for primacy of the U.S. Clean Water Act, the Montana Legislature passed the Montana Water Quality Act. As would be expected, this state legislation is tailored after the U.S. Clean Water Act and, therefore, its basic requirements are very similar. Although it is important to point out that the definition of a public system under Montana law is a wastewater system that has 15 or more service connections and serves 25 or more persons 60-days of the year. Under the authority of this law and associated rules, the state establishes surface water quality • standards (letter code for each river and stream) based on beneficial uses and existing water quality; implements the nondegradation policy; issues surface water discharge permits; implements a groundwater protection program; conducts inspections of wastewater facilities; and generally prohibits pollution of state waters. The language of the law is very general and therefore fairly broad in scope with regard to preventing the pollution of state waters. The law applies to both surface water and groundwater. In 1994 Montana passed new rules under the authority of this law that address nondegradation of water resources. Under the new nondegradation rules the State of Montana prohibits further degradation of state waters. To accomplish this the state has established nondegradation load limits (lbs/day) for wastewater effluent pollutants such as BOD, TSS, nitrogen, and phosphorous. Once established in the permit, the load limits will not be changed with time even though the community may grow and the pollution load increases. Accordingly, the treatment efficiency must improve with time if the community is growing. This trend makes nondegradation load limits a very important consideration in the selection and design of wastewater treatment facilities. For new facilities requesting wastewater discharge permits, the discharge concentration limits for various pollutants will be based on the new trigger limits specified in the rules. For communities attempting to discharge into low-flowing creeks, permit limits based on nondegradation trigger limits will likely be more stringent than the permit limits required for most communities that already have a discharge permit. 25 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 5.4.3 Montana Wastewater Treatment Revolving Fund • This law allows the State of Montana to create a revolving loan fund to provide financial assistance to municipalities, Districts and private concerns for the construction and rehabilitation of wastewater improvement projects. The initial capital for the loan fund is provided by the federal government through appropriations authorized under the previously discussed U.S. Clean Water Act. The goal of the act is to develop a self-sustaining revolving loan fund administered by the State of Montana. Currently, the loans are offered at 3.75% interest and the term is 20 to 30 years. To qualify the applicant must complete a PER for review and approval by the DEQ and must meet certain other financial, administrative, and operational obligations. 5.4.4 Montana Public Water Supply Act The Montana Public Water Supply Act was discussed in detail in Section 5.1. 5.4.5 Public Health Laws Jefferson County under the authority of Section 50-2-116(2)0) Montana Code Annotated, regulates the construction and repair of individual on-site wastewater treatment systems (standard septic tanks and drainfields and, in some cases, elevated sand mounds) within the County. DEQ wastewater design standard DEQ-4 has been adopted as minimum standards. The County requires that each new or replacement on-site system apply to the County for a permit prior to construction. The County must also inspect the construction of the new or replacement • system prior to placing the system in service. 5.4.6 Construction Permits During the construction of improvements, a storm water discharge permit will also be necessary if more than one acre of land is disturbed. In addition, this project will involve work completed within the state right-of-way, so a permit will be required from the Montana Department of Transportation. 5.4.7 Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is in the process of developing numeric nutrient water quality criteria. This criteria is intended to control excessive nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) pollution in Montana's streams, rivers, and lakes. The intent of numeric nutrient criteria is to assure a level of water quality that will protect the beneficial uses of these water-bodies. The MDEQ has developed a section within the Department specifically charged with the task of developing numeric nutrient standards. The development of the numeric nutrient standards is a process that is separate, but coordinated with the development of TMDL's within the MDEQ. MDEQ initiated the process by first performing a review of existing available science on the subject. MDEQ has strived to base the numeric nutrient criteria on the best available science and data. The development of the numeric nutrient standards is being closely coordinated with the . EPA and MDEQ is using EPA guidance in the development of the standards. These committees will be discussed in more detail later in this section. 26 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER The MDEQ has reached the point where they are now moving into the beginning of the rule- making phase. Rule making will involve not only the numeric nutrient criteria themselves, but also how they will be implemented. The public will be afforded opportunities to provide comment to MDEQ and the Board of Environmental Review both before and during rule making. The numeric nutrient standards will become instream water quality standards much like ammonia and other standards and will also be used as a target in the development of future TMDL's. Based on discussions with the NPDES permit section; the numeric nutrient standard compliance will likely be determined using a mass balance much like other instream water quality standards. The flow utilized for mass balance is likely to be the 15 day, 10 year low flow of the receiving stream. To date the MDEQ has proposed numeric nutrient criteria for wadable streams for each ecoregion and those are presented in the table below; a map of ecoregions is also presented herein. Table 5.4.7 - Recommended Numeric & Benthic Algae Criteria for Different Ecoregions Period when Nutrient Criteria Benthic Algae Level III Ecoregion criteria apply Criteria PP Y Total P Total N NOZ,3 Northern Rockies July 1 — Sept 30 0.012 0.233 0.081 150 mg Chi alm` Canadian Rockies July 1 — Sept 30 0.006 0.209 0.020 150 mg Chi a/m` Middle Rockies July 1 —Sept 30 0.048 0.320 0.100 150 mg Chi a/m` Idaho Batholith July 1 —Sept 30 0.011 0.130 0.049 150 mg Chi a/m` Northwestern Glaciated June 16— Sept 30 0.123 1.311 0.020 n/a Northwestern Great July 1 —Sept 30 0.124 1.358 0.076 n/a 27 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Figure 5.4.7 - Omerick Level III Ecoregions in Montana S • 1..s..a •1•XNY tEYEI IN IYMF -broDnR•4•: -IfYt RaY•�R -W1a•Rx�•a -IYrMm Murr tr•nr.rlrn ee�.mi Yu+., .lolrrlws r:y.r;.: NYN'ria Rlsr 28 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER It is important to note that rule making has not yet been completed. Numeric nutrient criteria for . large rivers are in the process of being developed and will likely utilize the water quality model Qual2-K. Numeric nutrient standards for lakes have not been developed yet and will follow the development of standards for large rivers. MDEQ has also formed the Numeric Nutrient Working Group to provide guidance. This workin g group consists of representatives of Cities and Towns, various agricultural and industry groups, engineers and funding agencies. To date, this group has reviewed the science presented by MDEQ and is in the process of reviewing regulations for the implementation of the standards. The group has commented extensively on the standard criteria proposed and the waivers being considered. Two waivers were developed by a previous advisory group to DEQ. The first waiver was an affordability waiver that established a criteria of l% of Median Household Income (HMI) for affordability. The I%threshold was coordinated with EPA, but must still be approved by EPA in the final rulemaking process. The likelihood of EPA approval is not yet known. This waiver also included criteria for substantial and widespread economic impact. The use of these waivers was made law in Senate Bill 95. This bill allows the use of temporary numeric nutrient criteria on a case-by-case basis when substantial and widespread economic impacts precluded the attainment of the base numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen,phosphorous and nitrates plus nitrites. The law also allows the use of temporary numeric nutrient standards when the limits of technology limit the attainment of the base numeric nutrient standards. A second waiver currently referred to as the limits of technology waiver was also developed by the advisory board. This waiver established three thresholds of treatment as outlined below: 1. Standard Biological Nutrient Removal=7 to 10 mg/1 TN and 1 mg/1 TP 2. Enhanced Biological Nutrient Removal = 4 mg to 6 mg/1 TN and 0.25 to 0.50 mg/TP 3. Limits of Technology = 3 to 4mg/l TN and 0.05 to 0.07 mg/1 TP This waiver will be combined with the affordability waiver to determine the level of treatment required to satisfy the numeric nutrient criteria and TMDL compliance. The numeric nutrient criteria will serve as a TMDL target when adopted by rule. MDEQ has a website that should be referenced to keep up with the development of the numeric nutrient criteria. 5.4.8 TMDL Considerations A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. Section 303(d) of the US Clean Water Act establishes the water quality standards and TMDL program. Sections 75-5-101 MCA and 75-5-701 MCA of the Montana Clean Water Act describe the TMDL process in Montana. TMDLs are a water quality based approach that emphasizes the overall quality of water within a water body and provides a mechanism through which the amount of pollution entering a water body is controlled based on the inherent conditions of that body of water and the standards set to protect it. This approach begins with the determination of waters not meeting, or expecting to 29 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • meet, water quality standards after the implementation of technology based controls. Waters identified through this process are considered water quality limited and must be prioritized and listed. This list is called the 303(d) list and is updated every two years by the state. An overall plan to manage the excess pollutants in each water body is then developed. The necessary limitations on the introduction of pollutants to the water body are identified through the development of a TMDL. Montana has been documenting water quality conditions since the 1970's. This information has been submitted to the EPA on a regular basis as part of the federally required 305(b) reporting. In 1992 this information became officially termed a 303(d) list. In 1997 the legislature required DEQ to use "sufficient, credible data" in making beneficial use determinations on the 303(d) list. As a result of the new definition of sufficient, credible data, 486 water bodies were removed from the 2000 303(d) list pending reassessment. However, a federal judicial order requires EPA and DEQ to complete "all necessary TMDLs" for all water bodies based on the 1996 303(d) list by May 5, 2007. The court further specified that no new or increased discharge permits may be granted for a"water quality limited segment' of a water body until the appropriate TMDLs are established. A TMDL consists of the sum of individual wasteload allocations for point sources and load allocations for both non-point sources and natural background levels for a given water body. The TMDL must also include a margin of safety that accounts for the uncertainty in the relationship between pollutant loads and the quality of the receiving water body. • To establish a TMDL an acceptable combination of allocations that adequately protects water quality standards must be established. Issues that affect allocations include: Economics, political considerations, feasibility, equitability, types of sources and management options, public involvement, implementation, limits of technology and variability in loads. The Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) permit is the mechanism for translating TMDL waste load allocations into enforceable requirements for point sources. The MPDES permit authorizes a point source facility to discharge. The permit also subjects the permitee to legally enforceable requirements set forth in the permit. 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B) requires effluent limits to be consistent with wasteload allocations in an approved TMDL. One way wasteload allocations are translated into permits is through effluent limitations. Effluent limitations impose restrictions on the quantities of discharge, rates of discharges, and concentrations of specified pollutants in the point source discharges. Effluent limitations reflect either minimum federal or state technology-based guidelines or levels needed to protect water quality, whichever is more stringent. By definition, TMDLs involve wasteload allocations more stringent then technology-based limits to protect water quality standards, and are therefore used to establish appropriate effluent limitations. The objective of a TMDL is to allocate allowable loads among different pollutant sources so that the appropriate control actions can be taken and water quality standards achieved. The TMDL provides an estimate of pollutant loadings from all sources and predicts the resulting pollutant • concentrations. The TMDL determines the allowable loads and provides the basis for establishing or modifying controls on pollutant sources. 30 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Three common methods for allocating loads are recommended by the EPA. The first method is • "equal percent removal" and exists in two forms. In one,the overall removal efficiencies of the sources are set so they are all equal. This method is appropriate when the incremental removal efficiencies are relatively small, so that the necessary improvement in water quality can be obtained by minor improvement in treatment at each point source, at little cost. The second common allocation method specifies equal effluent concentrations. This is similar to equal percent removal if influent concentrations at all sources are approximately the same. However, if one source has substantially higher influent concentration levels for a parameter in question, the equal effluent concentrations method will require higher overall treatment levels for the discharges with the higher concentration. The third commonly used method of allocating loads can be termed a hybrid method. With this method, the criteria for waste reduction may not be the same from one source to the next. One source may be allowed to operate unchanged while another may be required to provide the entire load reduction. More generally, a proportionality rule may be assigned that requires the percent removal to be proportional to the input source loading or flow rate. 5.4.9 Surface Water Discharge A new discharge to surface water would have to fully comply with nondegradation trigger limits. New surface water discharges are not allowed to raise the background level of nitrogen more than 0.01 mg/L and 0.001 mg/L for phosphorus at the rivers seven year, ten day low flow (7Q10). The nearest surface water available as a receiving water is Prickly Pear Creek. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) gauging station on Prickly Pear Creek near Clancy, Montana (Station MT06061500)t" the 7Q10 flows are 8.0 cfs for a drainage basin with 192 square miles. The drainage basin at Clancy is smaller than at the gauging station by 63 square miles, and the calculated 7Q 10 flows are 5.4 cfs (see Appendix C). Based on a wastewater flow of 35,000 gallons per day and the 7Q10 flow of 5.4 cfs, a mass balance calculation was performed to determine the discharge permit limits for surface water discharge to Prickly Pear Creek (See Appendix C for these calculations). These calculations predict that the treated effluent, prior to discharge, would need to have a nitrogen concentration of 1 mg/L or less to meet the trigger limit of 0.01 mg/L. The potential nitrogen and phosphorus limits are attainable by very few of the most advanced treatment processes. Consideration of all of the above issues makes surface water discharge not technically feasible option for Clancy. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is also in the process of developing numeric nutrient water quality criteria as described above. This criteria is intended to control excessive nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) pollution in Montana's streams, rivers, and lakes. The intent of numeric nutrient criteria is to assure a level of water quality that will protect the beneficial uses of these water-bodies. Waivers from this standard may be an option but again, these nutrient criteria have not been established and potential waivers are not yet finalized. Due to the yet undetermined TMDLs, numeric nutrient criteria, high potential of litigation over a surface water discharge, and high level of treatment required, Jefferson County is dismissing the alternative to discharge treated effluent to surface water and it will no longer be considered. 31 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • 5.4,10 Groundwater Discharge Disposal to the groundwater could consist of rapid infiltration cells (ponds or laterals) or a community drainfield system. Groundwater discharging systems that exceed 5,000 gallons per day (gpd) require a groundwater discharge permit with nondegradation trigger limits of 5.0 mg/L of nitrogen for standard systems and 7.5 mg/L of nitrogen for Level 2 systems at the end of a mixing zone (typically 500 feet for a public system), and satisfy the 50-year phosphorus breakthrough analysis (see Appendix J for nondegradation calculations). 5.4.11 Land Application Another type of wastewater disposal is through land application. With this method of disposal, spray irrigation equipment, such as center pivots, wheel lines, and drip irrigation systems are utilized to irrigate crops with treated wastewater. However, in order for this process to meet nondegradation rules and avoid groundwater permit requirements, the wastewater must be applied to the crop at agronomic rates. This ensures that all of the nitrogen in the wastewater will be consumed by the crop and will not impact the groundwater. Hydraulic overloading and minimum irrigation needs to support a healthy crop are also considerations when designing land application systems. The design requirements associated with land application are primarily climate and agricultural based, and requires a detailed water balance. Climate data for this area used in the comparative analysis can be found in Appendix L. A complete land application analysis was completed for this project when evaluating the storage and irrigation alternative and can be found in Appendix N and in Appendix O. 5.5 Treatment Wastewater treatment systems would need to comply with Circular DEQ-2 requirements and, in the case of Level 2 systems with disposal to groundwater, DEQ-4 would also apply. Plans would be reviewed by DEQ for compliance and any deviations would require a written request to be submitted with justification for the requested deviation along with the plans. Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 goes into more detail with respect to the DEQ Circulars and Section 5.4 describes other defining water quality laws. The following Table 5.5 shows several different types of treatment and the approximate water quality attained from each: Technologies Table 5.5 -Wastewater Treatment Treatment type Attainable Wastewater Quality Total Retention Lagoons (evaporation) Non-Discharging Facultative Lagoon with Irrigation Non-Discharging Mechanically aerated lagoon with Irrigation Non-Discharging • Activated sludge mechanical plant with Irrigation Non-Discharging 32 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER . NITROGEN REMOVING TECHNOLOGY-BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL (BNR) Oxidation ditch mechanical plant 8-10 mg/l -Total Nitrogen Biolac (proprietary) activated sludge process 10-15 mg/1—Total Nitrogen Fixed film Activated Sludge 10 mg/1 Total Nitrogen Sequencing batch reactor mechanical plant (SBR) 5-8 mg/l Total Nitrogen Oxic/Anoxic advanced treatment plant 3-8 mg/I Total Nitrogen Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) 3-5 mg/l Total Nitrogen (Excellent BOD and TSS Removal Wetland ponds/Floating Islands Winter limitations 'There are many types of fixed film systems,including rotating biological contractor,trickling filters,etc. 5.6 Collection The new collection system would need to comply with Circular DEQ-2 requirements. Plans would be reviewed by DEQ for compliance and any deviations would require a written request to be submitted with justification for the requested deviation along with the plans. The most pertinent section to the proposed District's collection system for the alternatives considered is Chapter 30: Design of Sewers. 5.7 Lift Stations The new lift station (pump station) would need to comply with Circular DEQ-2 requirements. Plans would be reviewed by DEQ for compliance and any deviations would require a written request to be submitted with justification for the deviation along with the plans. The most pertinent section to the proposed District's lift stations is Chapter 40: Wastewater Pumping Stations. 5.8 Sludge The EPA Region 8 Biosolids Permit governs sludge handling and processing. The required sludge handling and/or disposal would also need to comply with Circular DEQ-2 requirements for the new system. Plans would be reviewed by DEQ for compliance and any deviations would require a written request to be submitted with justification for the deviation along with the plans. The most pertinent section of the DEQ to the proposed District's sludge handling and disposal system is Chapter 80: Sludge Processing, Storage, and Disposal. Septic pumping of the abandoned individual systems would most likely be completed by contracting a certified septic pumping service, which would be governed by the EPA Region 8 . Biosolids Permit. 33 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 6.0 ALTERNATIVE SCREENING PROCESS Numerous alternatives exist that would provide adequate wastewater treatment for the proposed District's new system. The purpose of this alternative screening process is to scrutinize the available alternatives, and determine which ones are the most viable for Clancy. Then, the most pertinent alternatives will be examined in more detail in the following Section (Section 7) entitled Alternatives Analysis. 6.1 Collection System Alternatives The proposed centralized wastewater system for Clancy is an entirely new system, so the collection system layout alternatives are relatively straightforward. The alternatives in this section are evaluated based on general knowledge of the site and are subject to modification during the design stages of the project when more accurate topographical information is available and a thorough assessment of other existing buried utilities is complete. In general, the collection system for this project can either be operated by gravity or pressurized systems with various alignment options that depend on availability of land and efficiency of the system. 6.1.1 Gravity Collection This alternative is a complete gravity system with the main lines located in the existing street or alley right-of-ways. For this project. easements will be most obtainable with this option and there is enough of grade to work with, so this alternative will be evaluated further in this report. Specific configurations will be discussed further in subsequent sections of this report. 6.1.2 Pressurized Collection System This alternative is a network ofsmaller diameter piping that utilizes pressure to transport effluent verses gravity. These systems are less common than gravity, but can be effective in areas with less grade to work with, and often work well in rural communities and/or residential areas with undulating terrain and long distances to treatment sites. This type of system is commonly referred to as a STEP system, which is an acronym for Septic Tank Effluent Pumping. The use of this type of system can be beneficial in areas where many existing homes already have septic tanks, and it is easier to install pressurized pipe in already developed areas because the construction parameters are more flexibie. The downside of these systems in a community application is that the individual owners are typically responsible for the operation and maintenance of each septic tank and pumping station. In Clancy, it is unknown how many residences have pre existing useable septic tanks. In fact, many of the septic systems may not have septic tanks at all, so the advantage mentioned above in regards to reutilizing existing septic tanks is not anticipated. For these reasons, and for the simple fact that the existing topography of Clancy has enough grade to utilize a gravity system, this alternative will not be further evaluated in this report. 34 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 6.1.3 Gravity / Pressurized Hybrid System This alternative can have many different combinations of gravity and pressure piping depending on the specific objective of the system. For this project, the thought with this alternative would be to utilize gravity wherever practical, and individual grinder pumps only for service connections that would require excessive lengths of gravity main to collect a Small flow. Individual grinder pumps can be feasible in combination with primary gravity systems, but each pump needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis during the design of the system. For this reason, this alternative will be further evaluated in combination with the street and/or alley gravity systems mentioned above. 6.2 Lift Station Alternatives Pmnping station(s) will most likely be necessary for this project since the few suitable locations for treatment are a long way from the majority of the collection system. Below is a general discussion of configurations considered to transport raw wastewater to a treatment and disposal site There are several lift station configurations that could be used at Clancy. Those configurations include a single centralized lift station or multiple stations. In general a single centralized lift station is preferred from both a capital cost perspective and an operations and maintenance perspective. Based on initial data collection of topography in the Clancy area, a single centralized lift station would be anticipated for the project. For that reason other lift station configurations (multiple lift stations) will not be considered further. Further discussion of the lift station will continue in subsequent sections of this report. 6.3 Treatment Alternatives There are several treatment alternatives to consider for this type of wastewater project. Below is a summary of the most applicable alternatives discussed in this Section, and either dismissed or recommended for further evaluation. Multiple variations exist with many of these alternatives, and recognized throughout this initial screening process. I. No Action Alternative 2. Total Retention Ponds (Evaporation) 3. Storage and Irrigation (Low Rate Land Application) 4. Naturally Aerated Facultative Lagoons with Discharge 5. Mechanically Aerated Lagoons with Discharge 6. Septic Tank/Pressure Dosed Drainfield 7. Septic Tank/Level 2 Treatment/Pressure Dosed Drainfield 8. Constructed Wetlands 9. Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Mechanical Treatment Plant with Discharge to either Surface Water or Groundwater 35 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 6.3.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative means no improvements would be made and the existing individual onsite treatment systems would continue as the only means of septic disposal. Without centralized wastewater management facilities, degradation of groundwater and surface water resources will continue. With dated and failing individual septic systems, marginally treated to untreated wastewater is likely reaching the groundwater aquifers. Over time, the nutrients and fecal colifonns in the discharge will contaminate and degrade the water quality in the groundwater and surrounding surface waters and endanger public health. The No Action Alternative will continue to be an alternative in this report solely due the financial burdens from the other options considered. 6.3.2 Total Retention Ponds (Evaporation) A non-discharging treatment system (total retention pond) consists of large shallow ponds (2 -46 feet deep) that rely on evaporation to eliminate the wastewater effluent. Solids are periodically removed and properly disposed of via land fanning or licensed solid waste facilities. These systems require considerably more land area than non-aerated discharging facultative or aerated lagoon systems due to their reliance on evaporation for effluent disposal. Flat topography and and climate with high evaporation rate are needed to successfully apply this technology. The ponds must be lined to prevent wastewater seepage into the groundwater. The ponds should provide sufficient control structures and piping to allow some redirection of flows as necessary. Treated effluent is disposed by evaporation so no discharge permit is required. The ponds are extremely simple to operate and maintain, are reliable, and are not heavily regulated. For these reasons they -an 'ne v erg good fa: small connmm�itie and suhd,l,isioas",:;th readil} a�.ailaLle. inexpensive land. Clancy is somewhat limited with available land. This type of system for the projected design flows would require approximately 30-acres of lagoons. A preliminary design of a total retention system was completed and is attached in Appendix M. Since useable land with relatively flat slopes is a rare commodity in this area, and there is a higher potential for odors to create problems, this treatment and disposal alternative will not be evaluated further in this report. 6.3.3 Storage and Irrigation (Low Rate Land Application) Typically. the wastewater is treated in primary cells, stored in 6 - 8 feet deep storage cells during the winter months, and then applied to cropland or pasture during the summer months using sprinkler irrigation equipment. Secondary treatment must be achieved prior to irrigation so lagoon technologies prior to irrigation are adequate. Without disinfection of the irrigated wastewater, a 200 foot buffer area is required around the irrigated acreage to minimize public access. Remote locations are preferred. In northern climates, where the 1-rowing season is limited. sufficient storage (180 to 230 days) is required during the non-growing season. This treatment technology has been excluded from the 36 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER nondegradation rules if the system is designed for 100 percent nitrogen uptake by the in-igated crops. Since there is some suitable land for irrigation in the vicinity of the proposed District this alternative is viable and will be evaluated in more detail in this report. 6.3.4 Naturally Aerated Facultative Lagoons with Surface Water or Groundwater Discharge Facultative lagoons are medium depth ponds (typically 6 ft) that have both aerobic and anaerobic zones. These lagoons depend on natural biological, chemical and physical processes to stabilize the wastewater. Oxygen for biological stabilization is provided by natural aeration at the water surface and by algae through photosynthesis. The treatment process is entirely natural and requires no mechanical aeration equipment. The only operation required is to direct flow from series to parallel operation should odors become a problem and to watch the pond level to ensure adequate storage is available should spring turnover temporarily suspend discharge. As with all wastewater ponds, the operator must periodically mow embankment vegetation, monitor effluent quality and exercise valves. Sludge removal is required every 10 to 20 years. Operation and maintenance of this technology is very simple and inexpensive. This type of treatment process often disposes of treated effluent by discharging to a nearby stream or river. A MPDES discharge permit from DEQ is required. The permit establishes contaminant concentration and load limits that cannot be exceeded. Monthly wastewater effluent samples are required. The operator that takes the samples must be properly licensed by the State of Montana and the samples must be analyzed by a certified lab in order to provide results to DEQ for review. For permits requiring only secondary standards lie satisfied. facullative lagoons may be viable. if relatively low nitrogen, ammonia, and phosphorous concentrations are required. this tecltnnlnv_v mov not be applicahle. The biggest disadvantage with this process is the large pond area and aolume required. A large pond area is required to provide sufficient oxygen by surface re-aeration. Also, the rate of organic decomposition is slower than other treatment processes because of poor mixing characteristics and the slower rate of oxygenation. This slower rate requires more detention time and therefore more volume. In addition, ice and snow cover can limit sunlight penetration needed for photosynthesis and the cold winter temperatures can greatly inhibit treatment capacity. The winter performance of facultative ponds is reduced and state design standards require 1$0 days of detention time to provide adequate treatment and also require that the system have a 3-cell configuration. Small communities often have less money available for maintenance and operation, which makes simpler systems more appealing. Lagoons typically have the lowest O&M costs of most public wastewater treatment facilities. As discussed in Section 5.4.9, the surface water discharge dilution calculation would require a minimum of 1 mg/1- on a consistent basis, which is impossible with this alternative (See Appendix C). Additionally, lagoons commonly have odor problems, especially early in the sprint during "turnover a phenomenon where the coldest water is right at the surface as the ice 37 i Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER melts. This coldwater is heavier, and settles to the bottom of the lagoon displacing sediments, etc and bringing those materials to the surface creating the odor problem. Given the above described treatment requirements, consideration of the numeric nutrient standards and TMDL's described in Section 5.4, and wintertime treatment limitations, this alternative will not be evaluated further for either groundwater or surface water discharge. This technology can be used in conjunction with crop irrigation of wastewater effluent and will be evaluated further in combination with the Storage and Irrigation alternative (Alternative 6.3.3) mentioned above. 6.3.5 Mechanically Aerated Lagoons with Surface Water or Groundwater Discharge This discharging lagoon technology uses some mechanical means for diffusing air into the wastewater. The upper zone of the pond is aerated and therefore in an aerobic environment and the lower portion is in an anaerobic environment. This process is known as a partial mix mechanically aerated facultative lagoon. Mechanical aeration may be accomplished by blowers and subsurface diffusers or by mechanical agitation at the surface using various forms of surface aerators. Pond depths typically vary between 10 — 15 feet. The operator must maintain the blower and aerators, monitor dissolved oxygen in the ponds, periodically mow embankment vegetation, and monitor effluent quality and exercise valves. Sludge removal is required every 10 to 20 years. Historically, this type of treatment process often disposes of treated effluent by discharging to a nearby stream or river but can be discharged to groundwater or be used for irrigation. A discharge permit from DEQ is required. The permit establishes contaminant concentration and load limits that cannot be exceeded. Monthly wastewater effluent samples are required. The operator that takes the sar::ples must h: properly licensed bN the State r f Montana and the samples must be analyzed by a certified lab in order to provide results to DEQ for review. Mechanically aerated ponds provide better mixing of organics and oxygen than the previously discussed facultative lagoon. Also, the mechanical equipment provides oxygen at a greater rate and to a greater depth. These process improvements over naturally aerated facultative ponds increase the rate of decomposition of organics and allow for shorter detention times and smaller ponds. The state design standards require 20 days of detention time and the systems are often designed with 30 days of detention time. Pond volumes may be 1/6 to 1/10 the size of the naturally aerated facultative ponds discussed previously. Capital cost savings are often realized with the smaller ponds. The primary disadvantage is the need for mechanical equipment to accomplish these process improvements and the associated increase in operation and maintenance time and expense. Like the discharging facultative pond treatment alternative previously discussed, mechanically aerated ponds are designed to meet traditional secondary standards and are not designed to meet more stringent standards for nitrogen and phosphorous. Therefore, as with naturally aerated facultative ponds, mechanically aerated ponds have more uncertainty with their ability to meet the requirements for surface water or groundwater discharge as outlined in Section 5.4.9 and 5.4.10. and will not be evaluated further in this report. Although, this technology can be used in conjunction with crop irrigation 38 I Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER of wastewater effluent, and will therefore be evaluated further in conjunction with the Storage and Irrigation Alternative mentioned above. 6.3.6 Septic Tank/Pressure Dosed Drainfield The standard septic tank/drainfield type of treatment system is typically applied to individual residences or small subdivisions but is occasionally applied to very small communities. This system consists of two primary components; the septic tank and the drainfield. Wastewater is delivered to the septic tank from the collection system. The septic tank size is based on the amount of flow generated by the users. The septic tank is typically made of concrete with a baffled inlet and outlet. The- function of the septic tank is to separate solids from liquids and provide anaerobic treatment of the solids. The partially treated liquid wastewater is then pumped from the septic tank to the drainfield. The drainfield consists of a series of distribution pipes with holes through which the wastewater is uniformly distributed. The distribution pipes discharge the wastewater into buried seepage trenches or beds designed to spread the wastewater out and facilitate seepage into the subsoil. The sewage is only partially treated in the septic tank, therefore the system relies on the soil to provide both treatment and disposal. The treatment is accomplished by the fonnation of a biomat at the interface of the trench bottom and existing ground surface and is largely aerobic in nature. Experience has shown that four feet of soil depth under unsaturated flow conditions is necessary for proper treatment. Sometimes the soil can be either too coarse such that a biomat is not formed or too fine such that the wastewater will not drain. With the majority of wastewater treatment and disposal taking place together in the soil matrix, there is also potental for insufficient treatment prior to disposal. Therefore, careful consideration must be gi% en to site conditions including soil texture, ate- depth depth and bedrock depth. ernundwater flow direction. and potential contamination impacts. When properly sited.. designed. constructed and maintained, the standard septic tank/drainfield type of treatment system can provide adequate wastewater treatment and is an accepted wastewater management method. This alternative would require the community to obtain a groundwater discharge permit. This technology does not provide significant nitrogen removal and may have difficulty in some cases satisfying the nitrate requirements of the nondegradation regulations in aquifers with low hydraulic conductivities. As described in Section 5.4.10, this technology would require the most stringent nondegradation nitrogen limit (5.0 mg/L) to be met. This option would require large drainfields for the design flows— over 10 acres. For these reasons, the standard septic tank and drainfield treatment alternative will not be considered further in this report. Nondegradation calculations and drainfield sizing spreadsheets are included in Appendix K. 6.3.7 Septic Tank / Level 2 / Pressure Dosed Drainfield This alternative is identical to the standard septic tank/pressure distribution drainfield system previously described, except it also incorporates an additional treatment process between the septic tank and drainfield. This additional process is to improve the quality of the effluent 39 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER discharged to the pressure distribution drainfield. There are several different types of approved Level 2 treatment systems in Montana (accepted as a nutrient reducing treatment system) which provide some nitrogen removal and will improve the treatment systems ability to satisfy the more stringent nondegradation regulatory requirements. Level 2 systems have the advantage of providing better effluent quality and more control over the treatment process when compared to standard septic tank and drainfield systems but are more expensive. The use of Level 2 processes allows a 50% reduction in the drainfield size. The added expense of treatment pods is partially offset by the reduction in draindfield area required. This option also requires a groundwater discharge permit. As documented with nondegradation calculations (Appendix K) this type of treatment is potentially feasible in the planting area. More importantly. for the design wastewater flows in this community. this type of system is incrementally expandable. For these reasons, this treatment alternative will be further evaluated in this report. 6.3.8 Constructed Wetlands Although not new technology, improvements in technology have recently made constructed wetlands an easily operated, efficient alternative to conventional treatment systems. The most common uses are municipal wastewater and acid mine drainage. Europe tends to use the technology more for primary treatment. In Montana, MDEQ requires wetlands follow some form of primary treatment such as lagoons and septic tanks. Constructed wetlands are artificially created wetlands using either subsurface or surface flow. Surface flow constructed wetlands consist of a basin or channels with some type of lining to prevent seepage. Soil is added to the bottom of these basins or channels to support emergent vegetation. The wastewater in these systems is exposed to the surface and therefore called free water surface wolands. Subsurface wetlands are basins or channels that are lined to prevent seepage and are filled with coarse grained material such as sand and gravels. These coarse grained materials allow wastewater to flow through the system, but below the free surface. The coarse grained material also supports the aquatic vegetation planted throughout the basin or channels. Typical vegetation planted in constructed wetlands include cattails, bulrushes, and reeds. These systems rely on both aerobic and anaerobic biological processes to remove nutrients. The flow path through these systems is horizontal and the final effluent is generally collected at the end by an effluent manifold. These systems may discharge to groundwater or surface water. This technology is not feasible for discharge to surface waters based on the discharge permit requirements discussed in Section 5. Given the significant pretreatment and storage requirements,this technology has generally been more expensive than many of the other technologies. Additionally, there is less data available to support this type of treatment in our climate. Due to these facts. this technology will not be evaluated further in this report. 40 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • 6.3.9 Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Mechanical Treatment Plant with Discharge to either Surface Water or Groundwater As mentioned previously, the activated sludge process has been modified to accomplish biological nutrient removal. The simplest adaptation is to add an anoxic reactor in front of the traditional activated sludge process and a recycle stream back to the anoxic basin from the aeration basin. The amount of air and the size of the reactors must also be adjusted to accomplish the conversion from traditional activated sludge to biological nutrient removal. This revision is referred to as the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) process and is designed for nitrogen removal. This process is basic to all nitrogen removal processes in that all nitrogen removal requires oxic and anoxic conditions. The total nitrogen in raw wastewater must be converted to nitrates in oxic conditions and the nitrates must then be converted to nitrogen gas in anoxic conditions. The MLE process can be expected to achieve effluent limits of approximately 7.5 to 10 mg/I total nitrogen. The MILE process has been enhanced to accomplish a higher degree of treatment by adding a second stage and an outside source of carbon. In some cases a post denitrification filter of some type has been added. These numerous process modifications can improve performance of biological nutrient removal plants. They include such processes as the 4 stage Bardenpho process and others. These process modifications can result in effluent permit limits as low as 3 mg/1 total nitrogen. This is generally considered the limits of technology for biological removal of nitrogen. Phosphorous removal is accomplished by adding an anaerobic basin in front of the MLE process. This process is refen-ed to as the A20 process and is basic to phosphorous removal. Like nitrogen removal. several process adaptations hacc been made to improve phosphorous removal. Other reactors and procegses utilized for both nitrogen and phosphorous removal include the oxidation ditch, the sequencing batch reactor or the membrane bioreactor. Many of these come in pre-manufactured package plant designs. It is important to recognize that all of these processes relx on the creation of oxic and anoxic conditions for nitrogen removal and aerobic and anaerobic conditions for phosphorous removal, but do so in different reactors and process configurations. Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) typically utilize the MLE process prior solids removal by a membrane filter. The membrane filter simply replaces the need for a clarifier to separate solids and will result in better nitrogen removal than the traditional MLE process because the TSS removal is very good. Both nitrogen and phosphorous are part of the cell mass removed with TSS removal. The bulk of the nitrogen and phosphorous removal however is still dependent on the biological process (MLE or A20) preceding the membrane unit. The advantage of the MBR is that it will result in slightly higher level of nitrogen removal than the traditional MLE process. MBR require addition RAS recycle power and penneate pump power. This will result in higher O&M costs, but may be worth it if the higher level of treatment achieved is required and justifies the increased cost. There is a space savings with the MBR, depending on how it is configured, because the clarifier in eliminated and the reactor may be smaller. However. it is important to remember that the rest of the plant facilities are still needed such a head-works, digesters, labs, disinfection, solids handling, etc. In this sense, the overall plant space savings may be more 41 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • modest than that often reported when only a direct comparison of reactor size is made to other processes. Some manufacturers have placed batch reactors in front of membrane units to provide the biological nutrient removal necessary. The oxidation ditch reactor was traditionally designed as an extended aeration activated sludge process. This extended aeration process resulted in a system that was very forgiving and operator friendly. The reactor can be modified in a couple of ways to result in the creation of oxic and anoxic conditions. The reactor can be used as an anoxic reactor proceeded by the addition of an anoxic reactor to create an MLE process. Or the reactor can be designed to create internal oxic and anoxic conditions with no recycle, a nice advantage. An SBR is a batch process that has been used extensively in wastewater treatment. A single reactor is used for all treatment processes including aeration, biologic treatment, and clarification. Since the SBR treats wastewater in batches, a minimum of two tanks are required. The tanks operate 180 degrees out of phase, so while one tank is filling, the second tank is going through the aeration, clarification, and decanting cycles. The operational cycles of each tank are switched after each batch. When treatment is complete the treated effluent is decanted via floating decanters to an equalization basin for follow up treatment. An equalization basin allows any downstream process units, like disinfection, to be sized for system design flows rather than the higher flow rate of the decanter. Also after each batch, some of the sludge must be wasted from the SBR tank and sent to a sludge digester. Digested sludge is dewatered and stored until it can be disposed of through land application or in a landfill. In the final step, the treated wastewater will be disinfected with UV disinfection and discharged to the ground water. This system has the advantage of no recycle. which makes it simple for small communities to operate. The treatment efficiency is also \-erg high. Some systems have been able to consistently produce 5 mg/I total nitrogen in northern climates. Groundwater disposal for all these technologies v;al require that a around\a ate.*discharge permit he obtained. This permit will require satisfaction of Montana nondegradation regulation and the removal of nitrates to less than 7.5 mg/l at the end of a 500-foot mixing zone. Groundwater disposal using a mechanical plant is very feasible. given that some of the plant processes produce effluent meeting nondegradation standards without needing dilution by groundwater. Great West has completed detailed analysis for other projects that directly compared the above technologies and has typically found them to be competitive with each other. A few common advantages and disadvantages seem to emerge based on the inherent design of each. However, there is no one technology that is superior to the other. Each has its proper place in application. Which one is preferable in dependent on the site and the desires of the community. When compared, life cycle costs for each alternative have typically been pretty close, within 10 to 20% of each other. The oxidation ditch treatment system is typically more expensive with a larger foot print than the SBR. The MBR is often more expensive for both capital and O&M costs than the SBR. MBR utilize a smaller foot print than the SBR, which may be important at sites where land limitations are severe. The MBR will result in slightly better nitrogen and phosphorous removal due to the higher removal of TSS from the membrane when compared to those technologies relying on clarification. 42 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Because the space advantages of an MBR technology are over whelmed by the significant space needs associated with the groundwater disposal facilities and higher levels of treatment are not required, MBRs will not be evaluated further in the planning stages of this prgject. The oxidation ditch also does not appear to offer any obvious advantage at this stage, nor do other technologies such as Bio-Wheel and MLE. For these reasons, an SBR plant is thought to be the most appropriate mechanical treatment technology for Clancy at this stage of planning. During the design stage each of the above technologies will be investigated again prior to finalizing the design concept. 43 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 7.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS 7.1 Collection System Alternatives Two collection systems configurations were evaluated in this Section. Both systems are gravity flow and governed by the same regulations. The only significant difference is the alignments of the pipe network. 7.1.1 Alternative CS-1 : Gravity Collection — Street Layout The standard gravity collection system is the most commonly used municipal wastewater collection system. Several of the laterals are interconnected to eventually form a complex network of pipes that transport the raw sewage to a central location. From this central location, the raw sewage is then either pumped (lift station) or fed by gravity to the treatment site. There is no septic tank between the home and the central collection system and therefore, no interception of solids prior to reaching the central sewer. Because this type of collection system handles both the solid and the liquid portions of raw sewage, larger pipe sizes must be used and manholes must be located at every change in alignment and slope. These design features are necessary to prevent plugging and to facilitate cleaning. The minimum pipe diameter allowed by state design standards is 8-inches and manholes must be located every 400 ft. State design standards also specify minimum slopes for each pipe diameter. This type of collection system relies entirely on gravity for the transport of the raw sewage and therefore must be laid out in accordance with the topography of the area. Obviously, the less undulating and hilly the topography, the less complex and expensive the gravity collection system. At slopes greater than 20-percent. it is much more difficult to install a standard gravity collection system. In some cases the topography is to undulating and gravity must be combined with either STEP or grinder pump systems. As discussed in Section 6.1.3, there are certain instances where some homes may require grinder pumps to pump raw sewage to the central sewer. For the grinder pump homes, flows from the homes would be transported to a smaller chamber where specially constructed pumps transport raw sewage through a pressure line that dumps the sewage into the gravity main. No solids separation takes place with the grinder pump concept. The size of each grinder vault is dependent on the flows generated by the particular user. Most residential homes would require a residential sized packaged grinder system. The grinder systems are more complicated than the standard gravity service lines because grinder pumps and controls are required for each grinder station. While generally reliable, the pumps and controls do fail requiring periodic repair. The use of grinder pumps is not the goal or intentions with this alternative,but could prove feasible in certain situations and is therefore noted. A disadvantage of a gravity collection system is that it is susceptible to groundwater infiltration if the pipe and services are not properly installed. This is a concern in an area that experiences high groundwater. Groundwater infiltration may increase as the pipe joints degrade and if future services are not properly installed. Extra care needs to be taken in the design and construction of 44 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER this type of system to prevent initial infiltration. To prevent future degradation, the installation of future services needs to be closely regulated by the proposed District. Schematic Layout This alternative is unique to this analysis based on the system layout primarily within the street corridor. Individual services will convey effluent toward the street in front of each lot. It should be noted that although the street network was emphasized with this layout, there are certain areas where this was not practical; therefore, some of the alignment is along lot lines, creek corridors, and in alley ways. Figure 7.1.1 illustrates this collection system alternative and can be viewed on the following page. Operational Requirements The primary advantage of the standard gravity collection system is its simple and inexpensive operation and maintenance. This is because it does not rely on numerous small pumping and control facilities that not only require ongoing maintenance but can also fail. The standard gravity collection system is a tried and true technology that has generally proven to be reliable if properly operated and maintained. The systems should be set up on a periodic flushing and cleaning schedule that results in the cleaning of each pipe segment in the system every five years. The system may experience periodic plugging that must be corrected by the system operator. These duties are important to manage though the operator skill level and manpower required with this technology is minimal, especially when compared with pressurized systems. These systems generally have a very long service life and can be expected to last 50 years or more. Energy Requirements This type of collection system operates via gravity and will therefore have no energy requirement. Regulatory Compliance and Permits The proposed alternative would be designed and constructed in compliance with Circular DEQ-2 regulations. Plans would need to be reviewed and approved by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality before bidding and construction could begin. Because of the total length of the pipeline placement, more than one acre of land would likely be disturbed; thus, a storm water discharge permit would be needed during construction. The selected contractor would be responsible for obtaining a storm water permit, as would be indicated in the project specifications. Environmental permits from the state and army corps are likely to be required with this alternative, but at this point in the process it is not known for sure. There are two stream crossing with potential for associated wetlands that may require permitting based on wetland classifications and amount of disturbance. Additionally, there will be Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and Jefferson County Road Department encroachment permits required. 45 .+fig � ,�• - •�` �} ° •�,� °�' + �`-:`. .fit $ �''l •' �� �'„'1w q v. . �� i•^¢0.� Ab k deg • J.µ f�° y , �� �!� •�• �' •�, � VR�. ♦ OI M.•`4 dip`. '.t., �►j�/ f�.lt .L i..` x wit► y A •A �+� ', ,_ tts . .: .. 1 . am .. .1 •¢we • f ' ` L !(fir 1 �• ` ii r � / RALZFOCOLLECTION a i. r iw AND UFC STATWN i• w s FIGURE 7.1.1 LEGEND: PRELIMINARY COLLECTION c)ISTRICTBOUNDARY SYSTEM LAYOUT (STREET) E {{�� G[CatWest °C° SEINER COLLECTION PIPE JEFFERSON COUNTY l 0.L bOL scaiE iw r[V CLANCYI•VASTEWATER PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT engincenng Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Land Requirements This alternative would be almost entirely constructed in existing right-of-ways, so very little land acquisition and/or easements would be necessary. The main area where an easement will be required is the collection main connecting the south portion of the proposed District. Another area an casement is necessary is along the back lot lines of the far northwestern properties in the proposed District due to the street being elevated higher than the homes. There are no anticipated conflicts with respect to land requirements with this alternative. Environmental Considerations Although large areas may be disturbed as a result of open-trench digging,most areas will be within existing rights-of-way and easements that have been previously disturbed by development. The exception is the main connection the southern portion of the proposed District and the lateral servicing the far northwest lots. There will be no changes in land use after completion of the project. Some air quality problems with dust may arise during the actual construction period because the majority of the streets are unpaved; however, it would be temporary and the contract documents would require that the Contractor provide dust control. Similarly, there will be some temporary noise during construction. Once construction is complete, there will be no noise or dust problems arising as a result of the improvements. The contract documents shall also require that Best Management Practices (BMP) be employed before, during, and after construction until all areas of disturbance have been fully reclaimed and/or re-vegetated. For these reasons, environmental impacts are considered minimal and no permanent, negative environmental impacts are anticipated. Construction Problenns Pipe construction would include placing pipelines using a typical open-trench method involving excavation, shoring, bedding materials, dewatering as necessary and installation of new pipe. Trench width is somewhat dependent on the size of pipe being replaced and the size of the equipment used to excavate. For this project it is estimated that the trench width would be approximately ten feet at a maximum. The depth of the trench will vary dependent upon the design depth of the sewer line. Most depths are expected to be approximately 5 — 8 feet deep. Some disadvantages of pipe placement in the streets are the disturbance of existing road surfacing, and the traffic control nuisance to area residents. Construction can sometimes be difficult especially when working at peak hours, when installing sections of deep pipelines, or in areas with high groundwater. Each of these is a concern for Clancy. Cost Estimates The direct construction cost estimate for collection system Alternative CS-1 is shown below on Table 7.1.1. The lift station cost has been included as part of the collection system. 47 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • Opinion of Probable Clancy Wastewater Treatment Project Alternative CS-1 - Gravity Collection- Street Layout(w] Lift Station) # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE' TOTAL 1 Exploratory Excavation 40 HR $ 150.00 $ 6,000 2 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 3 8" PVC SDR 35 Sewer Main 13,500 LF $ 40.00 $ 540,000 4 48-inch Standard Manhole 60 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 180,000 5 1 4- Gravity Service Line 9,200 LF $ 27.50 $ 253,000 6 Service Connection 103 EA $ 750.00 $ 77,250 7 Grinder Pump(with reserve capacity) 10 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 40,000 8 Abandon Existing Septic Tank in Place 100 EA $ 750.00 $ 75,000 9 Asphalt Removal&Replacement 13,400 SY $ 35.00 $ 469,000 10 Lift Station & Emergency Power 1 LS $ 135,000.00 $ 135,000 11 Chain Link Fencing Around Lit Station 140 LF $ 25.00 $ 3,500 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 1,784,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. Other costs associated with this construction are shown in Section 7.3 along with the treatment alternatives and include items such as: operation and maintenance, mobilization,traffic control, financial, land acquisition and/or easements, permitting, engineering, legal, and administrative. Given that the collection system cost estimates are purely based on preliminary design and the margin between these non-construction items is relatively small among the two collection system alternatives considered, they will not be part of this collection system comparative analysis. Capital costs for this alternative (CS-1) are $1,784,000. The O&M costs are $3,000 with a present worth value of$44,995. The salvage value at the end of 20 years is $632,250 with a present worth value of$197,100. The overall present worth cost for this alternative is $1,631,895. This analysis is also shown on Table 8.2.3. The quantities used in Table 7.1.1 were calculated from the preliminary design layout for this alternative. The unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs from similar projects throughout Montana. Careful consideration was given to each line item regarding project location and any site specific information available at this time. 7.1.2 Alternative CS-2: Gravity Collection — Alley Layout The standard gravity collection system is the most commonly used municipal wastewater collection system. Several of the laterals are interconnected to eventually form a complex network of pipes that transport the raw sewage to a central location. From this central location, the raw sewage is then either pumped (lift station) or fed by gravity to the treatment site. 48 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER There is no septic tank between the home and the central collection system and therefore, no interception of solids prior to reaching the central sewer. Because this type of collection system handles both the solid and the liquid portions of raw sewage, larger pipe sizes must be used and manholes must be located at every change in alignment and slope. These design features are necessary to prevent plugging and to facilitate cleaning. The minimum pipe diameter allowed by state design standards is 8-inches and manholes must be located every 400 ft. State design standards also specify minimum slopes for each pipe diameter. This type of collection system depends entirely on gravity for the transport of the raw sewage and therefore must be laid out in accordance with the topography of the area. Obviously, the less undulating and hilly the topography, the less complex and expensive the gravity collection system. At slopes greater than 20%, it is much more difficult to install a standard gravity collection system. Where the topography is very hilly and steep, it may be more functional and cost effective to install a collection system that utilizes force mains and pumps. As discussed in Section 6.1.4, there are certain instances where some homes may require grinder pumps to pump the raw sewage to the central sewer. For the grinder pump homes, flows from the homes would be transported to a smaller chamber where specially constructed pumps transport raw sewage through a pressure line that dumps the sewage into the gravity main. No solids separation takes place with the grinder pump concept. The size of each grinder vault is dependent on the flows generated by the particular user. Most residential homes would require a residential sized packaged grinder system. The grinder systems are more complicated than the standard gravity service lines because grinder pumps and controls are required for each grinder station. While generally reliable, the pumps and controls do fail requiring periodic repair. The use of grinder pumps is not the goal or intentions with this alternative,but could prove feasible in certain situations and is therefore noted. A disadvantage of a gravity collection system is that it is susceptible to groundwater infiltration if the pipe and services are not properly installed. This is a concern in an area that experiences high groundwater. Groundwater infiltration may increase as the pipe joints degrade and if future services are not properly installed. Extra care needs to be taken in the design and construction of this type of system to prevent initial infiltration. To prevent future degradation, the installation of future services needs to be closely regulated by the proposed District. Schematic Layout This alternative is unique to this analysis based on maximizing the amount of collection pipe placed within the alley ways verses the streets. Individual services will convey effluent toward the back of each lot. However, there are certain areas with this layout where locating collection pipe outside of the alley way was unavoidable. Figure 7.1.2 illustrates this collection system alternative and can be viewed on the following page. Operational Requirements The primary advantage of the standard gravity collection system in general is its simple and inexpensive operation and maintenance. This is because it does not rely on numerous small pumping and control facilities that not only require ongoing maintenance but can also fail. The 49 i I � - © lip \ \ 2 ,CENTRALIZED COLLECTION ^ � ! _LIFT STATION r FIGURE %t2 PRELIMINARY COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYOUT (ALLEY) Y«<» mT 7E_mwREPORT 4 ♦,+1 Y ; K d �;may ;; +� ,�>�!�,c�{ l. .. i's Maa w S ., x f " . e"+tea � � �^is •� • f. t �ai'�;��� ..i !4 ^ s Ai �At � w n „� A . F •,� �� I k LENI%4LIZED Yale AND LIFT ST LIFT ST TION z' .. ATION "�- � s v FIGURE 7.1.2 F — LEGEND: PRELIMINARY COLLECTION a DISTRICT BOUNDAY SYSTEM LAYOUT (A LLEY) a JEFFERSON COUNTY 6 SEWER COLLECON PIPE CLANCY WASTEWA TER PRELIMNARYENGU$ERN REPORT srs�w rcct e`gineer�ng Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER standard gravity collection system is a tried and true technology that has generally proven to be reliable if properly operated and maintained. The systems should be set up on a periodic flushing and cleaning schedule that results in the cleaning of each pipe segment in the system every five years. The system may experience periodic plugging that must be corrected by the system operator. These systems generally have a very long service life and can be expected to last 50 years or more. Energy Requirements This type of collection system operates via gravity and will therefore have no energy requirement. Regulatory Compliance and Permits The proposed alternative would be designed and constructed in compliance with Circular DEQ-2 regulations. Plans would need to be reviewed and approved by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality before bidding and construction could begin. Because of the total length of the pipeline placement,more than one acre of land would likely be disturbed; thus, a stone water discharge permit would be needed during construction. The selected contractor would be responsible for obtaining a stone water permit, as would be indicated in the project specifications. Environmental permits from the state and army corps are likely to be required with this alternative, but at this point in the process it is not known for sure. There are two stream crossing ,,ith potential for associated wetlands that may require permitting based on wetland classifications and amount of disturbance. Additionally, there will be Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and Jefferson County Road Department encroachment permits required. Land Requirements The alternative would be mostly constructed in existing rights-of-way, so very little land acquisition and/or easements would be necessary. The same as with the street layout, the main area where an easement will be required is the collection main connecting the south portion of the proposed District. Another area an easement is necessary is along the back lot lines of the far northwestern properties in the proposed District due to the street being elevated higher than the homes. There are no anticipated conflicts with respect to land requirements with this alternative. Environmental Considerations Although large areas may be disturbed as a result of open-trench digging, virtually all areas will be within existing rights-of-way and easements that have been previously disturbed by development. The exception is the main connection the southern portion of the proposed District and the lateral servicing the far northwest lots. There will be no changes in land use after completion of the project. Some air quality problems with dust may arise during the actual construction period because the majority of the streets are unpaved; however, it would be temporary and the contract documents would require that the Contractor provide dust control. Similarly, there will be some temporary noise during construction. Once construction is complete, there will be no noise or dust problems arising as a result of the improvements. The contract documents shall also require that Best Management Practices (BMP) be employed 51 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER . before, during, and after construction until all areas of disturbance have been fully reclaimed and/or re-vegetated. For these reasons, environmental impacts are considered minimal and no permanent, negative environmental impacts are anticipated. Construction Problems Pipe construction would include placing pipelines using a typical open-trench method involving excavation, shoring, bedding materials, dewatering if necessary and installation of new pipe. Trench width is somewhat dependent on the size of pipe being replaced and the size of the equipment used to excavate. For this project it is estimated that the trench width would be approximately ten feet at a maximum. The depth of the trench will vary dependent upon the design depth of the sewer line. Most depths are expected to be approximately 5 to 8 feet deep. The biggest disadvantage of pipe placement in an alley is the lack of space to work in, and haul trucks typically have longer routes. There is also disturbance of existing road surfacing, and the traffic control nuisance to area residents. Construction can sometimes be difficult especially when working at peak hours, when installing sections of deep pipelines, or in areas with high groundwater. Each of these is a concern for Clancy. Cost Estimates The direct construction cost estimate for collection system Alternative CS-2 is shown below on Table 7.1 2. The lift station cost has been included as part of the collection system. Opinion Clancy Wastewater Treatment Project Alternative CS-2-Gravity Collection - Alley Layout (w/ Lift Station) # BID ITEM QTY UNITS7 UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Exploratory Excavation 40 HR $ 1,50.00 $ x,000 2 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 3 8" PVC SDR 35 Sewer Main 15,600 LF ! $ 40.00 $ 624,000 4 48-inch Standard Manhole 70 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 210,000 5 4" Gravity Service Line 8,900 LF $ 27.50 $ 244,750 6 Service Connection 103 EA $ 750.00 $ 77,250 7 Grinder Pump(with reserve capacity) 0 EA $ 4,000.00 $ - 8 Abandon Existing Septic Tank in Place 100 EA $ 750.00 $ 75,000 9 Asphalt Removal & Replacement 6,800 SY $ 35.00 $ 238,000 10 Lift Station & Emergency Power 1 LS $ 135,000.00 $ 135,000 11 Chain Link Fencing Around Lift Station 140 LF $ 25.00 $ 3,500 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 1,619,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. Other costs associated with this construction are shown in Section 7.3 along with the treatment alternatives and include items such as: operation and maintenance, mor,ilization, traffic control, financial, land acquisition and/or easements, permitting, engineering, legal, and administrative. 52 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • Given that the collection system cost estimates are purely based on preliminary design and the margin between these non-construction items is relatively small among the two collection system alternatives considered, they will not be part of this collection system comparative analysis. Capital costs for this alternative (CS-2) are $1,619,000. The O&M costs are $3,000 with a present worth value of$44,995. The salvage value at the end of 20 years is $695,700 with a present worth value of$216,900. The overall present worth cost for this alternative is $1,447,095. This analysis is also shown on Table 8.23. The quantities used in Table 7.1.2 were calculated from the preliminary design layout for this alternative. The unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs from similar projects throughout Montana. Careful consideration was given to each line item regarding project location and any site specific information available at this time. 7.2 Lift Station Alternatives The alternative screening process looked at various lift station systems that could be used to convey raw wastewater to the treatment site. The only system recommended for further evaluation was a single centralized lift station. Different variations of this type of lift station are examined in Section 7.2.1 below. • 7.2.1 Alternative L-1: Single Centralized Lift Station The single centralized lift station is the end point for the entire collection system and is designed to pump untreated wastewater to the treatment site. This type of lift station is often referred to as a vaN'scrage lift station. Three types of lift stations were examined for this application that included: 1) Packaged Submersible Lift Station, 2 1 Wet IXell/Dry Well Lift Station and I Suction Litt Station. I) Package submersible lift stations typically consist of two submersible pumps placed within a wet well. The discharge lines (force mains) extend up into an above ground insulated structure which sits on top of the wet well. The above ground structure houses the valves and control equipment for the station. The force main then goes back down through the floor and out through the wall of the wet well so that the force main is approximately 5 to 6 feet underground for frost protection. A typical detail of a package submersible lift station is shown of Figure 7.2.1. The pumps are attached to guide rails which allow the pumps to be removed for maintenance without entering the wet well. These stations are economical and have relatively low operation and maintenance requirements. Another advantage is that the operator should rarely need to enter the wet well and therefore; standard operation and maintenance tasks can be completed without entering a confined space. A package submersible lift station does not require a dry well. Capital costs for this alternative are included in Tables 7.1.1 and 7.1.2. 53 C\[)cc I Sellingc\rf ItcchV!)cs'et.,ACACD I-02154—TO AII U my FIN\E.dV -Vi 05151—'0#42-1g 17 1 CfL Stctlon awg 4'GREEN VENT 4'X 18'GALV.NIPPLE RIM ELEV. I�CJ 3 6'Z-LOK FOR FRAME 6 COVER ELECT.CONDUIT 1 oo ACCESS CL 2'CWPLING 3'COUPLING F R FLOAT FOR PUMP POWER 1 ELEC.COUP.—11 4'VENT 6'Z-LOK FOR G HATCHES ON WET WELL 6'D.I.PIPE � r F COMPARTMENT INVERT OU T Ct O C– 8 8 5497.50 INSULATED ALUMINUM r-24–' 8 HATCH ON VALVE PVC-IN COMPARTMENT A C- 4'DIA.GREEN VENT r F B G H IST SOCKET CAST IRON FLOOR DRAIN WI P-TRAP Z-LOK GASKETS FOR PIPE TO WALL SEAL 8'D.I.PIPE RECESSED HOIST SOCKET Q INVERT IN F.M.OUT WITH CAP 2-COATS CS-55 0AMPPROOF 8'Z•LOK FOR A-CHECK-VALVE E-TEEWICOMPANION ON EXTERIOR OF STRUCT. 8'SOR-M PVC FLANGE B-PLUG-VALVE INTERIOR AWA-COAT F-SEWAGE PUMP C-FILLER-FLANGE JOINT PRIMER AND JOINT G-GUIDE RAIL SYSTEM WRAP AT JOINTS D-AIR VALVE ALL FNTINGS BALL DUCTILE PLAN VIEW OF VALVE VAULTIWET WELL STRUCTURE W/PLUMBING PIPE COATED WITH COAL-TAR EPDXY FILLETS CAST IN PLACE BY THE CONTRACTOR FLOOR ELEV 18,300# FIGURE 7.2.1 #5 REBAR-4 SIDES SCHEMATIC DRAWING GreatWest PACKAGED SUBMERSIBLE LIFT STATION PROFILE VIEW OF STRUCTURE JEFFERSON COUNTY engineering CLANCY WASTEWATER PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 2) Wet well/dry well lift stations were the most common lift station design for-many years until package stations became widely accepted for smaller communities. These stations can be designed with either submersible or centrifugal pumps. The wet well is where wastewater is stored for pumping. When submersible pumps are used, the submersible pumps are located in the wet well and are connected to the force main that leaves the wet well and enters the dry well. The dry well houses the valves and control equipment. Both the wet well and dry well are located in below ground concrete structures. When centrifugal pumps are used, the pumps are in the dry well with the valves and control equipment. The suction line typically goes through the wall of the wet well into the dry well. These stations are typically more expensive than package submersible stations because they require an additional below ground structure (the dry well). Also.the dry well needs to be entered on a regular basis to perform regular operational and maintenance duties. This requires a mechanical ventilation system meeting state standards. The dry well needs to be treated as a confined space; therefore, entry to this area should be conducted in accordance with OSHA regulations. Normally, this option has higher costs associated with it than a typical package submersible lift station making it cost prohibitive. This option will cost approximately 100% more than a new package submersible system. Therefore, this alternative will not be evaluated in further detail. 3) Suction lift stations typically consist of centrifugal solids handling pumps constructed on grade within an above ground structure. They have suction lines which drop into a wet well located below the structure. The pumps are designed to provide the necessary suction head and re-prime themselves automatically after each cycle. There are several advantages to suction lift stations. The pumps, valves, and control equipment are easily accessed within an above ground ventilated structure. This improves the quality of maintenance performed on the station. Also, since the structure is above -,round and ventilated it does not have to meet confined space entry requirements mandated by OSHA. Unfortunately, the commerciall} available suction lift stations are generally designed for communities with larger flows than this lift station will experience. Also a suc+:ion lift station would ost to 12S'C' mo!c titan z submersible package system. Therefore. con-truction of a new suction lift station is not the recommended alternative for this project. As described above, the Packaged Submersible Lift Station provides the least capital cost alternative, and the amount of operation and maintenance would be similar for all the alternative. Similarly to the type of lift station, backup power could be provided through different means. The two most common sources of backup power are a stationary generator or a portable generator set mounted on a trailer. A stationary generator could be linked to the control system of the lift station to automatically start and run periodically and to automatically switch over to the generator during a power failure. A portable generator would need to be transported to the lift station during a power outage and manually connected to the lift station and started. Since most power outages occur during inclement weather and/or during the night, and an undetected power outage can lead to back-ups in the sewer system, the stationary generator is a more desirable option for the proposed District. Backup power costs are included with the lift station cost in Tables 7.1.1 and 7.1.2. 55 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • Schematic Lavout Figure 7.2.1 is a schematic drawing of an example packaged submersible type lift station and can be viewed on the following page. Others will be examined during the design phases of the project. This example is for illustration only but is a potential option for the proposed District. Operational Requirements The operational requirements for a new packaged lift station will vary to some degree based on the specifics of the system and how the controls are set up. Most of the packaged lift stations utilized new technologies and are user friendly. Many of the operations can he automated and even remotely managed via telemetry equipment. If basic controls are used, the operator checks the lift station and records the meter readings on a daily basis during the week. Energy Requirements Energy consumption for the size and type of lift stations considered will be virtually the same for any of the single lift station options. By nature, raw sewage pumps are not very efficient because they need at least a 3-inch diameter impeller to pass solids. At a minimum, 5-horsepower pumps will be required for this application, based on a conservative value of total dynamic head (TDH) of 18 feet. Depending the final site selection, the pumps could be as large as 15-horsepower with a THD of 84 feet. Three-Phase power is a requirement to operate the size of pumps necessary fut this lift station. Regulatory Compliance and Permits The design and construction of a new lift station would need to comply with the requirements of Circular DEQ-2 and approval of the plans and specifications would be necessary before ounstructiol, coulu bc_'m. Land Requirements The new lift station would be relatively small and should easily fit within the existing right-of- way of Railroad Way, so no land acquisition will be necessary. Refer to Figure 7.1.1 or 7.1.2. Environmental Considerations The proposed lift station site will be constructed in a road right-of-way so there will be no adverse impacts to undisturbed areas or farm grounds. However, the contractor will still be required to file and erosion control plan and secure a construction permit to prevent pollution of State surface waters due to construction activities. This area is not in a FEMA delineated floodplain, but is in close proximity to Pricklv Pear Creek, so precautions are necessary. The lift station will most likely extend into the seasonal groundwater table, so water proofing the wet well basin will be especially important in order to protect groundwater quality. Generally speaking, the implementation of a lift station implies that the entire centralized system is constructed, which will greatly reduce contamination of:groundwater by placing wastewater into 56 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER . newly constructed sealed components throughout the area rather than the current situation of failing cesspools and drainficlds. Construction Problenr.s The only construction problem foreseen at this time are issues associated with construction below the groundwater table. This type of construction problem is not out of the ordinary and the magnitude of the problem will depend on the time of year construction is taking place. Traffic and access issues will be minimal given the location of the project. Cost Estimates Construction cost estimates for the lift station with backup power are included with the collection system alternative cost Tables 7.1-1 and 7.1.2 found in the previous Section of this report. The operation and maintenance, mobilization, traffic control, financial, land acquisition and/or easements, permitting. engineering, legal, and administrative costs are included with the treatment alternative cost estimates in Section 7.3. In addition, present worth and salvage value estimates are also included with the treatment alternative cost estimates in Section 7.3, and on Table 8.4.3 in Section 8. The lift station estimates were based on several comparable applications of past projects completed by Great West Engineering. 7.3 Treatment Alternatives Several treatment alternatives were discussed in the alternative screening process and the follo\n ing 4 alternatives were selected for .i detailed analysis in this Section: — T-1 : No Action Alternative T-2: Storage and Irrigation (Low Rate Land Application) T-3: Septic Tank Level 2 Treatment / Pressure Dosed Drainfield T-4: Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Mechanical Treatment Plant 7.3.1 Alternative T-1: No Action Alternative The no action alternative would consist of simply that, no improvements, repairs or replacements to the existing onsite individual septic systems. For the most part, the existing systems are out of compliance with current regulations and there is essentially a moratorium on new systems in the community core area. Schematic Layout There is no schematic layout of the existing septic system(s) in this report. Some of the existing systems are identifiable from old record drawings. discussions with local installers and engineers, infrared photography. or simply by looking for physical evidence on each lot. 57 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER However, the locations of many of these systems are unknown because they were installed prior to health regulations with no record drawings and/or have been completely buried. Operational Requirements There are no operational requirements for this alternative other than the standard homeowner and/or business owner maintenance for onsite systems. Energy Requirements Energy consumption with this alternative would not change from the current situation. There are very little energy requirements because most of the systems are presumably completely gravity operated. There could be a few more recent systems with individual effluent pumps or pressurized drainfields. These would be limited to renovated houses or replacement systems approved through the local health department, which would have most likely included a variance for approval. Regulatory Compliance acrd Permits The No Action alternative will not bring any systems that are out of compliance into compliance. This alternative relies on the local health department granting variances for any existing system that fails or any new system proposed. The variance process puts the local health department, county officials, and state reviews in a difficult position. especially when it comes to existing dwellings operating below current standards. Land Requirements No land requirements are necessary with this alternative. Individual replacement systems (if grantcdj nia\ require additional Si;d c. but \'rOuld he !::'.tiled L` tthc sub, parcel. Environmental Considerations This alternative will have negative impacts on the surrounding area since the identified water quality problem would not be corrected. Contamination of the groundwater supply from out-of- compliance septic systems will continue to threaten the public health and safety in this area. Construction Problems Construction problems with this alternative are primarily based on replacement of existing systems. The main concern is separation distance from septic systems to water supply wells. There can also be problems locating the old systems and keeping a home livable during the time of construction. Cost Estimates The No Action alternative is the least expensive alternative, and that is the only reason for continued consideration of this altemati% r. There is no cost estimate associated with this alternative in this report. It should be noted that although there is no capital cost for construction 58 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER or no user rate for operation and maintenance, the individual septic systems will fail at some point in time. When a system fails it causes an excessive monetary burden at one time often with no warning, and the home/business will not be livable/operational until the problem is resolved. The cost associated with this is often under estimated in areas like this because they usually require more engineering design, the most technological advanced systems, and higher permitting costs in addition to the cost of construction. 7.3.2 Alternative T-2: Storage and Irrigation (Low Rate Land Application) The storage and irrigation alternative consists of primary treatment lagoon(s), storage lagoon(s) and a spray irrigation system for effluent disposal. The storage and irrigation portions of this type of system are virtually the same; however, there are two options for the primary treatment lagoons. They can either be non-aerated (facultative) or aerated. The treatment lagoons are designed to treat to secondary treatment standards prior to discharge to the larger storage lagoons. The storage lagoons are necessary to store wastewater during the winter months until it can be disposed by irrigation on crop land during the summer months. Please note that the lagoons are often referred to as ponds and/or cells, and these terns will be used interchangeably throughout this document. The following description will concentrate on the non-aerated system first, then the aerated option. Non-Aerated Facultative Primary Treatment Lagoon A single non-aerated facultative treatment lagoon with a surface area of 2.3 acres would be required. This cell would provide secondary treatment prior to discharge to the storage cell. The water level in this cell would remain constant to provide 40 days of detention time. Another cell would be constructed to prov ide storage and have a surface area of 18 acres. The level in this cell would be reduced by irrigation dewatering to only one foot depth each fall to provide the maximum amount of winter storage. The wastewater would be land applied through spray irrigation during the summer months. A groundwater discharge permit is not required for irrigation and it is excluded from the nondegradation rules if the system is designed for 100-percent nitrogen uptake by the irrigated crops. With this option the wastewater would be applied to cropland using an irrigation system, preferably a center pivot to minimize direct contact. The proposed District would need to contact landowners to purchase, or obtain a long-term lease (minimum 20 years with a 20-year extension option), for an irrigation site. Approximately 10 acres of crop land are needed for irrigation. The treated effluent would be applied in accordance with DEQ requirements from mid May through September. The evaluation performed for this system demonstrates the need to irrigate about 8.8 million gallons annually. To determine the irrigation acreage requirements, a nitrogen uptake and hydraulic analysis was employed and is presented in Appendix N. State design standards require that a hydraulic loading methodology and a nitrogen uptake methodology be prepared in accordance with EPA formulas. The lowest application rate from these two evaluations governs during the design phase. Nitrogen uptake typically requires the lowest application rate and subsequently the greatest land requirement. These calculations showed that a minimum of 19 acres of grass hay, or 10 acres of alfalfa hay would need to be irrigated to satisfy nitrogen uptake levels. Although this analysis evaluated both types of hay, alfalfa hay is proposed because there 69 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER is a smaller land requirement. This makes it a more cost effective choice, and the existing fanning in the area attests that the area can grow sustainable alfalfa crops. A large irrigation pump and new force main would be required to deliver water to the crop sprinkler system. The pump would most likely be a floating pump on the storage cell with the controls housed in a weather proof enclosure. Three-phase power would have to be extended to the irrigation pump. In northern climates, where the growing season is limited, storage cells must be sized to retain all wastewater flows generated during the non-irrigation season. A detailed water balance for the treatment and storage ponds was performed and is presented in Appendix N. Pond piping and control structures would allow the operator operational flexibility. A valved piping system would control flow to each of the lagoon cells for series or bypass operational modes. An inlet structure for each pond and a level control structure for the primary pond would be necessary to provide the flexibility for both series and bypass operation. The facility would also have the flexibility to allow an individual cell to be taken out of service for de-watering, repair or sludge removal. Emergency overflow pipes would be provided to protect the pond embankments during extreme inflow events. State design standards specify a maximum pond seepage rate of 6-inches per year. To accomplish this, the ponds will be lined with either a PVC or Polypropolene liner. The PVC liner would need to be covered with 12-inches of clean native soil to protect the liner. Rip rap would be placed from the top of the dike to two feet beloNa the operating level of the lagoons to prevent erosion from wave action in the pond. The Polypropylene liner could be exposed on the bottom of the lagoons and would not need soil cover except for ice protection on the side slopes in the form of rip-rapped. A pre-design investigation would finalize which liner would be used. TI-c- cost timali7n_ al—ociated nx•ith this alternative assunleq a PVC litter. Aerated Primary Treatment Lagoon This alternative is eery similar to the non-aerated system described above. The primary difference is that secondary treatment is provided by mechanical aerated ponds rather that non- aerated facultative ponds. The storage component is nearly identical, except the storage pond has to be larger due to the loss of storage capacity in the primary non-aerated facultative pond. The irrigation requirements are practically the same, although this option requires one acre more for irrigation; I I-acres. This is mostly due to the smaller pond configuration having less seepage and evaporation which creates more stored irrigation water. A mechanically aerated primary pond was sized at 0.3 acres, which is considerably smaller than the 2.8 acre non-aerated facultative pond, due to the increased efficiency associated with the addition of aeration. Aeration is provided by mechanical blowers and aerators in the ponds. However. the storage pond was sized at 3.3 acres which is a half acre larger than with the non- aerated facultative option. Overall there is less land required with the aeration option, and a more consistent perfomlance. The disadvantage of this alternative is the increased O&M costs . and power costs associated with the blowers. A preliminary design of this alternative is located in Appendix O. 60 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • After analyzing both options, the advantages of the aerated primary lagoon out weighted the disadvantages primarily from an O&M standpoint. The system described above meets all the DEQ-2 standards for wastewater treatment facilities. Schematic Layout Figure 7.3.2 illustrates a schematic design layout of a aerated lagoon system low rate land application discharge by way of spray irrigation. Operational Requirements One part-time state-certified operator would be required to run this system. The operator would need to check the lagoons daily and periodically perform pump maintenance (change oil, lubricate the pump, etc.). Other periodic O&M work includes mowing the dikes, changing the treatment path, draining the force main to the irrigation site, winterization, etc. During the irrigation season, additional operator time would be required to inspect the irrigation equipment and perform any needed maintenance. An experienced crop manager is necessary to ensure a sustainable crop that is meeting the nutrient uptake requirements. Energy Requirements An aeration system would have significant energy requirements, and would need to be sized to aerate a volume of 0.7 MG. This would require roughly 16 horsepower to provide adequate treatment (oxidation). Grid energy is required for the Ultra Violet(UV) disinfection and irrigation pump operations. Both of these system components are directly related to the volume of water used for irrigation. .A preliminary desigi. report for this alternative in located in Appendix O, and calculated 12.4 million gallons of irrigation water annually. In order to accurately estimate the energy consumption, the irrigation location and configuration would need to he identified. L) this instance A,i)ej L the des:', ) is no; that far along, thi assumption Nill be to irrigate an average of half-time, which equates to 164 gpm.. or 1,260-hours of operation time. Likewise, this amount of operation time equates to 3.5-months. The irrigation season is 4.5- months (mid May through September), so considering rain events, this assumption seems reasonable. An estimated irrigation pump is 10-hp, and the UV disinfection system uses I OkW. There is an irrigation pump for these systems normally a floating pump. The estimated usage charge for 3-Phase power is $0.10 per kW-hr. Energy consumption calculations: Aeration: (15 hp) x (0.7457 kW/hp) x (365 day) x (24 hr/day) =97,985 kW-hr/yr= $9,798,/yr Irrigation Pump(s): [(10 hp) x (0.7457 kW/hp) x (1,260 hr)] =9,396 kW-hr/yr=$940/yr UV Disinfection: (10 kW) x (1200 hr)= 12,600 kW-hr/yr—$1260/yn The total energy consumption for the disinfection and disposal of this alternative is approximately 1 10,000 kWh, or $11,000 per year. i 61 RAW WASTEWATER FROM CENTRAL LIFT STATION U �A AERATED PRI,MARYLA000N: / f 0.3ACRES SURFACEAREA "-� -0.7 MILLION GALLONS OF VOLUME / \ / -SILK RADII(min.) / \ -2."SLUDGEDEPTH / .10.0-N OPERATIONAL DEPTH 3.0-R FREE BOARD / f \ -� CHAIN LINK FENCE(iW.) � \ 1 f L l IRRIGATION CENTER PIVOT IRRIGATION AREA: \ -11 ACRES(ALFALFA MAY) STORAGE LAGOON: \ -173 kgMWyr NITROGEN UPTAKE _ \ -IRRIGATE MAYSEPTEMSER -3.3 ACRES SURFACE AREA 0.8 MILLION GALLONS OF STORAGE \ J OCTOBER-MAYSTORAGE l-SO-1 RADII(min.l 1.041 SLUDGE DEPTH / T.D-H OPERATIONAL DEPTH \ .3.0.1 FREE BOARD \ w e u TREATED EFFLUENT TO IRRIGATIONAREA SCHEMATIC DRAWING FIGURE 7.3.2 of TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE T-2(AERATED) /� _ LAGOON &SPRAY IRRIGATION Gre/ atWest AERATED STORAGE& IRRIGATION SYSTEM JEFFERSONCOUNTY EN CLANCY WASTEWATER PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT engincenng Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER . Regulatory Compliance and Permits The proposed alternative would be designed and constructed in compliance with Circular DEQ-2 regulations. Plans would need to be reviewed and approved by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality before bidding and construction could begin. Since more than one acre of land would to be disturbed during construction, a stonnwater discharge permit is necessary. The selected contractor would be responsible for obtaining a stonuwater permit, as would be indicated in the project specifications. No discharge permit is required with land application when apply at agronomic rates. Land Requirements A schematic layout for this alternative is presented in Figure 7.3?. This layout consists of a 0.3 acre aerated lagoon for treatment followed by a 3.3 acre storage pond. 11 acres is required for effluent disposal by irrigation. Calculations supporting the above pond sizing and required irrigation land are presented in Appendix O. Environmental Considerations Large areas would be disturbed as a result of constructing this system. Some air quality problems with dust may arise during the actual construction period; however, it would be temporary and the contract documents would require that the Contractor provide dust control. Similarly, there will be some temporary noise during construction. Once construction is complete, there will be no noise or dust problems arising as a result of the improvements. The contract documents will also require that Best Management Practices (BMP) be employed before. during_ and after construction until all areas of disturbance have been fully reclaimed and/oi re-v cgetated. Therc U ill be a siRni?)cant change o landscape in a t)reviously undisturbed arld,or farmed 'area of apploXiuiatJy ten acres, ii-A including the ilii atioii arch. For Lcse reasons.. environmental impacts are a prominent concern with this alternative. Adding a pond can have positive effects on the environment as well. This would preserve the area fi-om development and add another aquatic feature. Construction Problems No major construction problems are anticipated with this alternative. Pond construction is relatively straightforward excavation project. The pond will be designed such that the excavation will not encounter groundwater, and all dike radii will be large enough to utilize the most efficient equipment. One potential problem that is unique to pond construction is proper separation of fines vs. gravels. The liner needs to be installed over a cushion of fine material to avoid puncture. If the native materials are not properly separated at the beginning of the construction project, problems can arise from additional expenses meeting the liner specification later in the project. 63 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • Cost Ewiarates The following Table 7.3.2 shows the opinion of probable costs for constructing the facultative lagoon with storage and irrigation of alfalfa hay. Operation and maintenance costs for this alternative are shown on Table 7.3.2A. Opinion of Probable Cost Clancy Wastewater Treatment Project Alternative T-2 - Facultative Lagoons - Storage & Spray Irrigation t# BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Exploratory Excavation 10 HR $ 150.00 $ 1.500 2 Seed & Fertilize 9.5 AC $ 1,500.00 $ 14,250 3 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 4 Topsoil Removal, Stockpile 8,000 CY $ 2.00 $ 16,000 5 Earthwork for Lagoons 35,200 CY $ 4.00 $ 140,800 6 Liner 282,000 SF $ 0.35 $ 98,700 7 Liner Cushion Material 5,200 CY $ 6.00 $ 31,200 8 Liner Earthen Cover Incl. Topsoil) 8,000 CY $ 6.00 $ 48,000 9 Rip Rap 1,100 CY $ 40.00 $ 44,000 10 Rip Rap Fabric 3.400 Sy $ 2.50 $ 8,500 11 Lagoon Splash Pads & Pump Ramp 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 12 6-inch Effluent Force Main 5,600 LF $ 38.00 $ 212,800 13 Signing 1 LS $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000 14 Inlet Structures _ 2 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 16_.000 15 Lagoon Staff Gauges 2 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000 16 Level Control Structure 1 EA $ 28,000 00 $ 28,000 7 Bypass r-0ntro l Cture _._ 1 EA $ 12.:i'Jv 18 Emergency Overflow Piping 1 LS ! $ 7.500.00 $ 7,500 19 Flow Measurement 1 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 20 Power/Electrical Service 1 LS $ g $ 30,000 21 Irrigation Site Fencing 5,000 LF $ $ 50,000 22 Chain-link Fencing Treatment Site 2,800 LF $ $ 70,000 23 Irrigation Power/Electrical 1 LS $ $ 25,000 24 Floating Irrigation Pump &Appurtenances 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000 25 Irrigation Pivot 2 LS $ 65,000.00 $ 130,000 26 Irrigation Force main 1,000 LF $ 32.00 $ 32,000 27 Irrigation Force main Fittings 10 EA $ 250.00 $ 2,500 28 1 Irrigation Force main Pumpouts 3 EA $ 500.00 $ 1.500 29 UV Disinfection System 1 EA $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000 30 UV Building 1 LS $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000 31 Irrigation Pump Station 1 LS $ 70,000.00 $ 70,000 Treatment System Subtotal I $ $ 1,337,000 Collection System and Lift Station (Table 32 7.1.2 1 LS $ 1.619,00000 $ 1.619,000 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 2,956,000 64 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • Mobilization 8.0% $ 236,000 Traffic Control 1% $ 30,000 Contin enc 10% $ 296,000 Construction Subtotal $ 3,518,000 2014 Construction Cost 2 3.1% $ 3,975,000 Land Acquisition -Lagoons (10 acres) @ $7,500/acre $ 75,000 Land Acquisition -Irrigation (12 acres) @ $7,500/acre $ 90,000 Water Rights $ Right-of-Way& Permits $ 20,000 Hydrogeologic Investigation $ Geotechnical/Agricultural Investigation $ 15,000 Engineering, Legal &Administrative 25% $ 880,000 TOTAL $ 5,055,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 'The ENR 20 year average Construction Cost index is+3.1%(as of November 2003), so capital costs are projected to an anticipated construction date in 2014 using a 3.1%inflation rate. Table Opinion of • .. . - Annual Operation Clancy Wastewater Treatment Project Alternative T-2-Facultative Lagoons - Storage & Spray Irrigation # ITEM i QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Salaries/Benefits 0.25 LS _ $ 4.5_.0.00 00 ! 5 11,250 00 2 4dminmtra5pn. 80 HR 8 _ 15,00 $ 1,200 00 3 Lift Station Power 1 LS $ 500-00 ! 5 500 0G 4 Irrigation &UV Power 100.000 KWH $ 0.10 $ 10,000.00 5 Monitoring &Testing 1 LS $ 500.00 i $ 500.00 6 Office Expenses[Training 1 LS $ 2,500.00 ! $ 2,500.00 7 Spare Parts/Repair/Maintenance 1 1 L5 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 8 Contract Services/Trades 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 9 Clean 20%of Collection System 3,000 LF $ 1.00 $ 3,000.00 10 Reserve 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 TOTAL $ 37,500.00 Capital costs for this alternative arc $5,055,000. The C&M costs are $37,500 with a present worth value of$592,436. The salvage value at the end of 20 years is $1,173,900 with a present worth value of$366,000. The overall present worth cost for this alternative is $5,251,439. Table 8.4.3 in Section 8, lists these costs in tabular form along with the other alternatives considered. 65 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER The following Table 7.3.213 shows the opinion of probable costs for constructing the aerated lagoon with storage and irrigation of alfalfa hay. Operation and maintenance costs for this alternative are shown on Table 7.3.20. Opinion of Probable Cost Clancy Wastewater Treatment Project Alternative T-2 -Aerated Lagoons - Storage & Spray Irrigation # BID ITEM QTY I UNITS I UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Exploratory Excavation 10 HR $ 150.00 $ 1,500 2 Seed & Fertilize 8 AC $ 1,500.00 $ 12,000 3 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 4 To soil Removal, Stockpile 6,000 CY $ 2.00 $ 12,000 5 Earthwork for Lagoons 29,000 CY $ 4.00 $ 116,000 6 Liner 222,000 SF $ 0.35 $ 77,700 7 Liner Cushion Material 4,000 CY $ 6.00 $ 24,000 8 Liner Earthen Cover incl. Topsoil 8,000 CY $ 6.00 $ 48,000 9 Ri p Rap 900 CY $ 40.00 $ 36,000 10 Rip Rap Fabric 2,800 SY $ 2.50 $ 7,000 11 Lagoon Splash Pads & Pump Ramp 1 LS $ 101000.00 ( $ 10,000 12 6-inch Effluent Force Main 5,600 LF $ 38.00 $ 212,800 13 Signin 1 LS $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000 14 Inlet Structures �_ 2 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 16,000 15 La oon Staff Gauges 2 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000 16 Level Control Structure 1 EA $ 28,000.00 $ 28.000 �7 Bypass Control Structure_ 1 EA $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000 ! 18 I Emergency Overflow Pipr g 1 LS 3 7,500.00 $ _7,500 '.9 Flow Ivleasurement EA ,'0,000.00 C 10.000 20 Aeration System 1 LS $ 100,000.00 I $ 100,000 21 Steel Air Main 240 LF $ 50.00 $ 12,000 22 Aeration Blower Building 1 LS $ 85,000.00 $ 85,000 23 Blower Building HVAC/Li htin 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000 24 Power/Electrical Service (Treatment Site) 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000 25 Irrigation Site Fencing 5,000 LF $ 10.00 $ 50,000 26 Chain-link Fencing Treatment Site 2,500 LF $ 25.00 $ 62,500 27 Irrigation Power/Electrical 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000 28 Floating Irrigation Pump & Appurtenances 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000 129 Irri ation Pivot 2 LS $ 65,000.00 $ 130,000 30 Irrigation Force main 1,000 LF $ 32.00 $ 32,000 31 Irrigation Force main Fittings 10 EA $ 250.00 $ 2,500 32 Irrigation Force main Pumpouts 3 EA $ 500.00 $ 1,500 33 UV Disinfection System 1 EA $ ioo,000.00T$ 100,000 34 UV Building 1 LS $ 60.000.00 ' $ 60,000 35 Irrigation Pump Station 1 LS $ 70.000.00 $ 70.000 Treatment System Subtotal $ 1,483,000 66 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • Opinion Clancy Wastewater Treatment Project Alternative T-2- Aerated Lagoons - Storage&Spray Irrigation # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE I TOTAL Collection System and Lift Station (Table 36 7.1.2) 1 LS $ 1,619,000.00 $ 1,619,000 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 3,102,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar pro/ects throughout Montana. Mobilization 8.0% $ 248,000 Traffic Control 1% S 31,000 Contingency 10% $ 310,000 Construction Subtotal 3,691,000 2014 Construction Cost 2 3.1% $ 4,170,000 Land Acquisition -Lagoons (10 acres) @ $7,500/acre $ 60,000 Land Acquisition - Irrigation (12 acres) @ $7,500/acre $ 90,000 Water Rights $ Right-of-Way& Permits $ 20,000 Hydrogeologic Investigation $ Geotechnical/Agricultural Investigation $ 15,000 Engineering, Legal & Administrative 25% $ 9237000 TOTAL $ 5,278,000 7h E. ENR 20 year average Construction Cost Index is+3.1% (as of Novernber 2009), so capital costs are protected to at, - anticipated c-ostruction date in 2014 using a 3.1%inflation rate Table Opinion of • •. . Operation Project Alternative T-2 -Aerated Lagoons - Storage & Spray Irrigation # ITEM 1 UNITS I UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Salaries/Benefits 0.25 LS $ 45,000.00 $ 11,250.00 2 Administration 100 HR $ 15.00 $ 1,200.00 3 Lift Station Power 17,000 KWH $ 0.10 $ 1,700.00 4 Irrigation & UV Power 100,000 KWH $ 0.10 $ 10,000.00 5 Aeration Power 88,000 KWH $ 0.10 $ 8,800.00 6 Monitoring &Testing 1 LS $ 500.00 $ 500.00 7 Office Expenses/Training 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 8 Spare Parts/Repair/Maintenance 1 LS $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 9 Contract Services/Trades 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 10 Clean 20% of Collection S stem 3,000 LF $ 1.00 $ 3,000.00 11 Reserve 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 TOTAL $ 39,300.00 . Capital costs for this alternative are 55?78,000. The O&M costs are $39,300 with a presew worth value of 8589,436. The salvage value at the end of 20 years is 51,209,150 with a present 67 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER worth value of$377,000. The overall present worth cost for this alternative is $5,490,436. Table 8.4.3 in Section 8,lists these costs in tabular form along with the other alternatives considered. 7.3.3 Alternative T-3: Septic Tank / Level 2 Treatment/ Pressure Dosed Drainfield This Septic Tank/Level 2 Treatment/Pressure Dosed Drainfield alternative will be refen-ed to as just Level 2 for simplicity. One of the most common septic systems is a standard septic tank and drainfield combination. A discussed in Chapter 6, the reason for the addition of Level 2 technology is based upon the need for a higher level of treatment ability and to reduce the overall size of the drainfield (infiltration gallery). Circular DEQ-4 allows for a 50-percent reduction in disposal area with the use of a Level 2 system. The significance of this is greatly emphasized lied to a community verses an individuals stem because the flows are much bigger and when app y Y therefore the reduction of required land can be several acres. This alternative consists of three primary components; a centralized septic tank, Level 2 treatment system,and a pressure dosed drainfield. Each of these component is described below: Septic Tank Wastewater is delivered to a centralized septic tank from the lift station. Septic tanks are typically made of concrete with a baffled inlet and outlet. However, for larger community systems it is often more cost effective to utilize a pre manufactured fiberglass tank, or a series of multiple tanks. The function of the septic tank is to separate solids from liquids and provide anaerobic treatment of the solids. The anaerobic condition is called "septic." As raw wastewater enters the septic tank. the flow slows and the heavy solids settle to the bottom and form a layer commonly referred to as sludge. Lighter solids rise to the top and form a scum layer. The rernaming liouid. or effluent. i� then pumped to the Le',el 2 treatment system. Level 2 Treatment Level 2 treatment is defined by the system's ability to meet certain criteria for the removal of constituents in wastewater. The following is the definition as written in the Administrative Rules of Montana, Chapter 17.30.702: (11) "Level 2 treatment' means a subsurface wastewater treatment system (SWTS)that: (a) removes at least 60% of total nitrogen as measured from the raw sewage load to the system; or (b) discharges a total nitrogen effluent concentration of 24 mgg/L or less. The term does not include treatment systems for industrial wastes. There are several different types of approved Level 2 treatment systems in Montana (accepted as a nutrient reducing treatment system) that will provide some nitrogen removal and will improve the treatment systems ability to satisfy the more stringent nondegradation regulatory requirements. Pre-approved Level 2 systems include: AdvanTex, Eliminite. IWS, Santec.Bio- Microbes, HDR,Norweco, and Fluidyne ISAM. For the purposes of this report.. only one type of system was analyzed in detail. The AdvanTex system was chosen over other Level 2 systems 68 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER because of the performance data available, longevity of the manufacturer and local supplier, and readily available design information. However, the preliminary design phase of the project will explore all the Level 2 options in more detail to ensure the best possible outcome for the community of Clancy. Effluent from the septic tank is plumped to the AdvanTex system where a distribution valve and piping network evenly disperses the effluent across synthetic textile media filter(s), called pods. The effluent is filtered, collected by an under drain system, and then pumped to a recirculation tank. The effluent is recirculated through the system several times. This process is an oxygen- rich aerobic environment where microorganisms can remove impurities from the effluent. Once the desired level of treatment is achieved, the clean effluent is pumped to the drainfield. Drainfield The drainfield, or infiltration gallery, consists of a series of distribution pipes with holes through which the wastewater is uniformly distributed. The distribution pipes discharge the wastewater into buried seepage trenches designed to spread the wastewater out and facilitate seepage into the subsoil. Although the wastewater is substantially treated in the Level 2 system, the overall system is still dependent on the soil matrix to provide continued treatment. The treatment is accomplished by the formation of a biomat at the interface of the trench bottom and existing ground surface and is largely aerobic in nature. Experience has shown that four feet of soil depth under unsaturated flow conditions is necessary for proper treatment. The soil can be neither too coarse such that a biomat is not formed or too fine such that the wastewater will not drain. Therefore, careful consideration must be given to site conditions including soil texture, groundwater depth and bedrock depth. groundwater flow direction. and potential contamination impacts. Properly sited. designed. constructed and maintained, this treatment and disposal altematiN e car- 711-o" idc adcqualL ~castev+atertreatment. Level 2 systems have the advantage of providing better effluent quality and more control over the treatment process when compared to standard septic tank and drainfield systems but are more expensive. E\en though this alternative produces a higher quality effluent. a groundwater discharge permit is required. As documented with nondegradation calculations in Appendix K and soils information in Appendix A, this type of treatment is potentially feasible in the planning area. Schematic Layout Figure 7.3.3 illustrates a schematic design layout of a Level 2 treatment system with groundwater disposal via infiltration galleries. Operational Requirements The proposed Level 2 treatment plant will require minimal onsite maintenance as much of the monitoring of the system is done remotely by the supplier via a telephone line. The operator will still be required to perform some tasks, including noting any alarms or signs of system inactivity. Because local suppliers have invested a great deal of time and effort towards gaining Level 2 status, they are eager to have systems operate properly, and in cases where the local operator 69 GNAW LINK FENCE pCCE55 POAB 1 III/ SEPTIC TACK(5) BUILDING Orly/ MvnxrE%sysrE WBIXT E FENCE (APPROX.5 I,CRES) RECIPC11 UilON iFNN($) I olsrPlB(COn O4ONMGE vun(zoned) PIPING %—% %—Y—%—%—X—% X % %—X— —%—%—X x x x PRIMARY INFILTRATION 35,000 GPD x ———————————————————————————————————————'i j NDTE5: j L EEO WIDTH AFFIRM 750 1e IWG 11 REPLACEMENT INFILTRATION z. NIxING EDNE soouP }, PIERpiES a o b)s ms/L FT END OF MIXING ZONE 35,000 GRID a. nosPROaus BREM TNROOGR FEI.SIT m eR veeRS morvDERRnwTiON MD DRUxn[EO SIZING ulcounoxs ME LOCATED;N APPENDIX P ' x L"-----------------------------------------------------------------L � FIGURE 7.3.3 SCALE: SCHEMATIC DRAWING TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE T-3 at�eSt ADVANTEX LEVEL 2 TREATMENT LEVEL 2 TREATMENT(ADVANTEX) /�r GROUNDWATER DISPOSAL INFILTRATION GALLERY WITH GROUNDWATER DISPOSAL E GLp �r^— v JEFFERSON COUNTY L1i�� CLANCY WASTEWATER PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT ergineerirg Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER does not have the time or technical capability to monitor the system, the supplier prefers to enter into a maintenance agreement with the owners of the system for the required maintenance. Whether the labor is in-house, or is contracted out, the following tasks are required: • Annually clean pumping packages • Annually clean biotube filters • Annually clean splitter valves • Inspect splitter valve every three months • Inspect ventilation fan assembly every three months • Check telemetry panel monthly • Visually check the system in detail every two weeks • Measure sludge levels in the primary treatment tanks annually • Measure sludge levels in the recirculation tank annually • Measure filter pod inlet pressures annually • Flush distribution system laterals annually Clean nozzles annually • Visually inspect drainfield laterals monthly Energy Requirements Energy consumption for the Level 2 AdvanTex alternative is minimal m comparison with the other alternatives considered. The power usage is primarily from the internal pumping system (recirculation pumps), distribution pumps/alves, and from the ventilation fans. Back calculating energy consumption based on the suppliers O&M estimating worksheet, yields roughly 33.000 kWh. Regulatory Compliance and Permits The proposed alternative would be designed and constructed in compliance with Circular DEQ-2 regulations, and the subsurface infiltration gallery (drainfield) would need to be in accordance with Circular DEQ-4. Plans would need to be reviewed and approved by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality before bidding and construction could begin. A monitoring well is typically located 500 feet down gradient of the infiltration gallery and is monitored for total nitrogen, usually in the form of nitrate. Montana's nondegradation rules typically require nitrogen levels to be less than 5 mg/L at the end of the mixing zone unless Level 2 treatment is used. This threshold is extended to 7.5 mg/L for Level 2 systems. The Montana Water Quality Act requires nitrogen levels be less than 10 mg/L in groundwater. In this case, the more conservative value of 7.5 mg/L shall be used as the design basis. A Baumann Schafer groundwater model developed by Great West Engineering showed that nitrate levels in groundwater will be at or below the 7.5 mg/L limit at the end of the 500-foot mixing zone. Phosphorous removal is another constituent that is regulated through nondegration rules. There is a 50-year phosphorous breakthrough limitation that often is the controlling factor in areas such as Clancy. Suitable drainfield sites (relatively flat, soil types, limiting layers, etc.) that have adequate distance to surface water to meet the breakthrough requirements are very limited. 71 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Since more than one acre of land would to be disturbed during construction, a stomiwater discharge permit is necessary. The selected contractor would be responsible for obtaining a stomtwater permit, as would be indicated in the project specifications. Land Requirements The proposed Level 2 AdvanTex system will easily fit on a 0.5 acre parcel and the infiltration galleries require a minimum of five acres based on the soils data available. This area will include a 100-percent replacement area as required by DEQ-4 regulations. The infiltration area would be totally subsurface and keep the openness of this rural area. In some instances these subsurface infiltration areas can be approved such that an active park can exist directly above grade. The most difficult part of the land requirement with this alternative is the specific geometry and separation distance from surface water required in order to achieve nitrate and phosphorus nondegradation limits. In the Clancy area, land fitting the requirements is very limited, and perhaps only one location could work. Environmental Considerations The proposed Level 2 system will have minimal environmental impacts. The treatment pods (filters) and tanks would all be placed underground with only access hatches above ground. This alternative has the most minimal odor and visual impacts. Groundwater quality will be improved because of the nitrogen removal in the effluent by the Level 2 system. Construction Problems No major construction problems are known to exist with this ahernatm e. Th_ AdvanTex systems are modular with manageable sized components. It is anticipated that the septic tank(s) and recirculation tanUsl for this application \+ill most iikeh be fiberglass. which are easier to handle and install than the traditional concrete or metal tank:. The infiltration gallery laterals could potentially be problematic if the soils are too gravelly. This situation causes the trench walls to slough. However.. infiltrator chambers are proposed and the trench depth is shallow (two feet). Cost Estimates The following Table 7.3.3 shows the opinion of probable costs for constructing the Level 2 Treatment AdvanTex option. Operation and maintenance costs for this alternative are shown on Table 7.3.3A. These estimates incorporate a detailed cost proposal for system components and operations and maintenance by a local supplier of the AdvanTex equipment. (Appendix P) 72 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER i Opinion of Probable . Clancy Wastewater Treatment Project Alternative T-3-Level 2 (Advantex) With Groundwater Discharge # BID ITEM QTY I UNITS UNIT PRICE I TOTAL 1 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500 2 Access Road 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 3 Office/ Shop Buildin 20'x 24' 480 SF $ 150.00 $ 72,000 4 Recirculation Tanks (2) 1 LS $ 110,000.00 $ 110,000 5 Centralized Septic Tanks 1 LS $ 220,000.00 $ 220,000 6 Tank Access Equipment 1 LS $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000 7 Pumping Equipment 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000 8 Control Panel 1 LS $ 18,000.00 $ 18,000 9 Misc. Piping/Fittings/Glue/Etc. 1 LS $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000 1 Recirculation Valve 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000 1 Heater/Ventilation Fan Assembly 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 1 AdvanTex Equipment(AX100 Pods 1 LS $ 325.000.00 $ 325,000 1 Plant Water System &Well Construction 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000 1 -Signing 1 LS $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000 1 Discharge Piping Into GW Infiltration 400 LF $ 32.00 $ 12,800 1 Groundwater Infiltration System 14,60 LF $ 12.00 $ 175,200 . 1 Groundwater Monitoring Well 4 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 10,000 1 Emergen-y Power Generator 1 LS $ 50.000.00 $ 50,000 1 Dispo _� Site Fencing 2,500 LF $ - 10.00 x 25,000 2 Chain Link Fencing Treatment Site 350 LF $ 25 05 8,750 9 c;te Gra-;ine%Parkina'Seedine 1 LS ! _ ED00.00 I $ _ 6.000 2 6onch/Effluent Force Main to Treatment 5,500 LF $ 30,032.0000 $ 30,000 $ 176,000 Treatment System Subtotal 1,335,000 2 Collection System and Lift Station 1 LS $ 1.619,00.00 $ 1,619,000 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 2,954,000 Mobilization 10.0% $ 295,000 Traffic Control 1% $ 30,000 Contingency 10% $ 295,000 Construction Subtotal 3,574,000 2014 Construction Cost` 3.1% $ 4,038,000 Land Acquisition (10 acres) $ $ 75,000 Water Rights $ $ Right-of-Way & Permits $ $ 40,000 Hydrogeologic Investigation $ 5,000 Geotechnical Investigation $ 15,000 Engineering, Legal & Administrative 25% $ 894,000 • TOTAL $ 5,067,000 Estimated unit casts are based upor estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for simiiar orojects throughout Monlena. 3 The ENR 20 year average Construction Cost index is+3.1%(as of November 2009), so capital costs are projected to an anticipated construction date in 2014 using a 3.1%inflation rate. 73 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Opinion of Probable Annual Operation Project Clancy Wastewater Treatment Alternative T-3 - Level 2 (AdvanTex)with Groundwater . - # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE I TOTAL 1 Administration 100 HR $ 15.00 $ 1,500.00 2 Lift Station Power 17,000 KWH $ 0.10 $ 1,700.00 3 AdvanTex Power (Pumps/Fans 1 LS $ 2,100.00 $ 2,100.00 4 —Monitoring 8 Testing 1 LS $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 5 sludge Disposal 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 6 Office Expenses Trainin 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 7 AdvanTex Componet Maintenance 1 LS $ 1,100.00 $ 1,100.00 8 AdvanTex System Maintenance 1 LS $ 8,300.00 $ 8,300.00 9 Clean 20% of Collection S stem 3,000 LF $ 1.00 $ 3,000.00 1 Reserve 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 TOTAL $ 32,700.00 Capital costs for this alternative are$5,067,000. The O&M costs are $32,700 with a present worth value of$490,447. The salvage value at the end of 20 years is $1,009,140 with a present worth value of$314,600. The overall present worth cost for this alternative is $5,242,847. Table 8.4.3 in Section 8, lists these costs in tabular form along with the other alternatives considered. • 7.3.4 Alternative T-5: Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Mechanical Treatment Plant As outlined previously, there are several options for biological nutrient removal utilizing mechanical ireatm cm plants. ThoS� optlowl :nclulle :I?c »sc of SBR. MBR O- datix.`.!1 Ditches. MLE. Biowheel and others. Historically. Grew. West Engineering has evaluated each technology and compared their relative lift cycle costs. These various technologies generally result in similar lift cycle costs. As part of this report. if BNR results in the selected treatment technology, a more in-depth study of comparable processes could be performed during design. For the purposes of this analysis SBR has be used to compare costs. An SBR is a mechanically aerated activated sludge system with the capability to adjust the treatment process to remove both nitrogen and phosphorous. This capability will allow the SBR to easily meet the nondegradation limits, and allow the entire flow to be discharged to the groundwater under Circular DEQ-2 guidelines. Because there is no existing groundwater discharge permit, nondegradation criteria would apply and the permit limit would be 7.5 mg/l for total nitrogen at the end of the mixing zone based on the Montana Water Quality Act. The treatment system would include pretreatment (trash screens), two reactor tanks, sludge and effluent pumps, sludge digesters, sludge re-circulating pumps, sludge wasting plumps, sludge storage, equalization basin, and disinfection. . An SBR is a batch process that has been used extensivel} in wastewater treatment. A single reactor is used for all treatment processes including aeration, biologic treatment, and 74 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER clarification. Since the SBR treats wastewater in batches, a minimum of two tanks are required. The tanks operate 180 degrees out of phase, so while one tank is filling, the second tank is going through the treatment, clarification, and decanting cycles. The operational cycles of each tank are switched after each batch. Four batches per day per SBR tank is recommended (six hours per cycle). After each batch the treated effluent is removed from the tank via a floating decanter to an equalization basin for follow up treatment. An equalization basin allows any downstream process units, like disinfection, to be sized for system design flows rather than the higher flow rate of the decanter. Also after each batch, some of the sludge must be wasted from the SBR tank and sent to a sludge digester. Digested sludge is dewatered and stored until it can be disposed of through land application or in a landfill. In the final step, the treated wastewater will be disinfected with UV disinfection and discharged to groundwater through a subsurface disposal system using infiltrator chambers (infiltration gallery). Schematic Layout Figure 7.3.4 presents a schematic layout of a typical SBR mechanical treatment plant. Operational Requirements A full-time, state-certified operator would be required to run this system. Daily operations completed by the operator include equipment inspection, process monitoring and influent and effluent testing. Periodic O&M work includes changing oil in the blowers, changing air filters on the blower intake, pump maintenance, sludge disposal. trash disposal, building maintenance.. etc. The operational requirements of the proposed system are substantially higher than for other alternatives considered. The proposed District must make a long-term commitment to operations and operator training and certification. It is reammnended a backup operator be twined and certified to provide relief to the primar. operator for regularly scheduled time off. Energy Requirements This alterative will have the highest energy impacts due to the high level of operations and maintenance at the treatment site. Energy consumption for a 35,000 gpd SBR treatment plant would be approximately 80,000 kW-hrs. This estimation of energy consumption is based from the known usage of the RAE Water and Sewer proposed District plant, and adjusted accordingly by size. RAE is located just west of Bozeman and currently treats about 100,000 gpd on average. Regulatory Compliance and permits A groundwater discharge permit is required with this alternative. The SBR treatment system would be designed and constructed in compliance with Circular DEQ-2 regulations, including the groundwater discharge infiltration galleries. It should be noted that the infiltration galleries associated with the Level 2 treatment alterative were sized using DEQ-4. Both nondegradation calculation methods are attached in Appendix P. Actual sizing the infiltrations galleries would be performed by using the results of basin flooding tests. This king of site specific information . would be collected during the design phase of the project. Plans would need to be reviewed and approved by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality before bidding and construction could begin. Since more than one acre of land would to be disturbed during 75 SLUDGE Sludge 1)"img Bullding Phase I SCREENINWGRIT REMOVAL Headsarks 0 it SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR RAWWASTEWATER amova FROM CENTRAL LIFT STATION >>> Green m Emergency Bypass Channel / I I / Phase II DIGESTER LJ r \�_V,ster Inlet (TYP> ACCESS gpgD 1 \ i� Aerator Phase I SBR Phase I SBR g �IUnit (TyP) Ixer (Typ) L pxanter (Typ) ph l n a it PDST 9 Sludge Pump STEER Phase I DIGESTER DPike/Lab Sun,<TYP> Deventer/SUpernutrknt hon Sludge Drylog Bullding Di Headworks eBuRding (TYP) Phase 1 U.N. Blo, DISINFECTION Dula% Bullding _ TREATED EFFLUENT TO INFILTRATION GALLERY SCHEMATIC DRAWING FIGURE 7.3.4 SCALE: SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR(SBR) TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE T-4 ' rp MECHANICAL TREATMENT PLANT SBR MECHANICAL TREATMENT PLANT E GLba scn'.e w Fe[T JEFFERSON COUNTY U GaLLL (,ULLL CLANCY WASTEWATER PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT engin¢edlg Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER construction, a stonmwater discharge permit is necessary. The selected contractor would be responsible for obtaining a stormwater permit, as would be indicated in the project specifications. Land Requirements This alternative requires the least amount of land, although it is comparable to treatment alternative T-3, Level 2 treatment with groundwater disposal. The actual SBR treatment system has a small footprint,yet this system does require about one acre for groundwater disposal. The disposal area would likely be considerably less than with the Level 2 system because it is sized according to DEQ-2 and not DEQ-4. The system provides a greater level of treatment and the DEQ-2 design guidelines reduce the lateral spacing, which in turn reduces the overall size of the infiltration galleries. It should be noted that this sizing advantage is still reliant upon site specific soil characteristics. Environmental Considerations There will be only minor changes in land use after completion of the project. The SBR footprint is relatively small, and the disposal area will be below ground surface. As with most construction, there would be temporary dust and noise problems to consider, but upon completion of the system these problems would go away. The contract documents shall also require that Best Management Practices (BMP) be employed before, during, and after construction until all areas of disturbance have been fully reclaimed and/or re-vegetated. For these reasons, environmental impacts are considered minimal and no permanent, negative environmental impacts are anticipated. Consyruction Problems No significant construction problems are expected with the construction of an SBR treatment system. These systems do require large concrete tanks to be buried which could pose dewatering and buoyancy problems in areas of high groundwater. However,the treatment site will be placed in close proximity to the disposal area, which will be an area where groundwater is not a concern. The above grade building construction and the infiltration gallery construction should be straightforward. Cost Estimates Table 7.3.4 shows the opinion of probable costs for constructing the SBR. Operation and maintenance costs for this alternative are shown on Table 7.3.4A. This estimate incorporates a detailed cost proposal by a supplier of the SBR equipment. The capital costs for this alternative are the most expensive and the system also has the highest operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. 77 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Opinion Clancy Wastewater Treatment Project Alternative T-4-Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Groundwater Discharge # BID ITEM QTY UNITS I UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Site Excavation (Basins/Buildings) 2,000 CY $ 6.00 $ 12,000 2 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 2,50000 $ 2,500 3 Access Road 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 4 Headworks Building (30'x 16') & Basin 480 SF $ 250.00 $ 120,000 5 Screening 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000 6 Influent Flow(Mag Meter) 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 7 Pre-Equalization Basin 30 LS $ 900.00 $ 27,000 8 SBR Basins 85 CY $ 900.00 $ 76,500 9 Aerobic Digester Basin 50 CY $ 900.00 $ 45,000 10 Post Equalization Basin 55 CY $ 900.00 $ 49,500 11 Pre-Equalization/Aeration/SBR/Digester 1 LS $ 320,000.00 $ 320,000 Equipment&Controls 12 Electrical/Mechanical (Treatment) 1 LS $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000 13 Plant Piping 500 LF $ 90.00 $ 45,000 14 Sludge )ewatering Container 1 LS $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000 15 Sludge Dewatering Building 760 SF $ 150.00 $ 114,000 16 Blower/Disinfection Building 400 SF $ 150.00 $ 60,000 17 Disinfection System 1 LS $ 45,000.00 $ 45,000 18 Office/Laboratory Building(27 x 27') 700 SF $ 150.00 $ 105,000 19 Laboratory Equipment 1 LS $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500 20 Plant Water System &Well Construction 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000 21 Signing 1 LS $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000 22 Effluent Flow Measurement 1 EA $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500 23 Discharge Piping Into GW Infiltration 400 LF $ 3200. $ 12,800 Gallery 24 Groundwater Infiltration System 7,400 LF $ 12.00 $ 88,800 25 Groundwater Monitoring Well 4 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 10,000 26 PowerlElectrical Service(Treatment Site) 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000 27 Emergency Power Generator 1 LS $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000 28 Chain Link Fencing Treatment Site 7,500 LF $ 25.00 $ 187,500 29 Disposal Site Fencing 1,200 LF $ 10.00 $ 12,000 30 Landscaping/Sidewalks/Parking 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000 31 Force Main to Treatment Site 5,500 LF $ 32.00 $ 176,000 Treatment System Subtotal $ 1,931,000 32 Collection System and Lift Station (Table $ LS $ 1,619,000.00 $ 1,619,000 7.1.2 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 3,550,000 Mobilization 10% $ 355,000 Traffic Control 1% $ 36,000 Contingency 10% $ 355,000 78 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER . Opinion of Probable Project Clancy Wastewater Treatment Alternative T-4- Sequencing Batch Reactor(SBR) Groundwater Discharge # BID ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL Construction Subtotal $ 4,296,000 2014 Construction Cost 3.1% $ 4,854,000 Land Acquisition(2 acres) $ 60,000 Water Rights $ Right-of-Way&Permits $ 40,000 Hydrogeologic Investigation $ 5,000 Geotechnical Investigation $ 15,000 Engineering, Legal&Administrative 25% $ 1,111,000 TOTAL $ 6,048,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 'The ENR 20 year average Construction Cost Index is+3.1%(as of November 2009),so capital costs are projected to an anticipated construction date in 2014 using a 3.1%inflation rate. Table 7.3.4A- Opinion of Probable Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs Clancy Wastewater Treatment Project Alternative T-5 -Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Groundwater Discharge # ITEM QTY i UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Salaries/Benefits 0.75 LS $ 45,000.00 $ 33,750.00 2 Administration 100 $ 1 50 0 $ 1,500-00 HR SBR, Filter, Digesters, &Centrifuge $ $ 3 Power 80,000 KWH 0.10 8,000.00 4 Lift Station Power -7.000 K\h'H $ 0.10 $ 1,700.00 5 Monitoring &Testing 1 LS $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500.00 6 Sludge Disposal 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 7 Office Ex enses/Trainin 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 8 Spare Parts/Repair/Maintenance 1 LS $ 19,000.00 $ 19,000.00 9 Contract Services/Trades 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 10 Clean 20%of Collection System 3,000 LF $ 1.00 $ 3,000.00 11 Reserve 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 TOTAL $ 93,500.00 Capital costs for this alternative are$6,048,000. The O&M costs are $93,500 with a present worth value of$1,402,348. The salvage value at the end of 20 years is $1,229,040 with a present worth value of$383,200. The overall present worth cost for this alternative is $7,067,148. Table 8.4.3 in Section 8, lists these costs in tabular form along with the other alternatives considered. 79 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 7.4 Project Site Alternatives The site alternatives described in this report are limited to the treatment and disposal areas only. The collection system and lift station are situated in existing right-of-ways and based on logical and available space. Since the proposed District boundary encompasses mostly developed properties, the suitable sites for the new treatment and disposal system are outside the proposed District boundary in the 20-year planning area, or potentially beyond. There are only a few suitable sites and they are all located north of the proposed District. One land owner(Marks Ranch) owns all identified suitable wastewater disposal areas. A combination of site alternatives may also be an option for this system, especially if disposal via spray irrigation is used. For example, the treatment location could be in S-1, and the disposal system in S-4. The following sub sections will address the basic issues associated with each site alternative. 7.4.1 Alternative S-1 : Chokecherry Lane The potential site along the east side if Chokecherry Lane consists of relatively flat ground and is located on the wetland fringes of Prickly Pear Creek. This area is lower in elevation and the groundwater table gets increasingly higher as you approach the creek. The distance to surface water is minimal;therefore, this site is only an option for treatment and/or spray irrigation disposal, and is not viable for groundwater disposal. Schematic Layout Attached is Figure 7.4 showing all the site alternatives. Operational Requirements From an operational standpoint this area along Chokecherry Lane would work great simply because it is closer to the lift station and the overall system would be slightly more condensed. There would likely be less force main to maintain, and the lift station pumps would probably be smaller. However, the small difference in operational requirements is considered to be insignificant to the overall site selection. Energy Requirements Energy consumption would likely be less with this site alternative because there would be a lesser amount of total dynamic head (TDH)to overcome, and the lift station pumps would potentially be smaller. The estimated TDH is 18, and the system would require a 5 horsepower (Hp)pump. Similar to the operational requirements, this energy savings would be small enough that it is not a key factor for site selection. Regulatory Compliance and Permits This site alternative would not be able to meet the permit requirements with groundwater discharge due to shallow groundwater, limiting layers, and the short distance to surface water. Additionally, this alternative is the most concerning with construction related permits such as storm water runoff and wetland disturbances. 80 S A :y "'"O "'tom -' M\� sY _SGC d •/ ie`. 4 X11: T' -•may l .t ♦ Y V G`�y. y. I � rik tWAY262 a •� [[ r ♦ t ' w / LEGEND: DISTRICT FIGURE 7.4 POTENTIAL TREATMENT S DISPOSAL AREAS SITE ALTERNATIVES �� 5i70RSETRACK TREATMENT & DISPOSAL AREAS Gre/ atWeSt 0 00 00 a WE (ltlGb J1t srx 0 WELL WELL JEFFERSON COUNTY CLANCYWASTEWATER PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT engineering Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Land Requirements This site alternative is entirely owned by the Marks Ranch Inc., and would need to be purchased or leased. The treatment alternatives for this site would require anywhere from 2 to 10 acres depending on the selected alternative. The only type of discharge that would be practical at this site would be irrigation; however, to accommodate both treatment and disposal the irrigation area would have to extend further to the north. Approximately ten acres is required for irrigation. Environmental Considerations This site alternative has more environmental concerns then the others because it is in closer proximity to the Prickly Pear Creek con-idor where the environment is more sensitive for wildlife and their travel patterns. Additionally, a greater diversity of plants and animals are found near creek corridors. Water quality concerns are also more pronounced because there is less room for natural cleansing though the soil matrix. The same is true for surface water (stonnwater runoff) where there is less travel distance through vegetation. Although these are concerns. any treatment and disposal option selected will be required to mitigate all associated environmental impacts. Construction Problems Construction problems with this site alternative are primarily high groundwater concerns. The closer the construction is to the creek, the greater the potential for groundwater issues during construction. The hydraulic gradient points toward the creek and the ground surface drops toward the creek as well. Cost Estimates A standard cost estimate of S7.S00 per acre „as used for land purchase estimates for all ofthe alternatives considered. The rain sewage force main length is the primary cost differ:ncc among the different site alternatives, and this site has the shortest force main length. A 6-inch force main length of 2,150-feet is estimated to cost roughly $69,000. However.. it is likely that this site would require more irrigation piping. Other Considerations The land owner of this property (Marks Ranch) has indicated that a lagoon type treatment system would not be acceptable because of the close proximity to existing residences. Therefore only a Level 2 treatment system would be acceptable at this site. However, this particular site is not able to meet nondegradation requirements due to the relative close proximity to surface water. Therefore, this site is not feasible for any treatment alternative other than a mechanical type of treatment plant with groundwater disposal. As discussed previously, the cost associated with this type of treatment technology are higher than any other treatment proposed. Therefore this site cannot be considered further. 82 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 7.4.2 Alternative S-2: lump Gulch The potential sitejust north of Lump Gulch Road consists of relatively flat ground, and is in close proximity of Buffalo Creek. This area is lower in elevation and the groundwater table gets increasingly higher as you approach the creek. The distance to surface water is minimal; therefore, this site is only an option for treatment and/or spray irrigation disposal, and is not viable for groundwater disposal. Schematic Layout Figure 7.4 shows all site alternatives. Operational Requirements From an operational standpoint, the areas north of Lump Gulch Road are not as desirable because they are further from the lift station and the overall system would be notably more spread-out. There would likely be more force main to maintain, and the lift station pumps would probably be larger. However, the small difference in operational requirements is considered to be insignificant to the overall site selection. Energy Requirements Energy consumption would likely be more with this site alternative because there would be a • greater amount of TDH to overcome, and the lift station pumps would likely be larger. The estimated TDH is approximately 100-perent greater(34 vs. 18). Similar to the operational requirements, this energy savings would be small enough that it is not a } -y factor for site selection. An example calculation of the increased energy consumption that assumes a 50- percent increase in pump size 5 Hp to 7.5 Hp), and a pumpng rate of 200 ,,pm. (35,000 gpd) _ (200 gpm) x (60 mio hr) _ 1.92 lus puml`: run time per day (2.5 hp) x (0.7457 kW/hp) x (3:165 day) x (2.92 hr/day) = 1,987 kWhlyr • (1,987 kWh/yr) x (50.12/kWh)= 5238/yr pumping cost increase Regulatory Compliance and Permits This site alternative would not be able to meet the permit requirements with groundwater discharge due to shallow groundwater, limiting layers and the short distance to surface water affecting phosphorus absorption. Additionally, this alternative is concerning with construction related permits such as storm water runoff and wetland disturbances. Land Requirements This site alternative is entirely owned by the Marks Ranch Inc., and property would need to be purchased or leased. The treatment alternatives for this site would require anywhere from 2 to • 10 acres depending on the selected alternative. The onl) type of disposal that would be practical at this site would be irrigation; however, to accommodate both treatment and disposal the 83 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER irrigation area would have to extend further to the east. Approximately ten acres is required for irrigation. Environmental Considerations This site alternative has environmental concerns due to the close proximity of the Buffalo Creek corridor where the environment is sensitive for wildlife and their travel patterns. Additionally, a greater diversity of plants and animals are found near creek corridors. Water quality concerns are also more pronounced because there is less room for natural cleansing though the soil matrix. The same is true for surface water (stonnwater runoff) where there is less travel distance through vegetation. Although these are concerns, any treatment and disposal option selected will be required to mitigate all associated environmental impacts. Construction Problems Construction problems with this site alternative arc primarily high groundwater concerns. The closer the construction is to the creek, the greater the potential for groundwater issues during construction and potential higher costs. The hydraulic gradient points toward the creek and the ground surface drops toward the creek as well. Cost Estimates A standard cost estimate of$7,500 per acre was used for land purchase estimates for all of the alternatives considered. The raw sewage force main length is the primary cost difference among the different site alternatives. and this site has a 6-inch force main length of 5,300-feet, and is estimated to cost roughly $170,000. However, it is likely that this sit, would require less irrigation piping. Other Considerations The land owner of this property (Marks Ranch) has indicated that a lagoon type treatment system would not be acceptable because of the close proximity to existing residences. Therefore only a Level 2 treatment system would be acceptable at this site. However, this particular site is not able to meet nondegradation requirements due to the relative close proximity to surface water. Therefore, this site is not feasible for any treatment alternative other than a mechanical type of treatment plant with groundwater disposal. As discussed previously, the cost associated with this type of treatment technology are higher than any other treatment proposed. Therefore this site cannot be considered further. 7.4.3 Alternative S-3: Marks Bench This potential site is located on the open bench west of Sunnyside Lane and north of Lump Gulch Road. This area is at a higher elevation than the adjacent creek corridors, and the other sites nearby. There is a greater separation from groundwater and a greater distance to surface water (approximately 1,500-feet) e ith this site and has the potential for groundwater discharge. 84 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Schematic Layout Figure 7.4 shows all the site alternatives. Operational Requirements From an operational standpoint, this site is the less desirable because it is one of the farthest sites from the lift station both horizontally and vertically. There would be more force main to maintain, and the lift station pumps would be larger. However, the difference in operational requirements is considered to be small and not heavily weighted criteria in the overall site selection. Energy Requirements Energy consumption would be notably more with this site alternative because there would be a greater amount of total dynamic head (TDH) to overcome, thus requiring larger lift station pumps. The estimated TDH is approximately 250-perent greater (84 vs. 34) than with site alternative S-2. Similar to the operational requirements, this energy savings would be small enough that it is not a heavily weighted criterion in the overall site selection. An example calculation of the increased energy consumption that assumes an increase in pump size by 100- percent (7.5 Hp to 15 Hp) from site alternative S-2, and a pumping rate of 200 gpm. (35.000 g- - (200 gptn) x (60 min'hr)=2.92 hrs pump run time per day (7.5 hp) x (0.7457 kW/hp) x (365 day) x (2.92 hr/day) = 5,960 kWh/yr (5.960 kWh/yr) x (SO.12,1W11)= 57151'},- pumping cost increase S953 yr cost increasc compared to alternatiN e S-1 . Regulatory Compliance and Pennies This site alternative has the potential to meet the nondegradation pennit requirements for groundwater discharge. Additionally, this site alternative is one of the least problematic with respect to construction related pennits such as storm water runoff and wetland disturbances. Land Requirements This site alternative is entirely owned by the Marks Ranch Inc., and property would need to be purchased or leased. The treatment alternatives for this site would require anywhere from 2 to 10 acres depending on the selected alternative. Both discharges to groundwater and spray irrigation are possibilities on this site. However, if spray irrigation is used, the area would have to extend further to the east or south. Approximately ten acres is required for irrigation, and approximately five acres is required for groundwater infiltration (including replacement area). i 85 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Environmental Considerations This site alternative is the most favorable with respect to environmental considerations. The primary reason for this the increased distance from surface water and there is more groundwater separation, which allows the soils to naturally improve the water quality. Although larger areas will be disturbed as a result of open-trench digging, virtually all areas will be within existing rights-of-way and roadway easements that have been previously disturbed by development. Since this alternative will cause a large amount of construction related disturbance, Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be employed before, during, and after construction until all areas of disturbance have been fully reclaimed and/or re-vegetated. Environmental impacts after construction are considered minimal and no long-term, negative environmental impacts are anticipated. Construction Problems Construction on this site should be straightforward. This area is relatively open so no problems are anticipated with regard to access during construction. Shallow groundwater will likely not be as concerning as compared to the other site alternatives considered. Piping from this site to potential irrigation site below, may be more challenging because of the steeper grades, but is not uncommon to this type of work. Cost Estimates A standard cost estimate of 57.500 per acre was used for land purchase estimates for all of the alternatives considered The raw sewage force main length is the primary cost difference among the different site alternatives, and this site has a 6-inch i0rce main length of 5.800-feet and is estimated to cost roughi, c l«.000. This site v ould nresum,.bly be one of the more expensive sites to access. 7.4.4 Alternative S-4: Sunnyside Lane The potential site just west of Sunnyside Lane consists of relatively flat ground, and is in close proximity of Prickly Pear Creek. This area is lower in elevation and the groundwater table gets increasingly shallower as you approach the creek. The distance to surface water is minimal: therefore, this site is only an option for treatment and/or spray irrigation disposal. and is not viable for groundwater disposal. Schematic Layout Figure 7.4 shows all the site alternatives. Operational Requirements The areas north of Lump Gulch Road are not as desirable because they are further from the lift station and the overall system would be notably more spread-out. There would likely be more 0 force main to maintain, and the lift station pumps would probably be larger. However,the small difference in operational requirements is considered to be insignificant to the overall site selection. 86 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Energy Requirements Energy consumption would likely be the least when compared to the other sites north of Lump Gulch Road because it is lower in elevation and there would be less TDH to overcome. The estimated TDH is approximately 50-perent greater(28 vs. 18) than with site alternative S-1. Similar to the operational requirements, this energy savings would be small enough that it is not a key factor for site selection. Although the TDH is greater than alternative S-1, the energy consumption will be very similar because the same size of pump would be required — 5 Hp. Regulatory Compliance and Permits This site alternative would not be able to meet the permit requirements with groundwater discharge due to shallow groundwater, limiting layers, and the short distance to surface water. Additionally, this altemative is concerning with construction related permits such as stornt water runoff. However,the site is within a previously disturbed agricultural field. Land Requirements This site alternative is entirely owned by the Marks Ranch Inc., and would need to be purchased or leased. The treatment alternatives for this site would require anywhere from 2 to 10 acres depending on the selected alternative. The only type of discharge that would be practical at this site would be irrigation; however, to accommodate both treatment and disposal the irrigation area would have to extend further to the south. Approximately ten acres is required for irrigation. Environmental Considerations This site alternative rnav hav c some enviromnen%il concerns due to the close proximity of Prickh Pear Creek corridor where the environmcrrn i> sensiticc for wildlil, and their travel patterns. Additionally. a greater diversity of plants and animals are found near creek corridors. Water quality concerns are also more pronounced because there is less room for natural cleansing though the soil matrix. The same is true for surface water (stonmwater runoff) where there is less travel distance through vegetation before reaching surface waters. Although these are concerns, any treatment and disposal option selected will be required to mitigate all associated environmental impacts. Construction Problems Construction problems associated with this site alternative are primarily related to high groundwater levels. The closer the construction is to the creek, the greater the potential for groundwater issues during construction. The hydraulic gradient points toward the creek and the ground surface drops toward the creek as well. Cost Estimates A standard cost estimate of$7,500 per acre was used for land purchase estimates for all of the alternatives considered. The raw sewage force main length is the primary cost difference among the different site alternatives, and this site has a 6-inch force main length of x.800-feet, and is 87 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • estimated to cost roughly 5186,000. However, it is likely that this site would require less irrigation piping. Other Considerations The land owner of this property (Marks Ranch) has indicated that a lagoon type treatment system would not be acceptable at this site because of the close proximity to existing residences. Therefore only a Level 2 treatment system would be acceptable at this site. However, this particular site is not able to meet nondegradation requirements due to the relative close proximity to surface water. Therefore, this site is not feasible for any treatment alternative other than a mechanical type of treatment plant with groundwater disposal. As discussed previously, the cost associated with this type of treatment technology are higher than any other treatment proposed. Therefore this site cannot be considered further. 7.4.5 Alternative S-5: Across 1-15 This potential site is located on an open bench northeast of the proposed District and east of Interstate 15. This area is at a higher elevation than the adjacent creek corridors, and the other site alternatives considered. There is a greater distance to surface water (approximately 2,700- feet) with this site and has the potential for groundwater discharge. Schematic Layout Figure 7.4 shows all the site alternatives. Operational Requirements Th;> site is the lc,,st desirable because it is one of the farthest site tIUGII the :ift station both lio,;zu , ally an.' 1 Cnicali}. herc v,octd be r:o,c for-,e n -^- r maintain, a crossing_ and the lift station pumps would be larger. However.. the difference in operational requirements is considered to be small and not heavih weighted criteria in the overall site selection. Energy Requirements Energy consumption would be notably more with this site alternative because there would be a greater amount of TDH to overcome, thus requiring larger lift station pumps. The estimated TDH is approximately 300-perent greater(255 vs. 84) than with site alternative S-3. Similar to the operational requirements, this energy savings would be small enough that it is not a heavily weighted criterion in the overall site selection. An example calculation of the increased energy consumption that assumes an increase in pump size by 100-percent (15 Hp to 30 Hp) from site alternative S-3, and a pumping rate of 200 gpm. o (35,000 gpd) _(200 gpm) x (60 min/hr) =2.92 hrs pump run time per day • (15 hp) x (0.7457 kW/hp) x (365 day) x (2.92 hr/day) = 11,922 kWh/yr (11,922 kWh/yr) x ($0.12/1,Wh)_ $1,430/yr pumping cost increase 88 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • Regulatory Compliance and Permits This site alternative has the potential to meet the nondegradation permit requirements for groundwater discharge. Additionally, this site alternative has the fewest concerns with respect to construction related permits such as stonn water runoff and wetland disturbances. Land Requirements This site alternative is entirely owned by the Marks Ranch Inc., and would need to be purchased or leased. The treatment alternative, treatment and groundwater discharge, would require about 5 acres (including a replacement area) depending on the results of site specific soil information. Environmental Considerations This site alternative is favorable with respect to environmental considerations. The primary reason for this is the increased distance from surface water and greater groundwater separation, which allows the soils to naturally improve the water quality. Although large areas will be disturbed as a result of open-trench digging to install the force main to the site, the majority of pipe will be within existing rights-of-way and roadway easements that have been previously disturbed by development. Since this alternative will cause a large amount of construction related disturbance, Best Management Practices (BMP) will be employed before, during, and after construction until all areas of disturbance have been fully reclaimed and/or re-vegetated. En-,ironmcntal impacts after construction are considered minimal and no long-term, negative environmental impacts are anticipated. Construction: Problems Construction on this iitc should be straightforward. This area i, relatively open terrain but SteCPeF ' idjcCould Cow"c nlor *h .­! to ­ mgL11IStrLLet!nn. Groundwater will not be a concern as compared to many of the other site alternatives considered. Cost Ew nnatec A standard cost estimate of$7,500 per acre was used for land purchase estimates for all of the alternatives considered. The raw sewage force main length is the primary cost difference among the different site alternatives, and this site has a 6-inch force main length of 6,225-feet, and is estimated to cost roughly $199,200. This site would presumably be the most expensive site to access. 89 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 8.0 SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Each of the alternatives reviewed in the Alternative Analysis is designed to meet the design criteria and applicable regulations identified in the Alternative Development. This section will examine advantages and disadvantages of each in tenns of technical feasibility, environmental impacts, financial feasibility, public health and safety, operational and maintenance considerations, and public comment. 8.1 Ranking Criteria A matrix to compare each alternative objectively against the other will be developed to select the preferred alternative. Each alternative will be given a score ranging from 0 to 10 for a number of criteria, with 0 representing a negative impact and 10 representing the maximum benefit to the community. The alternatives will begin with a score of 5 for each criteria, and then the score will be adjusted up or down relative to the benefit of the particular alternative in relation to the other alternatives. In addition to scoring each alternative, the criteria themselves with be weighted in relation to one another. Weighting factors ranging from 1 to 10 will be used to give greater importance to items such as cost. This is appropriate, as often times higher hrvestments are made to overcome many other problems such as reliability or to mitigate problems with technical feasibility or environmental concerns. 8.1.1 Technical Feasibility Alternatives that were not tcchnically feasible v erc removed from consideration dunm,-the Alternative Development. Consequently, the alternatives discussed in the Alternative Analysis would be scored very similarly in a decision matrix based solely on engineering. However, issues with land acquisition often supersede the black-and-white world of engineering. This ranking category will include the feasibility of acquiring sufficient land in terms of lease, right-of-way, and/or land purchases. Although these are not strict engineering issues, problems with land acquisition can greatly impact a project's overall feasibility and require that land issues be given a very serious consideration. This criterion will be provided with a weighting factor of 6. 8.1.2 Environmental Impacts Considerations for stonnwater runoff and impacts to groundwater from construction will need to be considered, but long terns, detrimental environmental impacts are relatively low for all the alternatives. This criterion will be provided with a weighting factor of 3. 90 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 8.1.3 Financial Feasibility The cost of extensive capital improvements is a great concern to small communities with limited budgets and resources. Costs also reflect measures to meet minimum health and safety requirements, applicable regulations, and environmental impacts in order to make an alternative viable in the first place. In addition, life cycle costs include both the estimated capital cost of the alternatives and the associated increase to O&M costs. Accordingly, this criterion will be provided with the maximum weighting factor of 10. This represents over 30% of the total weighting, and Public Opinion is closely tied to cost also, giving the cost for each alternative even more weight. In addition to providing the maximum emphasis on costs, a method must be utilized to provide an objective comparison of costs for each alternative relative to one another and not just an overall comparison. Given a range of costs for various alternatives, the relative cost of any alternative can be determined using the lowest cost and the highest cost from the range of costs and the following equation. 5 x [(Lowest Cost) /(Cost) + (Hi--hest Cost—Cost) / (Highest Cost)] For example, if a number of alternatives were compared having costs of$500,000, S 1,000,000 and $2.000,000. the above equation would provide scores of 8.8, 5.0. and 1.3. respectively. The utilization of a fonnula to score the 20 year life cycle costs in the matrix eliminates any subjectivity and provides a consistent. relative comparison of costs. 8.1.4 Public Health and Safety lternath-cs that do not meet the public health and safety requirement- as required by the state and federal governments were eliminated during the Alternati\c Devciopmcnt. Th: alternatives retained for the Alternative Analysis are designed to meet public health and safety laws, so the scoring for each alternative under this criterion would be expected to be fairly high. This criterion will be provided with a weighting factor of 7. 8.1.5 Operational and Maintenance Considerations Operation and maintenance is an important issue when considering any large capital improvements within a small community. The costs for O&M associated with the alternatives is included in the 20 year life cycle costs compared under the financial feasibility,but there arc other considerations that must be weighed for the O&M associated with each alternative. This criterion will be provided with a weighting factor of 5. 8.1.6 Public Comments Efforts such as public hearings arc ways to identify public opinion and perceptions. Costs are always a concern with consumers,but the health and safety of their families is just as important. 91 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER This criterion will be provided with a weighting factor of 5. 8.2 Scoring of Collection System Alternatives Because the alternative screening process determined that gravity collection was the only collection system to be retained for further analysis, two different configurations were scored to evaluate a preferred configuration. The two collection system configurations were evaluated for more detailed analysis and consideration in the Alternative Analysis. The two configurations to be scored in this section are: • Alternative CS-1: Gravity Collection— Street Layout • Alternative CS-2: Gravity Collection— Alley Layout 8.2.1 Technical Feasibility Both alternatives are technically feasible and can mostly be constructed within existing rights-of- way or easements, reducing the need for easements or land acquisition. Due to the limited space in the Alley Layout alternative it will be score as a 5 and the Street Layout will be scored as a 7. 8.2.2 Environmental Impacts The collection system alternatives would have minimal environmental impacts, and are very much alike in this regard. Therefore. both alternatives will be given a median score of 5. 8.2.3 Financial Feasibility Alternative CS-! has a life cycle cost of S 1.6;1.895 and Alternative CS-2 has a life cycle cost of S 1,447,095. This results in scores of 4.4 and 5.6, respectively. -Table 8.2.3 - Clancy Wastewater Treatment System Preferred Collection System Alternatives Present Worth Analysis ALTERNATIVE CS-1 ALTERNATIVE CS-2 ITEM 7) -ty Collection Street Layout Gravity Collection Alley Layout Capital Costs $1,784.000 $1,619,000 p $3,000 $3,000 Annual O&M Cost $695,700 20-Year Salvage $632,250 Present Worth of $197,100 $$44,900 Present Worth of $44,995 $44,995 Present Worth C $1,631,895 $1,447,095 'Present worth based upon a 20 year life cycle using calculated discount rate. 8.2.4 Public Health and Safety 101 Both alternatives will improve the public health and safety and neither alternative more than the other, so both alternative will be given the median score of 5. 92 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 8.2.5 Operational and Maintenance Considerations Both alternatives will have similar operations and maintenance. Alternative CS-1 will provide more direct access to manholes with less chance of obstruction; however, this advantage is offset by the fact that manhole in the streets will require more traffic control issue during maintenance. Perhaps a more important factor to consider is that Alternative CS-2 will have shorter and more direct services to operate and maintain. The major advantage with CS-1 is the easy access to main lines and manholes. CS-2 would be in constricted work areas which may hinder maintenance. Since there are offsetting advantages and disadvantages with both,both alternatives will be given a score of 7. 8.2.6 Public Comments The proposed District held a public meeting on June 8, 2010 that verbally described, and presented schematic drawings representing each of the collection system alternatives. Based on the amount of disturbance during construction, the favorable service connections, and the cost savings, the preferred alternative was Alternative CS-2. Thereby, Alternative CS-1 will be given a score of 3 while Alternative CS-2 is given a higher score of 8. 8.3 Scoring of Lift Station Alternatives Only one Lift Station alternative was retained from the Alternative Screening for more detailed analysis and consideration in the Alternatives Analysis. Therefore, no scoring or decision matrix is necessary. 8.4 Scoring of Treatment Alternatives Four treatment system alternatives were retained from the Alternative Screening for more detailed analysis and consideration in the Alternative Analysis. All alternatives requiring treatment and/or storage using lagoons were eliminated from consideration because suitable land is not available for siting ponds. The remaining three alternatives to be scored in this section are: • Alternative T-1: No Action Alternative • Alternative T-3: Septic Tank/ Level 2 Treatment/ Pressure Dosed Draintield • Alternative T-4: Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Mechanical Treatment Plant 8.4.1 Technical Feasibility As discussed under the ranking criteria development, all the alternatives are technically feasible from an engineering standpoint but may not be practically feasible. T-1: The No Action Alternative is the most technically feasible both from and engineering standpoint and also from the fact that no land is required. This Alternative shall receive a score of 10. 93 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER T-3: The Level 2 Alternative requires a modest amount of land that is constrained to specific geometric dimensions and other factors in order to meet nondegradation requirements. Two sites are potentially viable for groundwater permitting. This Alternative shall receive a score of 4. T-4: The BNR Mechanical Plant with groundwater disposal option selected in the analysis was the SBR system. This system requires less land than the with the Level 2 system, but is also limited to only one potential disposal site. Consequently,this Alternative will receive a score of 5 also. 8.4.2 Environmental Impacts T-1: The No Action Alternative is the worst case scenario for the environment. Even though there is no major disturbance from construction related activity, this is far out-weighted by the water quality problems with the existing situation of failing individual onsite septic systems. This Alternative will be scored a 0. T-3: The Level 2 Alternative disturbs a modest amount of land during construction, but after construction, it has a very low impact after construction because it is almost entirely subsurface. This system also recharges the local groundwater supply with the treated effluent. This Alternative shall receive a score of 8. T-4: The BNR Mechanical Plant Alternative disturbs a modest amount of land daring construction,but recharges the local groundwater supply with the treated effluent, and produces the highest quality effluent of all the alternatives. This Alternative shall receive a score of 9. 8.4.3 Financial Feasibility First, Table 8.4.3A presents the life cycle cost (present worth cost) associated with each alternative. The collection system and lift station costs are included in the capital costs of each option. Table 8.4313 is a list of each alternative life cycle cost with the corresponding financial feasibility score. 94 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Table 8.4.3A- Clancy Wastewater Treatment System Preferred Alternatives Present Worth Analysis ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE T-3 T-4 Level 2(AdvanTex) sBR With Groundwater ITEM Groundwater Dischar a Dischar e Capital Costs $5,067,000 $6,048,000 Annual O&M Costs $32,700 $93,500 20-Year Salvage Value $1,009,140 $1,229,040 Present Worth of Salvage Value $314,600 $383,200 Present Worth of Annual O&M Cost $490,447 $1,430,348 Present Worth Cost' $5,242,847 $7,067,148 'Present worth based upon a 20 year life cycle using calcuiafed discount rate. The financial parameters used in the present worth analysis are as follows: 3.10% Construction Cost Index 3.00% Inflation • 6.00% Interest Rate 2.91% Discount Factor Table 8.4.3B -Financial Ranking TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE LIFE CYCLE CC'ST FINANCIAL Fe ASIBUTY T-1 No Action $0 10.0 T-3 Level 2 Treatment $5,242,847 6.1 T-4 BNR— Mechanical Treatment Plant $7,067,148 3.7 8.4.4 Public Health and Safety T-1: The No Action Alternative is the worst case scenario for public health and safety. Even though there is no major disturbance from construction related activity, this is far out- weighted by the water quality problems with the existing situation of failing individual onsite septic systems. There is a serious health risk with inadequate separation distances between water supply wells and septic disposal areas. This Alternative will be scored a 0. 40 95 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER T-3: The Level 2 Alternative has virtually no public health and safety concerns, other than the modest level of treatment prior to groundwater disposal. This Alternative shall receive a score of 8. T-4: The BNR Mechanical Plant also has virtually no public health and safety concerns, and treats to a higher standard than the Level 2 system. This Alternative shall receive a score of 10. 8.4.5 Operational and Maintenance Considerations The cost for O&M associated with the various alternatives was included in the 20 year life cycle costs considered under financial feasibility, but O&M considerations must go beyond cost. The community has limited manpower and resources and must take this into account when considering the alternatives. T-1: The No Action Alternative could be viewed as having no O&M. However, each individual septic system has O&M that needs to be done. The problem is that there is no enforcement, so more often than not it is neglected. Consequently, this Alternative will looked as neutral and scored a 5. T-3: The Levcl 2 Alternative has very simple and straightforward O&M. O&M can be contracted out to equipment venders. This Alternative shall receive a score of 8. T-4: The BNR Mechanical Plant (SBR option) requires a nearly full time skilled operator. This alternative is the most challenging of all the alternatives from an operations and maintenance perspective. This AlternatiN c shall receive a score of 1. 8.4.6 Public Comments The County facilitated a public meeting that described, and presented schematic drawings, representing each of the treatment system alternatives. Based on the public's comments from the meeting, the alternatives were ranked as shown on the following Table 8.4.6. Table 8.4.6- Public Comments Ranking ALTERNATIVE SCORE COMMENTS T-1 No Action 0 Community wants to correct the water quality issues T-3 Level 2 Treatment 8 Most desirable, lowest visual impacts, no odors T-4 Mechanical Treatment Plant- 1 Concerns of excessive costs 1 BNR 8.5 Scoring of Project Site Alternatives Five site altematives were retain:d li'om the Alternative Screening for more detailed analvsis and consideration in the Alternative Analysis. After the alternatives analysis, it was detennined that 96 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER only a Level 2 or Mechanical Treatment plant would be agreeable to the land owner of the available treatment sites. Therefore only the two site alternatives feasible for groundwater disposal were retained and will be scored in this section. Those sites are: • Alternative S-3: Marks Bench • Alternative S-5: Across Highway 8.5.1 Technical Feasibility Alternative S-3 is a very feasible option and will be scored as such; additionally, it is the only potential site for discharge to groundwater. Alternative S-3 shall be given a score of 8. Alternative S-5 is similar to S-3, but is more difficult site to access and will be scored slightly less with a score of 7. 8.5.2 Environmental Impacts Sites S-3 and S-5 are the most favorable form an environmental standpoint because there is more separation from any potential groundwater or surface water concerns and are therefore given scores of 7. 8.5.3 Financial Feasibility The financial feasibility is the same for all alternative considered because they are all owned by the same entity and relatively similar in value. All the site alternatives are scored at a median N aL," of 5- 8.5.4 Public Health and Safety Site alternatives S-3 and S-5 have the least amount of concerns from a public health and safety perspective for both location and for treatment potential prior to reaching groundwater or surface water. Alternative S-3 shall be given a score of 7, and Altemative S-5 a score of 8. 8.5.5 Operational and Maintenance Considerations Site S-3 is the closest siteand shall be scored the same at a median value of 5. Site S-5 is the furthest site to access with the most forcemain and TDH to overcome, and will therefore be scored lower with a score of 3. 8.5.6 Public Comments There were some comments at the public meeting that supported a system further away from the creek corridors, so S-3 and S-5 will be scored higher to reflect this. Site alternatives S-3 and S-5 shall be given scores of 7. 97 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 8.6 Decision Matrix and Selection of Preferred Alternative Urine the criteria,scoring and weighting factors previously described, Table 8.6 was established to provide a concise comparison of the alternatives. Decision Technical Environmental Financial Public Health Operation and Public Feasibility Impacts Feasibility and Safety Maintenance Comments Alternative TOTAL Weight: 6 Weight: 3 Weight: 10 Weight: 7 Weight: 5 Weight: 5 Score Wld. Score Wtd. Score Wtd. Score Wtd. Score Wtd. Score Wtd. CS-1 7.0 42 5.0 15 4.4 44 5.0 35 7.0 20 4.0 20 191 CS-2 5.0 30 5.0 15 5.6 56 5.0 35 7.0 35 8.0 40 211 T-1 10.0 60 0.0 0 10.0 100 0.0 0 5.0 25 0.0 0 185 T-3 4.0 24 8.0 24 6.1 61 8.0 56 8.0 40 8.0 40 245 T-4 5.0 30 9.0 27 3.7 37 10.0 70 1.0 5 1.0 5 174 S-3 8.0 48 7.0 21 5.0 50 7.0 49 5.0 25 7.0 35 226 S-4 5.0 30 3.0 9 5.0 50 5.0 35 5.0 25 5.0 25 174 S-5 7.0 42 7.0 21 5.0 So 8.0 56 3.0 15 7.0 35 219 it is important to note that the above scoring and weighting are subjective. Alternatives that score overall within 10 pts of each other may . essentiaily hold the same degree of preference. The preferred centralized wastewater collection, treatment and disposal alternative for Clancy is as follows: Alternate;eCS-2: GiaNit% Collection Alle} Layoul Alternative L-1 : Single Centralized Lift Station- Packaged Suhmersible • Alternative T-3: Septic Tank r Lcvcl 2 Treatment Pressurc Dosed Draintieid Altemative S-3: Marks Bench CS-2: This alternative ranked the highest and will be the design basis for this project. As stated in previous sections of this report, individual grinder pumps may be considered on a case by case basis in conjunction with this layout. It should be noted that during design, a street layout (CS- 1) may be selected if design data indicated that it would be a more feasible alternative because of the constricted access to the alleys and potential utility conflicts. L-1: This alternative was selected during the Alternative Analysis (Section 7) process and was therefore not part of the decision matrix. T-3: This alternative ranked the highest and will be the design basis for this project. There are two potential sites for groundwater infiltration. S-3: This alternative ranked the highest and will be the design basis for this project. However, since the land acquisition is not final, site selection is still considered to be uncertain. The only other potential site that would accommodate the preferred treatment alternative is S-5. A detailed description of this preferred alternative is described in the following Section. 98 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 9.0 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE This section will provide a detailed description of the Preferred Alternative including: site and location characteristics, operational requirements, impacts on existing facilities, design criteria, environmental impacts and mitigation, and a cost summary. 9.1 Site Location and Characteristics The preferred wastewater collection pipe network (alternative CS-2) is situated within the existing alley ways wherever practical. For the most part, this system layout works well in the central portions of the proposed District where the community is on a grid system. These alleys are typical of small rural towns in that they are narrow and used as a catch-all for residences and businesses alike. However, lengthy sections of the collection system are forced to be located in the streets because there are no available alleys to utilize. The primary street alignment sections are where the proposed District extents to the west toward the school along Clancy Street, south to the southern end of the proposed District(Alhambra) along Main Street, and north to the proposed lift station along Railroad Way. These street alignments are approximately 20 to 24 feet wide asphalt surface roads that are moderately maintained. As a result,roughly halfthe collection laterals are positioned along the back of lots, and the rest are in the street right-of-way. The parallel alignment between the central portion of the proposed District (Clancy) and the southern portion , Alhambra) is neces.ary to service this area and maintain a complete gravity floi� collection system. This is o:;c location %s he:c grinder pL_mps v ill be analyzed in more detcl l dut';I a tl�e At-si t'n nlaSa :•f fit„ proJect. The proposed centralized lift station is located in the far northeast corner of the proposed District. More specifically, the site is at the southeast comer of the Railroad Way and Legal Tender Lane intersection, and is within the public right-of-way of Railroad Way. Even though this site is in public right-of-way, it is an open area with plenty of available space, so construction and traffic concerns are minimal. This site is the low point of the system, and is within a hundred feet of Prickly Pear Creek. No floodplain has been delineated so there are concerns; however, the site is separated from the creek by Railroad Way which would act as a levee if flooding started to occur. As with any low lying area, there is also a concern with groundwater,but this concern is overshadowed by the fact that this is the only location that would enable the desired gravity collection system. The preferred treatment site (alternative S-3) is the suitable land located north of the proposed District on the bench west of Prickly Pear Creek and north of Lump Gulch. The main reason for this site selection is due to the greater separation distance from surface water and groundwater. The site has been previously disturbed, and is more remote than the other site alternatives, which is advantageous from a public perception point of view. This is a relatively flat area that has good site access and is one of only two potential locations for groundwater disposal. 99 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • 9.2 Operational Requirements Level 2 wastewater treatment systems have a manageable amount of operational requirements, and the level of expertise required is reasonable for a rural community with minimal manpower and resources. Most Level 2 systems are somewhat self-sufficient and controllable by way of telemetry systems along with the lift station. Cleaning,measuring and sampling will be the standard operations perfonned for the entire system. Additionally, the back-up power source with the new lift station and Level 2 treatment system would also provide a benefit as power outages typically occur during stormy weather conditions, or in the middle of the night. Specific duties required to operate the AdvanTex Level 2 system include: • Annually clean pumping packages • Annually clean biotube filters Annually clean splitter valves • Inspect splitter valve every three months Inspect ventilation fan assembly every three months • Check telemetry panel monthly • Visually check the system in detail every two weeks • Measure sludge levels in the primary treatment tanks annually • Measure sludge levels in the recirculation tank annually • Measure filter pod inlet pressures annually • Flush distribution system laterals annually • Clean nozzles annually • Visually inspect drainfield laterals monthly The operational iegmremc nts foi a nee,, packaged lift station m ill i to ,oml d,>2rc ba,, d on the ChGC lil C`. V I fl . _,.Ji it t�iui at - � ld�. � . anG utilized new technologies and are usei friendly Mary of the operations can be automated and even remotely managed via telemetry equipment. If basic controls are used, the operator cheeks the lift station and records the meter readings on a daily basis during the week. The preferred gravity collection system (alternative CS-2) is simple and has inexpensive operation and maintenance. This is because it does not rely on numerous small pumping and control facilities that not only require ongoing maintenance but can also fail. The standard gravity collection system is a tried and true technology that has generally proven to be reliable if properly operated and maintained. The systems should be set up on a periodic flushing and cleaning schedule that results in the cleaning of each pipe segment in the system every five years. The system may experience periodic plugging that must be corrected by the system operator. These systems generally have a very long service life and can be expected to last 50 years or more. 9.3 Impact on Existing Facilities Clancy does not have any existing utility facilities other than the array of individual water supply wells and onsite septic systems. The impact from this project on these existing individual 100 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER facilities will be very positive. The new wastewater system will eliminate the need for the individual septic systems which are mostly out of compliance with current health regulations and contaminating the groundwater supply. Consequently, the impact to water supply wells will be positive from the standpoint that they will be pumping from a cleaner water source. The proposed system will eliminate the concerns of well and septic separation distances within the proposed District. 9.4 Design Criteria The proposed project will have to comply with standards in both Circular DEQ-2 and DEQ-4. Circular DEQ-2 will address design criteria for public systems and includes sections for the new lift station and collection system. Circular DEQ-4 specifically addresses requirements for Level 2 systems regarding nondegradation drainfield sizing, and drainfield construction. The most applicable Chapters in DEQ-2 are: • Chapter 10 Engineering Reports And Facility Plans Chapter 20 Engineering Plans And Specifications • Chapter 30 Design of Sewers Chapter 40 Wastewater Pumping Stations • Chapter 50 Wastewater Treatment Works Applicable design standards from DEQ-4 include: I • Chapter 3 Site Evaluation • Chapter 5 Wastewater Flom- • " ha- 7 Scpuc Ta:,ks • Chapter 9 Dosing System Chapter B Gravelless Absorption Trenches Chapter 17 Recirculating Trickling Filters • Chapter 23 Absorption Beds The entire system will be designed for the 20-year design flow of 35,000 gpd as used throughout this report. However, there is an opportunity to save on the initial capital cost and minimized the O&M by phased installation of the AdvanTex treatment pods and drainfield. This is an advantage of this type of system, but it is important to recognize that land acquisition, engineering calculations, system layout. pipe sizing, etc. are all designed to allow for expansion of the treatment and disposal system to the 35,000 gpd design flow. A summary of key project specific design criteria is as follows: • 20ft x 24ft office/shop building • (10) AdvanTex AX 100 Pods (fixed film treatment) • (2) 25,000 gallon capacity recirculation tanks • 100,000 gallon septic tank(s) capacity 1011 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • 14,583 lineal feet of infiltration chambers (drainfield) • 2.5 acres of primary draintield area • (I) Packaged Submersible Lift Station with dual 15-hp effluent pumps • Emergency backup power generator • 15,600 lineal feet of 8-inch PVC sewer main collection pipe • 5,500 lineal feet 6-inch effluent force main • t103 sewer service connections 9.4.1 Treatment DEQ describes Level 2 treatment as a wastewater treatment process that removes at least 60- percent of total nitrogen as measured from the raw sewage load to the system, or discharges a total nitrogen effluent concentration of 24 mg/L or less. For a system to gain the Level 2 designation it must undergo a very rigorous testing and sampling regime before DEQ will allow the systems to be permitted and installed in Montana. Level 2 designated systems are designed specifically to remove nutrients from wastewater effluent, especially nitrogen. There are several different systems approved for installation in Montana, including the AdvanTex system manufactured by Orenco Inc., which is the option used in this analysis as discussed in Section '.3.3_ Recirculating sand filters, intennittent sand filters and sand mounds were the first wastewater treatment systems given the Level 2 designation in Montana, and further research has shown that a single pass through a sand medium will not tGlr,cally remove 60-percent of the nitrogen in wastewater. Intennitent sand filters an,I sand rrnw-nds are no ]onL'er considered approved Level treatment systems. The AdvanTex packed bed synthetic textile filter systems were one of the first non-gn-anular Level 2 systems to be approved in Montana. This system utilizes a media bed of woven (fuzzy) fabric that provides the surface area necessary for an adequate microbe population (bugs) to be established. The AdvanTex system was chosen over other Level 2 systems for this analysis because of the performance data available, longevity of the manufacturer and local supplier, and readily available design information. The treatment system is a synthetic textile based packed bed filter and the associated porosity, attached growth surface area, and water-holding capacity contributes to the textile media treatment performance. Packed bed textile based filter beds offer the following advantages when used for wastewater treatment: • Quick startup • Efficient performance with highly variable wastewater strengths and flows, including occasional hydraulic and biologic overloads • No release of untreated sewage if a malfunction occurs 102 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Consistent trouble-free operation: low maintenance (e.g. annual service call recommended; on-site routine service time approximately one hour) • Ease of maintenance (components should be easily accessible and serviceable) Low energy consumption a Adequate storage during power outages (normally 24 hours or more at typical flows) Recoverable and expandable ■ Reliability in meeting the level of treatment required prior to final disposal of effluent Easy removal and cleaning of media in case of upset The Level 2 treatment systems offer a low O&M alternative for wastewater treatment system where biological nutrient removal is required and the capital and operating cost of a full scale mechanical treatment plant is not viable. 9.4.2 Lift Stations A single centralized Packaged Submersible Lift Station was selected for this project, and is located at the far northwest corner of the proposed District. This type of lift station is the most modern design and presents the fewest operational issues. The lift station building or structure usually sits on top of a wet well. there are no confined space entry issues, and no dry well is required. Generally, there are only minimal operation and maintenance requirements and the controls can be connected to a back-up generator. These packaged submersible lift stations meet DEQ-2 Chapter 40 requirements. The lift station structure (packaged submersible) is a concrete wet well, that will be sized according to the design flows and requirements form DEQ-2. A typical footprint for a lift station of this style and magnitude would be approximately 8-feet wide by 12-feet long with half of that used for the eak c vaull and the other half for the wet Hell. The wet %e ell saiil extend at least tcn ieot t'rellI . r'rO u;IC; SGrta.... Sin,.. the lift at,...0;? .,ill pr.�tri do i4'rt! inft , }h;_ "'n-.111 rJ\v'!Ier_ waterproofing and countering buoyancN forces are essential_ Pumps are sized such that they are capable of pumping wastewater to the treatment and disposal site while maintaining a minimum souring velocity of two feet per second in the force main. The design criteria for this application is 64-feet elevation head and 5,500 lineal feet of 6-inch diameter force main. Accordingly, the calculated TDH would be approximately 84 TDH. The minimum required flow for this application is approximately 180 gallons per minute, so the target design flow will be closer to 200 gpm. Preliminary pump sizing calculations are included in Appendix Q and indicate the need for a minimum of 15- horsepower variable drive pumps. Standard 3-Phase power is required to operate this type of lift station, and should be easily connected at this site. 9.4.3 Collection System Layout Figure 7.1.2 in Section 7.1 shows the collection system layout as proposed with this preferred project alternative. The collection system is designed to efficiently reach all areas of the proposed District and consists of approximately 15,600 lineal feet of gravity main. Considerations of gravity flow, service lengths, number of manholes, bury depth, and several other factors contributed to this layout. 103 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER All the gravity mains will be 8-inch PVC pipe with standard 48-inch diameter manholes to meet the requirements of Circular DEQ-2. This is the minimum size for gravity mains and there are no reaches of pipe in this network that require anything larger. Services will be designed according to DEQ-2 and for the most part are expected to be 4-inch PVC. 9.4.4 Hydraulic Calculations Projected wastewater flows within the proposed District were calculated to be 32,000 gallons per day (gpd) based on the estimated planning period population of the proposed District. State design standards require a minimum wastewater flow of 100 gallons per day per capita (gpdc) unless flow monitoring demonstrates otherwise. In this case, the 100 gpdc ,,uide)ine was used to calculate the residential flows. The non-residential and commercial flows were calculated by utilizing the DEQ-4 Tables 5-1 and 5-2 for uses such as: bar, restaurant, fire station, post office, school, church, etc. In order to utilize flow information strictly from a quantity (gallons) perspective, all the flows were converted to Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU). An EDU is equal to 250 gpd. 100 gpdc X 2.5 persons per residence = 250 gpd = I EDU Table 3.1.1 below shows the existing flow and the projected flows for the proposed District. 104 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Table 3.1.1 - Existing I Design Flows and EDU's TYPE Existing Septic Existing EDU's Existing Flow(gpd) Design Flow(gpd) Systems Residential 89 89 22,500 25,000 Non-Residential 7 30 7,500 8,500 Commercial 7 6 1,500 2,000 Total 125 31,500 35,500 Design 32,000 35,000 The gravity collection mains are all sized per DEQ-2 and will be 8-inch PVC In order to ensure that 8-inch mains would be adequate throughout the pipe network, the section of pipe that receives the most flow was checked for capacity requirements. This section of pipe is the lowest part of the entire system and is located immediately prior to the lift station. At this point,the pipe would need to handle the full design flow of 35,000 gpd plus a peaking factor of four(4) (DEQ-2, Chapter 10, Section 11.243), which equates to 140,000 gpd. An 8-inch PVC gravity main has a manning roughness coefficient of n=0.013. The minimum slope per DEQ-2 (Chapter 30, Section 33.4) is 0.004 fUft, and will convey 42,422 gpd (0.7 ft3isec or 314 gpm) at 75;% liipe capacity. This would also allow for an instantaneous peaking factor of almost thirteen (13). The minimum size of force main allowed by DEQ for raw sewage is 4-inch diameter and cleaning velocities of at least two feet per second are required. A 4-inch pipe needs to operate at 80 gallons per minute (,.,Pm) to maintain the minimum cleaning velocities. Although a 4-inch force main could he conceivable for this project. the proposed force main will be 6-inch diameter_ Mininn!m ohcratintz flma 1nr this size of pipe is 180 gpm. A 6-inch pipe Neill meet Lill the design criteria of DEQ-2 and is the most conservative design. The design life of pipe usually exceeds treatment, and if this community grows more than expected the larger pipe will function whereas the smaller pipe would be more limited for serving a large sen ice area. 9.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Although large areas may be disturbed as a result of open-trench digging, virtually all areas will be within existing rights-of-way and easements that have been previously disturbed by development. There will be no changes in land use after completion of the project. Some air quality problems with dust may arise during the actual construction period because the majority of the streets are unpaved; however, it would he temporary and the contract documents would require that the Contractor provide dust control. Similarly, there will be some temporary noise during construction. Once construction is complete,there will be no noise or dust problems arising as a result of the improvements. The contract documents will also require that Best Management Practices (BMP) be employed before, during, and after construction until all areas of disturbance have been fully reclaimed and/or re-vegetated. For these reasons. environmental impacts are considered minimal and no lone-tern, negative environmental impacts are anticipated. 105 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Specific to treatment and disposal, the Level 2 system will have minimal environmental impacts because the treatment pods (filters) and tanks would all be placed underground with only access hatches above ground. Groundwater quality will be improved because of the nitrogen removal in the effluent by the Level 2 system. Additionally. water quality concerns minimized with this alternative because there is more travel distance for natural cleansing though the soil matrix. The same is true for surface water where there is more overland travel distance through vegetation. Attached in Appendix D is the required environmental checklist. Appendix F contains the agency response letters received to-date. Appendix F also contains a letter from the County Sanitarian describing the current groundwater quality concerns and feels that any type of centralized wastewater system that is properly design and constructed will improve the environmental water quality. 9.6 Cost Summary 9.6.1 Project Cost Estimate Table 9.6.1 A below shows an all-inclusive opinion of probable cost for the preferred alternative utilizing the design flow of 35,000 gpd. The Table includes the proposed Level 2 system (AdvanTex), collection system, lift station, land purchase, and associated soft costs. Table 9.6.1 B illustrates the breakdown of engineering, legal and administrative costs. Table 9,6.1 C is a present worth analysis of the project cost estimate. I 106 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Opinion Clancy Wastewater Treatment Project Alternative T-3 - Level 2 (Advantex)With Groundwater Discharge # BID ITEM QTY I UNITS I UNIT PRICE ' TOTAL 1 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500 2 Access Road 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 3 Office/ Shop Building (20'x24'24' 480 SF $ 150.00 $ 72,000 4 Recirculation Tanks 2 1 LS $ 110,000.00 $ 110,000 5 Centralized Septic Tank s 1 LS $ 220,000.00 $ 220,000 6 Tank Access E ui ment 1 LS $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000 7 Pumping Equipment 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000 8 Control Panel 1 LS $ 18,000.00 $ 18,000 9 Misc. Piping/Fittings/Glue/Etc. 1 LS $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000 10 Recirculation Valve 1 LS $ 2.000.00 $ 2,000 11 HeaterlVentilation Fan Assembly 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 12 AdvanTex E uipment AX100 Pods i LS $ 325,000.00 $ 325,000 13 Plant Water System &Well Construction 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000 14 Signing 1 LS $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000 15 Discharge Piping Into GW Infiltration 400 LF $ 32.00 $ 12,800 16 Groundwater Infiltration System 14,60 LF $ 12.00 $ 175,200 17 GroundwaterMonitorin Well 4 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 10,000 ', i8 Emer enc Power Generator 1 LS $ 5Q000.00 $ 50,000 19 Disposal Site Fencing 2.500 LF $ 10 00 $ 25.000 20 Chain Link Fencing Treatment Site 350 LF $ 25.00 $ 8.750 21 Site Grad (Parkin ISeedin 1 LS Y' 6,000.00 $ E.000 122 i Power/Electrical Service (Treatment Site' i 1 LS $ 30.000.00 $ 30.000 23 6-inch Effluent Force Main to Treatment 5,500 t LF S 3200. $ 176,000 Treatment System Subtotal $ 1,438,000 24 Collection System and Lift Station 1 LS $ 1,619,000.00 $ 1,619,000 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 2,954,000 Mobilization 10.0% $ 295,000 Traffic Control 1% $ 30,000 Contingency 10% $ 295,000 Construction Subtotal $ 3,574,000 2014 Construction Cost 3.1% $ 4,038,000 Land Acquisition (10 acres) $ 75,000 Water Rights $ - Right-of-Way& Permits $ 40,000 Hydrogeologic Investigation $ 5,000 Geotechnical Investigation $ 15,000 Engineering, Legal & Administrative s 25% $ 894,000 TOTAL $ 5,067,000 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabz for similar projects throughout Montana. The ENR 20 year average Construction Cost Index is+3.1%(as of November 2009), so capital costs are projected to an anticipated construction date in 207d using a 3.7%inflation rate. 'Cost breakdown on Table 9.6.1B 107 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Opinion Table 9.6.113 - Discharge Clancy Wastewater Treatment Project Alternative T-3 -Level 2 (Advantex)With Groundwater # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Personnel 1 LS $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 2 Office 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 3 Grant Administration 1 LS $ 45,000.00 $ 45,000.00 4 Training & Travel 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 5 Legal 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 6 Interim Interest 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 7 Loan Fees & Reserves 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 8 Bond Counsel 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 9 Engineering 1 LS $ 711,000.00 $ 711,000.00 10 Audit 1 LS $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 TOTAL $ 894,000.00 Table 9.6.11C -Clancy Wastewater Treatment Project Preferred Alternative Present Worth Analysis ALTERNATIVE T-3 ITEM AdvanTex with Groundwater Discharge (35k GPD Capital Costs 55.192,000 ornfal O&M Costs $32 70D 20-Year Salvage Value $1,009,140 Present Worth of Salvage Value $314,600 Present Worth of Annual O&M Cost $490,447 Present Worth Cost' $5,367,847 'Present worth based upon a 20 year life cycle using calculated discount rate. 9.6.2 Annual Operating Budget Clancy will be a new County Water and Sewer District so no previous income or reserves are available. 108 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Income The estimated flow for the proposed District is equivalent to 125 EDU's as presented in Section 3.1.1. The next section provides funding scenarios that calculate the user rate from this number of EDU's. Additionally, the estimated O&M includes a contribution to a reserve which is an important part of any rate structure in case an emergency repair is needed. O&M COSts Table 9.6.2 below is an opinion of probable cost of the proposed O&M costs for the proposed District, after the project is complete. The present worth of this cost is shown on Table 9.6.1 A in the previous section. Table 9.6.2 - Opinion of Probable Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs Clancy Wastewater Treatment Project Alternative T-3- Level 2 (AdvanTex)with Groundwater Discharge # I ITEM QTY 1 UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Administration 100 HR $ 15.00 $ 1,500.00 2 Lift Station Power 17,000 KWH $ 0.10 $ 1,700.00 3 AdvanTex Power Pum s/Fans 1 LS $ 2,100.00 $ 2,100.00 4 —Monitoring &Testing 1 LS $ 6,000.00 $ 6.000.00 5 Sludge Disposal 1 LS $ 2.000.00 $ 2,000.00 6 Office Expenses/Training 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 7 AdvanTex Componet Maintenance 1 LS $ 1,100.00 $ 1;100.00 8 AdvanTex System Maintenance 1 LS $ 8,300.00 $ 8-30000 9 Clean 2001 of Co_llection System *3,000 LF $ 1.00 $ 3,000.00 1 Reserve 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 TOTAL $ 32,700.00 Capital Improvements The proposed District has no major asset acquisition plans and is solely focused on the initial construction. Once established, more information will be available to adequately address a capital improvements plan. Debt Repayments and Coverage Requirements The funding strategy for the proposed District will be discussed in detail in the next section. 9.6.3 Reserves Reserve requirements for loan funds are considered as part of the funding strategies presented in the next section. In addition, short-lived assets were included as part of the O&M costs. Therefore, there are no additional reserve requirements to be included as part of the project costs. s 109 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION The previous sections of this report have focused on the need for the project, physical and socio- economic characteristics of the community, project costs, and more extensively the technical viability. This section will focus on the financial strategy and implementation schedule. The proposed District has no existing system(s); therefore, there are no funds available, or attainable through existing fee structures. One of the main goals of a comprehensive PER is to provide a workable funding plan for recommended improvements included in the Preferred Alternative. This section will discuss available funding sources as well as develop various funding scenarios. Ultimately, a preferred funding scenario will be selected and further analyzed along with an associated implementation plan. I 10.1 Funding Due to the high cost of the proposed improvements, the proposed District will need to obtain outside assistance to fund the project. The outside assistance may be in the form of a grants and/or loans. Possible sources of funding are: • Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP) • Renewable Resource Grant and Loan Program (RRGL) • Community Dcv clopmeW Block Grant WDBG) • State Revoking Fund (SRF) • USDA Rural Development (RD) • Montana Coal Board • Economic Development Administration (EDA) • INTERCAP • State &Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) Program and Water Resource Development Act (WRDA)Grant Program (595 Program) • Revenue Bonds The funding programs have different eligibility requirements. Community income levels are considered as part of the eligibility review for most of the grant programs, either as a primary qualifier or, as in the case of CDBG and TSEP, as a basis for determining the level of financial responsibility the applicant must meet before they qualify for grant funds. The median household income (MHI) is used by the agencies to make the grant eligibility detennination. Target monthly water and sewer rates have been established by the funding agencies as a percentage of the median household income. The MHl for the proposed District is 110 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER rationalized in section 2.4.7 and estimated to be less than $33,000 per year. The user target sewer rate is based on 0.9% of the MHI, or $24.75 per month. An income survey is the recommended means of accurately determining the MHl of the proposed District. After the District is formed and income survey will be performed to more accurately determine income data. The equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) methodology is used in grant applications to determine the user rates from which the percentage of target rate can be calculated. The user rate calculated based on the EDU method, with Funding Scenario Option #2 shown in Section 10.1.2 below,is $88.45 per month. This is 222.7% of the Clancy CDP target rate, which will make the proposed District eligible for all the grant funding agency target rate thresholds. 10.1.1 Funding Sources The following sections provide a brief description of the potential funding sources and whether or not the Clancy Wastewater proposed District would be eligible for those funds. Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP) TSEP is a state funded grant program. which is administered by the Montana Department of Commerce (MDOC). TSEP provides financial assistance to local governments for infrastructure improvements. Grants can be obtained from TSEP for up to $500,000 if the projected user rates are less than 125% of the target rate. for up to $625.000 if projected user rates are between 125% and 150% of the target rate, and for up to 5750,000 if the projected user rates are over 150% of the target rate. TSEP grant recipients are required to match the grant dollar for dollar.but the match may come from a variety of sources including other grants. loans, or cash contributions. There is also a limit of$20.000 per household. and onh one application per project is permitted each application cycle. Since the proposed improvements will result in an increase in user rates to a rate above the target rate by more than 150°/x, Clancy is eligible to apply for up to $750.000 of TSEP funds. Renewable Resource Grant and Loan Program (RRGI) RRGL is a state program that is funded through interest accrues on the Resource Indemnity Trust Fund and the sale or Coal Severance Tax Bonds and is administered by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC). The primary propose of the RRGL is to enhance Montana's renewable resources. For public facilities projects that conserve, manage, develop, or protect renewable resources, grants of up $100,000 are available. The Pro osed District would be managing and protecting a renewable resource, which makes P them eligible for funding of up to $100,000 through the DNRC-RRGL program. In this case, the resource is groundwater and surface water contributing to the Prickly Pear Creek watershed and eco-system. Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) CDBG is a federally funded program that is also administered by the Montana Department of Commerce (MDOC). The primary purpose of CDBG funds is to benefit low to moderate income 111 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER (LMI) families. Hence, a municipality must have an LMI of 51% or greater. This is usually determined by the current Census. However, under certain circumstances, the MDOC may allow an income survey to be completed (such as there have been major economic changes since the Census or if a community is only slightly under the required LMI percentage). The CDBG grant funds can be applied for in an amount of up to $450,000 with a limit of $15,000 per LMI household, so a community needs 30 LMI households to apply for the maximum grant funds. The use of CDBG funds requires a 25% local match that can be provided through cash funds, loans, or a combination thereof. An income survey is necessary to determine the eligibility for the proposed District for CDBG grants. Based on the current knowledge of the area and experience with similar projects, it is conceivable that the proposed District will meet the criteria to be eligible for CDBG funds. State Revolving Fund (SRF) SRF pro s vide low-interest loan funds for both water and wastewater projects through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and the Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund (WPCSRF), respectively. The SRF program is administered by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Current loan terms include an interest rate of 3.75% for a 20-year period, and 325% for a 30-year period. However, the SRF program does offer an additional subsidy for disadvantaged communities. A disadvantaged community is one where the combined annual water and sewer rates are 23% or greater of the MHI. The additional subsidy is a partial waiver of the loan loss reserve fee, which equates to a 1.0% interest rate reduction. Thus,the interest rate used in funding calculation+ for a disadvantaged community is 2. 0'/0. Currently, the SRF 201 0) is propca.ng.. princip?� f.r,L;%mess bf 15% Na7ith a maximum of$500,000 or 30"o of the project costs. It is umertair if this will he available when this project is ready and is therefore not included at this time. This funding source is considered to be a practical option for Clancy, especially since it would likely qualify as a disadvantaged community. The loan terns are shorter with SRF than Rural Development (described below) so rates are higher. USDA Rural Demlopmment (RD) RD provides grant and loan funding to municipalities for water and wastewater projects that improve the quality of life and promote economic development in Rural America. Municipalities with a population of less than 10,000 are eligible to apply; although, priority is given to those with a population of less than 5,500. Grant eligibility and loan interest rates are based on the community's median household income (MHI) and user rates. If the area to be served has a MHI of$26,452 or lower and the project is necessary to alleviate a health and/or sanitation concern. up to 75% of the project costs are grant eligible. Up to 45% of the project costs are grant eligible if the planning area has an MH1 between $26,452 and $33,065. 112 I Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Based on the information to-date and the current knowledge and characteristics of the proposed District, it is anticipated that the proposed District will have an MHI between $26,452 and 533,065, and will be eligible to apply for a 45% grant. Thus, the remaining 55%would be funded by RD's 40-year 3.375% low interest rate loan. An income survey would be required to confirm this assumption. Montana Coal Board The Coal Board provides grant funding to municipalities to adequately provide for the expansion of public services or facilities needed as a direct consequence of coal development activities. There is no maximum limit to the amount the Coal Board can fund, but available funding is very limited so it can be difficult to receive any funds from the Coal Board, especially large sums. Clancy is located outside of the eligible Coal Board boundaries and cannot show a direct impact from coal development. Therefore, it is very unlikely that they would receive any Coal Board funding. Economic Development Administration (EDA) FDA provides grant funding for projects that are demonstrated to be needed for the placement of a new business. The amount of grant is dependent on the number of jobs created. This funding source is not applicable to this project. INTERCAP INTERCAP prop ides loar fiends at a tov� cost, variable interest rate to local gocarmnents. INTERCAP is administere(' by the fvlontam Board of Investments and is very flexible in the N ariety of funding which would include both water and wastewater projects. There is no funding cycle (finds are always available):however, the maximum loan term is 10 years. Due to the rather large amount of financing required, an INTERCAP loan with the shorter loan term would cause extremely high user rates for the proposed District and is not recommended for long-term financing. Should the proposed District be in need of interim financing at any point during the project, INTERCAP would be an excellent source. State & Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) Prograrn and Water Resource Development Act (WRDA) Grant Program (595 Program) STAG and WRDA grants are federal fiscal appropriations that are approved by the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. STAG and WRDA grants are available for infrastructure improvements for municipalities, among other governmental agencies. The program generally requires a 45%match for the STAG funds and 25% match for WRDA funds. State grant and loan funds are eligible to meet the matching requirement as well as federal funds from the Rural Development Program and the Community Development Block Grant Prograrn. STAG and WRDA grant applications are accepted by Montana's Congressional delegation in January'/February of each year. Results of the appropriation requests are not known until the following summer or fall. 113 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • 10.1.2 Funding Strategy Numerous options have been identified as potential funding sources for Clancy. By knowing the options available and having a thorough knowledge of the criteria associated with each funding source, many different possible funding scenarios were considered. This process is import in order to fully understand the details and sensitivity of these funding sources over time. For example, one scenario may have a slightly better user rate, but the interest paid over the life of the loan is much higher. After calculating rates and weighing-out the likelihood of proposed District's eligibility, two options are considered and shown below on Table 10.1 2A. Both options utilize RD for grants and low interest rate loans. Option#1 is more optimistic by incorporating STAG/WRDA grants and additional federal appropriations. Option 42 is a more modest approach that has much less STAG/WRDA grant funds, and no federal appropriations. Table 10.1.2A- Funding Strategy for Preferred Alternative SCENARIOS DESCRIPTION OPTION #1 OPTION #2 TOTAL PROJECT COST $5,192,000 $5,192,000 TSEP Grant $750,000 $750,000 DNRC Grant $100,000 $100,000 . CDBG Grant $450,000 $450,000 STAG/WRDA Grant $850,000 $300,000 Federal Appropriations $780,000 $0 RD Gant $1,017,900 $1.616,400 RD Lean (40 Years@ 3 375%) 51,244,100 $1,975:600 Principal + Interest + Reserve on Loans (Annual) _ $62,953 $99,968 Estimated O&M (Annual) $32,700 $32,700 Effective Annual System Cost $95,653 $132,668 User Cost Per Month $63.77 $88.45 The following Table 10.12B presents additional funding options for the Clancy community. As indicated above the preferred option is #1. However, a more realistic funding scenario would be Option #2 resulting in a user rate of$88.45/month. Option #1 and Option 42 on the previous Table: refer to Scenario #6 and Scenario #5 on Table 10.1.2B. 114 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • la.l z B Cl."Jefferson C90ory FUN IA NG OPFIOM S FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION&TREATMENT PROJECT SC'EN%R10#1 SCE9ARIOb4 SCE.SARIONS 12.L% No Grams ISEP,IIN Rc.CDBG, 'fSP;i',IINRC'.CI113G, Markrl Role Loan ISRP,DNRC,Federal I-tderal GRAMS n'I Federal(i12AN1s SRF I..an GRANISII RD LOan RDGranllLnan RD. ./Lnan ITEM (4.25//411,11) (3.375-V. (3.105%.140%rs) (3375/,140„1) t'olk.aim,.0 Voamwnl Svxlcm 55.19_009 55.192000 55.1920110 S5 19'_n0U Rounded Total $5192,000 $5,192,000 $5192000 $5192,000 'TSIT Grant S0 57 50 000 58ROOn P50.000 DNR('Gram S0 5100.000 $1001 $IUOOnO C'DWi G�anl Sn 50 5450.000 $450,000 SIAG:WRDA Gram SU S?00.(100 5109.91X1 $fl59,IX10 nddllro�wl Fndend n„�o,19u�9 S�xo.o99 51.531.1 DO tiI,e I6S400 AI/11].900 Gm SR n1 $RP Lnan S1.192 099 50 sn RD Lnan(40 $0 $'_171900 S1975.600 %1.244100 "I'ntal Prn'e9t F..d $5,192.000 $5,192.1100 $5,192,0110 $5,192.000 SRI BmO Ruuvc P_Year Pawwrll 511'1'91)2 S0 S0 $(I Total Loan Anerunt 55 565.902 52.170.900 51.975,600 $1144,100 Annual Iran I'avncnl 5365.6N0 $9&870 S00.890 SSi.^_30 Imal lean Ya.nunu Over'Life"11',l” 57313 100 $:994 X(10 $1 635200 S^'_89.'_00 Total Bnemll Paid Oser Lit,of Ulan 51]47.698 51.823.900 SL659.fi1111 $LU45,IDa A ed L�a1 ( er4cc 4;1_137 K19N7 101:11-ANSIAI,('.APHAL DEBT SER\'I('L(. 'I 5438.8 In 51119.857 599,96X S62.95.1 OS C.1rr Capital Gnl/,NUnU, $2914 S-3.24 566.09 541.9- C 1 Anl OAl1 SO 50 It S(' $0 C - )I Am I D bI S c Y0 w $0 1 0.'1 ,mil OA IJ T I'm1x, S,^n'.N1 532 1100 5:1000 S 11.000 (TI AI ANSL ALUS NT ((K95 S310110 ti`1.004 _"111 ''_'900 11..n 0400(I..r u,,,,l .06 S22.nn t SIiR('.OSTIMO]1TI P'OR PROJEC"1 $31454 $95.24 18745 1 +. .I 11.mIIII IH SV'n S1+OU ]1110 ( ❑$IONTH INCRIIASEIFDC $315,54 $95,24 $81'.45 F61.Ti I 1.1,()till M0.1111 SL UII 59.90 501111 $O.UfI l.lal trop, 1ScMCICO11 N9NI C3145-0 591'4 $W45 503 3 , ? Iurgcl Raty(C 4mcy 5.9.x, $19.7o s:o.79 $,39.79 PERCENT OF COMBINED TARGET RATE 7923'3: 239.9%, 222.8".. I60.fi°6 11,.1,!.'.) .1„J J........n„I nn..,iJ'-. II)t? • 115 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 10.2 Implementation Before the project can be implemented, the funding must first be in place. As noted earlier, the best funding strategy for the proposed District would be to utilize TSEP, DNRC, CDBG, STAG/WRDA grant funds, RD grant and loan funds, as well as additional federal appropriations. The STAG/WRDA grant applications can be submitted anytime, the TSEP grant applications are due in April 2012,and the grant applications for DNRC, and CDBG are due in May of 2012. Applications for RD funds are available anytime and do require this preliminary engineering report (PER) and any environmental reports to be included. The RD applications for this project are anticipated to be submitted in summer/fall 2012 also. Upon securing all funding, the project start-up for the grant program is expected to be about a two month process. All environmental work will need to be complete, including the b CDBG. The engineering could b e in once a contract is environmental assessment as required y g completed between the grant agencies and the proposed District, likely in June of 2013. in December 2013 with the anticipation of bidding,the Design is anticipated to be completed P b P ' to begin until 14. Actual construction would not be expected g project as earl} as February, .,0 April of 2014. primarily dependent upon weather, which should allow the Contractor ample time to coordinate a startup. Table 10.2 provides a summary of the implementation schedule. i Table 10.2 ACTION DATE NOTES District Formation Spring 2011 Jefferson County Income Survey Summer 2011 Contact Mid wes.Assistance Program Submit STAG/WRDA grant March, 2011 and applications 2012 1 Submit TSEP grant application April, 2012 Submit DNRC grant application May, 2012 Submit CDBG grant application May, 2012 Select Bond Council,hold Bond Sept,2012 Election Hire Engineer/Administrator Sept, 2012 Apply to RD for loan Oct, 2012 i Results of TSEP and DNRC grant April—June,2013 If insufficient funding, re-apply or phase project to known meet available project funding Begin Design Phase June, 2013 Start-Up, FONSI Clearance June, 2013 All environmental research already complete • Submit Plans to DEQ Nov, 2013 DEQ approval Feb, 2014 Allows 2 full months for review 116 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER . Advertise and Bid Project Feb— Mar,2014 Allows Contractor 3 months to get crew and materials ready Construction Apr—Aug, 2014 Final Walk-Through Aug, 2014 Close-out Oct, 2014 Conditional for TSEP and CDBG pending audits Audit Jan,2015 Need special single act-audit due to high amount of state and federal funds Audit and Final CDBG/TSEP Jan, 2015 Close-out 11 month Walk-Through Sept, 2015 10.3 Public Participation A public meeting was held on June S, 2010 at the Clancy Fire Station hosted by Jefferson County. The County Commissioners opened the meeting and introduced the County Sanitarian, Megan Bullock, and Great West Engineering. Megan described the current situation in Clancy, primarily regarding the environmental health concerns and current health regulations, and then Great West Engineering presented the draft preliminary engineering report findings to the community. Following the presentation, a question%answer session was held where many members of the community expressed their concerns and showed their support of this project. • Lastly, the commission directly asked the community if they supported the project as presented and if they thought the project should continue. There was an overwhelming response that supported the project and clearly showed the co r.munity's grow in concern about the health risks they face. The meeting was advertised with: a notice in the several local Newspapers on May 26. 2010 and again on June 2, 2010; notices were posted at the local post office, community center; and, mailings to all landowners/residents in the proposed District. In addition a article on the front page of the Independent Record was published describing the project. A copy of this article is included in Appendix R. A sign in sheet at the entrance to the meeting listed 37 people and a head-count showed 44 people at peak attendance. Documentation of the public meeting is attached in Appendix R. 117 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER 11 .0 REFERENCES The following references were utilized in the compilation of the PER: Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Web Soil Survey, http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app 2 Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Montana Tech of The University of Montana, Groundwater Information Center 2010,http://inbinggwic.mtech.edu/ 3 United States Department of Agriculture, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome 4 mt.gov, Natural Resources Information System, Montana Geographic Information Clearinghouse, http://nris.state.mt.us/gis/ s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory, littp:i/www.fivs.gov/wetlands/ 6 U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, School proposed District Demographics System, http://nees.ed.gov/suz-%-eys,'sdds/index.aspx Montana Department of Commerce, Census and Economic Information Center, http://ceic.mt.gov/' a U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, http://factfinder.census.gov 9 Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Circular DEQ 4: Montana Standards for Subsur face Wastewater Treatment Systems, 2004 Edition to Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Circular DEQ 2: Design Standardsfor Wastewater Facilities, 1999 Edition t'] United States Geological Survey (USGS), NWIS Web Data far Montana, Station 06043500, Gallatin River near Gallatin Gateway, MT, httu:ilwaterdata.usas.gov nwis uc?06043500 r4 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Western Regional Climate Center, Historical Climate Information,http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/NEWWEB,htmi s United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, published by EPA Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1981 I • 118 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • Appendix A NRCS Soils Data .� 13190 / 1tlL00 / I .. 2Y, 12 0 2 f ,512E ,a _ ✓ �A.. k3. 1319E \ 371A' p 23E �_�. , - 1�1E — 321A - �# 1191D q� 323P �. ♦ 3'.. 23A✓. f 18020 17SD 371A l 1216D �•.' f •y '� 122,,5 r 1PWF � � Qrt ,215E � f 1N5! 11150\ � ♦ � z 1 P -d.2 11910' �. ^ - i&6E a. iv ,F 1916E _ a ♦ • 1 USDA United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for . . States Department Agriculture N Federal agencies State • other Jefferson County • Resources Natural agencies including the Part of Silver Bow County, • Experiment Montana Conservation Stations, and local Service participants Clancy Preliminary Engineering Report MT 4. May 18, 2010 �' I ` - _____ -- _ "�'�.. . i� '•tom x•n ri3is- � :..� � + y ,��..: tl ~• ' ' y i :`Vc Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,protect,or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. i� Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning,onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center(http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app? agency=nres)or your NRCS State Soil Scientist(httpillsoils.usda.gov/contact/ state—offices/). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Soil Data Mart Web site or the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil Data Mart is the data storage site for the official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA)prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation,genetic information,political beliefs,reprisal,or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 2 for communication of program information(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should • contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202)720-2600(voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination,write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. • 3 Contents Preface.......................... ..... ................... ........................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................6 SoilMap..................................................................................................................8 SoilMap................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 MapUnit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................12 Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County, Montana...................15 3—Dumps, mine..........................................................................................15 5—Borrow areas and Gravel pits................................................................15 23A—McKenton silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes.........................................15 69A—Meadowcreek silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes.........................16 92D—Clunton, Cometcrik, and Perma, stony, soils, 0 to 15 percent slopes....................................................................................................18 321A—Fairway-Meadowcreek complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes..................20 323A—Fairway-McKenton silt loams, 0 to 2 percent slopes.......................22 328A—Faith loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, cool............................................24 371A—Havre-Ryell-Handke complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes......................26 372A—Havre loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes...................................................28 523A—Cardwell-Riverrun-Pieriver complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes............29 1163F—Ymark, very bouldery-Elmark, very bouldery-Rock outcrop complex, 25 to 60 percent slopes.........................................................32 127513—Placerton-Farnuf-Connieo gravelly sandy clay loams, 8 to 15 percentslopes.......................................................................................34 1275E—Placerton-Farnuf-Connieo complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes.......36 1276D—Placerton-Connieo-Jeffcity complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes, warm.....................................................................................................39 1287E—Clancy,very stony-Crampton,bouldery-Bielenberg,very stony, complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes.,.......................................................41 1374D—Burtoner-Clancy-Connieo complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes..........44 1375D—Burtoner-Connieo, bouldery-Rock outcrop complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes, warm............................................................................46 1378E—Burtoner-Elmark-Shaboom, very bouldery, complex, 15 to 45 percentslopes.......................................................................................48 1461D—Bielenberg-Burtoner, very stony-Catgulch, bouldery, complex, 8 to 25 percent slopes...........................................................................51 1542E—Shaboom, very bouldery-Rock outcrop-Kellygulch, very bouldery, complex, 8 to 35 percent slopes...........................................53 1544E—Shaboom, bouldery-Kellygulch, bouldery-Rock outcrop complex, 8 to 45 percent slopes...........................................................55 1605C—Farnuf-Placerton sandy clay loams, 2 to 8 percent slopes, . warm.....................................................................................................57 1627E—Connieo, very bouldery-Burtoner-Rock outcrop complex, 8 to 35 percent slopes, moist.......................................................................59 4 Custom Soil Resource Report 1675F—Tolbert, very stony-Rock outcrop-Blaincreek, very stony, • complex, 35 to 60 percent slopes.........................................................61 1722C—Martinsdale-Martinsdale, stony-Shawmut complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes, warm............................................................................63 1800D—Breeton coarse sandy loam, 4 to 15 percent slopes.....................66 1802D—Breeton-Baxton-Connieo complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes...........67 1803C—Breeton-Cometcrik complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes......................69 1810E—Hoyt, very stony-Ymark, bouldery-Shaboom, very bouldery, complex, 25 to 60 percent slopes.........................................................71 1835D—Clancy-Bielenberg-Connieo complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes......74 1836E—Clancy, bouldery-Bielenberg, stony-Catgulch, bouldery, complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes.........................................................76 1837E—Clancy-Bielenberg-Connieo complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes.....79 1945E—Elmark, bouldery-Lumpgulch, very bouldery-Rock outcrop complex, 8 to 35 percent slopes, dry....................................................81 1946E—Elmark,bouldery-Hoyt-Shaboom,very bouldery, complex,8 to 35 percent slopes, dry...........................................................................83 1947E—Elmark, bouldery-Burtoner-Rock outcrop complex, 8 to 45 percentslopes.......................................................................................86 1961E—Lumpgulch, bouldery-Hoyt-Shaboom, very bouldery, complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes.........................................................................88 1962E—Lumpgulch, bouldery-Yreka, very bouldery-Shaboom, very bouldery, complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes.........................................91 1963F—Lumpgulch, very bouldery-Rock outcrop-Kellygulch, very bouldery, complex, 25 to 60 percent slopes.........................................93 2000E—Skyview, very bouldery-Rock outcrop-Roegulch, very . bouldery, complex, 8 to 35 percent slopes...........................................95 2001E—Skyview, very bouldery-Elmark,very bouldery-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes.........................................................97 2013E—Shawmut, bouldery-Wickes, stony-Tolbert, bouldery, complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes.........................................................................99 References..........................................................................................................102 I 5 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area.They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles.A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, • soils, biological resources, and land uses(USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform orwith a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the andform,a soil scientist develops a concept,ormodel,of howthey wereformed.Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship,are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied.They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments,distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties,the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile.After the soil scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area,they compared the 6 Custom Soil Resource Report individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that • they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping,design of map units,complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil- landscape model and predictions and to verity the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt,clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of • characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses, Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and identified each as a specific map unit.Aerial photographs showtrees,buildings,fields, . roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest,a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 423000 423500 424200 424800 425400 426000 46°29 45" 48°29 45" 8 8 8 8 8 8 m 8 8 46-27 1' 46-27 3" 423000 423WO 424200 424800 425400 426000 Map Scale_114,100 U pruned w A sae l8 5"x 11'7 sheet N Meters 0 200 400 W0 1,200 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOl) Very Stony Spa Map Scale: 1:24,100 if printed on A size(8.5'• 11")sheet. 0 Area of Interest(AOl) t Wet Spot Soils The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. � Other _ Soil Map Units Please rely on the bar scale on each ma sheet for accurate ma Special Line Features y p p Special Point Features Gully measurements. Qt Blowout . . Short Steep Slope Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Bortow Pit Web Soil Survey URL: htt //websoilsume .nrm.usda, ov ... Other y P� Y 9 X Clay Spot Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12N NAD83 Political Features Closed Depression Cities ♦ This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of )(, Graver Pit Water Features the version date(s)listed below. Gravelly Spot Oceans Soil Survey Area: Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow ® Landfill Streams and Canals County,Montana (t Lava Flow Transportation Survey Area Data: Version 9,Feb 3,2010 ,I, Marsh or swamp +++ Rails Date(s)aerial images were photographed: 8/1411995;8/9/1995; st Mine or Qua" �' Interstate Highways 7/2211998;9/9/1997 ,D Miscellaneous Water i'— US Routes The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were (D Perennial Water Major Roads compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Local Roads imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting v Rock Outcrop H of map unit boundaries may be evident. } Saline Spot Sandy Spot �. Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip 0 Sodlc Spot Spoil Area o Stony Spat Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County,Mon"na(MT627) Map Unit symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 3 Dumps,mine 66.4 2.4% 5 Bon ow areas and Gravel pits 8.5 0.3% 23A McKenton sift loam,0 to 2 percent slopes 38.5 1.4°% 69A Meadowcreek silty clay loam,O to 2 percent slopes 8.2 0.3% 92D Gunton,Cometcrik,and Parma,stony,soils,0 to 33.0- 1.2% 15 percent slopes 321A Fairway-Meadowcreek complex,0 to 2 percent 46.5 1.7% slopes 323A Fairway-McKenton silt loams,0 to 2 percent 7.6 0.3°% slopes 328A Faith loam,0 to 2 percent slopes,cool 9.1 0.3%1 371A Havre-Ryell-Handke complex,0 to 2 percent 171 slopes 372A Havre loam,0 to 2 percent slopes 29.1 1.0% 523A Cardwell-Riverrun-Pieriver complex,0 to 2 8.7 0.3°% percent slopes 1163F ymark,very bouldery-Elmark,very bouldery-Rock 158.7 5. %. outcrop complex,25 to 60 percent slopes 12750 Placerton-Farnuf-Connieo gravelly sandy clay 1932. 7.0°% loams,8 to 15 percent slopes 1275E Placerton-Farnuf-Connieo complex, 15 to 35 233.6 8.4°% percent slopes 1276D Placerton-Connieo-Jeffcity complex,4 to 15 15.2 0.5% percent slopes,warm 1287E Clancy,very stony-Crampton,bouldery- 6.1 0.2% Bielenberg,very stony,complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes 1374D Burtoner-Clancy-Connieo complex,4 to 15 . 34.8 1.3% percent slopes 1375D Burtoner-Connieo,bouldery-Rock outcrop 9.6 0.3% complex,4 to 15 percent slopes,warm 1378E Burtoner-Elmark-Shaboom,very bouldery, 206.7 7.5% complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes 1461 D Bielenberg-Burtoner,very stony-Catgulch, 81.1 2.9%III bouldery,complex,8 to 25 percent slopes 1542E Shaboom,very bouldery-Rack outcrop- 112.1 4.0°% Keltygulch,very bouldery.complex,8 to 35 percent slopes 1544E Shaboom,bouldery-Kellyguich,bouldery-Rock 12.7 0.5% outcrop complex,8 to 45 percent slopes i605C Farnuf-Placerton sandy clay loams,2 to 8 percent 32.3 1.2% slopes,warm 11 Custom Soil Resource Report Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County,Montana(MT6271 Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 1627E Connieo,very bouldery-Burtoner-Rock outcrop 26.3 0.9% complex,8 to 35 percent slopes,moist 1675F Tolbert,very stony-Rock outcrop-Blaincreek,very 47.8 i 1.7% stony,complex,3510 60 percent slopes 1722C Martinsdale-Martinsdale,stony-Shawmut 12.3 0.41 complex,2 to 8 percent slopes,warm 18001) Breeton coarse sandy loam,4tb 15 percent slopes 51.8 1.9% 1802D Breeton-Baxton-Connieo complex,4 to 15 percent 21.2 0.8% slopes 18030 Breeto Cometcrik complex,210 8 percent slopes 58.8 2.1% 1810F Hoyt,very stony-Ymark,bouldery-Shaboom,very 16.9 i 0.6% bouldery,complex,25 to 60 percent slopes 1835D Clancy-Bielenberg-Connieo complex,4 to 15 12.6 0.5% percent slopes 1836E Clancy,bouldery-Bielenberg,stony-Catgulch, 49.4 1.8% bouldery,complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes 1837E Clancy-Bielenberg-Connieo complex, 15 to 35 4.6 02% percent slopes 1945E Elmark,bouldery-Lumpgulch,very bouldery-Rock 479.7 17.3% outcrop complex,8 to 35 percent slopes,dry 1946E Elmark,bouldery-Hoyt-Shaboom,very bouldery, 285.6 10.3% complex,8 to 35 percent slopes,dry 1947E Elmark,bouldery-Burtoner-Rock outcrop 142.8 5.1% complex,8 to 45 percent slopes 1961E Lumpgulch,bouldery-Hoyt-Shaboom,very --46.8 1.7% bouldery,complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes 1962E Lumpgulch,bouldery-Yreka,very bouldery- 31.7 1.1% Shaboom,very bouldery,complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes 1963F Lumpgulch,very bouldery-Rock outcrop- 17.7 0.6% Kellygulch,very bouldery,complex,25 to 60 percent slopes 2000E Skyview,very bouldery-Rock outcrop-Roegulch, 30.7 1.1% very bouldery,complex,8 to 35 percent slopes 2001E Skyview,very bouldery-Elmark,very bouldery- 57.1 . 2.1% Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes 2013E Shawmut,bouldery-Wickes,stony-Tolbert, 10.1 0.4% bouldery,complex,15 to 35 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 2,773.1I 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas.A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils.On the landscape, however,the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes.Consequently,every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management.These are called contrasting,or dissimilar,components.They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness . or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition,thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example,Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas.Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. 13 Custom Soil Resource Report An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha- Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform.An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them.Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. I • 14 Map Unit Description:McKenton silt loam,0 to 2 percent slopes--Jefferson Clancy PER County Area and Pan of Silver Bow County,Montana Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County, Montana 23A—McKenton silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 3,800 to 5,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 115 days Map Unit Composition Mckenton and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Description of Mckenton Setting Landform: Drainageways, flood plains, flood-plain steps Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Saline and sodic clayey recent alluvium • Properties and qualities Scope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high(0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding: Occasional Frequency of ponding: Rare Calcium carbonate, maximum content 15 percent Maximum salinity: Slightly saline to strongly saline (8.0 to 20.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 16.0 Available water capacity: Moderate(about 6.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated):7s Land capability(noniaigated): 7s Ecological site.' Subirrigated (Sb) 9-14"p.z. (R044XS343MT) Typical profile 0 to 6 inches: Sift loam 6 to 11 inches: Clay loam 11 to 45 inches: Gravelly clay loam 45 to 60 inches: Gravelly clay loam Minor Components • Clunton Percent of map unit 2 percent Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 511812010 conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description:McKenton silt loam,D to 2 percent slopes—Jefferson Clancy PER County Area and Part of Silver Bow County,Montana Landform:Flood-plain steps, flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Wet Meadow(WM) 9-14"p.z. (R044XS349MT) Meadowcreek Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform: Drainageways,flood-plain steps, flood plains,terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape. Linear Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS343MT) Fairway Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Terraces, flood plains, flood-plain steps Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 9-14"p.z. (R044XS343MT) Bonebasin Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform: Drainageways, flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Wet Meadow (WM) 9-14"p.z. (R044XS349MT) Wetsand Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Flood-plain steps, drainageways, flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Subirrigated (Sb) 9-14" p.z. (R044X8343MT) Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 9, Feb 3, 2010 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey am 5/18/201 D Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 Map Unit Description:Havre-Ryell-Handke complex,0 to 2 percent slopes— Clancy PER Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County,Montana Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County, Montana 371A—Havre-Ryell-Handke complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 3,800 to 5,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period:80 to 115 days Map Unit Composition Havre and similar soils: 45 percent Ryell and similar soils: 3D percent Handke and similar soils: 20 percent Minor components. 5 percent Description of Havre Setting Landform: Drainageways, flood-plain steps, Flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loamy alluvium Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 inthr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content. 10 percent Maximum salinity. Nonsalineto very slightly saline(O.Oto 4.0 mmhos/ cm) Available water capacity. High (about 9.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification(irrigated):4e Land capability(nomaigated):4e Ecological site: Silty(Si) 9-14"p.z.(RO44XS339MT) Typical profile 0 to 9 inches: Loam 9 to 60 inches: Stratified fine sandy loam to loam Description of Ryell Setting • Landform: Flood plains, drainageways, flood-plain steps Down-slope shape: Linear Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/1812010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 r- - Map Unit Description:Havre-Ryell-Handke complex,0 to 2 percent slopes— Clancy PER Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County,Montana Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Coarse-loamy over sandy and gravelly recent alluvium Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline(0.0 to 2.0 mmhoslcm) Available water capacity: Low(about 5.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification(irrigated): 3e Land capability(nonimgated):4e Ecological site: Silty(Si) 9-14" p.z. (R044XS339MT) Typical profile 0 to 2 inches: Loam 2 to 28 inches: Stratified very fine sandy loam to silt loam 28 to 60 inches: Stratified very gravelly sand to extremely gravelly . loamy coarse sand Description of Handke Setting Landform: Drainageways, flood plains, flood-plain steps Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Sandy alluvium Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layerto transmit water(Ksat): High(1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content. 10 percent Available water capacity: Low(about 5.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification(irrigated):4e Land capability(nonirrigated):4e Ecological site: Sandy (Sy) 9-14"p.z. (R044XS336MT) Typical profile • ' 0 to 4 inches:Fine sandy loam 4 to 38 inches: Loamy sand � Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 511 812 01 0 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Description:Havre-Ryell-Handke complex,0 to 2 percent slopes— Clancy PER Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County,Montana 38 to 60 inches:Very fine sandy loam Minor Components Riverrun Percent of map unit. 3 percent Landform: Flood plains, flood-plain steps, drainageways Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow to Gravel(SwGr)9-14"p.z.(R044XS338MT) Faith Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Flood-plain steps, terraces, drainageways, alluvial fans Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Silty(Si) 15-19" p.z. (R044XS355MT) Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County,Montana Survey Area Data: Version 9, Feb 3, 2010 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/1812010 conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Map Unit Desuiption:Placerton-Famuf-Connieo gravelly sandy clay loams,8 Clancy PER to 15 percent slopes--lefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County, Montana Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County, Montana 1275D—Placerton-Farnuf-Connieo gravelly sandy clay loarns, 8 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation:4,400 to 6,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 36 to 43 degrees F Frost-free period., 90 to 105 days Map Unit Composition Placerton and similar soils:45 percent Famuf and similar soils: 25 percent Connieo and similar soils: 15 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Placerton Setting Landform: Ridges, divides, hillsides, mountain slopes Landform position(three-dimensional): Mountainbase Down-slope shape. Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material:Fine-loamy slope alluvium derived from granite over residuum weathered from granite Properties and qualities Slope: 8 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 60 inches to lithic bedrock,40 to 60 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity. Low(about 4.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification(irrigated): 4e Land capability(nonirrigated):4e Ecological site: Silty-Coarse(SiC) 15-19"p.z. (RO43XC665MT) Typical profile 0 to 7 inches:Gravelly sandy clay loam 7 to 21 inches: Gravelly clay loam 21 to 29 inches: Gravelly sandy loam . 29 to 58 inches:Weathered bedrock 58 to 60 inches: Unweathered bedrock Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/18/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 I Map Unit Description:Placerton-Farnuf-Connieo gravelly sandy Gay loams,8 Clancy PER to 15 percent slopes4efferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County, Montana Description of Famuf Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, hillsides, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Fine loamy alluvium derived from sandstone-shale Properties and qualities Slope: 8 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity., High (about 9.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification(irrigated):4e Land capability(nonirrigated). 4e Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19"p.z. (R043XC427MT) Typical profile 0 to 7 inches: Gravelly sandy clay loam 7 to 14 inches: Sandy clay loam 14 to 32 inches: Gravelly coarse sandy loam 32 to 60 inches: Gravelly coarse sandy loam Description of Connieo Setting Landform: Escarpments, hillsides, ridges Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loamy residuum weathered from granite Properties and qualities Slope: 8 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity:Very low (about 2.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 7s . Ecological site: Very Shallow(VSw) 15-19"p.z. (R043XC436MT) USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 511 812 01 0 am Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Description:Placerton-Famuf-Comleo gravelly sandy clay learns,8 Clancy PER to 15 percent slopes-Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County, Montana Typical profile 0 to 8 inches: Gravelly sandy clay loam 8 to 14 inches: Gravelly sandy clay loam 14 to 18 inches:Weathered bedrock 18 to 60 inches: Unweathered bedrock Minor Components Placerton, greater slope Percent of map unit:6 percent Landform: Ridges, divides, hillsides, mountain slopes Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:Thin Silty(TSi) 15-19" p.z. (R043XC435MT) Jeffcity Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Escarpments, hillsides, ridges Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow(Sw) 15-19" p.z. (R043XC425MT) Rock outcrop,granite Percent of map unit:4 percent Data Source Information Soil SurveyArea: Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 9, Feb 3, 2010 i Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/18/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Map Unit Description:Placerton-Connieo-Jeffcity complex,4 to 15 percent Clancy PER slopes,wamtilefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County,Montana Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County, Montana 1276D—Placerton-Connieo-Jeffcity complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes, warm Map Unit Setting Elevation:4,400 to 6,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 36 to 43 degrees F Frost-free period:90 to 105 days Map Unit Composition Placerton and similar soils: 35 percent Connieo and similar soils:30 percent Jeffcity and similar soils: 25 percent Minor components: 10 percent Description of Placerton Setting Landform: Ridges, divides, hillsides, mountain slopes Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Fine-loamy slope alluvium derived from granite over residuum weathered from granite Properties and qualities Slope:4 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 60 inches to lithic bedrock;40 to 60 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content. 15 percent Available watercapacity. Low(about 4.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification(irrigated):4e Land capability(nonirrigated):4e Ecological site: Silty-Coarse(SIC) 15-19"p.z. (R043XC665MT) Typical profile 0 to 7 inches: Gravelly sandy clay loam 7 to 21 inches: Gravelly clay loam 21 to 29 inches: Gravelly sandy loam 29 to 58 inches: Weathered bedrock 58 to 60 inches: Unweathered bedrock USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/18/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Map Unit Description:Placerton-Connieo-Jeffcity complex,4 to 15 percent Clancy PER slopes,warm-Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County,Montana Description of Connieo Setting Landform: Escarpments, hillsides, ridges Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loamy residuum weathered from granite Properties and qualities Slope:4 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksatj:Moderately high to high(0.57 to 1.98 inihr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding.None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity. Very low(about 2.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated): 7s Ecological site:Very Shallow(VSw) 15-19" p.z. (R043XC436MT) Typical profile 0 to 8 inches: Gravelly sandy clay loam 8 to 14 inches: Gravelly sandy clay loam 14 to 18 inches:Weathered bedrock 18 to 60 inches: Unweathered bedrock Description of Jeffcity Setting Landform Escarpments, hillsides, ridges Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Fine-loamy residuum weathered from granite Properties and qualities Slope:4 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding. None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content. 15 percent Available water capacity:Low (about 4.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated):4e Land capability(nonirrigated):4e Ecological site: Shallow (Sw) 15-19" p.z. (R043XC425MT) is USDk Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 511 812 01 0 Conservation service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Description:Placerton-ConMeo-Jeffaty complex,4 to 15 percent Clancy PER slopes,warm-Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County,Montana i Typical profile 0 to 7 inches: Loam 7 to 14 inches: Gravelly sandy clay loam 14 to 33 inches: Gravelly coarse sandy loam 33 to 38 inches:Weathered bedrock 38 to 60 inches: Unweathered bedrock Minor Components Placerton,greater slope Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Ridges, divides, hillsides, mountain slopes Landform position (three-dimensional):Mountainbase Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site: Thin Silty(TSi) 15-19"p.z. (R043XC435MT) Farnuf Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, hillsides, terraces Landform position(three-dimensional): Base slope, tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Silty(Si) 15-19" p.z. (R043XC427MT) Rock outcrop,granite Percent of map unit.2 percent Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 9, Feb 3, 2010 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 511812016 am Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Map Unit Description:Farnuf-Placerton sandy clay foams,2 to B percent slopes, Clancy PER warm—Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County,Montana Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County, Montana 1605C—Farnuf-Placerton sandy clay loams, 2 to 8 percent slopes, warm Map Unit Setting Elevation:4,400 to 6,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 36 to 43 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 105 days Map Unit Composition Placerton and similar soils:45 percent Farnuf and similar soils:45 percent Minor components: 10 percent Description of Farnuf Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, hillsides, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Fine-loamy alluvium derived from sandstone-shale Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity: High (about 9.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability(nonirrigated):4e Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R043XC427MT) Typical profile 0 to 7 inches: Sandy clay loam 7 to 14 inches: Sandy clay loam 14 to 32 inches: Gravelly coarse sandy loam 32 to 60 inches., Gravelly coarse sandy loam • Description of Placerton Setting Landform: Ridges, divides, hillsides, mountain slopes USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 511812010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description:Farnuf-Placerton sandy clay foams,2 to 8 percent slopes, Clancy PER warm-Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County,Montana • Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material. Fine-loamy slope alluvium derived from granite over residuum weathered from granite Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 60 inches to lithic bedrock; 40 to 60 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity: Low(about 4.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability(nonirrigated): 3e Ecological site. Silty-Coarse (SiC) 15-19" p.z. (R043XC665MT) Typical profile 0 to 7 inches: Sandy clay loam • 7 to 21 inches: Gravelly clay loam 21 to 29 inches: Gravelly sandy loam 29 to 58 inches:Weathered bedrock 58 to 60 inches: Unweathered bedrock Minor Components Jeffcity Percent of map unit: 7 percent Landform: Escarpments, hillsides, ridges Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Shallow (Sw) 15-19" p.z. (R043XC425MT) Connieo Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Escarpments, hillsides, ridges Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site:Shallow(Sw) 15-19" p.z. (R043XC425MT) Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 9, Feb 3, 2010 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 511812010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 Map Unit Description:Martindale-Martinsdale,stony-Shawmut complex,2 to Clancy PER 8 percent slopes,warm-Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County, Montana Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County, Montana 1722C—Martinsdale-Martinsdale, stonyShawmut complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes, warm Map Unit Setting Elevation:4,400 to 6,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 43 degrees F Frost-free period., 80 to 105 days Map Unit Composition Martinsdale and similar soils:40 percent Shawmut and similar soils: 20 percent Martinsdale, stony, and similar soils:20 percent Minor components:20 percent Description of Martinsdale Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, hillsides, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material:Calcareous fine-loamy slope alluvium derived from fine-grained sandstone, siltstone and metamorphic rocks Properties and qualities Slope. 2 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 35 percent Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline(0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available watercapacity., Moderate (about 8.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated):4e Land capability(nonirrigated):4e Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. (R043XC427MT) Typical profile 0 to 7 inches: Cobbly sandy clay loam 7 to 17 inches: Cobbly clay loam 17 to 36 inches: Cobbly sandy clay loam 36 to 60 inches:Very gravelly sandy clay loam USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 511812015 Conservation service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Map Unit Description:Martindale-Martinsdale,stony-Shawmut complex,2 to Clancy PER 8 percent slopes,warm-Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County, Montana Description of Martinsdale, Stony Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, hillsides, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous fine-loamy slope alluvium derived from fine-grained sandstone, siltstone and metamorphic rocks Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 8 percent Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 0.1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table. More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 35 percent Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent Available water capacity: Moderate(about 8.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification(irrigated):4e Land capability(nonirrigated):4e Ecological site:Silty(Si) 15-19"p.z. (R043XC427MT) Typical profile 0 to 6 inches: Sandy clay loam 6 to 16 inches: Clay loam 16 to 36 inches: Gravelly sandy clay loam 36 to 60 inches:Very gravelly sandy clay loam Description of Shawmut Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, escarpments, hillsides Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Gravelly colluvium derived from basalt Properties and qualities Slope:2 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content., 30 percent • Available water capacity Low (about 5.1 inches) � Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/18/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Description.Martindale-Martindale,stony-Shawmut complex,2 to Clancy PER 8 percent slopes,warn-Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County, Montana Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated):4e Land capability(nonirrigated):4e Ecological site: Silty (Si) 15-19"p.z. (R043XC427MT) Typical profile 0 to 6 inches: Cobbly sandy clay loam 6 to 13 inches:Very gravelly sandy clay loam 13 to 30 inches:Very gravelly sandy clay loam 30 to 60 inches:Very gravelly sandy loam Minor Components Martinsdale,cobbly Percent of map unit: 7 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, hillsides, terraces Landform position(three-dimensional): Base slope, tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Clayey(Cy) 15-19" p.z. (R043XC422MT) Shawmut,stony Percent of map unit: 6 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, escarpments, hillsides Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Silty-Coarse (SiC) 15-19"p.z. (R043XC665MT) Judel I Percent of map unit., 5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, hillsides,terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site:Silty (Si) 15-19" p,z. (R043XC427MT) Windham Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform: Divides, escarpments, hillsides, ridges Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site:Silty-Coarse (SiC) 15-19"p.z. (R043XC665MT) Data Source Information Soil Survey Area'. Jefferson County Area and Part of Silver Bow County,Montana Survey Area Data: Version 9, Feb 3, 2010 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/18/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • Appendix B TMDL Water Quality Information DEQ M�na Clean Water Information Center Mapper • Pag#&f 1 LEGEND USGS Guaging Stations 1�� a Places r ..+; Cese � • Towns � Vlaoea Y ^ N 2008 Assessed Streams ' � {" •"` i'0 a) TMDL Planning Areas Let 24K Quad lumb .,� ` •� Hilishade yesJ � mr h �r7 • , 1l- Montana Restriction of[lability:teen the State of lift i;i^a MOntan Q Deity,nor a y of employees m Environmental Quality,nor t express I ra employees make any y lgal warranty,echo or or Uu Poro�n7 y,. implied,or assume any legal liability or comp)responsibility completeness for the usefulness f _ r completeness or usefulness . any a J Department or data provided.The i y 1 s• Department of Environmental Quality may any update, time,,with modify,or revise Me data used at All any time,without nonce. A :..�+ PLC l.,w -••'� _r.Mmwu fkgvnmmt of fimlronsental Quality TMDL (303d) for Clancy, .Jefferson County httn://cwaic.mt.gov/manner/Drint.asn?mat)Dim=851 I&manTitle=TMDL+%28303d%29+for+Clancv%2C+Jefferson+County&n... 1/25/2010 Scientific and Technical Basis of the Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Montana's Wadeable Streams and Rivers Prepared By Michael Suplee, Ph.D. Montana Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Standards Section 1520 E. 6v' Ave, Helena, MT 59620-0901 Vicki Watson, Ph.D. Environmental Studies University of Montana 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59812 Arun Varghese and Josh Cleland ICF International 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031-1207 I November 2008 I Montana Department of ..�. I ONMMAL QUAM • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people contributed to the work that has led to this document. We would like to thank all of the people within the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)who reviewed an early draft and who provided very useful suggestions for its improvement. We would very much like to thank Walter Dodds(Kansas State University), Michelle Baker(Utah State University), and Jeroen Gerritsen (TetraTech, Inc.) for their careful and insightful reviews of the final draft. We would also like to thank Tina Laidlaw and David Moon (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII) for their reviews. Prior to the preparation of this document, there was a long, sustained effort to gather the essential data upon which it is built. We would therefore like to express our sincere gratitude to the many field crews from the University of Montana and DEQ who, over the years,worked long hours collecting the data which were so critical for the analyses discussed herein. Finally,we would like to express our thanks to the many landowners around the state who provided us access to streams that ran through their lands. i i I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Beneficial uses are valuable characteristics of a stream or river resource that, directly or indirectly, contribute to human welfare. Examples of beneficial uses include drinking water, fish and aquatic life, and recreation. Beneficial uses are established in law and reflect the societal values embodied in those laws. The intent of water quality criteria, in turn, is to assure a level of water quality that will protect the beneficial uses. Some beneficial uses are more sensitive to impacts (harm) than others;water quality criteria are required by law to protect the most sensitive use from harm. This document presents the science and technical analyses used to develop numeric nutrient criteria for wadeable streams in Montana. It is well documented that the addition of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) compounds to surface waters leads to a phenomenon referred to as eutrophication. Eutrophication is increased plant and algae growth and decay in a waterbody, and all of the consequential changes to the waterbody and the water quality that occur as a result. N and P criteria are set so that they protect streams from the undesirable aspects of eutrophication. Undesirable aspects of eutrophication include nuisance algae growth and reduced dissolved oxygen levels which impact fish and aquatic life. Although N and P enrichment causes stream eutrophication,the manner in which eutrophication manifests itself in streams is influenced by other factors. These factors include stream temperatures, flow patterns, light levels, and grazing on algae and plants by fish and aquatic insects. Of these,the most important in Montana appear to be temperature and flow patterns. As such, both temperature and flow patterns were incorporated into the criteria development process; this will be discussed further when the criteria are presented at the end of this summary. Montana already has several water quality standards that address undesirable aspects of eutrophication. (Water quality standards are, essentially, criteria that have been adopted into law.) However, the existing standards are either narrative(they describe a water quality condition that should be maintained, but provide no specifics, therefore they are open to varied interpretations), or they are numeric but address only effect variables (e.g., low dissolved oxygen levels). Thus, one is still required to determine the root cause of the effects and that root cause is commonly nutrient enrichment. Numeric nutrient criteria will improve upon the existing standards because they address the causes of eutrophication directly. N and P concentrations in wadeable streams vary naturally in accordance with regional geology, soils, climate, and vegetation. To address this regional variation, DEQ tested three candidate mapping systems. The intended purpose of the mapping system was to assure that appropriate nutrient criteria are applied to different regions of the state given the natural spatial variation in nutrient concentrations. Omernik ecoregions, Strahler stream order, and underlying geology (lithology) were each evaluated to see which one was the best at maximizing the difference in stream nutrient concentrations between zones and minimizing the difference within zones. Among the three mapping systems, ecoregions were found to be superior to the others and are recommended as the system upon which nutrient criteria zones should be based. November, 2008 1 I In some parts of the state,mainly in the west,the most sensitive beneficial use is recreation. A public opinion study carried out by DEQ shows that the public majority in Montana does not want to see excessive bottom-attached algae growth in the gravel-bottomed, clear running,trout- fishery streams common in western Montana. For these types of streams, the nutrient criteria have been set to prevent nuisance algal levels(as defined by the public perception study) from developing and will,therefore,protect the recreation use. The criteria will also protect the fishery, which typically comprises fish such as trout, char, and whitefish, from the negative effects of excessive nutrient enrichment(e.g., low dissolved oxygen concentrations). The criteria will also better protect the agricultural use by reducing elevated algae levels that clog irrigation systems. In the eastern part of the state, low gradient prairie streams are common. Wadeable prairie streams in Montana often become intermittent, commonly have mud bottoms, are turbid, frequently have substantial macrophyte populations, usually have filamentous algae but sometimes have only phytoplankton algae, and support catfish,walleye, chubs,bass, and other warm water fishes. Because prairie streams are fundamentally different in many ways from western Montana trout streams,the results from the algae public perception survey should probably not be directly applied to them. Prairie streams nevertheless have important and sensitive beneficial uses that need protection, like the diverse species of fish mentioned above. For these types of streams,the nutrient criteria have been set so that they will maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations that protect regional fish and aquatic life. The most sensitive use in prairie streams is therefore considered to be fish and aquatic life. Fundamentally,the nutrient criteria are based on scientific stressor-response studies in which harm to a sensitive beneficial use is shown. All applicable stressor-response studies (N or P as stressor, beneficial use impact as response) that could be located were reviewed. This included regional studies as well as studies from other parts of the country and world. Some of these studies were carried out by DEQ. We then compared the nutrient concentrations indicated by the stressor-response studies to regionally-applicable reference stream nutrient data. This analysis showed that there is a consistent relationship between nutrient concentrations that harm uses (as determined in the stressor-response studies) and nutrient concentrations observed in reference sites; namely, the most elevated nutrient concentrations observed in reference sites (e.g.,those at the 87th percentile of reference) are equivalent to harm-to-use concentrations. It is not surprising that reference sites have some nutrient samples whose concentrations are higher than the harm-to-use threshold identified in stressor-response studies. In any population there are always low and high values that differ considerably from the population's central tendency;the important point is that nutrient concentrations in reference sites that are greater than the harm-to-use threshold occur infrequently, e.g. due to an atypical high-flow event in summer. It is when the harm-to-use concentrations occur commonly in a stream (e.g., 50%of the time)that eutrophication problems occur. Owing to the collective relationship we observed between stressor-response studies and the their corresponding reference data, we recommend usin E nutrient concentrations linked to specified upper percentiles of the reference data(e.g.,the 90 of reference) as criteria. This approach has November, 2008 11 the advantage that it helps overcome statistical uncertainties in any given stressor-response study, and makes certain that natural, regional effects on background nutrient concentrations are reflected in the criteria so that the criteria will not be overly stringent or insufficiently protective. Table El below shows the recommended numeric criteria for different ecoregions. Both total P and total N are recommended, as co-limitation by both nutrients is common in rivers and streams. Nitrate+nitrite (NO2+3) is also suggested because total N criteria— in the absence of NO2+3 criteria—may not achieve the water quality goals anticipated(nitrate is particularly important in prairie streams). Analysis shows that the total P criteria should generally maintain soluble P at appropriate levels. The criteria only apply seasonally. This is because low temperatures in winter and high flow events during spring runoff tend to mute the local effects of eutrophication (plant growth slows dramatically in winter, and spring high-flow events prevent nuisance algal mats from developing). Therefore, the criteria have been set for the time period when eutrophication problems are most likely to occur(i.e., summer). Note also that we have included benthic (i.e., bottom-attached) algae criteria for the mountainous ecoregions(Northern, Canadian, and Middle Rockies, and the Idaho Batholith). The algae levels shown are based on DEQ's nuisance algae public-perception survey. In these mountainous ecoregions, the algae criteria should be adopted along with the nutrient criteria to assure protection of the beneficial uses. In the eastern prairie streams (Northwestern Glaciated Plains,Northwestern Great Plains, and Wyoming Basin), nutrient criteria are provided but benthic algae levels are not. As noted earlier,prairie stream nutrient criteria are intended to maintain dissolved oxygen levels already in state law and are not based on the algae public-perception survey. As for all water quality criteria, the numeric nutrient criteria will undergo periodic revision and update as more Stressor-response studies are completed and more reference data are collected. Table El.Recommended Numeric Nutrient and Benthic Algae Criteria for Different Ecoregions of Montana. Nutrient Criteria Period When Total P Total N NO2+3 Benthic Algae Level III Ecoregion Criteria Apply (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Criteria Northern Rockies July 1 -Sept 30 0.012 0233 0.081 150 mg Chl adM2 (36gAFDW/m2) Canadian Rockies July 1 -Sept 30+ 0.006 0.209 _ 0.020 150 mg Chi a/m2 (36 g AFDW/m2) ----------- -------------------------------- ------------'----- Middle Rockies July 1 -Sept 30 0.048 0.320 0.100 150 mg Chi a/m2 (36 g AFDW/m2) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Idaho Batholith July I -Sept 30 0.011 0.130 0.049 150 mg Chi a/m2 (36 g AFDW/m2) Northwestern Glaciated Plains June 16-Sept. 30 0.123 1.311 0.020 n/a Northwestern Great Plains, July 1 -Sept 30 0.124 1.358 0.076 n/a Wyoming Basin November, 2008 )II Montana DEQ - Clean Water Act Information Center(CWAIC) Page 1 of 2 �. Montana tkparument of =w Environmental Quality ` Close Window Print Window Export Data 2008 Water Quality Information Water Information �Waterbody Id MT41I006_050 Water Type RIVER i Name !Prickly Pear Creek Hydro Unit 10030101 -Upper Missouri 'Size (Miles/Acres) 7 _— Basin — Upper Missouri i.------- ---III Ecoregion i Middle Rockies Watershed Missouri-Sun-Smith —� jCounty JEFFERSON I Use Class B-1 ^ TMDL Planning Area j Lake Helena Trophie Status and NA Trend Location --T PRICKLY PEAR CREEK, Spring Creek to Lump Gulch -- —_— 1 Water Quality 15-One or more uses are impaired and a TMDL is required. 1 Category`-- -- --- --------- — Beneficial Use Support Information AV Fully Partially �— Not �— Insufficient Not Use Name Su Threatened _ Supporting Supporting I Information Assessed —� ---- err Agricultural Aquatic Life t Cold Water Fishery ✓ IT !Drinking Water I (Industrial I ✓ I -- ----�—_ -_—_— � -- --�- Primary Contact Recreation —.-_ �_.^ Impairment Information Probable Causes Probable Sources I Associated Uses TMDL Completed Impacts from Abandoned Mine Lands . !Alteration in stream-side or Aquatic Life � ( littoral vegetative covers Inactive) Cold Water Fishery NO Streambank Modifcations/des[abliza[ion � Acid Mine Drainage Agricultural I I Impacts from Abandoned Mine Lands Life ti uac e Aq (Arsenic (Inactive) NO Mine Tailings Cold Water Fishery F Placer Mining Drinking Water Acid Mine Drainage Agricultural _~ (Impacts from Abandoned Mine Lands Aquatic Life Cadmium (Inactive) YES Mine Tailings Cold Water Fishery Drinking Water I -- Placer Mining I Acid Mine Drainage Agricultural Impacts from Abandoned Mine Lands Kopper (Inactive) (Aquatic Life NO Mine Tailings Cold Water Fishery I Placer Mining I Drinking Water , ---- - -Acid Mine Drainage --_�--a- — +----� I Agricultural ,Impacts from Abandoned Mine Lands Aquatic Life Lead (Inactive) IYES Mine Tailings Cold Water Fishery Placer Mining Drinking Water I Physical substrate habitat Placer Mining Aquatic Life NO alterations I Streambank Modifications/destablization Cold Water Fishery Montana DEQ - Clean Water Act Information Center(CWAIC) Page 2 of 2 ( Mine Tailings (Sedimentation/Slltation Placer Mining Aquatic Life YES Streambank Modifications/destablization Cold Water Fishery Acid Mine Drainage Impacts from Abandoned Mine Lands Agricultural zinc (Inactive) Aquatic Life YES Mine Tailings Cold Water Fishery Placer Mining I Assessment Information Assessment Type —�_ Associated Uses Confidence BIOLOGICAL Aquatic Life GOOD Cold Water Fishery HABITAT Aquatic Life FAIR Agricultural i Aquatic Life PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL Cold Water Fishery GOOD Drinking Water Industrial Primary Contact Recreation Assessment Method Associated Uses NA NA ,— Comments Overall Assessment i NA ruse Comment Cause Comment — �Nr -- NA Source NA NA it it IV.WATERBODY SEGMENT BENEFICIAL USE DECISION Aquatic Life/Fisheries Ube SCD Stores WATERSODYMi Priddy Pear Creek 1517109y: 2 LAKESAND RESERYDTAY DNLY WATMOWYNI/HORR: MT41I006_050 HabtUtr 2 Trophic Level: HI/C: 30030101 Cherntssby/PhYs/cak 2 Trophic Trend: Date 6(12 12005 Tdfat SYD Stele:• 6 -Scores of 1 are not combined in total Use support Use Support Imparment Impairment SOD Information used(0 FallorNpnsutporh Not Certainly Test Used Impairments Confidence Sources limn Uses flan: 8-1 FAN Inf0r bel used A.tSesuiY,InSa7kiient Can;Helium, I,WZX;OE (ham Leiow) Low,Hed Ism, summary Confirmed (horn below) Information Hytl High below YIN 96,267,163,127, 56,2,105,125 Aqu3tit life X Y Nan Support WOE 423,344,84,371 82 96,267,163,127, 56,2,105,125, Cob Wate'Ftshery X Y Nan Support WOE 423,344,84,371 82 Warm Wakr Fohey N/A N/A N/A Agrk'Whae X Y partial support N/A 96,26742163,127, 56,2,105,82 Ionia at X Y Full Supped N/A Dnnkkg Water X Y Non Support N/A 96,267,127,163 56,2,105,82 Fin navy COnbW X Y Full Support N/A Recrefitcru :�DBM n-fixed station phys caVChemica l monitoring(conventioal pollum only) ed station physical/chemical(conventional plus tone pollutants) nthic mar mimertebrte surveys sual observation,use of land use maps,ref conditions,prof not required rveys offish and game bl.lo8isu/other professionals ADD( N. Ler - ann 96-TOXIC MORGANICS-Arsenic xm 36,2,105,82 267-METALS-Lead 56,2,105,82 163-METALS-Capper 56,2,105,82 127-METALS-Cadmium 56,2,105,82 423-METALS-Zinc 56,2,105,82 344-HABITAT ALTERATIONS(INCLUDING WETLANDS)-Physical substrate habitat alterations 105,125 84-HABITAT ALTERATIONS(INCLUDING WETLANDS)-Altraturom stream-side or 1;11.1.1 vr,emive covers 56,125 371-SEDIMENTATION-Sedimentation/Siltation 105,125,8'_ IOSSm N rt C.-in. 56-LEGACYADSTORICAL POLLUTANTS Impacts from Abandoned Mine Lands(Inacbvr) 2-LEGACY/HISTORICAL POLLUTANTS Arid Mine Drainage 105-RESOURCE EXTRACTION Placer Mining 125-HABITAT ALTERATIONS(NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO HYDROMOOBICATION)Streand ark Modifieatwnvde umlaauoa 82-LEGACY/HISTORICAL POLLUTANTS Mine Tailings III. SEGMENT IMPAIRMENT LEVEL WATERBODY N-,E Prickly Pear Creek WATERBODY NUMBER MT WATERBODY HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE 10030101 Listina History Overall Condition of Segment Aquatic Life&Cold Water Fishery:CHEMISTRY-severe impairment: 2000-2002 USGS data: Acute Aquatic Life Standard exceedences of> 25%of the std.value for Zinc in samples taken at Alhambra, near Clancy and near Jefferson City. Acute Aquatic Life Standard exceedences for Copper in samples taken near Clancy. Chronic Aquatic Life Standard exceedences of> 50%of the std. value for Cadmium, Zinc,Copper and Lead. HABITAT• severe impairment due to extensive bank erosion,siltation,channelization&channel alteration due to placer mining. BIOLOGY- 2002 macroinvertebrate report: Impairment Classification: Slight, Use-Support: Partial Support. 'The low biotic index value(2.88)suggests that water quality was essentially unimpaired at this site." Agriculture: high toxicant(metals)concentrations discourage use for livestock water. Industrial: no high salinity or sustained high turbidity levels documented. Drinking Water: I ICT:G.,AYPr rhPTICEN data inrhidoe Human Health PvrpMpnrp fir Ph in limp ')nno 1QR7-1QAI nrah cAmnipc PVr.,iori the HH Cfri fnr A. Drinnam Pnntart fraeroatinnI. nn nldanrp alnal h stream segment. I. SUFFICIENT CREDIBLE DATASOURCE CHECKLIST WATERBODY LOCATION WATERBODY NAME Prickly Pear Creek WATERBODY NUMBER MT411006 050 HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE 10030101 . WATER CLASSIFICATION B-1 SEGMENT LENGTH(MILES) 7 ASSESSMENT BY Sheana Strohma ASSESSMENT DATE(MDY) 6/1 ffi006 SEGMENT DESCRIPTION WogCreekw Lump GulU I DATA CHK'D DOCUMENT DOCUMENT ASSIGNED BIOLOGICAL HABITAT CHEMISTRY/ SOURCE T TITLES LOCATION NUMBER DATA DATA PHYSICAL DATA DEQ Yes Ml View DRB 1 7ME 1C N Biological Impact of Helena STP Q on Pocky Pear CrR 1978 WQPBL 2 2M 2RPF 2A 2CL PP Ammonia Study DRS 3 3M 3N 3P 3C PPC:A Report on Man's Debilitating Impacts 1981 WQPBL 4 4M 4RPF 4ME 4A 4N 4C MPDES PPC Instream Data DR8 5 5ME 5N 5C Biological WO Monitoring: SouMwest Montana 1979 WQPBL 15 15M 15N 15A 15C 15CL 1 45P Bollman,W.,Rhithron Associates,Inc.,May, 2002.Aquatic Invertebrates and Habitat at a Fixed Station on Prickly Pear Creek,Jefferson County, Montana.June 19,2001. WQPBL 20 20M Bollman,W,Rhi6aon Associates,Inc.,July, 2003.Aquatic Invertebrates and Habitat at a Fixed Station on Pncly Pear Creek,Jefferson County, Montana, M09PRPEC01.June 27,2002. WQPBL 21 21M 2001 MT DEQ Slate .M"ohng DR8 22 22CL 22C 2002 MT DIED Statewide Monitoring DR8 23 23CL 23C USGS Metals Data ORB 24 24ME USGS Nutrient Data ORB 25 25N FWP Yes Dewatered Streams Lost(1991) WQPBL 6 6RPF Application for Reservations of Water in 61e Missouri River Basin Above Ft,Peck Dam 1989 WQPBL 7 7F 7P MT Interatie.Stream Data 1985 DR8 17 17F 17RPF ws,kmen(1974)Nat mlmPwenxe6 on aac WQPBL 19 19F NRCS Yes none reported USFS Yes none reported USGS Yes Water Resources Data 1997 8 8P Hydrogeolagy of Ue Helena Valley-Fill Aquiter S to n.West-Genial Montana 1992 Mumle na State Library 9 9P Field Screening of Water Quality, Bollom$edirnew,and Biota Associated with hngagoo drainage in the Helena Valley(1995); WRIR 97,1214 WQPBL 16 16F 16RPF 16P 16ME 16N 16C NRIS Yes FWP Fisheries data ORB 10 10F 10RPF CDs Yes Riparian Vegetation Survey of PPC DRB 11 /1RPF 11K PPC: A Stream Corridor Management Plan 1984 WQPDL 12 12F 12RPF 12P USFWS Yes none reponel 0 OF M Ves none re nee ' — - MSU Yes none lsd MONTANATECH. Yes none re RWRP Yes noire reponed BOR Yes corns reported • DNRC Yes none reported BLM Yes Inere reponed MOOT Yes none reported P CRK Yes none reported MT NAT Yes none reported CHAMP Yes none reported CORPS Yes none reported NOR WEST EN Yes noro reported MTDAK UT Yes nonsinmorted TRIBES Yes none reported MBMG Yes no additional data in GWIC Seasonal Venabilhy in PPC WO and Macro, EPA Yes Community;E IS2488)104:1987 WQPBL 13 13M 13ME 13P EPA 9/1 IM letter to Drynim DRS 14 14RPF kwmdp wn orrhgotla nor sire scat.Wq Atee>:PPG,w (16aa) WQPBL 18 18F WWP/AVISTA Yes none reported VOLUNTEER Yes none reporthal OTHER DATA NOT . EXAMINED COMMENTS Previously assessed by Penn Phillips on 2252&0 Biological data: F=fish; M=macminvertebmtes;A=algae;CL=chlorophyll; W=vnldlile;E= fecal colaorms: B= other bactenolagical date Water Chemistry&Toxicological data. N-major nutrients;ME=metals;C=common ions,pH,conductivity,miscellaneous.;T=tos"tests SD=benlhlc sedimem data;O= organics; BA-bioacaimulation. CODES Physical data: P=quantitative physical data;RG=Rosgen type;RI=radiological date Habitat Data RPF=d avian andW insbeam surveys,and physscal features;K=Photo points;LU=land use Biological,Water Quality 8 Toedcdogical,and Physical Habitat data were assigned level of infomtation scores from 1 to 4. The level of information is scored in NOTE accordance with the technical components,spatial&tertlpordl coverage,and data quality of each data set. The data swing tables are included in the Montana DEQs 'Sufficient Credible Data for Making Beneficial Use Support Determinations"guidance dominant The DEQ's tables am based on tables compiled by the Intergovernmental Task Farce on Monitoring Water Quafity(TMF)whirls are included in the EPA's 1997 305(8)Report Guidelines. Scientific and Technical Basis of the Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Montana's Wadeable Streams and Rivers 16 T 4 iI 2 I 1 ♦ • E 10 •i 5 6 � � � • i 21 12,W" 6:WO 1200PM 6:WPM 12'WO OW 12.00M 6:MPM 12MW 6W0 1200PM 6.WPM 4s .Y Prepared By Michael Suplee, Ph.D. — Montana Department of Environmental Quality Vicki Watson, Ph.D. —University of Montana Arun Varghese and Josh Cleland—ICF International November 2008 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Appendix C Surface Water Calculations (7Q 10 Flow) F:\1-05154-JEFCO-Wn 11\T0#42 Clancy VM' PER\WQ 1-05154-TOd42 Cloncy PER\Elrnipi,s\t-05154-TOb42-Fig C-HyJrolagy.Lwg ol I• i f t _ r .a a I. - a m PROD LMATIdN=. r e I� '•S r r Y " ♦ µ ti ,,.: _ "_1 ♦ {. , � R_ .v FTC -. .w ` LEGEND 00 GAGE LOCATION-USGS GAGE 06061500 FIGURE C BASIN DIVIDE-63 SO.ML HYDROLOGY Grea st 5'°� °� scue�',R F JEFFERSON COUNTY engineering CLANCY WASTEWATER PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT GREAT WEST ENGINEERING SHEET NO. t OF PROJECT NAME CLArvO PER PROJECT NO. SUBJECT MADE BY A.NALLEHNS DATE S-S-Zoo CHECKED BY DATE S Z971 REVISED BY DATE RECHECKED BY DATE PRtCKCY PEAa cR. -4RtO CACcULAnor4 AREA C USoS GAGE #$- 0(,06[500 = 197 Mia ' C&[Oe 0565 GAGE a 0606[500 = Q.0 CF5 BASW 3i3t PRo3vL-r 5ITE : in m,7 4 QIO 15ITIF 129 M,Z x 6.o cr-5 7.'/l My p 192M, Statistical Summaries of Strearniflow 61 06061500 Prickly Pear Creek near Clancy,Mont. Site Number 44 LOCATION:-Lai 46°31'09",long]11°5645"(NAD 27),in NEtIASEtIASWI/a sec.23,T.9 N.,R.3 W.,Jefferson County,Hydrologic Unit 10030101,on right bank 3.5 not downstream from Lump Gulch,4 mi northeast of Clancy,7 mi southeast of Helena,and at river mile 24.4. --3 DRAINAGE AREA. 192 mi . PERIOD OF RECORD-July 1908 to September 1916,July 1921 to September 1933,October 1945 to October 1953,October 1954 to September 1969,October 1978 to 2002(discontinued). October 1969 to September 1980 record collected by Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. Monthly discharge only for some periods,published in WSP 1309, REVISED RECORDS--WSP 1086: 1946(M). WSP 1309: 1925,1927,1931(M),1933.1948(M). WSP 1729: Drainage area. GAGE.-Water-stage recorder. Altitude of gage is 4,067.1 If(NGVD 29). Prior to July 12,1910,nonrecording gage at site 1.2 mi upstream at different datum. July 12,1910,to Sept.30,1916,and July 28, 1921,to Aug.12,1933,nonrecording gage at site 2.2 mi upstream at different datum. REMARKS--Diversions for irrigation of about 700 acres upstream from station. y Magnitude and probability of annual low flow Magnitude and pmbabilhy of annual high flow based on 63 years of retard based on 6l years of record Discharge.in III*for indicated wanness imervel,in Years, Discharge,in aah,for indicated wanness interval,in pars, Period of and nomesceedence probability,in percent period of and eaceredence probability,in percent consecutive cowaumna days 2 5 10 20 N IN dean 2 5 td 25 M IN aM 20% In 5% M 1% see 20% 10% 4% 2% 1% 1 12 &A 7.0 5.8 4.8 4.2 1 215 361 482 664 823 1,000 3 U 9.0 73 6.2 50 4.4 3 195 320 419 563 684 819 7 14 911 F9.-01 6.6 33 4.5 7 174 280 361 476 571 673 14 15 11 8.7 7.1 5.6 4h 15 157 248 315 406 477 552 30 17 12 9.7 79 6A 5.1 30 130 213 265 333 384 436 60 19 14 II 9.0 7.0 5.9 0 114 170 206 250 282 312 911 21 15 13 II 8.8 7.6 90 96 140 168 201 225 247 120 22 16 14 12 9.9 8.8 183 24 17 15 U H 96 Magnitude and probability of seasonal low flow from July-October based on 66 seasons of record Magnitude and probability of seasonal low flaw from Discharges,in u'/s.he indicated racurrenpe imervel,in pars. March-June based on 67 seasons of record assembled and wn-esceedence probability,in proem Mother"in fr'h.lm mdwamdmaurmnce interval,in yews, c,nsecu0ve 2 5 10 20 50 100 New 41 mid non-eaceedencepr.bebility,in percent dap possession, 2 5 10 tan m IN an 20% 1M 5% M 1% dap 19 11 B.6 67 5.0 4.1 OY. S M 10% 5% M 1% 3 19 12 8.8 6.9 52 4.2 1 20 14 11 9.7 B.2 74 7 19 12 9.1 7.2 5.4 4A 3 20 14 12 10 87 78 14 20 13 9.6 7.6 5.7 4 7 7 22 16 3 12 10 9.3 30 22 14 10 8.2 6.2 5.2 14 24 17 15 13 12 11 30 28 21 IB 16 14 13 Monthly a nd annu al mean discharg as standard Magnitude February probability sd on seasonal low sons flow from Maximum Minimum Mean Years November February based on 67 seasons of record Monty lhlhl lea/ul 011ls1 de /.) (it,/.) nosed Discharge.in Re/s.M indicates recurrence imarnb in team, amber 70 11 31 14 68 Nrtudal and nonaaesNanee probability,in percent November 60 12 29 11 67 cpnsa,Miw 2 5 he A 50 IN December 44 10 24 7.8 67 dep lenuary 37 9.9 21 6.3 67 SON 2M 10% 5% M 1% Feb..* 57 8.6 24 8.9 67 1 15 10 8.3 7.0 5.8 5.1 March 80 12 31 12 67 3 15 11 8.8 7.5 6.2 5.5 Ann] 131 D 52 20 67 7 16 12 96 82 6.9 6.1 May 453 21 108 56 67 14 17 13 11 9.1 7.6 6.7 June 450 20 IN 82 67 30 19 14 12 11 9.1 8.2 1u1y 141 9.9 57 34 69 August 89 43 30 17 69 Duration of daily mean flaws based on 67 years of record seperaer 71 7.3 29 15 69 Discharge,in fOls.which was e0uated or axaaeded for indicated percent of time Annual 117 15 47 18 67 99% 989E 95% 90% 80% 70% 60% 5o% 8.l 10 13 16 19 22 27 31 40% 30% 204 15% 10% 5% 2% 1% 37 45 63 79 102 149 208 257 Adjacent to Surface Water Dilution Model Dilution Equation: 0 Change in Background Concentration = QI*CD+QL^CL QD+QL where QD is the drainfield flow rate in gpd CD is the nitrate concentration in the effluent QL 7Q10 flow rate in gpd CL nitrate or phosphorus in surface water,typically"0" QD 35,000 gpd CD 1.0 ppm nitrate QL 3,490,128 gpd Ci 0 ppm Change in Background Concentration = 35,000 or 0.009928717 3,525,128 The change in concentration is less than .01 mg/L and so meets adjacent to surface water nondegradation Change in Background Concentration = QD'CD+QL•CL QD+QL where QD is the drainfield flow rate in gpd CD is the nitrate concentration in the effluent Qc 7Q10 flow rate in gpd CL nitrate or phosphorus in surface water,typically"0" QD 35,000 gpd CD 1.1 ppm nitrate QL 3,490,128 gpd CL 0 ppm Change in Background Concentration = 38,500 or 0.010921589 3,525,128 The change in concentration is greater thz.01 mg/L and so does not meet adjacent to surface water nondegradation Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Appendix D Uniform Environmental Checklist UNIFORM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • As the engineer that prepared the preliminary engineering report, I Todd K. Kuxhaus (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 Preli inary ineering Report. Engineer's Signatur : Date: -7 03-10 Key Letter: N- No Impact/Not Applicable B- Potentially Beneficial A-Potentially Adverse P- Approval/Permits Required M - Mitigation Required PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Key 1. Soil Suitability, Topographic and/or Geologic Constraints (e.g., soil slump, steep slopes, subsidence, seismic activity) N Comments and Source of Information: I Soils are generally stable and conducive to trench excavation. Topography within the project area is suitable for pipeline construction. No soil slumps or subsidence have been identified in the project area. Soils data was obtained from the NRCS Jefferson County Soil Survey (Parts of the document are included in the PER Appendix A. Topographic information was obtained from the USGS Quadrangle for the area and from site inspections completed by Great West Engineering. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 2. Hazardous Facilities (e.g., power lines, EPA hazardous waste sites, acceptable distance from explosive and flammable hazards including chemical/petrochemical M storage tanks, underground fuel storage tanks, and related facilities such as natural gas storage facilities & propane storage tanks) Comments and Source of Information: The Montana DEQ had not responded regarding potential hazardous sites including fuel spills in the project area as of the date of the report production. Local officials do not recall any leaking underground tanks in the proposed District area. Detailed research will be conducted of the DEQ's leaking underground storage tank files during the design phase so that any spill areas can be avoided if possible. There are power lines in the project area that the Contractor will be made aware of in the design plans. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. 1 Key Letter: N —No Impact/Not Applicable B— Potentially Beneficial A—Potentially Adverse P— Approval/Perm its Required M —Mitigation Required Key 3. Effects of Project on Surrounding Air Quality or Any Kind of Effects of Existing Air Quality on Project (e.g., dust, odors, emissions) AIM Comments and Source of Information: Temporary adverse impacts on air quality(dust) may occur during construction. Reasonable efforts will be taken during construction to minimize these temporary impacts. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 4. Groundwater Resources &Aquifers (e.g., quantity, quality, distribution, depth to groundwater, sole source aquifers) B Comments and Source of Information: i If the proposed project is constructed, groundwater quality would have the opportunity to improve due to the elimination of potential source of contamination, i.e. septic tanks and drainfields. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 5. Surface WaterlWater Quality, Quantity & Distribution (e.g., streams, lakes, storm runoff, irrigation systems, canals) AIB Comments and Source of Information: If the proposed project is constructed, groundwater quality would have the opportunity to improve due to the elimination of potential source of contamination, i.e. septic tanks and drainfields. Because groundwater is connected to surface water in the area, the quality of the surface water could also improve as a result of the project. The effects of storm runoff will need to be mitigated during the construction project. We do not anticipate disturbance of greater than 1 acre therefore a SWPPP will not be required. However, the project specifications would require that the Contractor follow BMPs. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 6. Floodplains & Floodplain Management (Identify any floodplains within one mile of the boundary of the project.) A Comments and Source of Information: Although not shown on the FIRM maps included in Appendix G, much of the community of Clancy is suspected to be within the 100-year floodplain. In turn much of the proposed projects collection system would also be within the suspected 100- year floodplain. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. 2 Key Letter: N — No Impact/Not Applicable B— Potentially Beneficial A—Potentially Adverse P— Approval/Permits Required M—Mitigation Required • Key 7. Wetlands Protection (Identify any wetlands within one mile of the boundary of the project.) A Comments and Source of Information: Wetlands are located in the planning area. Most of the wetlands in the area are confined to stream and irrigation ditch corridors. Additional wetland delineation would need to be performed in the design phase of the project. As part of this effort the design of the collection system would strive to avoid any delineated wetlands if found. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 8. Agricultural Lands, Production, & Farmland Protection (e.g., grazing, forestry, cropland, prime or unique agricultural lands) (Identify any prime or important farm A ground or forest lands within one mile of the boundary of the project.) Comments and Source of Information: The NRCS soils survey for Jefferson County identifies both prime farmland and land of statewide importance in the planning area boundary. Within the limits of the proposed project,some agricultural lands will be impacted as part of the proposed treatment system. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 9. Vegetation &Wildlife Species & Habitats, Including Fish (e.g.,terrestrial, avian and AIM aquatic life and habitats) Comments and Source of Information: An NRIS search was conducted and revealed six species of concern in the planning area. They are the Wolverine, Canada Lynx, Northern Goshawk, Great Blue Heron, Flammulated Owl, and Westslope Cutthroat Trout. The Montana Natural Heritage Program did not respond at the time of this report. i The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks did not have any concerns over the proposed project. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 10. Unique, Endangered, Fragile, or Limited Environmental Resources, Including N Endangered Species (e.g., plants, fish or wildlife) Comments and Source of Information. No Unique, Endangered, Fragile, or Limited Environmental Resources, Including Endangered Species (e.g., plants, fish or wildlife) have been identified in the project • area. Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. 3 Key Letter: N -No Impact/Not Applicable B-Potentially Beneficial A-Potentially Adverse P- Approval/Permits Required M -Mitigation Required Key 11. Unique Natural Features (e.g., geologic features) N Comments and Source of Information: No unique natural features have been identified in any of the project areas. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. j Key 12. Access to, and Quality of, Recreational &Wilderness Activities, Public Lands and Waterways (including Federally Designated Wild &Scenic Rivers), and Public Open N Space Comments and Source of Information: I No impacts are anticipated. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. HUMAN POPULATION Key 1. Visual Quality- Coherence, Diversity, Compatibility of Use and Scale, Aesthetics N Comments and Source of Information: No impacts are anticipated. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 2. Nuisances (e.g., glare, fumes) AIM Comments and Source of Information: Temporary nuisances such as noise and exhaust fumes may occur during construction. Efforts will be made to minimize nuisances and address specific problems as they occur. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 3. Noise --suitable separation between noise sensitive activities (such as residential areas) and major noise sources (aircraft, highways &railroads) N Comments and Source of Information: Not applicable to this project. An existing highway exists near the proposed District. This condition will not change due to the project. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. 4 Key Letter: N -No Impact/Not Applicable B -Potentially Beneficial A-Potentially Adverse P- Approval/Permits Required M -Mitigation Required • Key 4. Historic Properties, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources N Comments and Source of Information: The Montana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has been contacted to determine whether there are significant historical and cultural resources within the project area. Response from SHPO dated July 7, 2010: As long as there will be no disturbance or alterations to structures over fifty years of age and not ground disturbance out of the existing rights-of-way, we feel there is a low likelihood cultural properties will be impacted. We, therefore, feel that a recommendation for a cultural resource inventory is unwarranted at this time. - Montana SHIP Key 5. Changes in Demographic (population) Characteristics (e.g., quantity, distribution, density) B Comments and Source of Information: • The implementation of a new reliable waste water collection and treatment system will allow for infilling in the area and make the proposed District a more desirable place to live. This will allow the community to grow. Natural growth is beneficial. No negative impacts are anticipated relating to distribution and density. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 6. Environmental Justice-(Does the project avoid placing lower income households in areas where environmental degradation has occurred, such as adjacent to Brownfield N sites?) Comments and Source of Information: This project is not located in an area known to have environmental degradation. Therefore, is not applicable to the project. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 7. General Housing Conditions - Quality, Quantity, Affordability N Comments and Source of Information: Not applicable to the project. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. • 5 Key Letter: N—No Impact/Not Applicable B—Potentially Beneficial A—Potentially Adverse P— Approval/Permits Required M —Mitigation Required Key 8. Displacement or Relocation of Businesses or Residents • B Comments and Source of Information: An updated wastewater system will make it more attractive for existing businesses to remain and for new businesses to open. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 9. Public Health and Safety B Comments and Source of Information: Construction of a wastewater collection and treatment system will help ensure the continuation of usable water from wells for the proposed District residences. The removal of individual on-site wastewater systems will help improve groundwater quality in the area. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 10. Lead Based Paint and/or Asbestos • N Comments and Source of Information: Not applicable to this project. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 11. Local Employment & Income Patterns -Quantity and Distribution of Employment, Economic Impact B Comments and Source of information: Construction of a wastewater collection and treatment system will help ensure the continuation of usable water from wells for the proposed District residences. Existing businesses that are currently struggling with near failing on-site wastewater treatment systems would be provided the opportunity to continue their businesses. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 12. Local &State Tax Base&Revenues i B Comments and Source of Information: . A wastewater system will allow the community to grow and, as a result of growth, the Local &State Tax Base & Revenues may improve. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. 6 Key Letter: N -No Impact/Not Applicable B - Potentially Beneficial A-Potentially Adverse P- Approval/Permits Required M -Mitigation Required 40 Key 13. Educational Facilities - Schools, Colleges, Universities N Comments and Source of Information: No applicable to this project. No schools exist in the District. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 14. Commercial and Industrial Facilities - Production &Activity, Growth or Decline B Comments and Source of Information: Commercial and industrial growth could occur as a result of construction of a wastewater collection and treatment system. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 15. Health Care- Medical Services N Comments and Source of Information: No impact anticipated -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 16. Social Services -Governmental Services (e.g., demand on) N Comments and Source of Information: No impact anticipated -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 17. Social Structures &Mores (Standards of Social Conduct/Social Conventions) N Comments and Source of Information: No impact anticipated -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 18. Land Use Compatibility(e.g., growth, land use change, development activity, adjacent land uses and potential conflicts) B Comments and Source of Information: • Additional development in the form of in-fill may occur as a result of the proposed wastewater system. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. 7 Key Letter: N -No Impact/Not Applicable B-Potentially Beneficial A-Potentially Adverse P- Approval/Permits Required M-Mitigation Required Key 19. Energy Resources -Consumption and Conservation N Comments and Source of Information: Due to the installation of a wastewater lift station and treatment facility,some additional energy use will occur. The existing power grid has the capability to provide the necessary without any negative impacts to the grid. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 20. Solid Waste Management N Comments and Source of Information: No impact anticipated -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E Key 21. Wastewater Treatment- Sewage System B Comments and Source of Information: The proposed project is a community wastewater collection and treatment system • which would benefit the proposed District. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E Key 22. Storm Water- Surface Drainage N Comments and Source of Information: No impact anticipated -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 23. Community Water Supply N Comments and Source of Information: The community currently has individual wells. This will not change as a result of the project. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 24. Public Safety- Police N Comments and Source of Information: . No impact anticipated -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. 8 Key Letter: N — No Impact/Not Applicable B—Potentially Beneficial A—Potentially Adverse P— Approval/Permits Required M— Mitigation Required Key 25. Fire Protection—Hazards N Comments and Source of Information: No impact. Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 26. Emergency Medical Services N Comments and Source of Information: No impacts anticipated -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 27. Parks, Playgrounds, &Open Space N Comments and Source of Information: No impacts anticipated. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 28. Cultural Facilities, Cultural Uniqueness & Diversity N Comments and Source of Information: No impacts anticipated -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. Key 29. Transportation Networks and Traffic Flow Conflicts (e.g., rail; auto including local traffic; airport runway clear zones - avoidance of incompatible land use in airport N runway clear zones) Comments and Source of Information: No impacts anticipated Key 30. Consistency with Local Ordinances, Resolutions, or Plans (e.g., conformance with local comprehensive plans, zoning, or capital improvement plans) N Comments and Source of Information: Consisted to all know local ordinances, resolutions and plans -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. 9 Key Letter: N —No Impact/Not Applicable B—Potentially Beneficial A— Potentially Adverse rovallPermits Required M — Mitigation Required Key 31. Is There a Regulatory Action on Private Property Rights as a Result of this Project? (consider options that reduce, minimize, or eliminate the regulation of private property rights.) N Comments and Source of Information: To the extent possible new facilities will be placed on public easements and public land. Individual septic tanks located on private property would be removed as a result of the project. In addition, sewer services would be connected on private property. Temporary construction easementsiagreements would be required to perform this work. -Todd K. Kuxhaus, P.E. 10 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • Appendix E Montana Natural Resources and Information System (NRIS) • • N UN I A N A l>) Natural Heritage Animal Species of Concern Species List Last Updated 04/08/2010 7 Natural 7 Species of Concern / 1 Potential Species of Concern Filtered by the following criteria: A program of the University of Montana Township =8 N Range =3 W and Natural Resource Information Systems, Montana State Library Species of Concern 7 Species Filtered by the following craeria: Township=B N Range =3 W FILTERED BY THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA:; SCIENTIFIC NAME %OF GLOBAL %OF MT COMMON NAME FAMILY(SCIENTIFIC) GLOBAL STATE USFWS USFS ELM CFWCS TIER ID BREEDING THAT IS HABITAT TAKA SORT FAMILY(COMMON) RANK RANK RANGE IN NT BREEDING RANG! Canis lupus Canidae G4 S3 DM SENSITIVE SENSITIVE 1 1% 32% Generalist Gray We Wolves/Coyotes/Foxes Species verified in these Counties:Beaverhead, Broadwater,Carbon,Cascade, Dee,Lodge, rlathead,Gallatin,Glacier, Golden Valley, Granite,Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lake,Lewis and Clark,Lincoln, vadison, Meagher, Mineral,Missoula, Park, Pandora, Powell, Ravalli, Sanders,Silver Bow,Stillwater,Sweet Grass,Teton, Wheatland GUIO gUlo Mustelidae G4 S3 SENSITIVE SENSITIVE 1 2 1 0% 1 37% Conifer forest Wolve-ine Weasels Species verified in these Counties:Beaverhead, Broadwater,Carbon, Cascade,Deer Lodge,Flathead,Gallatin,Glacier,Granite,Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark,Lincoln, Madison,Meagher,Mineral, Missoula, Park, Pondera,Powell, Ravalli,Sanders, Sliver Bow,Stillwai Sweet Grass,Teton,Wheatland Lynx eanadensis Felidae GS I S3 I IT I THREATENED I SPECIAL STATUS 1 1 1 1% 1 40% 1 Subalpine conifer forest Canada '_vnx Cats Species verified In these Counties:Beaverhead,Broadwater Carbon,Cascade, Deer Lodge, Flathead, Gallatin,Glacier, Granite,Jefferson,Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Madison, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Park, renders, Powell, Ravalli,Sanders,Silver Bow, Stillwater,Sweet Grass,Teton,Wheatland ,BIRDS FILTERED BY THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA:, e SCIENTIFIC NAME %OF GLOBAL %OF MT COMMON NAME FAMILY(SCIENTIFIC) GLOBAL STATE USFWS USFS BLM CFWCSTIERIO BREEDING THAT IS HABITAT TA)UL SORT FAMILY(COMMON) RANK RANK RANGE IN MT BREEDING RANGE ACCipiter gentilis Accipitridae G5 S3 SENSITIVE 1 2 2% 68% Mixed conifer forests Northern Goshawk Hawks/Eagles Species verified in these Counties:Beaverhead, Broadwater,Carbon, Carter, Deer'_edge,Fergus, Flathead,Gallatin,Glacier,Granite,Jefferson,Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Lincoln, Madison, Meagher, Plinerai, Missoula, Park, Powder River,Powell, Ravalli, Rosebud, Sanders, Silver Bow,S611water, Sweet Grass,Teton, Wheatland Ardea herodia8 Ardeldae GS I S3 3 3% 100% Riparian forest Great Blue Heron Herons Species verified in these Counties:Beaverhead,Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater,Carbon,Carter,Cascade,Chouteau, Custer,Dawson,Deer Lodge, Fallon, Fergus, Flathead,Gallatin,Garfield,Glacier,Golden Valley,Granite,Hill, Jefferson,3106Rh 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,Toole,Treasure,Valley,Wheatland, Wibaux,Yellowstone Otus flamltleolus Strigidae G4 53B SENSITIVE SENSITIVE 1 2% 36% Dry conifer forest Flan mcleted Owl Owls Species verified in these Counties:Beaverhead,Gallatin,Granite,Jefferson, Lake,'_ewis and Clark, Lincoln, Madison, Mineral, Missoula, Powell, Ravalli,Sanders SCIENTIFIC NAME %OF MT FISH (AClWPTERYGII) FILTERED BY THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA:, FAMILY(SCIENTIFIC) GLOBAL STATE %OF GLOBAL THAT IS COMMON NAME FAMILY(COMMON) RANK RANK USFWS USFS FILM CRWCS TIER ID BREEDING BREEDING HABITAT TAI(A SORT RANGE IN MT RANGE Oncorhynchus Salmonldae G4T3 S2 SENSITIVE SENSITIVE 1 34% Mo untaln stream s, darkii lewlsi Trout rivers,lakes Wesslope C-itthroat Species verified In these Counties:Beaverhead,Broadwater,Cascade,Chouteau,Deer Lodge,Fergus,Flathead,Gallatin,Glacier,Granite,Jefferson,Judith Trott Basin,Lake,Lewis and Clark,Lincoln, Madison, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula,Park,Pondera,Powell, Ravalli,Sanders,Silver Bow,Teton U 11 N I A N A Natural Heritage Plant Species of Concern Species List Last Updated 03/18/2010 Pmgram Filtered by the following criteria: / Township =8 N Range =3 W A program of the University of Montana and Natural Resource Information Systems, Species of Concern 0 species Filtered by the following criteria: Township =8 N Range =3 W Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • Appendix F Agency Letters and Responses County Sanitarian Information Jefferson County Environmental Health P.O. Box H Boulder,Montana 59632 406-225-4126 April 23, 2010 Todd K. Kuxhaus, PE Project Manager Great West Engineering, Inc. PC Box 4817 Helena, MT 59604 Re: Clancy Wastewater Treatment Dear Todd, The Townsite of Clancy and adjacent areas consist of lots created in the late 1800's. Currently, these lots are served by individual wells and on-site wastewater treatment systems. For the past fifteen years, as the Jefferson County Sanitarian, I have been tasked with the challenge of finding solutions for homeowners with failing wastewater treatment systems. At this point, all options have been exhausted for failing on-site wastewater systems on a majority of the lots. There are many limitations when installing on-site wastewater treatment systems on these lots. Most of the lots are very small (40 feet wide by 120 feet long). Meeting setbacks, as required by state law, is a challenge and often impossible. Many drinking water wells are less than the required one hundred feet from wastewater treatment systems. In addition,the soils present in the area are generally coarse decomposed granite and lack the organic material necessary to reduce the levels of nitrate and phosphorus in the effluent. The effect of this is possible degradation of state waters and primarily Prickly Pear Creek which is in close proximity. Depth to groundwater is also an issue in the area. Many replacement systems are elevated mounds to achieve adequate treatment area between the bottom of h q the infiltrative surface and groundwater. As the Jefferson County Sanitarian, I am faced with increasingly difficult wastewater situations in the Clancy area. A community wastewater system would help preserve and protect our water quality. I would really appreciate your assistance in making this a reality. Sincerely, Megan Bullock, R.S. 1101 County Sanitarian BOZEMAN 602 Ferguson Suite 1 AMozernan, MT '0 06.587.0504 9718 Fax 406.587.0541 G engineering June 27, 2010 Kevin Smith DNRC P.O. Box 201601 Helena, MT 59620-1601 RE: Clancy Water & Sewer District Community Wastewater Treatment System Dear Mr. Smith: The Clancy Water and Sewer District (District) primarily encompasses the town of Clancy, Montana, which is located in the north central part of Jefferson County in southwestern Montana. The town is situated along Interstate 15 and adjacent to Prickly Pear Creek. More specifically, the town is located at: Township 8 North, Range 3 West, Section 9 46° 27' 2" N latitude and 1110 57' 41" W longitude Enclosed is a map (Figure 1.0) of the District and surrounding planning area to help identify our proposed project location. Clancy is an unincorporated community that for the most part was built prior to the establishment of Health Department regulations, thus many individual septic disposal systems do not comply with current regulations. One of the most prominent non-compliance issues is the close proximity of drinking water wells to septic systems (less than 100-feet separation). The majority of these systems are cesspools, seepage pits or metal septic tank with drainfields that have either failed, or have a high potential of failing in the near future. The soils in this particular area consist of coarse-grained decomposed granite that lacks the organic material necessary to reduce the levels of nitrate and phosphorous. Coupled with poor treatment characteristics of the soils is a HELENA high groundwater table and close proximity of Prickly Pear Creek, so there is PO Box 4817 2501 Belt View Drive an increasingly high probability of contaminating the groundwater and water Helena,MT 59604 supply wells. This situation creates a public health hazard for the community 406.449.8627 ax 406.449.8631 and warrants the need for a centralized wastewater collection and treatment system. Without this type of system in place, the local residents face a serious uNCS health risk. Additionally, the Jefferson County Environmental Health 115 N.Broadway Suite 500 Billings,MT 59101 406.652.5000 Fax 406.248.1363 Page 1 Department will continue to have an increasingly difficult time allowing the construction of new homes or businesses in the area unless the proposed septic systems can meet all the required regulations. The end result is essentially a moratorium on new construction, and a very difficult dilemma for the health officials when pre-dated septic systems fail. Great West Engineering was hired to help the District to write a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) and develop a list of centralized wastewater collection, treatment and disposal alternatives for consideration. After evaluating many different alternatives, the District has chosen to move forward with a Level II treatment system as their preferred alternative. Enclosed is a schematic drawing (Figure 2.1) of the proposed wastewater treatment system for your review and comment. The drawing shows the underground collection system network and lift station. The exact treatment and groundwater disposal site is not yet determined; however, Figure 1.1 shows the potential areas. The proposed Level II treatment system is designed to discharge treated effluent to groundwater via a large infiltration gallery, more commonly referred to as a drainfield. This part of the system will be subsurface and requires approximately 5 to 6 acres of land depending the site specific soil characteristics. Level II systems typically remove at least 65 percent of the nitrogen in wastewater and have fairly consistent effluent quality throughout the year. We would appreciate feedback from the DNRC regarding this project as soon as possible. Please send your response back to me at: Rich Fillbach Great West Engineering 602 Ferguson, Suite 1 Bozeman, MT 59718 Sincerely, Great N"t Engineering, Inc. ich Fillbach, E Project Engineer cc. Project File #1-05154 Todd Kuxhaus, Project Manager — Great West Engineering Page 2 BOZEMAN 602 Ferguson Suite 1 0ozeman, MT 59718 06.587.0504 Fax 406.587.0541 G engineering June 27, 2010 Jon Dilliard, Bureau Chief Public Water Supply and Subdivisions Bureau Montana Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 RE: Clancy Water & Sewer District Community Wastewater Treatment System Dear Mr. Dilliard: The Clancy Water and Sewer District (District) primarily encompasses the town of Clancy, Montana, which is located in the north central part of Jefferson County in southwestern Montana. The town is situated along Interstate 15 and adjacent to Prickly Pear Creek. More specifically, the town is located at: Township 8 North, Range 3 West, Section 9 460 27' 2" N latitude and 111° 57' 41" W longitude Enclosed is a map (Figure 1.0) of the District and surrounding planning area to help identify our proposed project location. Clancy is an unincorporated community that for the most part was built prior to the establishment of Health Department regulations, thus many individual septic disposal systems do not comply with current regulations. One of the most prominent non-compliance issues is the close proximity of drinking water wells to septic systems (less than 100-feet separation). The majority of these systems are cesspools, seepage pits or metal septic tank with drainfields that have either failed, or have a high potential of failing in the near future. The soils in this particular area consist of coarse-grained decomposed granite that lacks the organic material necessary to reduce the levels of nitrate and HELENA phosphorous. Coupled with poor treatment characteristics of the soils is a Po Box 481.7 high groundwater table and close proximity of Prickly Pear Creek, so there is 2501 Belt View Dim Helena,MT 59604 an increasingly high probability of contaminating the groundwater and water 406.449.8627 supply wells. This situation creates a public health hazard for the community 0 406.449.8631 and warrants the need for a centralized wastewater collection and treatment BILLINGS system. Without this type of system in place, the local residents face a serious 115 N.Broadway suite 500 Billings,MT 59101 406.652.5000 Fax 406248.1363 Page 1 i Department will continue to have an increasingly difficult time allowing the construction of new homes or businesses in the area unless the proposed septic systems can meet all the required regulations. The end result is essentially a moratorium on new construction, and a very difficult dilemma for the health officials when pre-dated septic systems fail. Great West Engineering was hired to help the District to write a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER)and develop a list of centralized wastewater collection, treatment and disposal alternatives for consideration. After evaluating many different alternatives, the District has chosen to move forward with a Level II treatment system as their preferred alternative. Enclosed is a schematic drawing(Figure 2.1)of the proposed wastewater treatment system for your review and comment. The drawing shows the underground collection system network and lift station. The exact treatment and groundwater disposal site is not yet determined; however, Figure 1.1 shows the potential areas. The proposed Level II treatment system is designed to discharge treated effluent to groundwater via a large infiltration gallery, more commonly referred to asa drainfield. This part of the system will be subsurface and requires approximately 5 to 6 acres of land depending the site specific soil characteristics. Level II systems typically remove at least 65 percent of the nitrogen in wastewater and have fairly consistent effluent quality throughout the year. • We would appreciate feedback from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality regarding this project as soon as possible. Please send your response back to me at: Rich Fillbach Great West Engineering 602 Ferguson,Suite 1 Bozeman, MT 59718 Sincerely, Great West Engineering, Inc. ! � Z �� ��� h Fillbach,P Project Engineer M Project File#1-05154 Todd Kuxhaus, Project Manager—Great West Engineering Page 2 BOZEMAN 602 Ferguson Suite 1 10ozeman, MT 59718 06,587.0504 Fax 406.587.0541 ZGrnaffiest, engineering June 27, 2010 Damon Murdo State Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 201202 Helena, MT 59620 RE: Clancy Water & Sewer District Community Wastewater Treatment System Dear Mr. Murdo: • The Clancy Water and Sewer District (District) primarily encompasses the town of Clancy, Montana, which is located in the north central part of Jefferson County in southwestern Montana. The town is situated along Interstate 15 and adjacent to Prickly Pear Creek. More specifically, the town is located at: Township 8 North, Range 3 West, Section 9 460 27' 2" N latitude and 111° 57' 41" W longitude Enclosed is a map (Figure 1.0) of the District and surrounding planning area to help identify our proposed project location. Clancy is an unincorporated community that for the most part was built prior to the establishment of Health Department regulations, thus many individual septic disposal systems do not comply with current regulations. One of the most prominent non-compliance issues is the close proximity of drinking water wells to septic systems (less than 100-feet separation). The majority of these systems are cesspools, seepage pits or metal septic tank with drainfields that have either failed, or have a high potential of failing in the near future. The soils in this particular area consist of coarse-grained decomposed granite that lacks the organic material necessary to reduce the levels of nitrate and phosphorous. Coupled with poor treatment characteristics of the soils is a HELENA high groundwater table and close proximity of Prickly Pear Creek, so there is PD Box 4817 an increasingly high probability of contaminating the groundwater and water 2501 Belt View Drive Helena,MT 59694 supply wells. This situation creates a public health hazard for the community 406.449,8627 and warrants the need for a centralized wastewater collection and treatment 0 406.449.8631 system. Without this type of system in place, the local residents face a serious BILLINGS health risk. Additionally, the Jefferson County Environmental Health 115 N.Broadway Suite 500 Billings,Mr 59101 406.652.5000 Fax 406.248.1363 Page 1 Department will continue to have an increasingly difficult time allowing the construction of new homes or businesses in the area unless the proposed septic systems can meet all the required regulations. The end result is essentially a moratorium on new construction, and a very difficult dilemma for the health officials when pre-dated septic systems fail. Great West Engineering was hired to help the District to write a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) and develop a list of centralized wastewater collection, treatment and disposal alternatives for consideration. After evaluating many different alternatives, the District has chosen to move forward with a Level II treatment system as their preferred alternative. Enclosed is a schematic drawing (Figure 2.1) of the proposed wastewater treatment system for your review and comment. The drawing shows the underground collection system network and lift station. The exact treatment and groundwater disposal site is not yet determined; however, Figure 1.1 shows the potential areas. The proposed Level II treatment system is designed to discharge treated effluent to groundwater via a large infiltration gallery, more commonly referred to as a drainfield. This part of the system will be subsurface and requires approximately 5 to 6 acres of land depending the site specific soil characteristics. Level II systems typically remove at least 65 percent of the nitrogen in wastewater and have fairly consistent effluent quality throughout the year. We would appreciate feedback from the State Historic Preservation Office regarding this project as soon as possible. Please send your response back to me at: Rich Fillbach Great West Engineering 602 Ferguson, Suite 1 Bozeman, MT 59718 Sincerely, Great West Engineering, Inc. r ich Fillbach, P Project Engine r CC. Project File #1-05154 Todd Kuxhaus, Project Manager— Great West Engineering Page 2 Historic Preservation BigSky.Big Land.Big History. Museum Montana Outreach&Interpretation Publications Research Center July 7, 2010 Rich Fillbach Great West Engineering 602 Ferguson, Suite 1 Bozeman MT 59718 RE: CLANCY WATER& SEWER DISTRICT COMMUNITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM. SHPO Project 4: 2010070603 Dear Mr. Fillbach: I have conducted a cultural resource file search for the above-cited project located in Sections 3, 4, 9, 16, T9N R3 W. According to our records there have been a few previously recorded sites within the designated search locales. In addition to the sites there have been a few previously conducted cultural resource inventories done in the areas. I've attached a list of these sites and reports. If you would like any further information regarding these sites or reports you may contact me at the number listed below. It is SHPO's position that any structure over fifty years of age is considered historic and is potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. If any structures are to be altered and are over fifty years old we would recommend that they be recorded and a determination of their eligibility be made. As long as there will be no disturbance or alteration to structures over fifty years of age, and no new ground disturbance out of the existing rights-of-way, we feel that there is a low likelihood cultural properties will be impacted. We, therefore, feel that a recommendation for a cultural resource inventory is unwarranted at this time. However, should structures need to be altered or if cultural materials be inadvertently discovered during this project we would ask that our office be contacted and the site investigated. If you have any further questions or comments you may contact me at (406)444-7767 or by e- mail at dmurdo(a),mt.eov. I have included an invoice for this file search. Thank you for consulting with us. Sincerely,. Damon Murdo Cultural Records Manager State Historic Preservation Office 225 North Roberts Street P.O.Box 2o12o1 File:DEQ/AIR&WATER WASTE MNG/2010 Helena,MT 59620-1201 (4o6)444-2694 (4o6)444-2696 anx .. - montanahistoricalsociety.org R'e5ky�'gLa"�•B'gx'S`°�• STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE Montana Cultural Resource Information Systems CRIS Township,Range,Section Report Report oat* o71oei2oia Site # Twp Rng Sec Qs Site Typal Site Type 2 Time Period Owner NR Status 24JF1393 8 M 3W 4 Comb Historic District His[o[ic Mining Historic More Than One Comer net ion lnresalvetl 24JF1393 8 N 3H 4 Comb Historic District Historic Mining H t Un[®solv¢tl c Mora Than Ope COmbinat ins - Decade 24JF0951 B N 3W 4 HH Historic Railroad, Null 1.60'1869 No Data CD 24JF0951 8 N 3N 4 N8 Historic Railroad, Null 1860-1869 Camhinat inn CD R4JP0951 8 N ]N 4 NE NSe[oric Railroad Null 1B60-1869 BIN CD 24JF0951 8 N 3W 4 80 Historic Railroad Null 1860-1869 BLM CD 24JF0951 8 N 3W 4 S8 Historic Railroad, N411 1860-1669 Na Data CD 24JFOISI B N 3W 4 58 Historic Railroad, Null 1860-1869 Combination CD 24ZF1393 6 N 3W 9 Comb Historic District Historic Mining Historic More Than Due Combination Unree.1ved 24'41393 B N 3W 9 comb Historic District Historic Mining Historic More Than One Combination Unresolved 24JF1541 8 N 3W 9 Comb Historic Mining Null Historic No[e TM1an One BLM and Other CD 24'41393 8 N 3N 16 Comb Historic District Nleteiic Mining Historic More Than One Combireclon Unresolved 24SF3393 6 N 3W 16 Comb Historic District Historic Mining Historic Mare Than One Combination Unresolved 24JF1911 B N 3W 16 HS Historic Mining Null Historic Period State Oohed undetermined 24JP1910 8 N 3W 16 NM Historic Mining Historic Dug-Out Historic Period State Owned undetermined 24JF1912 8 N 3W 16 SW Historic Mining Rock Aligsusenclsl Historic Period State Oohed undetermined 24JF1913 8 N 3W 16 SW Historic Mining Rock Alignnnntlsl Historic Period State Caned undetermined ►g/,�%y. IJtgLand.Big1list°ty' STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICi Ilont` ,na Cultural Resource Annotated Bibliography System i CRABS Township,Range,Section Report Report of 07108121 Rip: N Range: 3 W Section: 3 PASSMANN DORI / /2003 2002 NRCS FIELD STAFF NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORTS INJEFFERSON COUNTY MONTANA :RABS Document Number: JF 6 25641 Agency Document Number: wnship: N Range: 3 W Section: 4 ROSSILLON MITZI AND MARY MCCORMICK /27/1997 DEVIL'S ELBOW LAND EXCHANGE.:SUPPLEMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL INVESTIGATIONS, 1997(INVENTORY#2) ,RABS Document Number: JF 2 19853 Agency Document Number: 97-MT-070-075-35 wnship: N Range: 3 W Section: 4 PASSMAN DORI, ET.AL. /2008 2008 NRCS FIELD STAFF NEGATIVE FINDINGS REPORTS 3 8 Agency i 'RABS Document Number: JF G •�i Document Number: wnship: N Range: 3 W Section: 4 TAYLOR JOHN F. 8 /1985 WIRTH If LAND EXCHANGE -RABS Document Number: ZZ 2 10783 Agency Document Number: 84-MT-070-076-01 iwnship: N Range: 3 W Section: 9 SANDERS DARRELLJ. /27/1998 CLANCYHMD SUB-AREAS -RABS Document Number: JF 2 20125 Agency Document Number: 97-MT-070-075-35 wnship: N Range: 3 W Section: 9 TAYLOR JOHN F. /28/1985 WIRTH 11 LAND EXCHANGE .RABS Document Number: ZZ 2 10783 Agency Document Number: 84-MT-070-076-01 iwnship: N Range: 3 W Section: 9 GCM SERVICES INC. ANONYMOUS / /1989 DRAFT PRESERVATION PLANNING OVERVIEW PART ONE OF PHASE 25 AND 26 SELECTED MINING DISTRICTS 9 hBS Document Number: ZZ 5 10797 Agency Document Number: ip. N Range: 3 W Section: 16 RENNIE PATRICK I /2009 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY OF THE PRICKY PEAR JUMPSTART TIMBER SALE,JEFFERSON COUN' MONTANA RABS Document Number: JF 5 31175 Agency Document Number: 2009-3-8 gNky.big Lana.bignistory. STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE dontana Cultural Resource Annotated Bibliography System CRABS Township,Range,Section Report Report 0710 20, wnship: N Range: 3 W Section: 16 GCM SERVICES INC. ANONYMOUS /1992 US WEST FIBER OPTIC LINE CORRIDOR:HELENA-BOULDER AND BOULDER-WHITEHALL :RABS Document Number: JF 5 13536 Agency Document Number: 00 wnship: N Range: 3 W Section: 16 GCM SERVICES INC. ANONYMOUS / /1989 DRAFT PRESERVATION PLANNING OVERVIEW PART ONE OF PHASE 25 AND 26 SELECTED MINING DISTRICTS RABS Document Number: ZZ 5 10797 Agency Document Number: BOZEMAN 602 Ferguson Suite 1 kozeman, MT 59718 06.587.0504 Fax 406.587.0541 G engineering June 27, 2010 Eric Roberts Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks 1420 East 6th Avenue P.O. Box 200701 Helena, MT 59620-0701 RE: Clancy Water & Sewer District Community Wastewater Treatment System Dear Mr. Roberts: The Clancy Water and Sewer District (District) primarily encompasses the town of Clancy, Montana, which is located in the north central part of Jefferson County in southwestern Montana. The town is situated along Interstate 15 and adjacent to Prickly Pear Creek. More specifically, the town is located at: Township 8 North, Range 3 West, Section 9 -» 460 27' 2" N latitude and 1110 57' 41" W longitude Enclosed is a map (Figure 1.0) of the District and surrounding planning area to help identify our proposed project location. Clancy is an unincorporated community that for the most part was built prior to the establishment of Health Department regulations, thus many individual septic disposal systems do not comply with current regulations. One of the most prominent non-compliance issues is the close proximity of drinking water wells to septic systems (less than 100-feet separation). The majority of these systems are cesspools, seepage pits or metal septic tank with drainfields that have either failed, or have a high potential of failing in the near future. The soils in this particular area consist of coarse-grained decomposed granite that lacks the organic material necessary to reduce the levels of nitrate and HELENA phosphorous. Coupled with poor treatment characteristics of the soils is a PD Box 4817 high groundwater table and close proximity of Prickly Pear Creek, so there is 2501 Bak View Drive Helena,MT 59604 an increasingly high probability of contaminating the groundwater and water 406.449.8627 supply wells. This situation creates a public health hazard for the community 0 406.449.8631 and warrants the need for a centralized wastewater collection and treatment BILLINGS system. Without this type of system in place, the local residents face a serious 115 N.Broallway Suite 500 Billings,MT 59101 406.652.5000 Fax 406.248.1363 Page 1 health risk. Additionally, the Jefferson County Environmental Health is Department will continue to have an increasingly difficult time allowing the construction of new homes or businesses in the area unless the proposed septic systems can meet all the required regulations. The end result is essentially a moratorium on new construction, and a very difficult dilemma for the health officials when pre-dated septic systems fail. Great West Engineering was hired to help the District to write a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) and develop a list of centralized wastewater collection, treatment and disposal alternatives for consideration. After evaluating many different alternatives, the District has chosen to move forward with a Level II treatment system as their preferred alternative. Enclosed is a schematic drawing (Figure 2.1) of the proposed wastewater treatment system for your review and comment. The drawing shows the underground collection system network and lift station. The exact treatment and groundwater disposal site is not yet determined; however, Figure 1 .1 shows the potential areas. The proposed Level II treatment system is designed to discharge treated effluent to groundwater via a large infiltration gallery, more commonly referred to as a drainfield. This part of the system will be subsurface and requires approximately 5 to 6 acres of land depending the site specific soil characteristics. Level II systems typically remove at least 65 percent of the nitrogen in wastewater and have fairly consistent effluent quality throughout the year. We would appreciate feedback from the Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks regarding this project as soon as possible. Please send your response back to me at: Rich Fillbach Great West Engineering 602 Ferguson, Suite 1 Bozeman, MT 59718 Sincerely, Great West Engineering, Inc. I Ri h Fillbach, P roject Engineer cc. Project File #1-05154 Todd Kuxhaus, Project Manager— Great West Engineering Page 2 BOZEMAN 602 Ferguson Suite 1 ozernan, MT 59718 06.587.0504 Fax 406.587.0541 G engineering June 27, 2010 Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 585 Shepard Way Helena, MT 59601 RE: Clancy Water & Sewer District Community Wastewater Treatment System Dear Mr. Wilson: The Clancy Water and Sewer District (District) primarily encompasses the town of Clancy, Montana, which is located in the north central part of Jefferson County in southwestern Montana. The town is situated along interstate 15 and adjacent to Prickly Pear Creek. More specifically, the town is located at: Township 8 North, Range 3 West, Section 9 460 27' 2" N latitude and 111° 57' 41" W longitude Enclosed is a map (Figure 1.0) of the District and surrounding planning area to help identify our proposed project location. Clancy is an unincorporated community that for the most part was built prior to the establishment of Health Department regulations, thus many individual septic disposal systems do not comply with current regulations. One of the most prominent non-compliance issues is the close proximity of drinking water wells to septic systems (less than 100-feet separation). The majority of these systems are cesspools, seepage pits or metal septic tank with drainfields that have either failed, or have a high potential of failing in the near future. The soils in this particular area consist of coarse-grained decomposed granite that lacks the organic material necessary to reduce the levels of nitrate and phosphorous. Coupled with poor treatment characteristics of the soils is a HMENA high groundwater table and close proximity of Prickly Pear Creek, so there is PO Box 4817 an increasingly high probability of contaminating the groundwater and water 2501 Belt View Drive Helena,MT 59604 supply wells. This situation creates a public health hazard for the community 406-449.8627 and warrants the need for a centralized wastewater collection and treatment 0 406.449.8631 system. Without this type of system in place, the local residents face a serious BILLINGS health risk. Additionally, the Jefferson County Environmental Health 115 N.Broadway Suite 500 Billings,MT 59101 406.652.5000 Fax 406.248.1363 — Page 1 construction of new homes or businesses in the area unless the proposed septic systems can meet all the required regulations. The end result is essentially a moratorium on new construction, and a very difficult dilemma for the health officials when pre-dated septic systems fail. Great West Engineering was hired to help the District to write a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER)and develop a list of centralized wastewater collection, treatment and disposal alternatives for consideration.After evaluating many different alternatives, the District has chosen to move forward with a Level II treatment system as their preferred alternative. Enclosed is a schematic drawing(Figure 2.1)of the proposed wastewater treatment system for your review and comment.The drawing shows the underground collection system network and lift station. The exact treatment and groundwater disposal site is not yet determined; however, Figure 1.1 shows the potential areas. The proposed Level II treatment system is designed to discharge treated effluent to groundwater via a large infiltration gallery, more commonly referred to as a drainfield. This part of the system will be subsurface and requires approximately 5 to 6 acres of land depending the site specific soil characteristics.Level II systems typically remove at least 65 percent of the nitrogen in wastewater and have fairly consistent effluent quality throughout the year. We would appreciate feedback from the U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service regarding this . project as soon as possible. Please send your response back to me at: Rich Fillbach Great West Engineering 602 Ferguson,Suite 1 Bozeman, MT 59718 Sincerely, Great West Engineering, Inc. F ' Fillbach, PE roject Engineer cc. Project File#1-05154 Todd Kuxhaus,Project Manager—Great West Engineering PS�ENT OF rHF United States Department of the Interior U.S. O� ym F19 SERVIILDLIFE b Fish and Wildlife Service � a x'ggcH a jb Ecological Services U_*m �'v Montana Field Office 585 Shepard Way Helena, Montana 59601-6287 Phone: (406)449-5225 Fax:(406)449-5339 July 20, 2010 Rich Fillbach, PE Great West Engineering 602 Ferguson, Suite 1 Bozeman, MT Dear Mr. Fillbach: . We have reviewed the project outline and the attached photomaps included with your June 27, 2010 letter, concerning the proposed construction of a centralized wastewater collection system, and the development of treatment and disposal alternatives for Clancy, Montana. Our response comments are authorized under the authorities of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA),as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 703 et. Seq.). Any viable wastewater treatment option(s)that are likely to result in improved quality of the waters in the State of Montana are generally beneficial to fish and wildlife. In addition, the semi-urban setting of the study area makes it very unlikely that there will be any significant adverse affects to fish, wildlife, or habitat resources under the purview of the U.S.fish and Wildlife Service. Of the areas considered for effluent discharge (depicted on Figure 1.1), we would prefer those farthest from Prickly Pear Creek in order to help avoid increased nitrate contamination of that stream. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the alternatives you considered. Please telephone me at 406(449-5225,ext. 205, if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, -M4 L R. Mark Wilson Field Supervisor i BOZEMAN 602 Ferguson Suite 1 Oaoze'n MT 59718 6.587.0504 x 406.587.0541 ZG=West� engineering June 27, 2010 Todd Tillinger US Army Corps of Engineers Montana Regulatory Program 10 West 15th Street, Suite 2200 Helena, Montana, 59626 RE: Clancy Water & Sewer District Community Wastewater Treatment System Dear Mr. Tillinger: . The Clancy Water and Sewer District (District) primarily encompasses the town of Clancy, Montana, which is located in the north central part of Jefferson County in southwestern Montana. The town is situated along Interstate 15 and adjacent to Prickly Pear Creek. More specifically, the town is located at: Township 8 North, Range 3 West, Section 9 46° 27' 2" N latitude and 111' 57' 41" W longitude Enclosed is a map (Figure 1.0) of the District and surrounding planning area to help identify our proposed project location. Clancy is an unincorporated community that for the most part was built prior to the establishment of Health Department regulations, thus many individual septic disposal systems do not comply with current regulations. One of the most prominent non-compliance issues is the close proximity of drinking water wells to septic systems (less than 100-feet separation). The majority of these systems are cesspools, seepage pits or metal septic tank with drainfields that have either failed, or have a high potential of failing in the near future. The soils in this particular area consist of coarse-grained decomposed granite that lacks the organic material necessary to reduce the levels of nitrate and HELENA phosphorous. Coupled with poor treatment characteristics of the soils is a PO Box 4817 2501 Belt View Drive high groundwater table and close proximity of Prickly Pear Creek, so there is Helena,MT 59604 an increasingly high probability of contaminating the groundwater and water 406.449.8627 Fax 406.449.8631 supply wells. This situation creates a public health hazard for the community and warrants the need for a centralized wastewater collection and treatment 1NCS system. Without this type of system in place, the local residents face a serious 115 N.Broadway Suite 500 Billings,MT 59101 406.652.5000 Fax 406.248.1363 Page 1 i health risk. Additionally, the Jefferson County Environmental Health Department will continue to have an increasingly difficult time allowing the construction of new homes or businesses in the area unless the proposed septic systems can meet all the required regulations. The end result is essentially a moratorium on new construction, and a very difficult dilemma for the health officials when pre-dated septic systems fail. Great West Engineering was hired to help the District to write a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) and develop a list of centralized wastewater collection, treatment and disposal alternatives for consideration. After evaluating many different alternatives, the District has chosen to move forward with a Level II treatment system as their preferred alternative. Enclosed is a schematic drawing (Figure 2.1) of the proposed wastewater treatment system for your review and comment. The drawing shows the underground collection system network and lift station. The exact treatment and groundwater disposal site is not yet determined; however, Figure 1.1 shows the potential areas. The proposed Level II treatment system is designed to discharge treated effluent to groundwater via a large infiltration gallery, more commonly referred to as a drainfield. This part of the system will be subsurface and requires approximately 5 to 6 acres of land depending the site specific soil characteristics. Level 11 systems typically remove at least 65 percent of the nitrogen in wastewater and have fairly consistent effluent quality throughout the year. We would appreciate feedback from the US Army Corps of Engineers regarding this project as soon as possible. Please send your response back to me at: Rich Fiflbach Great West Engineering 602 Ferguson, Suite 1 Bozeman, MT 59718 Sincerely, Great West Engineering, Inc. R h Fillbach, PE Project Engineer cc. Project File #1-05154 • Todd Kuxhaus, Project Manager— Great West Engineering Page 2 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,OMAHA DISTRICT HELENA REGULATORY OFFICE 10 WEST 15TH STREET,SUITE 2200 HELENA,MONTANA 59626.9705 REPLY TO ArrENT1ON OF - July 16,2010 Regulatory Branch Montana State Program Corps No. NWO-2010-01464-MTH Subject: Clancy Wastewater Treatment System-Prickly Pear Creek Rich Fillbach Great Western Engineering 602 Ferguson, Suite 1 Bozeman, Montana 59718-6483 Dear Mr. Fillbach: We have reviewed the pre-application consultation for the Clancy wastewater treatment system. The proposed work is located in Section 9, Township 8 North,Range 3 West,in Jefferson County, Montana. Under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,Department of the Army(DA) permits are required for the discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S. Waters of the U.S. including the area below the ordinary high water mark of stream channels and lakes or ponds connected to the tributary system, and wetlands adjacent to these waters. 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. In reviewing U.S. Geological Survey maps, aerial photos and our phone conversation on July 15, 2010,this office has the following comments: a. A site visit from our office may need to be conducted once funding and proposed sites are more permanent; furthermore, the Clean Water Act requires that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided where practicable. b. No delineation would be needed if the project is clearly avoiding waters of the U.S. Based on the information provided, a DA permit may be required for this project. The entire project area should be evaluated in the field by a qualified wetland delineator in order to determine the presence of jurisdictional wetlands. This does not eliminate the requirement to obtain other applicable Federal,state,tribal and local permits. Pnnted W 0 Recycled Paw Please contact John Short or myself at (406)441-1375 if you have any questions and reference Corps File Number NWO-2010-01464-MTH. Sincere] Todd N. Tillinger Montana Program Manager I I I i Printed W 0 Recycled Paper BOZEMAN 602 Ferguson Suite 1 �ozeman, MT 59718 06.587.0504 Fax 406.587.0541 GrmtWest. engineering June 27, 2010 Ron Spoon Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks P.O. Box 1137 Townsend, MT 59644 RE: Clancy Water & Sewer District Community Wastewater Treatment System Dear Mr. Spoon: The Clancy Water and Sewer District (District) primarily encompasses the town of Clancy, Montana, which is located in the north central part of Jefferson County in southwestern Montana. The town is situated along Interstate 15 and adjacent to Prickly Pear Creek. More specifically, the town is located at: Township 8 North, Range 3 West, Section 9 -. 46° 27' 2" N latitude and 1110 57' 41" W longitude Enclosed is a map (Figure 1.0) of the District and surrounding planning area to help identify our proposed project location. Clancy is an unincorporated community that for the most part was built prior to the establishment of Health Department regulations, thus many individual septic disposal systems do not comply with current regulations. One of the most prominent non-compliance issues is the close proximity of drinking water wells to septic systems (less than 100-feet separation). The majority of these systems are cesspools, seepage pits or metal septic tank with drainfields that have either failed, or have a high potential of failing in the near future. The soils in this particular area consist of coarse-grained decomposed granite that lacks the organic material necessary to reduce the levels of nitrate and phosphorous. Coupled with poor treatment characteristics of the soils is a HELENA high groundwater table and close proximity of Prickly Pear Creek, so there is PO Box 4817 2501 Belt View Drive an increasingly high probability of contaminating the groundwater and water Helena,MT 59604 supply wells. This situation creates a public health hazard for the community y Fax 406.449.8631 and warrants the need for a centralized wastewater collection and treatment system. Without this type of system in place, the local residents face a serious Q�INCS health risk. Additionally, the Jefferson County Environmental Health 115 N.Broadway Suite 500 Billings,MT 59101 406.652.5000 Fax 406.248.1363 Page 1 Department will continue to have an increasingly difficult time allowing the construction of new homes or businesses in the area unless the proposed septic systems can meet all the required regulations. The end result is essentially a moratorium on new construction, and a very difficult dilemma for the health officials when pre-dated septic systems fail. Great West Engineering was hired to help the District to write a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) and develop a list of centralized wastewater collection, treatment and disposal alternatives for consideration. After evaluating many different alternatives, the District has chosen to move forward with a Level II treatment system as their preferred alternative. Enclosed is a schematic drawing (Figure 2.1) of the proposed wastewater treatment system for your review and comment. The drawing shows the underground collection system network and lift station. The exact treatment and groundwater disposal site is not yet determined; however, Figure 1.1 shows the potential areas. The proposed Level II treatment system is designed to discharge treated effluent to groundwater via a large infiltration gallery, more commonly referred to as a drainfield. This part of the system will be subsurface and requires approximately 5 to 6 acres of land depending the site specific soil characteristics. Level II systems typically remove at least 65 percent of the nitrogen in wastewater and have fairly consistent effluent quality throughout the year. We would appreciate feedback from the Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks regarding this project as soon as possible. Please send your response back to me at: Rich Fillbach Great West Engineering 602 Ferguson, Suite 1 Bozeman, MT 59718 Sincerely, Great West Engineering, Inc. Z& � - R ch Fillbach, PE Project Engineer cc. Project File #1-05154 Todd Kuxhaus, Project Manager— Great West Engineering Eric Roberts — Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks (Helena) Page 2 G\�oe�menla anE Sal4n9a\efiYOae�\Oee4op\LW� 1—SIN—iOf.2 Pa,[ PFR\�Ey"MUCtIa\1-031N—i(1.T—W51RIC.Y FWMH4 MFAeny J♦ 1, q �� M '�.�/__�lr.JM.Nya.'J � { itll lY,N3c .l .a}S:' �;..,. cia �',' g S .. � / i A 1�,F`✓�•fa..aJr ar. rt }y, • ' .any "[ 1��: (. '•u;~a•° � l � a��•kr� ILI a'0 E`AYlpr�a�% law. y '."! ! :i l,t .I�' :.:`f N ,?_ • .q r too{; Mfvi r � � • P e f Aa q n d M F •I r � i Y��Y �nl'�- ':yC .,�jR,..fY+,R0.h N. Y >., " . ,Sa $��a a •. - Q • sT {rte'_"A � �C rr [J�x}�. IV� l •�•ya' F T J�•��II 'NNAwM++ 1 .. S � �T J ,.hNe � s •d •4 �s M a ai+,fr �� mr H �'._ ♦ i fjp! ij, F4 a a p=ro • ai I a s 1 �' r r (nJ MS1M 5'•� , e r ♦ A' Y l ..11 (�1f �! rF It m Z. ,. a f7�KC .� ,. '•w„r �'�w��. a,;�a � o p +P.'i�.r��%'G tai. + 2h � � .. �A� � � ��.b� T,� .r irti •, 1. 1 Y ti 7 CD q N•, 1r 1.. .S i _�.w-.. wr / i�i 1\ 1 �'e -J *c�47�`N(ail •t,�.,.�f Y �r5 'n{F�'�.jiafi'w�.}�j�"�'� ' � �4,Sr'r" i Iw AY A y i " tC ♦ i ' ? t g.} f jq� ! .. �- R4 O,s! 4 1r7'!• •k i„}t 3r+r ! a ! \ y ' •ter • _ �`r�ir •..�,•�.-'i�._ \�yR��7� '�__ �� ? :'C Lt♦ ,- � -- \ � � � �s' • ' _- .7t7�' ... ! �� +� ��� 1., • �r T4 ; III i ►'y - _. w lk 077 0 ENTAALZEnLa1ECItQN J � ; � ♦ .`- ! ,y PNO LIFT STATION � • T y� vi. �i• r .4 { .- k.. � % s. Figure 21 Preliminary Collection Legend: System Layout t DISTRCT BOUNDARY E REON COUNTY I G/1LatW st o�m _ SEWER COLLECTION PIPE CLANACY WASTEWA TER PRELIMINARY FNGINEERIN6 REPORT engiireerin9 c:\oaumsms om s.w�s.\�i'uw„n\w✓uo\� �-oslsl-•o/ax ttim �w\Lxx�di.\�-osi5c-io/f�-lxmwc_ruw.cs.a. ,� � try ! P, r-�,••..' 6+;. i I'. !' r � „ ' e �y � I. f L 1 1/• Jr i � fl f .r_r, jr t•.,,�tll • Y Y y a m I � s•� � - rte.-.: : + _,�� i __ ! x�� �, • 7 r1 E T NK jr Y ' t•Y 'f1 �rK'7[. Al L r Yt � Y r' � r ,}e i`±K'' 1 �f�/'�-.a\ r,�� 1 '*i •` y .r N an iD qc .� a rD N i yj6�iy'�7,�� 7 a i 00y5 r I S t 6J- u itUCv ,i s" q '31b CA 'vim fpelrs5�i :�'-ClnQ�r` "--- IS -here p S'P,ph'c .�rmt!- -For ce �ktrcel � 581:1139 L$- ; earh wars_h__ . Wanks 4-v be ve-ndur � 2oeJun �� 2l�erS Yo( .z5a_:-k haS a ki'censed W6bi le -17avttlr� E7 +Iai'1er Jve yunlcin W hO- e1 se- nced tv d o �w) 2(n1-NbN 1S 4e-rC ? hif�3 T m,'ch J�SSi� Uaner Vic lzin 00 owner ebtLtl it � aa7 a, mono h o halo ,-f heard" anyllu pr � IIiS r house fernery hVeA in rvibidy�4664dM -22S- 3WS: thin ICS Shot1d be, N(Jem ned Who Should dD �Ut ? Seph'c to C.1 an j '�Yy✓ on J named more efiC4 5 aN' �q` - Sue �o�h ran Hidden uurra n T1ZL IZ it 2-1 e c e S t r� yard r ' August 27, 1998 Cary Hanna P.O. Box 76 Clancy, MT 59634 Cary, I have researched all of the options available to you regarding the installation of a septic system in the Clancy townsite for your mobile home. Basically, any new system must meet current state requirements, one of which is the separation of 100 feet from any water source. As we discovered on Tuesday, by the time you comply with all separation distances, there isn't room for a system. The options available are to request a variance (procedure enclosed) or to hire a qualified individual to design a system that would work. Taking the route of requesting a variance is no doubt the quickest and least expensive, however, I am not confident that the County Board of Health wil approve it. By allowing you to install a system that does not meet current regulations, the County is then liable for any consequences that may occur. I don't think the County will be willing to accept that liability. The option of hiring a qualified individual will probably be costly but the only other option available. The risk with this scenerio is that a qualified person may not even see a solution. At this time, I can not allow you to connect your mobile home to your parent's septic system nor can I allow you to install a septic system. If you do not want to proceed with either option listed above, your only other choice is to find another location for your home. If I can answer any further questions please call me at 225-4126. Sincerely, Megan Bullock, SIT Jefferson County (�wirounan�al.Nraffh JJrpartmrnt vU., V.Ewa 59632 (406)225-4126 September 23, 2004 Steve Marks 30 Lump Gulch Road Clancy, Montana 59634 Re: Test pit evaluation Dear Steve, Whenever there is a possibility of ground water being within 7 feet of the surface in the vicinity of a proposed wastewater system, observation pipes must be installed to determine the high groundwater level. Monitoring must be performed during the time of year that the water table is the highest,which is typically during spring runoff. I've enclosed a copy of the procedure for observing and measuring groundwater. Please record your data on the form provided and submit back to this department for review. The Administrative Rules of Montana(ARM17.36.907(10)) are very specific regarding the location of wastewater treatment systems. Absorption trenches must be located at least 100 feet from the 100-year flood level of any water source and under no circumstance can the vertical separation to groundwater be less than 4 feet. Recently I provided you with a copy of an aerial photo from the 1981 flood. These photos were adopted by the County Commission to be used in lieu of flood lain maps. If you disagree with what we consider to be flood lain you have the P P Y ;�' P > Y option of hiring an engineer to study the hydrology and develop a computer model. As soon as you submit the results of your observations, a determination will be made regarding the type of system suitable for your property. If you have any questions,please don't hesitate to contact me at 225-4126. Sincerely, • Megan Bullock, R.S. Eric n � o"�oS � n `�N DoCttir�tnr, i (EIIiCt�r S ilOp Test role#1 ❑ Tess iuk #. 0 Mnnibr ❑ irY�#I Test hole #S 190 lee t 0 Ad eito r gin #s 9G del —[reek 1vaA �s IIIII� G V .tF 1+ 3 2 700 27 2 e ✓ --�_ Cry yew, ban K Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • Appendix G Floodplain Maps i i 'PANEL NOT PRINTEO-AREA IN ZONE C COMMUNI -PANEL NUMBER *30015400256 300154 00 B *300154 00756 COUNTY BOUNDARY _+ LEWIS ANDD CQ K CQ PROADWATER co NATIONAL FLO06 INSORANCE 1AOORAN FIRM F``^SOry nng„ � j I FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ._. CO HELENA o' NATIONAL I ren �ee�---- HELENA JEFFERSON COUNTY, NATIONAL F REST MONTANA 30015401006 \ ` *30015401256 *300154010B *3001540175B (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) I Ii MAP INDEX PANELS PRINTED: 50, 100, 200,226,260,300,325,350, 400,425,450,525,550,575, L 600 x i�s I COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBERS HELENA NATIONAL FOREST. 300154 0001-0600 300154 0200B �I� 300154 02256 }1n 300154 02 B *300154 02758 a.m EFFECTIVE DATE —�--- ---+ — ---- -- =--- ----I --- TI JUNE 17, 1986 —— HELE iEM _ RATIO L �Clz �S,yI FORE NATIONAL OREST DEERLODGE o FedenlEmeagency Management Agency NATIONAL FOREST V Z I° mma I.an anew oup)ma 4 tlm&hea cme reh,=noetl nuw m.p. x oweecxlactal uein9 F-MST Online. TJC map=`Z MmtcM1V,pes wnOmanh wlncM1 may M1¢w�¢n ma4 9W»¢euerrt b IM1e tlate m Ilw -Town of Boulder nne N:¢. Forme lM¢t MCNOt Inrormetlm amen N.uma Roetl I�ararro¢ pmpram nom meFe cM1ecR LM FEMA Flatl Ma03tore a[w.w,.mawlema.wv Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Appendix H Wetlands Map 0 0 0 Clancy, MT Wastewater PER 112-0-0 W 111-59-40 W 111-59-20 W 111-59-0 W 111-58-40 W 111-58-20 W i Z a Legend N - z 0810 ever scan Z � 0 ON of..go IN V Interstate Major Roads Z n Other Road Interstate Urata MCMny U5 highway < z Roads Clancy' , Cities NO—Data USGS Ouad Index 24K ' Lower 18 Wetland Pplygone Estuarine am Marine Despeover ElOnlidne,am Man--WMIMM z Freshwater Lnwrgent Worland ° Free heater F.sNNShrua Wetland b N +n.Freshwater Ports Z ®Il OMer 1q11 myed. Lower 48 Available Wetland Data Non-Digaal Maim No Data Z o m Scan NHD SVeams N m I ° -Counties 100K < z 3 States 100K E::] South America i 0 North America 112-0-0 W 111-59-40 W 111-59-20 W 111-59-0 W 111-58-40 W 111-58-20 W Map center:46°28' 75"N, 7110 59'S"W Scale: 1:19,446 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate.current,or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION. Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Appendix I Census Data MDOC - Treasure State Endowment Program Page 1 of 2 Montan a'a oftici ai Statu weberta Search for census data, used by the Treasure State Endowment Program and the Community Development Block Grant Program. Target rates are calculated for the community or county. Select the City/Designated location I Clancy CDP or select the County Choose County City Clancy CDP County Jefferson Total Population 1,406 Total Households 540 Median Household Income $52,938 Low& Moderate Income Percent 23.2 Percent Poverty 3.3 Target Rates Water & Waste Water $101.46 Water Only $61.76 WasteWater Only $39.70 . Solid Waste Only $13.23 Amounts are computed using the 2000 census and target percentages based on a target rate survey completed in 2003. The target percentages are: 2.3% combined (water and wastewater) 1.4% for water alone 0.9% for wastewater alone 0.3% for solid waste To see a map of the City/Town/CDP you are interested in, go to the U.S. Census Bureau (htti)://fti)2,census.gov/qeo/mai)s/bik2OOO/st3O Montana/Place/) web site which includes an Index of all Places in Montana. Maps are in PDF format. Instructions on how to view and print Census Bureau PDF maps. (htto //www.census.gov/qeo/www/tiger/rd 2ktiger/ol maps/pdforint.htmll) For more information about Census 2000 maps, please contact the Census and Economic Information Center, at (406) 841-2743 or email ceicQmt.gov (mailto:ceic(o)mt.gov) . Contacts: Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP) 406 841-2770 Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) 406 841-2770 Census & Economic Information Center 406 841-2740 Community Development Block Grant - (Business Resources) 406 841-2733 Definitions page for LMI web site MDOC - Treasure State Endowment Program Page 2 of 2 Census Designated Place(CDP): Census designated places(CDPs) have been created for each decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated places. CDPs are delineated to provide census data for concentrations of population, housing, and commercial structures that are identifiable by name but are not within an incorporated place. CDP boundaries usually are defined in cooperation with state, local, and tribal officials. These boundaries,which usually coincide with visible features or the boundary of an adjacent incorporated place or other legal entity boundary, have no legal status, nor do these places have officials elected to serve traditional municipal functions. Household:A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence. Income of households:This includes the income of the householder and all other individuals 15 years old and over in the household,whether they are related to the householder or not. Individuals for whom poverty status is determined: Poverty status was determined for all people except institutionalized people, people in military group quarters, people in college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old. Low and Moderate Income Percent: Low and Moderate Income Percent is calculated by U.S. Housing and Urban Development(HUD)using data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Decennial Census, specifically for the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). LMI families are defined as those families whose income does not exceed 80% of the county median income for the previous year or 80%of the median income of the entire non-metropolitan area of the State of Montana, whichever is higher. Median income: The median income divides the income distribution into two equal groups, one having incomes above the median, and other having incomes below the median. Population: All people (male and female, child and adult) living in a given geographic area. Notes: Total Population and Total Households are from Summary File(SF) 1, 100%data. Poverty Rates and Median Household Income are from Summary File(SF) 3, Sample data. Low and Moderate Income Percentage was developed by HUD using Census 2000 data. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Decennial Census of Population and Housing, Summary File (SF) 1 and Summary File (SF) 3 and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD), Community Planning and Development i Table DP-2. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000 Geographic area: Clancy CDP, Montana "rata based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see text] Subject Number Percent Subject Number Percent SCHOOL ENROLLMENT NATIVITY AND PLACE OF BIRTH Population 3 years and over Total population.......................... 1,467 100.0 enrolled In school.................... 326 100.0 Native....................................... 1,454 99.1 Nursery school, preschool..................... 7 2.1 Born in United States....................... 1,441 98.2 Kindergarten................................. 31 9.5 State of residence........................ 770 52.5 Elementary school (grades 1-8)................ 163 50.0 Different state............................ 671 45.7 High school(grades 9-12)..................... 98 30.1 Born outside United States.................. 13 0.9 College or graduate school.................... 27 8.3 Foreign born................................. 13 0.9 Entered 1990 to March 2000 .............. 5 0.3 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Naturalized citizen.......................... 5 0.3 Population 25 years and over.......... 1,029 100.0 Not a citizen............................... 8 0.5 Less than 9th grade.......................... 23 2.2 9th to 12th grade, no diploma.................. 30 2,9 REGION OF BIRTH OF FOREIGN BORN High school graduate(includes equivalency)..... 280 27.2 Total (excluding born at sea).............. 13 100.0 Some college,no degree...................... 232 22.5 Europe..... ............................... 2 15.4 Associate degree............................. 59 5.7 Asia ........................................ 11 84.6 Bachelor's degree............................ 297 28.9 Africa ....................................... - Graduate or professional degree............... 108 10.5 Oceania..................................... - - Latin America................................ - Percent high school graduate or higher......... 94.8 (X) Northern America............................. - Percent bachelor's degree or higher............ 39.4 (x) LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME MARITAL STATUS Population 5 years and over.............. 1,381 100.0 Population 15 years and over.......... 1,178 100.0 English only ................................. 1,341 97.1 Never married ............................... 163 13.8 Language other than English .................. 40 2.9 Now married, except separated................ 857 72.8 Speak English less than"very well" ........ 9 0.7 Separated................................... 12 1.0 Spanish................................... 26 1.9 Widowed.................................... 40 3.4 Speak English less than"very well" ........ 7 0.5 Female.................................... 26 2.2 Other Indo-European languages ............. 10 0.7 Divorced .................................... 106 9.0 Speak English less than"very well" ........ 2 0.1 Female.................................... 45 3.8 Asian and Pacific Island languages........... 4 0.3 Speak English less than"very well" ........ - - GRANDPARENTS AS CAREGIVERS ANCESTRY(single or multiple) Grandparent living in household with Total population.......................... 1,467 100.0 one or more own grandchildren under Total ancestries reported................... 1,858 126.7 18 years............................. 11 100.0 Grandparent responsible for grandchildren ...... - - Arab........................................ - - Czech ...................................... 25 1.7 VETERAN STATUS Danish...................................... 58 4.0 Civilian population 18 years and over .. 1,110 100.0 Dutch....................................... 35 2.4 Civilian veterans ............................. 227 20.5 English...................................... 216 14.7 French(except Basque) ...................... 66 4.5 DISABILITY STATUS OF THE CIVILIAN French Canadian'............................ 11 0.7 NONINSTITUTIONALIZED POPULATION German..................................... 384 26.2 Population 5 to 20 years............... 314 100.0 Greek....................................... 4 0.3 With a disability.......... .................... 9 2.9 Hungarian................................... 10 0.7 Irish'........................................ 273 18.6 Population 21 to 64 years.............. 940 100.0 Italian....................................... 68 4.6 With a disability.............................. 96 10.2 Lithuanian................................... 9 0.6 Percent employed.......................... 60.4 (X) Norwegian................................... 181 12.3 No disability ................................. 844 89.8 Polish....................................... 35 2.4 Percent employed.......................... 85.4 (X) Portuguese................. Population 65 years and over........,. 127 100.0 Russian..................................... 13 0.9 With a disability.............................. 44 34.6 Scotch-Irish.................................. 44 3.0 Scottish..................................... 71 4.8 RESIDENCE IN 1995 Slovak...................................... - - Population 5 years and over........... 1,381 100.0 Subsaharan African........................... - - Same house in 1995.......................... 874 63.3 Swedish..................................... 90 6.1 Different house in the U.S. in 1995............. 499 36.1 Swiss....................................... 6 0.4 Same county .............................. 131 9.5 Ukrainian.................................... - - Different county............................ 368 26.6 United States or American..................... 63 4.3 Same state.............................. 196 14.2 Welsh....................................... 13 0.9 Different st ate............................ 172 12.5 West Indian(excluding Hispanic groups)........ - °Isewherein 1995,........................... Ill 0.6 Other ancestries ............................. 183 12.5 -Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X)Not applicable. 'The data represent a combination of two ancestries shown separately in Summary File 3.Czech includes Czechoslovakian. French includes Alsa- tian. French Canadian includes Acadian/Cajun. Irish includes Celtic. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census,Census 2000. 2 U.S.census Bureau Table OP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000 Geographic area: Clancy CDP, Montana Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error,and definitions, see text] Subject Number Percent Subject Number Percent EMPLOYMENT STATUS INCOME IN 1999 Population 16 years and over............ 1,154 100.0 Households............................. 585 100.0 In labor force ................................ 869 75.3 Less than$10,000............................ 21 3.6 Civilian labor force.......................... 869 75.3 $10,000 to$14,999........................... 13 2.2 Employed ............................... 843 73.1 $15,000 to$24,999........................... 69 11.8 Unemployed............................. 26 2.3 $25,000 to$34,999........................... 70 12.0 Percent of civilian labor force............ 3.0 (X) $35.000 to$49,999........................... 97 16.6 Armed Forces.............................. - $50,000 to$74,999........................... 159 27.2 Not in labor force...... ....................... 285 24.7 $75,000 to$99,999........................... 96 16.4 Females 16 years and over .............. 553 100.0 $100,000 to$149,999......................... 46 7.9 In labor force ................................ 398 72.0 $150,000 to$199,999......................... 8 1.4 Civilian labor farce.......................... 398 72.0 $200,000 or more ............................ 6 1.0 Employed ......................... 377 68.2 Median household income(dollars)............. 52,937 (X) Own children under 6 years.............. 106 100.0 With earnings...... ..... ....... .... .......... 512 87.5 All parents in family in labor force.............. 77 72.6 Mean earnings(dollars)' .................... 56,177 (X) With Social Security income................... 108 18.5 COMMUTING TO WORK Mean Social Security income(dollars)' ....... 12,719 (X) Workers 16 years and over .............. 839 100.0 With Supplemental Security Income ............ 6 1.0 Car,truck, or van--drove alone............... 730 87.0 Mean Supplemental Security Income Car,truck,or van--carpooled................. 62 7.4 (dollars)' ..... 4,983 (X) (dollars)' ...... ........................... Public transportation(including taxicab)......... - With public assistance income................. 3 0.5 Walked...................................... 8 1.0 Mean public assistance income (dollars)' ..... 2,633 (X) Other means................................. 4 0.5 With retirement income ....................... 112 19.1 Worked at home ............................. 35 4.2 Mean retirement income(dollars)'............ 18,758 (X) Mean travel time to work(minutes)' ............ 20.8 (X) Families ................................ 455 100.0 Employed civilian population Less than$10,000............................ 6 1.3 16 years and over..................... 843 100.0 $10,000 to$14,999........................... 1 0.2 �OCCUPATION $15,000 to$24,999........................... 30 6.6 `lanagement, professional, and related $25,000 to$34,999........................... 37 8.1 )ccupations ................................ 347 412 $35,000 to$49,999........................... 75 16.5 Service occupations .......................... 87 10.3 $50,000 to$74,999........................... 160 35.2 Sales and office occupations .................. 260 30.8 $75,000 to$99,999........................... 91 20.0 Farming, fishing,and forestry occupations....... 4 0.5 $100,000 to$149,999......................... 42 9.2 Construction, extraction, and maintenance $150,000 to$199,999......................... 7 1.5 occupations ................................ 97 11.5 $200,000 or more ............................ 6 1.3 Production, transportation, and material moving Median family income(dollars)................. 59,766 (X) occupations ................................ 48 5.7 Per capita income(dollars)' ................... 23,492 (X) INDUSTRY Median earnings(dollars): Agriculture,forestry,fishing and hunting, Male full-time,year-round workers.............. 38,750 (X) and mining ................................. 50 5.9 Female full-time,year-round workers ........... 24,091 (X) Construction................................. 86 10.2 Manufacturing................................ 40 4.7 Number Percent Wholesale trade.............................. 36 4.3 below below Retail trade........... .... 77 9.1 poverty poverty Transportation and warehousing,and utilities.... 18 2.1 Subject level level Information .................................. 15 1.8 Finance, insurance,real estate, and rental and POVERTY STATUS IN 1999 leasing..................................... 64 7.6 Families ................................ 9 2.0 Professional, scientific, management, adminis- With related children under 18 years.. .......... 6 3.0 trative, and waste management services....... 64 7.6 With related children under 5 years........... 6 8.8 Educational, health and social services ......... 150 17.8 Arts, entertainment, recreation,accommodation Families with female householder, no and food services ........................... 59 7.0 husband present....................... - - Other services(except public administration) .... 42 5.0 With related children under 18 years............ - - Public administration.......................... 142 16.8 With related children under 5 years........... - - CLASS OF WORKER Individuals.............................. 48 3.3 Private wage and salary workers............... 529 62.8 18 years and over............................ 35 3.2 Government workers.......................... 253 30.0 65 years and over.......................... 5 3.9 Self-employed workers in own not incorporated Related children under 18 years ............... 11 3.1 business ................................... 61 7.2 Related children 5 to 17 years............... 4 1.5 npaid family workers ........................ - - Unrelated individuals 15 years and over......... 22 14.1 -Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X)Not applicable. 'If the denominator of a mean value or per capita value is less than 30, then that value is calculated using a rounded aggregate in the numerator. See text. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. 3 U.S.Census Bureau Table DP-4. Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000 Geographic area: Clancy CDP, Montana "7ata based on a sample. For Information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see text] Subject Number Percent Subject Number Percent Total housing units.................... 578 100.0 OCCUPANTS PER ROOM UNITS IN STRUCTURE Occupied housing units ............... 563 100.0 1-unit,detached.............................. 499 86.3 1.00 or less.................................. 557 98.9 1-unit,attached .............................. - - 1.01 to 1.50 .......1..1.11................... 1 0.2 2 units ...................................... 4 0.7 1.51 or more................................. 5 0.9 3 or units.................................. - - 5 to 9 units.................................. - - Specified owner-occupied units........ 343 100.0 10 to 19 units............1................111 - - VALUE 20 or more units ............................. - - Less than$50,000............................ 7 2.0 Mobile home.........1111.................... 75 13.0 $50,000 to$99,999........................... 42 12.2 Boat, RV,van, etc............................ - - $100,000 to$149,999......................... 114 33.2 $150,000 to$199,999......................... 129 37.6 YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT $200,000 to$299,999......................... 45 13.1 1999 to March 2000.......................... - - $300,000 to$499,999.......................... 6 1.7 1995 to 1998 ................................ 54 9.3 $500,000 to$999,999......................... - - 1990 to 1994 ................................ 64 11.1 $1,000,000 or more........................... - - 1980 to 1989 ................................ 128 22.1 Median(dollars).............................. 152,700 (X) 1970 to 1979 ................................ 207 35.8 1960 to 1969 ................................ 26 4.5 MORTGAGE STATUS AND SELECTED 1940 to 1959 ................................ 49 8.5 MONTHLY OWNER COSTS 1939 or earlier............................... 50 8.7 With a mortgage ............................. 269 78.4 Less than$300 .......................... 7 2.0 ROOMS $300 to$499 ............................ 7 2.0 1 room...................................... 12 2.1 $500 to$699 ............................ 47 13.7 2 rooms..................................... 5 0.9 $700 to$999 ............................ 60 17.5 3 rooms..................................... 21 3.6 $1,000 to$1,499......................... 104 303 4 rooms..................................... 65 11.2 $1,500 to$1,999......................... 35 10.2 5 rooms..................................... 56 9.7 $2,000 or more .......................... 9 2.6 6 rooms..................................... 115 19.9 Median(dollars).......................... 1,063 (X) 7 rooms..................................... 58 10.0 Not mortgaged............................... 74 21.6 rooms...................................... 123 21.3 Median(dollars).......................... 275 (X) 9 or more rooms............................. 123 21.3 Median(rooms).............................. 6.8 (X) SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD Occupied housing units ............... 563 100.0 INCOME IN 1999 YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT Less than 15.0 percent........................ 134 39.1 1999 to March 2000.......................... 66 11.7 15.0 to 19.9 percent.......................... 64 18.7 1995 to 1998 ................................ 156 27.7 20.0 to 24.9 percent.......................... 46 13A 1990 to 1994 ................................ 120 213 25.0 to 29.9 percent.......................... 31 9.0 1980 to 1989 ................................ 138 24.5 30.0 to 34.9 percent.......................... 21 6.1 1970 to 1979 ................................ 54 9.6 35.0 percent or more ......................... 47 13.7 1969 or earlier............................... 29 5.2 Not computed................................ - - VEHICLES AVAILABLE Specified renter-occupied units........ 67 100.0 None ....................................... 13 23 GROSS RENT 1 ........................................... 84 14.9 Less than$200 .............................. 2 3.0 2........................................... 218 38.7 $200 to$299 ................................ 5 7.5 3 or more ................................... 246 44.0 $300 to$499 ................................ 24 35.8 $500 to$749 ................................ 21 31.3 HOUSE HEATING FUEL $750 to$999 ................................ 11 16.4 Utility gas ................................... 430 76.4 $1.000 to$1,499............................. Bottled,tank, or LP gas....................... 25 4.4 $1,500 or more .............................. - - Electricity.................................... 36 6.4 No cash rent.............................I... 4 6.0 Fuel oil, kerosene,etc ........................ 10 1.8 Median (dollars).............................. 504 (X) Coal or coke................................. - - Wood....................................... 52 9.2 GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF Solar energy................................. 2 0.4 HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1999 Other fuel ................................... 4 0.7 Less than 15.0 percent........................ 19 28.4 No fuel used................................. 4 0.7 15.0 to 19.9 percent.......................... 8 11.9 20.0 to 24.9 percent......................1111 8 11.9 SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS 25.0 to 29.9 percent.......................... 4 6.0 Lacking complete plumbing facilities............ 6 1.1 30.0 to 34.9 percent.......................... - �.acking complete kitchen facilities.............. - - 35.0 percent or more ......................... 19 28.4 o telephone service ......................... - - Not computed................................ 9 13.4 -Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X)Not applicable. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. 4 U.S.Census Bureau Clancy CDP, Montana - Fact Sheet - American FactFinder Pagel of 2 Bureau US Census lmww'. American FactFinder FACT SHEET i Clancy CDP, Montana view a Fact Sheet for a race,ethnic,or ancestry group Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights: General Characteristics-show more>> Number Percent U.S. Total population 1,406 map brief Male 714 50.8 49.1% map brief Female 692 49.2 50.9% map brief Median age(years) 41.7 (X) 35.3 map brief Under 5 years 75 5.3 6.8% map 18 years and over 1,036 73.7 74.3% 65 years and over 110 7.8 12.4% map brief One race 1,382 98.3 97.60/0 White 1,353 96.2 75.1% map brief Black or African American 2 0.1 12.3% map brief American Indian and Alaska Native 13 0.9 0.9% map brief Asian 8 0.6 16% map brief Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0.1% map brief Some other race 6 0.4 5.5% map Two or more races 24 1.7 2.4% map brief Hispanic or Latino(of any race) 28 2.0 12.5% map brief • Household population 1,406 100.0 97.2% map brief Group quarters population 0 0.0 2.8% map Average household size 2.60 (X) 2.59 map brief Average family size 2.93 (X) 3.14 map Total housing units 559 map Occupied housing units 540 96.6 91.0% brief Owner-occupied housing units 472 87.4 66.2% map Renter-occupied housing units 68 12.6 33.8% map brief Vacant housing units 19 3.4 9.0% map Social Characteristics-show more>> Number Percent U.S. Population 25 years and over 1,029 High school graduate or higher 976 94.8 80.4% map brief Bachelor's degree or higher 405 39.4 24.4% map Civilian veterans(civilian population 18 years and 227 20.5 12.7% map brief over) Disability status(population 5 years and over) 149 10.8 19.3% map brief Foreign bom 13 0.9 11.1% map brief Male, Now married,except separated(population 15 422 68.4 56.7% brief years and over) Female, Now married, except separated(population 435 77.5 52.t% brief 15 years and over) Speak a language other than English at home ° (population 5 years and over) 40 2.9 17.91° map brief Economic Characteristics-show more>> Number Percent U.S. In labor force(population 16 years and over) 869 75.3 63.9% brief Mean travel time to work in minutes(workers 16 years 20.8 (X) 25.5 map brief and over) Median household income in 1999(dollars) 52,938 (X) 41,994 map . Median family income in 1999(dollars) 59,766 (X) 50,046 map Per capita income in 1999(dollars) 23,492 (X) 21,587 map Families below poverty level 9 2.0 9.2% map brief Individuals below poverty level 48 3.3 12.4% map Housing Characteristics -show more >> Number Percent U.S. httnJ/factfinder.neTnsncvnv/servlet/SAFFFnr,.ts9 Pve.nt=SearrhkaPn iri=Rr ar CnntPVt--.G V1V11111 f1 Clancy CDP, Montana- Fact Sheet- American FactFinder Page 2 of 2 Single-family owner-occupied homes 343 brief Median value(dollars) 152,700 (X) 119,600 map brief Median of selected monthly owner costs (X) (X) brief With a mortgage(dollars) 1,063 (X) 1,088 map Not mortgaged(dollars) 275 (X) 295 (X)Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1)and Summary File 3(SF 3) The letters PDF or symbol indicate a document is in the Portable Document Format(PDF).To view the file you will need the Adobe AO Acrobat®Reader,which is available for free from the Adobe web site. httnc//factfinde,r.ceneueunv/servlet/1,;AFFFacta7 event=Cenrchkoren id=k aenContext=Rr s/tzi?nln Jefferson County, Montana by Block Group - TM-P063. Median Household Income in 19... Page 1 of 1 U.S. Census Bureau American FactFinder TM Median Household Income in 1999: 2000 Universe: Households LA Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3(SF 3)-Sample Data Jefferson County, Montana by Block Group NOTE:Data based on a sample except in P3.P4,113,and H4.For information on confidentiality protection,sampling error, nonsampling error,definitions,and count corrections see http://factfinder.census.govlhomelonidatawles/expsf3.htm. Le end 279 Data classes Dollars 25000 - 25000 27396 - 29135 141 34722 - 36750 fr 54732 - 54732 62375 - CAW Features //Major Rom L•raamlWa:cromy /✓i:raamlWa:erOOay r x • irenn arc -a: vi si olc a- :-is zoo, level e N Approx.B m as ross. Source:U.S.Census Bureau,Census 2000 Summary File 3.Matrix P53. h33., 1/f�*F.,,.7Ar..A..a„a ....�./�A...IAt/'f'L.....�a;..T��..F..,..,oePsCo..,l0>•91,.,,_..A, rA�..F.,o«a— V71/7111 f1 School District Demographics System - School District Profile Page 1 of 2 IeSc NATIONAL CENM jai EDUCATION STATISTICS School District Demographics System I I Publications & Products I Data Tools I Staff School District Profile Demographic 2000 Data (STP2) - Profile Data School district profiles Download this profile(.zip) Format for printing Click to change data set to re Demographic 2000 Data (STP2) r Agency Finance Survey FY 2000 Data (F-33) r P.L.94-171 (Race& Ethnicity) A set of basic characteristics for the School District you selected is provided below. CLANCY ELEMENTARY,JEFFERSON COUNTY, Montana [3006640] See listing in the NCES School District Locator Subject Number Percent Total Population 2,545 NIA SEX AND AGE Q Male 1,298 51.0 Under 5 Years 66 2.6 • 5 to 9 years 93 3.7 10 to 14 years 110 4.3 15 to 17 years 75 2.9 18 to 19 years 45 1.8 Female 1,247 49.D Under 5 Years 65 2.6 5 to 9 years 82 3.2 10 to 14 years 111 4.4 15 to 17 years 60 2.4 18 to 19 years 29 1.1 RELATIONSHIP BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE (INCLUDING LIVING ALONE) Q Total Population in Households 2,510 100 In Family Households 2,274 N/A Householder 752 100 Male 647 86.0 Female 105 14.0 TENURE U) Total Occupied Housing Units 940 100 Owner Occupied Housing Units 819 87.1 Renter Occupied Housing Units 121 12.9 AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE Q Average Household Size 2.67 N/A AVERAGE FAMILY SIZE Q Average Family Size 2.99 N/A SEX BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER Q Total 1,795 N/A School District Demographics System - School District Profile Page 2 of 2 Male 925 51.5 12th grade, no diploma 15 1.6 High school graduate (includes equivalency) 260 28.1 Some college, 1 or more years, no degree 160 17.3 Bachelor's degree 240 25.9 Master's degree 60 6.5 Professional school degree 30 3.2 Doctorate degree 10 1.1 Female 870 48.5 12th grade, no diploma 15 1.7 High school graduate(includes equivalency) 250 28.7 Some college, 1 or more years, no degree 170 19.5 Bachelor's degree 220 25.3 Masters degree 60 6.9 Professional school degree 30 3.4 Doctorate degree 4 0.5 MEDIAN GROSS RENT (DOLLARS) Q Median gross rent 502 N/A MEDIAN VALUE (DOLLARS) FOR ALL OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS ) Median value 145,100 N/A PER CAPITA INCOME IN 1999 (DOLLARS) Q Per capita income in 1999 22,415 N/A MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1999 (DOLLARS) BY TENURE W Total 53,712 NIA Owner occupied 56,316 N/A Renter occupied 35,417 NIA Common Core of Data, Local Education Agency Universe Survey, 1999-2000(LACES) Total Students 345 Total FTE Teachers 20.4 Total Schools 2 Source: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education Bureau of the Census, US Department of Commerce SAIPE - Counties in Montana: 2008 Page 1 of 1 . Census.gov,People and Households)SAIPE Main>SAIPE Data,Interactive Tables Select: I Different Counties Different State Different year Go Estimates for Montana Counties, 2008 Tables: [ Median household income, in dollars] Median household income, in dollars, 2008 ID State and County Estimate 90% Confidence Interval 30043 Jefferson County 56,650 51,430 to 61,871 2008 State-Level Estimation Details 12008 County-Level Estimation Details I Back to top Final release date for these estimates: November 2009 0 Select: I Different Counties Different State Different year Go Beginning with the estimates for 2005, data from the American Community Survey were used in the estimation procedure, all prior years used data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplements of the Current Population Survey. There is uncertainty associated with all estimates in this program. Where possible, we quantify this uncertainty through confidence intervals(please see a basic explanation of confidence intervals). For detail on the sources of uncertainty for state and county estimates, please see Quantifying Uncertainty for State and County Estimates. For a discussion of estimating the relative magnitude of this uncertainty in SAIPE school districts estimates, please see Quantifying Relative Error in School District Estimates. Before attempting to compare estimates, please see the General Cautions page. Source:U.S.Census Bureau I Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates( Last Revised: l.F�...ii......... ..........� ,.,...r,.,.: h:_L...:....,r,...:_,. ,.,_ iii ni�..�.� 1990 CENSUS OF MONTANA'S RESIDENT POPULATION (Released January 24, 1991 by the U.S. Bureau of the Census) 4/1/90 4/1/80 % CHANGE CENSUS CENSUS 80 TO 90 . MONTANA 799, 065 786, 690 1.6% Beaverhead 8, 424 8, 186 2.9% Big Born 11,337 11, 096 2 .28 Blaine 6,728 6, 999 -3. 98 Broadwater 3, 318 3,267 1. 6% Carbon 8, 080 8,099 -0.28 Carter 1, 503 1,799 -16.5% Cascade 77, 691 80, 696 -3.7% Chouteau 5,452 6, 092 -10.58 Custer 11,697 13, 109 -10.8% Daniels 2,266 2,835 -20.1% Dawson 9,505 11, 805 -19.5% Deer Lodge* 10, 356 12,518 -17.3% Fallon 3, 103 3,763 -17.5% Fergus 12, 083 13, 076 -7.6% Flathead 59, 218 51, 966 14 .0% Gallatin 50, 463 42,865 17 .7% Garfield 1, 589 1, 656 -4.0% Glacier 12, 121 10, 628 14.0% Golden Valley 912 1, 026 -11.1% Granite 2, 546 2, 700 -5. 6% 17. 6r,4 17 985 -1 Psk Jefferson 7, 939 7,029 12. 9 Judith Basin 2,282 2, 646 -13. 6$ Lake 21, 041 19,056 10.4% Lewis and Clark 47, 495 43,039 10.4% Liberty 2, 295 2, 329 -1.5% Lincoln 17, 481 17, 752 -1.5% McCone 2,276 2, 7,02 -15.8% Madison 5, 989 5, 448 9. 9% Meagher 1, 819 2, 154 -15.6% Mineral 3, 315 3, 675 -9.8% Missoula 78, 687 76, 016 3.5% Musselshell 4, 106 4, 428 -7 .3% Park* 14, 484 12,869 12. 5% Petroleum 519 655 -20. 8% Phillips 5, 163 5, 367 -3.8% Pondera 6, 433 6,731 -4.4% Powder River 2, 090 2, 520 -17.1% Powell 6, 620 6, 958 -4. 9% Prairie 1, 383 1,836 -24 .7% Ravalli 25, 010 22,493 11.2% Richland 10, 716 12,243 -12.5% Roosevelt 10, 999 10, 467 5.1% Rosebud 10, 505 9, 899 6.1% Sanders 8, 669 8, 675 -0.1% Sheridan 4,732 5,414 -12 . 6% Silver Bow 33, 941 38, 092 -10. 9% Stillwater 6,536 5, 598 16.88 Sweet Grass 3, 154 3,216 -1.98 Teton 6,271 6, 491 -3.48 Toole 5, 046 5, 559 -9.28 Treasure 874 981 -10.98 Valley 8,239 10,250 -19. 68 Wheatland 2,246 2,359 -4.88 Wibaux 1, 191 1, 476 -19.3% Yellowstone 113, 419 108,035 5.08 * Table revised July 1992 to reflect corrected 1990 Census totals for Deer Lodge and Park Counties. More detailed information can be obtained from the Census & Economic Information Center, Montana Department of Commerce, 1424 9th Ave. , Helena, MT 59620 (406) 444-2896. 7/92 80-90.cty . Population Projections Projections are based on assumptions about future demographic trends and illustrate plausible courses of future population change based on assumptions about future births, deaths, international migration, and domestic migration. NPA Data Services Inc., is an economic research and data services located in Washington, D.C. and periodically releases State and County population projections. The last projections for Montana counties were released in November of 2006. The projections show that Western Montana counties are expected to see the greatest increases in population in the state during the next 2 decades. NPA Data Services predicts that Flathead County will see a 71 percent increase in population from 2000 to 2030. The only counties that are projected to have a higher percentage increase are Ravalli and Gallatin Counties. The approximated 85 percent increase in Ravalli County represents a numerical increase of about 30,600 and 58,189 in Gallatin County. Flathead County is expected to increase in numbers by 52,779. Figure 3.10 Montana Counties Population Projections 2000-2030 MONTANA POPULATION PROJECTIONS* Percent Change between Census 2000 and NPA Projections for 2030 TOTAL POPULATION MONTANA PERCENT CHANGE: 33% umnti e0inela 5neam au% -tt% -, Bulne -19% 8076 Rass+en -1f% sx rccln Q u R.xua� &% .10% k c .2% 17% ysr:..a% y r t% b% -1Tb %to% Naaw MeeOftar YteeauM. Miasalstet .20% Fap.i 2% 'Ne% '� ®sve Werer -14% 4e% -11°4 Percent Change ti in Population Loss of Population m,.vewem.maa.�waaene. 0.110 100 50 25 0 50 i00 _10.1 t.250 a w ros emw.m ncewnn -25.t to 50.0 to Macs v.s ...nm.nrt 1w:ou•.os _Gam.!50.1.,Mon n¢xo.emao, + ..aouo+an.sN.<...rc zoce m.usc+n.nnK+,ea<,�ua<w.mw+.mawmmen.ain�+r.e oa.m.:ws-amwyan<.nciyzmrmai m.a According the latest Census estimates, Flathead County has moved from being the 4th most populated county in Montana, to the third most populated. Common to most rapidly growing counties is that they all have at least one major city that is experiencing high growth rates. All three cities in Flathead County are experiencing rapid growth. Page 1 of 1 Oick here to close nindoasnd arum In inumcdve man. r— 2000 Census Block Population Map-System Output Map Date 11131201 Width of Map=1.44 Miles This mep Produced by the Nawd Resource Infotmanon Syaem-Udena Mf 59620 Selection Area 1 COUNTY='MFMRSON With a Butler of 000 Miles PoPdalio n/S�warc Mile Q uwild.ahild El o-2 220 Eq loo-®a El o eram Nuys a. Iwteruue Rnute U.S.Raotw Mwtatu Rwte S..W.,,R.W. Tw Popdatb w 0-100 • 131-yom ® 1.00L-SAGO ® Ow Nwo ft., —Malwr riw ratrca. — odwrst.•a. I Uw-wa.ed skean St.. Water Body .LaIm/Pond " SwamP/Marsh Glacih 1_LL- // .1 � _/. .T..'..Ala ._11T.._C.t_iTl_11/l A1^1PT _ ♦T\ nT .fT 111'11�n1n Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Appendix J GWIC Well Information Public Water Supply (PWS) Wells --sue Public Water Supply System Montana Department of Return to PWS Query �NVIAOIVMENTAL QUALITY Return to PWS Report s Data Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001400 Name:CHUBBYS BAR AND GRILL City: CLANCY County: JEFFERSON Tot Pop:108 Pri Src: GW Class: NC Last Snty Sry Dt: 01/26/2009 Activity Status: A -rype . Dts Eff Begn Dt Avg Daily CM 1 1/1-12/31 01126/2009 100 T RS 3 1/1-12/31 01/26/2009 2 R 111-12/31 01/26/2009 6 NT Administrative Contact Financial Contact Owner SIMAC, DAVID SIMAC, DAVID SIMAC, DAVID Owner MCDONNELL, MARK Oacilities and Entry Points Status: A 02/14/2000 Fac ID r ■1 • ON Src: GW Lat/Long Dec: DMS: Srnp Pt ID Status Description SP001 A 04/13/2000 SP FOR DS Status: A 06/25/2003 Fac ID � " ONTROL Src: GW Lat/Long Dec: DMS: Status: A 06/25/2003 Fac ID � TREATMENT PLANT Src: GW Lat/Long Dec: DMS: TP Units: P341 P660 S460 '�m--pPL I■ Status Descriptbn A 06/25/2003 EP FOR TP001 Status: A 02/14/2000 Fac ID 10111111511111111111 = Src: GW Lat/Long Dec: DMS: May 11, 2010 3:42 PM Page 1 of 17 I C*=RONMENTAL' Public Water Supply System a Department of Return to PWS Query QUALITY Return to PWS Reports is Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001400 Name:CHUBBYS BAR AND GRILL (continued) Sample Schedules/Monitoring Requirements Fac ID: DS001 Fac Name: DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Status: A Src:GW . 'a Pa SP001 A SP FOR DS 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) 09/01/2007 1/1-12/31 1 RT MN Fac ID: TP001 Fac Name: TREATMENT PLANT Status A Src GW Descriptio EP502 A EP FOR TP001 Beg Dat Init MP Be Seas Coll Pe Requ�en NITR CDS NITRATE NITRITE 01101/2003 01/01/2003 1/1-12/31 1 RT YR Bacti Results FROM 01/01/1980 TO 05/11/2010 Number Ong Lab 04/20010 H10040347-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 04/26/2010 H10040347-001A RT 3014 E. COLT A - 03/30/2010 H10030373-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/30/2010 H10030373-001A RT 3014 E. COLT A - 02/25/2010 H10020295-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/25/2010 H10020295-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 01/29/2010 H10010277-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/29/2010 H10010277-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 12102/2009 H09120038-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12102/2009 H09120038-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 11102/2009 H09110032-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/02/2009 H09110032-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 09/3012009 H09100020-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 09/30/2009 H09100020-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/03/2009 H09080007-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 08103/2009 H09080007-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 06/3012009 H09060431-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/30/2009 H09060431-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 05/2812009 H09050349-001A RT 3014 E. COLT A - 05/28/2009 H09050349-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/30/2009 H09040288-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/30/2009 H09040288-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 03/30/2009 H09030231-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/30/2009 H09030231-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 02/04/2009 H09020039-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/04/2009 H09020039-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 12/29/2008 H08120233-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 12/29/2008 H08120233-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/24/2008 H08110257-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - May 11, 2010 3:42 PM Page 2 of 17 --� Public Water Supply System Montana Departmrnt of Return to PWS Query NVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Return to PWS Reports Data Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001400 Name: CHUBBYS BAR AND GRILL (continued) Collection D Lab Number Type Ong Lab ", Code TCR Presenc Fec;EC Resuh 11/24/2008 H08110257-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 10/30/2008 H08100402-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/30/2008 H08100402-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 09/29/2008 H08090483-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/29/2008 H08090483-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 08/28/2008 H08080484-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 08/28/2008 H08080484-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/28/2008 H08070531-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0712812008 H08070531-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 06/30/2008 H08060585-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/30/2008 H08060585-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 05/30/2008 H08050496-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/30/2008 H08050496-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 03/31/2008 H08030461-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 03/31/2008 H08030461-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0212812008 H08020220-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 02/28/2008 H08020220-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - /29/2008 H08010213-001A RT 3014 E. COLT A 2912008 H08010213-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/28/2007 H07120292-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 12/28/2007 H07120292-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/29/2007 H07110228-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 1013012007 H07100358-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/30/2007 H07100358-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 09/25/2007 H07090279-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/30/2007 H07080294-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/30/2007 H07080294-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 08/21/2007 H07080201-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 08/21/2007 H07080201-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08121/2007 H07080201-002A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/21/2007 H07080201-002A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 08/21/2007 H07080201-003A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/21/2007 H07080201-003A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 08/21/2007 H07080201-004A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/21/2007 H07080201-004A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 08/21/2007 H07080201-005A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/21/2007 H07080201-005A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 08/14/2007 H07070147-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/08/2007 H07080096-001A RP H0707031 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 08/0812007 H07080096-001A RP H0707031 3014 E. COLI P + 8/0812007 H07080096-002A RP H0707031 3014 E. COLI P + 8/08/2007 H07080096-002A RP H0707031 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P z + 08/08/2007 H07080096-003A RP H0707031 3014 E. COLI P + May 11, 2010 3:42 PM Page 3 of 17 C�=- Public Water Supply System Deporanent of Return to PWS QueRONMENTAL QUALITY Return to PINS Report s Data Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001400 Name:CHUBBYS BAR AND GRILL (continued) Ccllecfion D Lab Number •- • Fec,EC l 0810812007 H07080096-003A RP H0707031 3100 COUFORM (TCR) P + 08/08/2007 H07080096-004A RP H0707031 3014 E. COLI P + 08/08/2007 H07080096-004A RP H0707031 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 08/0212007 H07080026-001 RP H0707031 3014 E. COLT A - 08/0212007 H07080026-001 RP H0707031 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 08/0212007 H07080026-002 RP H0707031 3014 E. COLI A - 08/02/2007 H07080026-002 RP H0707031 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + D8102/2007 H07080026-003 RP H0707031 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 08/02/2007 H07080026-003 RP H0707031 3014 E. COLI A - 08/02I2007 H07080026-004 RP H0707031 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 07131/2007 H07070314-001A RT 3014 E. COLT A - 0713112007 H07070314-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 07102/2007 H07070018-002A RP H0706029 3014 E. COLI A - 07/02/2007 H07070018-002A RP H0706029 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 07/02/2007 H07070018-003A RP H0706029 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 07/02/2007 H07070018-003A RP H0706029 3014 E. COLT A - 07/02/2007 H07070018-004A RP H0706029 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 07/02/2007 H07070018-004A RP H0706029 3014 E. COLT A - 06/27/2007 H07060294-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 06/27/2007 H07060294-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 05/3112007 H07050353-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 05/31/2007 H07050353-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/26/2007 H07040234-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 04/26/2007 H07040234-OOIA RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/30/2007 H07030263-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/30/2007 H07030263-001A RT 3014 E. COLT A - 02/28/2007 H07020182-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/28/2007 H07020182-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 01/30/2007 H07010231-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 01/30/2007 H07010231-OOIA RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/28/2006 H06120200-001A RT 3014 E. COLT A - 12/28/2006 H06120200-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/30/2006 H06110229-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/30/2006 H06110229-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 11/30/2006 H06110229-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/31/2006 H06100285-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/31/2006 H06100285-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 09/28/2006 H06090269-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/28/2006 H06090269-001A RT 3014 E. COLT A - 08/31/2006 H06080314-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 08/31/2006 H06080314-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/27/2006 H06070293-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 07/27/2006 H06070293-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + May 11, 2010 3:42 PM Page 4 of 17 --� Public Water Supply System 1MLvontana Department of Return to PWS Query LeNVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Return to PWS Report s DaG Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001400 Name: CHU BBYS BAR AND GRILL (continued) Number Collection D Lab • . Lab • Resull 06/28/2006 H06060313-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/28/2006 H06060313-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 05/31/2006 H06050333-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/31/2006 H06050333-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 0412712006 H06040219-OOIA RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/27/2006 H06040219-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 03/30/2006 H06030227-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 03/30/2006 H06030227-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/02/2006 H06030023-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/02/2006 H06030023-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 02102/2006 H06020022-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/02/2006 H06020022-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 12/29/2005 H05120205-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 12/29/2005 H05120205-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/31/2005 H05100260-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 10/31/2005 H05100260-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/29/2005 H05090258-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 9/29/2005 H05090258-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 009/01/2005 H05090015-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/01/2005 H05090015-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 07/28/2005 H05070218-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0712812005 H05070218-OO1A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 06/30/2005 H05060288-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 06/30/2005 H05060288-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0313112005 H05030211-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A - 03/31/2005 H05030211-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/30/2004 H04120219-001 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0912812004 H04090201-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/28/2004 H04090201-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 04/22/2003 W0304-1967 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/22/2003 W0304-1968 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/10/2003 W0302-0757 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/15/2003 W0301-0315 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/25/2002 W0211-6695 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/10/2002 W0210-5873 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/17/2002 W0209-5346 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/17/2002 W0209-5347 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/26/2002 W0206-3320 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/07/2002 W0205-2289 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/16/2002 W0204-1924 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 43/11/2002 W0203-1175 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 2119/2002 W0202-0857 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 01/15/2002 W0201-0293 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - May 11, 2010 3:42 PM Page 5 of 17 C��=ONMENTALQUAIJTY Public Water Supply System Department of Return to PWS Query Retum to PWS Reports • Dam Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001400 Name: CHUBBYS BAR AND GRILL (continued) Collection D Lab Number Type Ong Lab# Code TCR Presenc Fec/EC Resull 12/1112001 W0112-07109 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11119/2001 W0111-06700 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10110/2001 W0110-05881 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/18/2001 W0109-05279 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/15/2001 W0108-04584 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07116/2001 W0107-03835 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/18/2001 W0106-03230 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/22/2001 W0105-02703 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/16/2001 W0104-01945 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03113/2001 W0103-01316 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/12/2001 W0102-00809 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/11/2001 W0101-00327 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/18/2000 W0012-08457 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/14/2000 W0011-07762 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/12/2000 W0010-07012 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0911312000 W0009-06273 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/07/2000 W0008-05183 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07112/2000 W0007-04588 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/1912000 W0006-03910 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/12/2000 W0005-03086 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0411112000 W0004-02262 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/13/2000 3-01573 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/0912000 1017 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/1312000 00417 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/13/1999 99-10082 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 11/16/1999 99-09504 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/18/1999 99-06485 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/16/1999 99-07585 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/11/1999 9906401 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/1611999 99-05509 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0611611999 99-04467 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/14/1999 9903552 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/12/1999 99-02506 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/15/1999 9901982 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/0811999 99-01026 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/11/1999 W9900217 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/11/1998 W9811187 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/09/1998 98-10273 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/13/1998 98-09487 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/09/1998 W9808468 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/10/1998 98-07331 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - . 07/0611998 W9805976 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06102/1998 W9804861 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - May 11, 2010 3:42 PM Page 6 of 17 --sue Public Water Supply System Montana Depaztment of Return to PWS Query �eNVIRONMENIAL QUALITY Return to PWS Reports Data Source:Public Wa[cr Supply Section PWSID: MT0001400 Name: CHUBBYS BAR AND GRILL (continued) C�ection D Lab Number Type Ong Lab " Code TCR Presenc Irec/EC Resul, 05/12/1998 W9804223 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/09/1998 W8-03132 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/12/1998 W8-02312 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/11/1998 W8-01439 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/12/1998 00328 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/17/1997 W8-25295 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 12/15/1997 W8-25147 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/18/1997 W8-24190 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/18/1997 W8-24191 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/18/1997 W8-24192 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/18/1997 W8-24193 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/12/1997 W8-23971 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 10/21/1997 W8-23043 RP W8-22885 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/21/1997 W8-23044 RP W8-22885 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/21/1997 W8-23045 RP W8-22885 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/21/1997 W8-23046 RP W8-22885 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/15/1997 W8-22885 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + /23/1997 W7-16961 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 6/17/1997 W7-16684 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/15/1997 W7-14957 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/09/1997 W7-13288 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/12/1997 W7-11981 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/12/1997 W7-10869 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/21/1997 W7-9889 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/17/1996 W7-8656 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/15/1996 W7-7405 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/1011996 5932 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/17/1996 4522 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/14/1996 2630 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/10/1996 729 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/12/1996 19030 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/08/1996 W6-17168 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/10/1996 W6-15661 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/13/1996 W6-14316 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/27/1996 13552 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 01/10/1996 W6-11411 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 12/14/1995 10199 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/09/1995 8536 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/13/1995 6970 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/13/1995 5149 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - /09/1995 2893 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A _ /13/1995 911 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 06/14/1995 21554 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - May 11, 2010 3:42 PM Page 7 of 17 C��j;Z;OD Public Water Supply System cpaztmenr of Return to PWS QueNMENTAL QUALITY Return to PWS Reports Dare Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001400 Name: CHUBBYS BAR AND GRILL (continued) Collection D Lab Number Type ori-g Lab 4 Code 05/10/1995 19276 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 04/1211995 17679 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A 03/21/1995 16450 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 02/1611995 14761 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 01/1811995 13272 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A Chemical Results FROM 01/01/1980 TO 0511112010 Fac ID: DS001 Fac Name: DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AvI:P Status: A Src: GW Smp Pt ID: SP001 Status:A Description, SP FOR DS Src Typ FN Y�nalyleICAS No Code Analyte Name Type Collection D • 10C 1038 NITRATE-NITRIE RT 0 212 811 99 0 MIG T 90W0390-1001 005.9 MGR IOC 1036 NITRATE-NITRITE RT 061130980 MIG 8OW1044-1001 007.2 MG/L Fac ID: TP001 Fac Name: TREATMENT PLANT AvI:P Status:A Src: GW Smp Pt ID: EP502 Status: A Description EP FOR TP001 Src Typ FN CoVel-tion 1) V, Code Amilte \. me Lab Sample Numbe 10C 1038 NITRATE-NITRITE RT 12130/2009 19 H09120288-001A 0.48 MG/L IOC 1038 NITRATE-NITRITE RT 12/29/2008 19 1­108120234-001A 0.61 M&L IOC 1038 NITRATE-NITRITE RT 12128/2007 19 H07120293-001A 0.41 MG/L IOC 1038 NITRATE-NITRITE RT 09/28/2006 19 H06090269-0018 0.47 MG/L IOC 1038 NITRATE-NITRITE RT 10131/2005 19 H05100260-0018 0.30 MG/L IOC 1038 NITRATE-NITRITE RT 01115/2003 01 C0301-0242 0.55 MG/L IOC 1038 NITRATE-NITRITE RT 01115/2002 01 CO201-023ON502 0.319 MG/L IOC 1038 NITRATE-NITRITE RT 01/1012001 MIG C0101-0166-1502 0.39 MG/L IOC 1038 NITRATE-NITRITE RT 11/27/2000 MIG C0011-3824-1502 0.38 MG/L IOC 1038 NITRATE-NITRITE RT 11130/1999 MIG C9911-106378-1502 1.24 MG1L IOC 1038 NITRATE-NITRITE RT 1211111998 MIG C9812-105082-1502 1.50 MGIL 10C 1038 NITRATE-NITRITE RT 10/1511997 MIG C9710-104679-1502 1.70 MGR IOC 1038 NITRATE-NITRITE RT 10/11/1996 MIG C9610-106601-1502 0.92 MG/L IOC 1038 NITRATE-NITRITE RT 11/0411994 MIG C9411-107157-1502 0.19 MG/L IOC 14797-65-0 1041 NITRITE RT 0 610 811 99 4 MIG C9406-103894-1502 <MRL.0I MG/L Lead & Copper Sample Summaries FROM 01/01/1992 TO 05111/2010 Period Period Begin End Collection End I ype Period Name Code Count Measure .10M Violations & Enforcements FROM 01101/1980 TO 0 5/1 11201 0 Viol Date Comp Beg Comp End Fed F Type Sev Cate Code Name 11/17/2009 10/01/2009 10/31/2009 2010 23 MJ MON 3160 COLIFORM(TCR) 2010 179410 11/20/2009 S08 ST OTHER 2010 179110 11/17/2009 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2010 179010 11/17/2009 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2010 179611 02/24/2010 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 08/18/2009 07/01/2009 07/31/2009 2009 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2010 179410 11/2012009 S08 ST OTHER 2009 178709 08/18/2009 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2009 178609 08/1812009 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2010 179611 02124/2010 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY) ISSUED May 11, 2010 3:42 PM Page 8 of 17 Public Water Supply System Montana Department of Return to PW$Query �°eNVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Retum to PWS Report s Dana Source:Public Wa[er Supply Section PWSID: MT0001400 Name: CHUBBYS BAR AND GRILL (continued) Viol Date Comp Beg Comp End Fed F Type Sev Cate Code Name 02/12/2009 01/01/2009 01/31/2009 2009 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) 2010 179410 11/20/2009 S08 ST OTHER 2009 178209 02112/2009 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2009 178109 02112/2009 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2010 179611 02/24/2010 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 08109/2007 08101/2007 08/3112007 2007 21 MCL 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2007 177807 08/0912007 BE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2007 177707 08/09/2007 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2007 177607 08/09/2007 SFH ST BOIL WATER ORDER 2007 177507 08109/2007 MPH PHONE CALL TO SYSTEM 08/03/2007 07/0112007 07/31/2007 2007 22 MCL 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2007 177407 07/28/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2007 177307 08/03/2007 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2007 177207 08/03/2007 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2007 177007 08/0312007 MPH PHONE CALL TO SYSTEM 2007 177107 08/03/2007 MHA HEALTH ADVISORY 02/16/2006 01101/2006 0113112006 2006 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176406 02/19/2006 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2006 176306 02/19/2006 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 12/23/2005 11/01/2005 11/30/2005 2006 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2006 176606 0110912006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03131/2005 SOB REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 175706 12126/2005 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2006 175606 12/26/2005 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY) ISSUED 12/22/2005 10/01/2005 10131/2005 2006 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/3112005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 175406 12/25/2005 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2006 175306 12/25/2005 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 09126/2005 08/01/2005 08/3112005 2005 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 SOB REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT May 11, 2010 3:42 PM Page 9 of 17 C�=ONMENTAL Public Water Supply System Department of Return to PWS Que UALITY� Return to PWS Reports • I)=Source:Public Wwr Supply Section PWSID: MT0001400 Name: CHUBBYS BAR AND GRILL (continued) Viol Date • • F Type Code Name 2006 176206 02/15/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2005 175105 09/29/2005 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2005 175005 09/29/2005 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(WIPENALTY)ISSUED 06/24/2005 05/0112005 05/3112005 2005 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/3112005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2005 174805 0612712005 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2005 174705 06/27/2005 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176106 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 05/24/2005 04/01/2005 04/30/2005 2005 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 SOS REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02115/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2005 174505 05/27/2005 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2005 174405 05/27/2005 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 04/06/2005 01/01/2004 12/31/2004 2005 03 MJ MON NITR CDS NITRATE NITRITE 2006 175906 01/04/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 174205 04/13/2005 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2005 174105 04/13/2005 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 03/25/2005 02/01/2005 02/28/2005 2005 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) 2005 174005 08105/2005 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2005 173905 03/28/2005 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2005 173805 03/28/2005 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 02/25/2005 01/01/2005 01/31/2005 2005 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2005 173705 03/08/2005 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/3012008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 SOS REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2005 173605 02/2812005 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2005 173505 02/2812005 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY) ISSUED 12130/2004 1110112004 11/30/2004 2005 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) May 11, 2010 3:42 PM Page 10 of 17 —�! Public Water Supply System Montana Department of Return to PWS Query �°rNVIEONMENTAI QUALITY Return to PWS Report s Data Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001400 Name: CHUBBYS BAR AND GRILL (continued) Viol Date Comp Beg Comp End Fed F Type Sev Cate Code Narre 2005 173105 01/21/2005 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 SOS REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2005 173005 01/02/2005 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2005 172905 01/02/2005 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 1212712004 1010112004 1013112004 2005 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2005 172805 01/20/2005 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 $OS REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 SOS REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2005 172705 12/30/2004 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2005 172605 12130/2004 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AD(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 109/25/2004 08/01/2004 08/31/2004 2004 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2004 172504 0111412005 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 SO8 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2004 172404 09/28/2004 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2004 172304 09/28/2004 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AD(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 08/31/2004 07/01/2004 07/31/2004 2004 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2004 172204 11/15/2004 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01109/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 SO8 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/1512006 SO8 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2004 172104 09/03/2004 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2004 172004 09/0312004 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09120/2005 SFO ST AD(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 07/2912004 05/01/2004 0613012004 2004 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2004 171904 08/27/2004 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12130/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 0313112005 SOS REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02115/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2004 171804 08/01/2004 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2004 171704 08/01/2004 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE May 11, 2010 3:42 PM Page 11 of 17 --� Public Water Supply System 1M�vontana Departrnent of Return to PWS Query JIrNVIRONMENTAL Q,UALPfY Return to PWS Reports Data Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001400 Name: CHUBBYS BAR AND GRILL (continued) Viol Date Comp Beg Comp End Fed F Type Sev Cate Code Name 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO (W/PENALTY)ISSUED 06/3012004 05/01/2004 05/31/2004 2004 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2004 171604 08/17/2004 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02115/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2004 171504 07/03/2004 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2004 171404 07/03/2004 SIA ST VIOLAT(ON/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 05/31/2004 04/01/2004 04/30/2004 2004 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2004 171304 06/03/2004 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01109/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2004 171204 06/0312004 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED . 2004 171104 06/03/2004 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 04/29/2004 03/01/2004 03/31/2004 2004 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2004 171004 05/02/2004 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2004 170904 05/02/2004 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2004 170804 05102/2004 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09120/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 03/19/2004 02/01/2004 02/29/2004 2004 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2004 170604 03/22/2004 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01109/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 SOB REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2004 170504 03/22/2004 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2004 170404 03/22/2004 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(WIPENALTY)ISSUED 02/22/2004 01/01/2004 01/31/2004 2004 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) 2004 170304 02/25/2004 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 0313112005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT May 11, 2010 3:42 PM Page 12 of 17 i —sue Public Water Supply System Montana Department of Return to PWS Query s F°rNVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Retum to PWS Report s Data Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001400 Name: CHUBBYS BAR AND GRILL (continued) V161 Date, Comp Beg Comp End Fed F Type Sev Cate Code Name M 2004 170204 02/25/2004 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2004 170104 02125/2004 SIA ST VIOLATIONIREMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(WIPENALTY)ISSUED 01/26/2004 12/01/2003 12/31/2003 2004 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2004 170004 01/29/2004 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/0912006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03131/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2004 169904 01/29/2004 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2004 169804 01/29/2004 SIA ST VIOLATIQNIREMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY) ISSUED 12/24/2003 11/01/2003 11/30/2003 2004 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2004 169604 12/27/2003 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/3112005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 SOS REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2004 169504 12/27/2003 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2004 169404 12/27/2003 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 11/2112003 10/0112003 10/31/2003 2004 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2004 169304 11/24/2003 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX $T COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03131/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 $08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2004 169204 11/24/2003 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2004 169104 11/24/2003 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/2012005 SFO ST AO(WIPENALTY)ISSUED 11/10/2003 09/01/2003 09/30/2003 2004 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2004 169004 11/1312003 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 176009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2004 168904 11/13/2003 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2004 168804 11113/2003 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 0/16/2003 08/01/2003 08/31/2003 2004 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2004 168404 10/19/2003 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/0912006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED May 11, 2010 3:42 PM Page 13 of 17 --P Public Water Supply System Montana Deparvnrnc of /� Return to PWS Query �e° NVIRONMEN 1AL QUALITY Return to PWS Report s Dana Source;Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001400 Name: CHUBBYS BAR AND GRILL (continued) Vial Date Comp Beg Comp End Fed F Type Sev Cate Code Name 2005 176005 03/31/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2004 168304 10/19/2003 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2004 168204 10/1912003 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 0912012005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 08114/2003 07/01/2003 07/31/2003 2003 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2003 168103 08/17/2003 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/0912006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/3012008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 SOS REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2003 168003 08/17/2003 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2003 167903 08117/2003 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 07/22/2003 06/0112003 06/30/2003 2003 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2004 169704 01/14/2004 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/3012008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 SOS REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/1512006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2003 167703 07/25/2003 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2003 167603 0712512003 SIA ST ViOLATIONAEMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(WIPENALTY)ISSUED 06/19/2003 05/01/2003 05/31/2003 2003 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2003 167803 08/14/2003 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 0110912006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 SOB REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2003 167503 06/22(2003 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2003 167403 06/22/2003 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 0912012005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY) ISSUED 04/15/2003 03/01/2003 03/31/2003 2003 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2003 167303 06/1212003 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 SOB REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 SOS REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2003 167203 04/18/2003 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2003 167103 04/18/2003 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 01/16/2003 12/01/2002 12/31/2002 2002 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2003 166903 03/14/2003 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED May 11, 2010 3:42 PM Page 14 of 17 -� Public Water Supply System Monrana Deparanenx of Return to PWS Query �°rNVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Return to PWS Reports Data Source:Poblic Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001400 Name: CHUBBYS BAR AND GRILL (continued) Viol Date Comp Beg Comp End Fed F Type od 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03131/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/1512006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2003 166803 01/19/2003 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2003 166703 01IM912003 SIA ST VIOLATIONIREMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 09/1912002 08/01/2002 08/31/2002 2002 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) 2003 166603 1211612002 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/3012008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2002 166302 09/22/2002 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2002 166202 09/22/2002 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED X0910612002 07/01/2002 0713112002 2002 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2003 166403 10/17/2002 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 1213012008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/3112005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2002 166102 09/0912002 SIE ST PUBLIC NOTIF REQUESTED 2002 166002 09/09/2002 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 10/31/1995 01/01/1993 12131/1993 1996 03 MJ MON 1040 NITRATE 2009 178509 05/15/2009 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 0312811995 0110111993 1013111993 1995 22 MCL 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/3012008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2005 176105 09/20/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY) ISSUED 03/28/1995 11/0111993 1113011993 1995 21 MCL 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12130/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2005 176105 09/2012005 $ED ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 09/15/1993 08/01/1993 08/31/1993 1993 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT May 11, 2010 3:42 PM Page 15 of 17 C*=;0D== Public Water Supply System Retum to PWS Que QUALITY Retum to PWS Reports Data Source:Public Water Supply Smoon PWSID: MT0001400 Name: CHUBBYS BAR AND GRILL (continued) Viol Date _ Comp Beg Comp End Fed F Type Sev Cate Code Name 2006 176206 02/1512006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 1993 149193 09117/1993 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 2005 176105 09/2012005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 07/15/1992 04/01/1992 06/30/1992 1992 23 MJ MON 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) 2006 176606 01/09/2006 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2009 178009 12/3012008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 2005 176005 03/31/2005 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2006 176206 02/15/2006 S08 REFERRED TO ENFORCEMENT 2005 176105 09120/2005 SFO ST AO(W/PENALTY)ISSUED 01/10/1990 10/01/1989 12/31/1989 1990 03 MJ MON 3000 COLIFORM (PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12130/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 09/30/1989 07/01/1989 09/30/1989 1989 02 MCL 3000 COLIFORM(PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 04/10/1989 01/01/1989 03/31/1989 1989 03 MJ MON 3000 COLIFORM (PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12/3012008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 06/30/1988 04/01/1988 06/30/1988 1988 02 MCL 3000 COLIFORM(PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 01/10/1988 10101/1987 12/31/1987 1988 03 MJ MON 3000 COLIFORM(PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12/3012008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 01/10/1987 10/01/1966 12/31/1986 1987 03 MJ MON 3000 COLIFORM (PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 10/1011986 07/01/1986 09/30/1986 1986 03 MJ MON 3000 COLIFORM(PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 07/10/1986 0410111986 06/30/1986 1986 03 MJ MON 3000 COLIFORM(PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 04/10/1986 01/01/1986 03/31/1986 1986 03 MJ MON 3000 COLIFORM(PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12!30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 09/30/1985 07/01/1985 09/3011985 1985 02 MCL 3000 COLIFORM (PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 07/10/1985 04/01/1985 06/30/1985 1985 03 MJ MON 3000 COLIFORM (PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 1985 185 09/30/1985 SIA ST VIOLATIOWREMINDER NOTICE 10/1011984 10/01/1983 09130/1984 1984 03 MJ MON 3000 COLIFORM(PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 06/10/1983 04101/1983 05/31/1983 1983 03 MJ MON 3000 COLIFORM(PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 1983 183 09/30/1983 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 11/1011982 10/01/1982 10/31/1982 1983 03 MJ MON 3000 COLIFORM(PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 1983 183 09/30/1983 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 08/10/1981 07/01/1981 07/3111981 1981 03 MJ MON 3000 COLIFORM (PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 1981 481 09/30/1981 SIF ST PUBLIC NOTIF RECEIVED May 11,2010 3:42 PM Page 16 of 17 jr7z� Public Water Supply System Dtt f Return to PWS Query �° NVIItONMENTAL QUALITY Return to PWS Reports Data Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001400 Name: CHUBBYS BAR AND GRILL (continued) Vol Date Comp Beg Comp End Fed F Type Sev Cate Code Name 1981 181 09/30/1981 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 05/10/1981 04/01/1981 04/30/1981 1981 03 MJ MON 3000 COLIFORM (PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 1981 181 09/30/1981 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 02/10/1981 01/01/1981 01/31/1981 1981 03 MJ MON 3000 COLIFORM(PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12130/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 1981 181 0913011981 SIA ST VIOLATION/REMINDER NOTICE 11/10/1980 10/01/1980 10/31/1980 1981 03 MJ MON 3000 COLIFORM(PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED 08/10/1980 07/01/1980 07/31/1980 1980 03 MJ MON 3000 COLIFORM(PRE-TCR) 2009 178009 12/30/2008 SOX ST COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED May 11, 2010 3:42 PM Page 17 of 17 -� Public Water Supply System Monxana Departmenx of Return to PWS Query t �C°eNVIItONMENTAL QUALITY Return to PWS Report s Data Source:Public Wa[er Supply Section PWSID: MT0003721 Name: PAPA RAYS CASINO AND HUGOS PIZZA City: MONTANA CITY County: JEFFERSON Tot Pop: 115 Pri Src: GW Class: NC Last Snty Sry Dt: 03/26/2009 Activity Status: A Type Conn's In Srvc Ots Eff Begin Dt Avg Daily Cnt Type CM 1 1/1-12/31 02/22/1994 100 T 1/1-12/31 0312612009 15 NT Bacti Results FROM 01/0111990 TO 05/14/2010 • . 04/05/2010 H10040039-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/0512010 H10040039-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 03/0412010 H10030071-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0310412010 H10030071-001A RT 3014 E. COL) A 02/11/2010 H10020160-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0 211 112 0 1 0 H10020160-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 01/13/2010 H10010140-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/13/2010 H10010140-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 12/0712009 H09120079-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 2/0712009 H09120079-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 1/1112009 H09110148-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 11/11/2009 H09110148-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/08/2009 H09100113-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/08/2009 H09100113-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 09/08/2009 H09090087-O01A RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 09/08/2009 H09090087-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 08104/2009 H09080037-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 08/04/2009 H09080037-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0710812009 H09070097-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 07/08/2009 H09070097-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0611712009 H09060268-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 06/1712009 H09060268-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/11/2009 H09050173-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/28/2009 H09040257-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/17/2009 H09030127-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 03/17/2009 H09030127-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/11/2009 H09020104-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 02/11/2009 H09020104-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/13/2009 H09010082-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/13/2009 H09010082-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 12/17/2008 H08120166-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 12/17/2008 H08120166-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/13/2008 H08110155-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - *111312008 H08110155-OOIA RT 3014 E. COLT A May 14, 2010 8:49 AM Page 1 of 5 I --�' Public Water Supply System Montana Department of Return to PWS Query �E°eNVIR®NMENTAL QUALPTY Return to PWS Reports Data Source.Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0003721 Name: PAPA RAYS CASINO AND HUGOS PIZZA (continued) ,Collection .. Number Type • . Lab tt Code 10121/2008 H08100248-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/2112008 H08100248-001A RT 3014 E. COLT A - 09/1112008 H08090212-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/11/2008 H08090212-OOIA RT 3014 E. COLT A - 08/20/2008 H08080339-001A RT 3014 E. COLT A - O8/20/2008 H08080339-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/22/2008 H08070436-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0712212008 H08070436-OOIA RT 3014 E. COLT A - 06/24/2008 H08060449-OOIA RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/24/2008 H08060449-001A RT 3014 E. COLT A - 05/0712008 H08050128-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/09/2008 H08040156-OOIA RT 3014 E. COL) A - 04/0912008 H08040156-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/04/2008 H08030071-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/04/2008 H08030071-001A RT 3014 E. COLI A 02/08/2008 H08020063-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02108/2008 H08020063-001A RT 3014 E. COLT A 01/2212008 H08010167-001A RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 12/14/2007 W0712-5200 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/15/2007 W0711-4827 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/2612007 W0710-4517 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/24/2007 W0709-3987 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/27/2007 W0708-3544 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/24/2007 W0707-3048 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/20/2007 W0706-2490 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/2912007 W0705-2077 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/23/2007 W0704-1561 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03126/2007 W0703-1126 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/21/2007 W0702-0709 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/1412006 W0612-5197 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/28/2006 W0611-4936 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/2512006 W061OA500 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0 9/2 712 00 6 W0609-4020 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/22/2006 W0608-3477 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/17/2006 W0607-2871 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/1212006 W0606-2335 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/23/2006 W0605-2051 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/06/2006 W0603-0857 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/19/2005 W0512-5338 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/1912005 W0512-5339 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - May 14, 2010 8:49 AM Page 2 of 5 I —� Public Water Supply System Moacana Depaztment of Return to PWS Query F°eNVIRONMENTAL 'QUALITY Return to PINS Reports Data Source:Public Wa[ec Supply Section PWSID: MT0003721 Name: PAPA RAYS CASINO AND HUGOS PIZZA (continued) Ong Lab • Code TCR Presence FecfEC Resuit 12/14/2005 W0512-5299 RP W0512-50F 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 12/1412005 W0512-5300 RP W0512-50F 3014 E. COLT A 12/14/2005 W0512-5300 RP W0512-50E 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 12/14/2005 W0512-5301 RP W0512-50E 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 12/14/2005 W0512-5302 RP W0512-50E 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 12/05/2005 W0512-5084 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 1210512005 W0512-5084 RT 3014 E. COLT A 09/21/2005 W0509-3987 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 06/30/2005 W0506-2552 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 03122/2005 W0503-1105 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 01/19/2005 W0501-0282 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 01/19/2005 W0501-0283 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/19/2005 W0501-0284 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/19/2005 W0501-0285 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0111912005 W0501-0286 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/03/2005 W0501-0003 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + /03/2005 W0501-0003 RT 3014 E. COLI A I *1/0312005 W0501-0004 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 12/16/2004 W0412-5626 RP W0412-55: 3014 E. COLI A - 12/16/2004 W0412-5626 RP W0412-55: 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 12/16/2004 W0412-5627 RP W(3412-55; 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 12/16/2004 W0412-5627 RP W0412-55: 3014 E. COLI A - 12/1412004 W0412-5579 RP W0412-55: 3014 E. COLT A - 12/14/2004 W0412-5579 RP W0412-55: 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 12/14/2004 W0412-5580 RP W0412-55: 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 12/1412004 W0412-5580 RP W0412-55: 3014 E. COLT A - 12/14/2004 W0412-5581 RP W0412-55: 3014 E. COLI A - 12/14/2004 W0412-5581 RP W0412-55: 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 12/1412004 W0412-5582 RP W0412-55: 3014 E. COLT A - 12/14/2004 W0412-5582 RP W0412-55: 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 1210912004 W0412-5536 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 12/0912004 W0412-5536 RT 3014 E. COLI A - 05/28/2004 W0405-2339 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 114118/2004 W0404-1669 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/08/2003 W0312-6629 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/08/2003 W0309-4669 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/22/2003 W0608-3477 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/02/2003 W0306-2664 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/10/2003 W0303-1159 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - /13/2002 W0212-7055 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - May 14, 2010 8:49 AM Page 3 of 5 i --� Public Water Supply System Montana Dcpaxtj,ucnt of Return to PWS Query 1 �°rNVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Return to PINS Report s Data Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0003721 Name: PAPA RAYS CASINO AND HUGOS PIZZA (continued) Collection • - Orig Lab# 09/20/2002 W0209-5400 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 06/10/2002 W0206-2883 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 03/1812002 W0203-1304 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A 12110/2001 W0112-07045 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 09/11/2001 W0109-05110 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 06/25/2001 W0106-03345 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 03/22/2001 W0103-01500 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 1211112000 W0012-08234 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/25/2000 W0009-06487 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06102/2000 W0006-03489 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/17/2000 1189 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/12/1999 99-09407 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/20/1999 99-07630 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/15/1999 99-04459 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/06/1999 99-02381 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/0911998 W9811136 RT 3100 COL(FORM (TCR) A - 08/31/1998 W9808103 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08126/1998 98-08020 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06I3011998 05848 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0511811998 W8-04368 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04I2011998 W8-03383 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/24/1998 WS-02583 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02112/1998 98-01476 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/2011998 W8-00580 RT 3100 COL(FORM (TCR) A - 12/15/1997 W8-25137 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 11/17/1997 W8-24042 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/20/1997 22972 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/23/1997 W7-16984 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/1211997 W7-14700 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/14/1997 W7-13400 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/2011997 W7-12350 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02124/1997 W7-11266 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 01/27/1997 W7-10052 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/15/1996 W7-8586 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/2511996 W7-7824 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/28/1996 W7-6603 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0 912 311 9 96 W7-4794 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/06/1996 2112 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0711711996 1093 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06110/1996 18902 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - May 14, 2010 8:49 AM Page 4 of 5 -� Public Water Supply System Monxana Department of Return to PWS QueN s �°rNVIRflNMENTAI QUM TY Return to PWS Reports Data Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0003721 Name: PAPA RAYS CASINO AND HUGOS PIZZA (continued) drig Lab 05/17/1996 17735 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/2211996 16197 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/25/1996 14803 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02112/1996 12681 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/26/1996 W6-12077 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12122/1995 W610632 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/27/1995 W6-9232 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/27/1995 7825 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/21/1995 5624 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/14/1995 3154 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/24/1995 1583 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/19/1995 21680 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05130)1995 20373 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/08/1995 18962 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0411211995 17698 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03114/1995 16160 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/24/1995 13627 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - May 14, 2010 8:49 AM i Page 5 of 5 JC7� Public Water Supply System MonReturn to PWS Que�°sNVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Return to PWS Report s Data Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001397 Name: CLANCY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DIST 01 City: CLANCY County: JEFFERSON Tot Pop: 333 Pri Src: GW Class: NTNC Last Snty Sry Dt: 04/24/2008 Activity Status: A Type Conn's In Srvc Dts Eff Begin Dt Avg Daily Cnt Type IN 4 1/1-12/31 04/24/2008 333 NT Bacti Results FROM 01/01/1990 TO 05/1412010 • Lab Number Type Ong Lab 9 Code TCR Presence Fec!EC Resilt 05/05/2010 W1005-1592 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 05/05/2010 W1005-1592 RT 3014 E. COLI A - 04/07/2010 W1004-1165 RT 3014 E. COLI A - 04/07/2010 W1004-1165 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0310312010 W1003-0771 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/03/2010 W1003-0771 RT 3014 E. COLI A - 02/10/2010 W1002-0549 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/1012010 W1002-0549 RT 3014 E. COLI A - 01/07/2010 W1001-0087 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/07/2010 W1001-0087 RT 3014 E. COLI A - /10/2009 W0912-5132 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 110/2009 W0912-5132 RT 3014 E. COLI A 11/10/2009 W09114716 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 11/10/2009 W0911-4716 RT 3014 E. COLI A - 1 010 7/2 0 09 W0910-4123 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/07/2009 W0910-4123 RT 3014 E. COLT A - 09/01/2009 W0909-3529 RT 3014 E. COLI A - 09/01/2009 W0909-3529 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/1112009 1N0908-3269 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/11/2009 W0908-3269 RT 3014 E. COLT A - 07/08/2009 W0907-2677 RT 3014 E. COLI A - 07/0812009 W0907-2677 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/08/2009 W0905-2244 RT 3014 E. COLI A - 06/08/2009 W0905-2244 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/07/2009 W0905-1785 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/07/2009 W0905-1785 RT 3014 E. COLI A - 04/14/2009 W0904-1411 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/14/2009 W0904-1411 RT 3014 E. COLI A - 0311312009 W0903-1005 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/10/2009 W0902-0581 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/08/2009 W0901-0100 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/05/2008 W0812-5027 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 1 110 612 00 8 W0811-4616 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/07/2008 W08104139 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TGR) A - 0/05/2008 W0809-3600 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - May 14, 2010 8:42 AM ' Page 1 of 7 C: i;Z;R10NMENTAL Public Water Supply System Dcpa trnmt of Return to PWS Query QUALITY Return to PWS Report s , Data Source:Public Water Supply Section Ill MT0001397 Name: CLANCY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 01ST 01 (continued) Collecton D Lab Number Type Ong Lal Code TCR Presence l Result 08/0512008 W0808-3085 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/1412008 W0807-2671 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/05/2008 W0806-2112 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/0612008 W0805-1670 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/02/2008 W0804-1191 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/14/2008 W0803-0960 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/05/2008 W0802-0473 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/16/2008 W0801-0265 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/1212007 W0712-5191 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/05/2007 W0711-4623 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/04/2007 W0710-4177 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/07/2007 W0709-3717 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/02/2007 W0708-3175 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/12/2007 W0707-2788 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/0812007 W0706-2282 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/08/2007 W0705-1787 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/04/2007 W0704-1273 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/0712007 W0703-0928 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/05/2007 W0702-0460 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/05/2007 W0701-0057 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 1 210 812 0 0 6 W0612-5110 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/0312006 W0611-4581 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/0512006 W0610-4173 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/07/2006 W0609-3689 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/08/2006 W0608-3302 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/07/2006 W0607-2680 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/09/2006 W0606-2326 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/04/2006 W0605-1807 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/05/2006 W0604-1296 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03103/2006 W0603-0849 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/06/2006 W0602-0479 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/05/2006 W0601-0079 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12105/2005 W0512-5091 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/05/2005 W0512-5092 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/05/2005 W0512-5093 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/0512005 W0512-5094 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12105/2005 W0512-5095 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11;15/2005 W0511-4913 RP W0511-481 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 1111512005 W0511-4914 RP W0511-481 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/15/2005 W0511-4915 RP W0511-481 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A • May 14, 2010 8:42 AM Page 2 of 7 I -� Public Water Supply System Montana Dcpartmenc of Return to PWS Query r �°eHiVI$ONMENTAL QUALITY Return to PWS Reports Data Souroe:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001397 Name: CLANCY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DIST 01 (continued) Collection D Lab Number Type Crig Lab# Code TCR Presence FectEC Result—i 11/15/2005 W0511-4916 RP W0511481 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 11108/2005 W0511-4818 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 11/08/2005 W05114818 RT 3014 E. COLI A 10/07/2005 W05104271 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/09/2005 W0509-3731 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/05/2005 W0508-3253 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/18/2005 W0507-2876 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/03/2005 W0506-2118 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0510512005 W0505-1739 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/05I2005 W0504-1228 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/0412005 W0503-0863 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 02/04/2005 W0502-0511 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/07/2005 W0501-0130 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/06/2004 W0412-5400 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/03/2004 W0411-5006 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 1010512004 W0410-0579 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - /02/2004 W0409-3974 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 8/0912004 W0408-3587 RP W0408-344 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 08/09/2004 W0408-3588 RP W0408-344 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/09/2004 W0408-3589 RP W0408-344 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/09/2004 W0408-3590 RP W0408-344 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/05/2004 W0408-3538 RP W0408-344 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/03/2004 W0408-3447 RT 3014 E. COLI A 08/03/2004 W0408-3447 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 07/1212004 W0407-3048 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/08/2004 W0406-2506 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/07/2004 W0405-2021 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/05/2004 W0404-1359 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/08/2004 W0403-1020 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/06/2004 W0402-0623 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/12/2004 W0401-0127 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - '12/0512003 W0312-6625 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/10/2003 W0311-6131 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 10/0712003 W0310-5416 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 09/05/2003 W0309-4649 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08111/2003 W0308-4107 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/11/2003 W0307-3492 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/06/2003 W0306-2818 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/0912003 W0305-2310 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - or/04/2003 W0304-1640 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - May 14, 2010 8:42 AM Page 3 of 7 C�= Public Water Supply System Department of Return to PWS Query ONMENTAL QUALITY Return to PWS Report s Data Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001397 Name: CLANCY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DIST 01 (continued) Collection D Lab Number Crig Lab# 03/10/2003 W0303-1157 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02107/2003 W0302-0684 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01106/2003 W0301-0023 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12106/2002 W0212-6913 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/0512002 W0211-6335 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10104/2002 W0210-5715 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09106/2002 W0209-4962 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/12/2002 W0208-4367 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/12/2002 W0207-3701 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06107/2002 W0206-2872 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/10/2002 W0205-2403 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/05/2002 W0204-1716 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/0812002 W0203-1159 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/08/2002 W0202-0738 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/1112002 W0201-0285 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/0712001 W0112-07040 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - • 11/0912001 W0111-06536 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/05/2001 W0110-05739 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 09/2112001 W0109-05388 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/14/2001 W0109-05213 RT 3013 FECAL COLIFORM A 09/1412001 W0109-05213 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 08/10/2001 W0108-04458 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/06/2001 W0107-03561 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/08/2001 W0106-03092 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0510412001 W0105-02311 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04106/2001 W0104-01773 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03109/2001 W0103-01259 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 02109/2001 W0102-00801 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/05/2001 W0101-00100 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/08/2000 W0012-08226 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 1110312000 W0011-07498 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/06/2000 W0010-06825 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/0812000 W0009-06079 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/0412000 W0008-05177 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/0612000 W0007-04339 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/0912000 W0006-03715 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 05/0512000 W0005-02843 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0410712000 W0004-02173 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03103/2000 3-01399 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/0412000 873 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - . May 14, 2010 8:42 AM Page 4 of 7 -�' Public Water Supply System Montana Depardncnt of Return to PWS Query �eNVllt©NMENTAL QUALITY Return to PWS Reports Data Sourec.Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001397 Name: CLANCY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DIST 01 (continued) Collection Crg Lab Ccce TCR Presence Fec EC Result 0111012000 00209 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/10/1999 99-10077 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/12/1999 99-09405 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/0811999 99-08273 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/10/1999 99-07340 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/0511999 99-06152 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/13/1999 99-05295 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/14/1999 9904392 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/07/1999 99-03304 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/07/1999 99-02440 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0311211999 99-01927 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/03/1999 99-00934 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/08/1999 W9900215 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/0811999 W9900216 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/02/1998 W9810890 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/2811998/1011998 98-10346 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A/1211998 98-09453 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 98-09018 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 09/28/1998 98-09019 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/15/1998 98-06563 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/1911998 98-05544 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/04/1998 98-05016 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0512911998 98-04741 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/01/1998 98-03760 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/09/1998 WS-03133 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/11/1998 W8-02272 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/13/1998 98-01469 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/12/1998 00329 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/16/1997 25153 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/16/1997 25154 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/17/1997 W8-24116 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/20/1997 22973 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/2011997 22974 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/23/1997 W7-17115 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/2311997 W7-17116 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/19/1997 W7-15097 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/19/1997 W7-15098 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/14/1997 W7-13389 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/14/1997 W7-13390 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/1711997 W7-12104 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - May 14, 2010 8:42 AM Page 5 of 7 C� i Publ ic Water Supply System a Department of Return to PWS Query RONMENTAL QUALITY Return to PWS Reports Data Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0001397 Name: CLANCY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DIST 01 (continued) Number •- 0311711997 W7-12105 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02l18/1997 W7-11032 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/1811997 W7-11033 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0112111997 W7-9826 RT 3100 COUFORM (TCR) A - 01/21/1997 W7-9827 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/09/1996 W7-8333 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/0911996 W7-8334 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11125/1996 W7-7755 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/18/1996 W7-7469 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/18/1996 W7-7470 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/14/1996 W7-6052 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/14/1996 W7-6053 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09116/1996 4392 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/1611996 4393 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/1911996 2806 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/19/1996 2807 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/15/1996 881 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/15/1996 882 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0611711996 19229 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/17/1996 19230 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/13/1996 17408 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/13/1996 17409 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/15/1996 W6-15836 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/15/1996 W6-15837 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03119/1996 W6-14621 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/20/1996 W6-13157 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/20/1996 W6-13158 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01116/1996 W6-11598 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/16/1996 W6-11599 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/18/1995 10275 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/1811995 10276 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/13/1995 W6-8580 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/13/1995 W6-8581 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 10/16/1995 7076 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 1011611995 7077 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 0911411995 5229 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 09114/1995 5230 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 081411995 3166 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 08/14/1995 3167 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 07117/1995 1112 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A May 14, 2010 8:42 AM Page 6 of 7 I --� Public Water Supply System Montana Depazvne»t of Return to PWS Query �IWIRONMENTAL QUALITY Return to PWS Report s Data Source:Public Watcr Supply soc[ion PWSID: MT0001397 Name: CLANCY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DIST 01 (continued) co—Ilection 1 Lab Number Type Ong Lab tt Code TCR Presence �ec EC ResuPM 07/1711995 1113 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/19/1995 21752 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/19/1995 21753 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/16/1995 19634 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/1611995 19635 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/17/1995 17859 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/17/1995 17860 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/20/1995 16320 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/20/1995 16321 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/2111995 14848 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/2111995 14849 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/17/1995 13210 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - I i II May 14, 2010 8:42 AM Page 7 of 7 -� Public Water Supply System Montana Department of Return to PWS Query Res° NVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Return to PWS Reports Data Source:Public Watcr Supply Section PWSID: MT0000618 Name: ELKHORN HEALTH AND REHABILITATION LLC City: CLANCY County: JEFFERSON Tot Pop: 117 Pri Src: GW Class: C Last Snty Sry Dt: 04/22/2009 Activity Status: A Type Conn's in Srvc Dts Eff Begin Dt Avg Dally Cnt Type RS 1 111-12/31 04/22/2009 55 R 1/1-12/31 04/22/2009 62 NT Bacti Results FROM 0110111990 TO 0511412010 n . Lab Number Tipe Ong Lab :; Code TCR Pteserce -e-- FC Resul� 04/29/2010 17D8042 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/1112010 17C8021 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/1112010 1788020 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/11/2010 17138020 RT 3014 E. COLI A 01/12/2010 17A8012 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/10/2009 16N8021 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/12/2009 16M8023 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10115/2009 16L8026 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/09/2009 16K8018 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 8/06/2009 16,18011 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A /15/2009 16H8024 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/11/2009 16G8023 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/14/2009 16FB005 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/09/2009 16D8001 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/05/2009 16C8001 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/03/2009 1688001 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/20/2009 16A8003 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/29/2008 15N8008 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/25/2008 15M8009 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/22/2008 151-8003 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/18/2008 15K8019 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/2112008 15JB004 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/24/2008 151-18011 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/25/2008 15G8003 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0512112008 15F8002 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/22/2008 15D8002 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/18/2008 1508002 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/30/2008 W0801-0403 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/12/2007 14N8002 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/14/2007 14M8001 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10125/2007 141-8003 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/24/2007 14K8003 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/15/2007 14,18001 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 123/2007 W0707-3009 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - May 14, 2010 8:40 AM Page 1 of 6 C�j=D; Public Water Supply System artment nF Return to PWS Query 0 E= QUALITY Return to PWS Reports Data Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0000618 Name: ELKHORN HEALTH AND REHABILITATION LLC (continued) collection • Lab Number Type Ong Lab# 06/18/2007 W0706-2390 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/14/2007 W0705-1869 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/24/2007 W0704-1585 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0 311 2/2 00 7 W0703-0980 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/2712007 WOT02-0786 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/29/2007 W0701-0376 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/19/2006 W0612-5239 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/15/2006 W06114789 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 10/3012006 W06104526 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/18/2006 W0609-3869 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/30/2006 W0608-3595 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07111/2006 W0607-2748 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/2912006 W0606-2616 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/01/2006 W0605-1671 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/29/2006 W0603-1199 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/15/2006 W0602-0681 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/31/2006 W0601-0440 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12130/2005 W0512-5459 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11128/2005 W0511-5029 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/29/2005 WO511-5029 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10125/2005 W0510-4567 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09129/2005 W0509-4106 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/31/2005 W0508-3580 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/26/2005 W0507-3045 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/29/2005 W0506-2546 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 05/26/2005 W0505-2046 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/25/2005 W0504-1551 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03121/2005 W0503-1079 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/24/2005 W0502-0765 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/27/2005 W0501-0419 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/14/2004 W0412-5578 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/1612004 W0411-5189 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10128/2004 W0410-4940 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/27/2004 W0409-4379 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08I3012004 W0408-3903 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07128/2004 W0407-3383 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/29/2004 W0406-2885 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/27/2004 W0405-2328 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05110/2004 W0405-2075 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/19/2004 W0404-1670 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0 May 14, 2010 8:40 AM Page 2 of 6 -�! Public Water Supply System Montana Depazrment of Return to PWS Query �r° NVIItONMENTAL QUALITY Retum to PWS Reports Data Source:Public Water Supp]y Section PWSID: MT0000618 Name: ELKHORN HEALTH AND REHABILITATION LLC (continued) 03/15/2004 W0403-1174 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/27/2004 W0402-0916 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/05/2004 W0401-0006 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 1211712003 W0312-6830 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/17/2003 W0311-6253 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/08/2003 W0310-5551 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/11/2003 W0309-4865 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/12/2003 W0308-4141 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/23/2003 W0307-3763 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0611212003 W0306-2941 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/2812003 W0305-2599 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/15/2003 W0304-1839 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 03/12/2003 W0303-1217 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/12/2003 W0302-0783 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01121/2003 W0301-0376 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 2/1112002 W0212-7006 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 11312002 W0211-6469 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/13/2002 W0211-6470 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/13/2002 W0211-6471 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/13/2002 W0211-6472 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/13/2002 W0211-6473 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/11/2002 W0210-5899 RP W0210-584 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10111I2002 W0210-5900 RP W0210-584 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/11/2002 W0210-5901 RP W0210-584 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 10/11/2002 W0210-5902 RP W0210-584 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/09/2002 W0210-5847 RT 3014 E. COLI A 10/0912002 W0210-5847 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 0911012002 W0209-5081 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08I1412002 W0208-4480 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/10/2002 W0207-3608 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/12/2002 W0206-3044 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/15/2002 W0205-2486 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04110/2002 W0204-1855 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/1312002 W0203-1267 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/13/2002 W0202-0833 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/08/2002 W0201-0194 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/12/2001 W0112-07152 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/07/2001 W0111-06486 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/10/2001 W0110-05889 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11312001 W0109-05196 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - May 14, 2010 8:40 AM Page 3 of 6 —sue Public Water Supply System Montana Depaztment of Return to PWS Query �a1WIRUNMENTAL QUALITY Return to PWS Report s Data Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0000618 Name: ELKHORN HEALTH AND REHABILITATION LLC (continued) Collection D Lab 08/08/2001 W0108-04376 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/11/2001 W0107-03777 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06113/2001 W0106-03191 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 05/0912001 W0105-02452 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/04/2001 W0104-01707 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/09/2001 W0103-01258 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02/12/2001 W0102-00825 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/22/2001 W0101-00433 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/08/2001 W0101-000125 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/0712000 W0012-08206 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11116/2000 W0011-07853 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/11/2000 W0010-07007 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/05/2000 W0009-05979 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/07/2000 W0008-05299 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/1112000 W0007-04581 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/1212000 W0006-03798 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05110/2000 W0005-03016 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 04111/2000 W0004-02326 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/03/2000 1395 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02103/2000 844 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/14/2000 00448 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/0711999 99-09972 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/15/1999 99-09424 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/18/1999 99-08508 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/08/1999 99-07323 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08116/1999 99-06581 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/06/1999 99-05089 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06114/1999 9904408 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 05/190999 99-03740 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/14/1999 99-02683 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/10/1999 99-01867 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 02/04/1999 99-00984 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01108/1999 W9900204 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/02/1998 W9810886 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/09/1998 W9810327 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/02/1998 98-10067 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/31/1998 98-10067 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/22/1998 98-08852 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09118/1998 98-08852 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/16/1998 05417 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - May 14, 2010 8:40 AM Page 4 of 6 Public Water Supply System Montana Dcpartnwcnt of Return to PWS Query ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Return to PWS Reports Data Source:Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0000618 Name: ELKHORN HEALTH AND REHABILITATION LLC (continued) 11 ection D Lab Number Type Ong Lab # Code -CR Presence Fec/EC Result 02/18/1996 Wd-01576 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/14/1998 W8-00472 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 1112111997 W8-24340 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/1311997 W7-16450 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/09/1997 W7-14622 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 04/10/1997 W7-13306 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03112/1997 W7-11978 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02113/1997 W7-10871 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/10/1997 W7-9458 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 12/10/1996 W7-8402 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 1 1/1 211 996 W7-7129 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10110/1996 5921 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/12/1996 4307 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/09/1996 2359 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/10/1996 626 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 06/10/1996 18804 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - I' /10/1996 17322 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 4/10/1996 15659 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A 03/11/1996 14099 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 02I09/1996 W6-12633 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 01/10/1996 W6-11370 RT 3100 COLIFORM(TCR) A - 12/14/1995 10198 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 11/13/1995 8562 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 10/10/1995 6613 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 09/18/1995 5338 RT 3100 COUFORM (TCR) A - 09/12/1995 4952 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/10/1995 2977 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TGR) A - 08/10/1995 2978 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/10/1995 2979 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/10/1995 2980 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 08/10/1995 2981 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 0711411995 954 RP 348 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/14/1995 955 RP 348 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/14/1995 956 RP 348 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 07/10/1995 348 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) P + 0611411995 21461 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 05/10/1995 19295 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TGR) A - 04/14/1995 17733 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 03/10/1995 15994 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - 2/10/1995 14515 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A - May 14, 2010 8:40 AM Page 5 of 6 I Public Water Supply System a Department of Return to PWS Oue ry C��=RONMENTAL QUALITY Return to PWS Reports Data Source.Public Water Supply Section PWSID: MT0000618 Name: ELKHORN HEALTH AND REHABILITATION LLC (continued) 'Collection D Lab Number 01/10/1995 12831 RT 3100 COLIFORM (TCR) A I I I I May 14, 2010 8:40 AM Page 6 of 6 Montana's Ground-Water Information Center (GWIC) I Site Report I V.11.2010 Page 1 of 1 MONTANA WELL LOG REPORT Other Options This well log reports the activities of a licensed Montana well driller, Plot this site on a topographic map serves as the official record of work done within the borehole and View scanned well log (512012009 8:44:05 AM) casing, and describes the amount of water encountered.This report is complied electronically from the contents of the Ground-Water Information Center(GWIC)database for this site.Acquiring water rights is the well owner's responsibility and is NOT accomplished by the filing of this report. Site - E f3EN Section 7:Well Test Data t3 WIC Id: 5 1 Total Depth: 34 Section 1: Well Owner 4VAlet'liv k 71 Owner Name Water Temperature: GRACE, BEN Bailer Test' Mailing Address JW401elwith 30 feet of drawdown after_?-hours. city State Zip Code Time of recovery 2 hours. CLANCY MT Rewvery water level 7 feet. Ifilj+riNtgl!itiWl1' =Aat e Section 2: Location Township Range Section Quarter Sections 08N 03W 9 NWy.NE% 'During the well test the discharge rate shag be as uniform County Geocode as possible. This rate may or may not be the sustainable yield of the well. Sustainable yield does not include the reservoir of JEFFERSON the well casing. Latitude Longitude Geomethod Datum 46.46546 111.985132 TRS-SEC NAD83 Section 8: Remarks Altitude Method Datum Date Section 9: Well Log Addition Block Lot Geologic Source Unassigned Section 3: Proposed Use of Water From To Description DOMESTIC(1) 0 19 FILL 19 28 SAND/GRAVEL Section 4:Type of Work 28 34 GRANITE Drilling Method:CABLE Section 5: Well Completion Date Date well completed.Wednesday,July 05,1989 Section 6:Well Construction Details Borehole dimensions From To Diameter 01341 6 Casin Wall Pressure From To Diameter Thickness I Rating Joint Type -2 13016 STEEL Completion Perf/Screen Driller Certification u of Size of All work performed and reported in this well log is in From To Diameter Openings Openings Description compliance with the Montana well construction standards. 6 This report is true to the best of my knowledge. Annular Space Seal/Grout/Packer Name:TERRY LINDSAY Cont. Company:LINDSAY DRILLING CO. From To Description Fed? license No:W WG253 0 120 IBENTONITE GROUTE Date /5/1989 Completed: Montana's Ground-Water Information Center(GWIC) I Site Report I V.11.2010 Page 1 of 1 I MONTANA WELL LOG REPORT Other Options This well log reports the activities of a licensed Montana well driller, Plot this site on a topographic map serves as the official record of work done within the borehole and View scanned well log 15/20/2009 9:06:21 AM) casing, and describes the amount of water encountered.This report is complied electronically from the contents of the Ground-Water Information Center(GWIC)database for this site. Acquiring water rights is the well owner's responsibility and is NOT accomplished by the filing of this report. MON1)1lF.Ft1 Section 7:Well Test Data Total Depth: 39 Section 1:Well Owner ova"hw Lent 5! Owner Name Water Temperature: DEADMOND VERN Air Test` Mailing Address PO BOX 2052 MCS ,.W"with drill stem set at_feet for_L hours, city state Zip Code Time of recovery_hours. CLANCY MT 59634 Recovery water level feet. 1" 29 * t Section 2: Location Township Range Section Quarter Sections o8N 03W 9 NEY.SWY. 'During the well test the discharge rate shall be as uniform County NE%SWI as possible. This rate may or may not be the sustainable yield of the well. Sustainable yield does not include the reservoir of JEFFERSON the well casing. Latitude Longitude Geomethod Datum 46A57954 111.990613 TRS-SEC NAD83 Section 8: Remarks Altitude Method Datum Date Section 9:Well Log . Addition Block Lot Geologic Source Unassigned Section 3: Proposed Use of Water From To IDescription DOMESTIC(1) 0 1 TOPSOIL 1 15 SAND&GRAVEL Section 4:Type of Work 15 39 GRANTIE Drilling Method:ROTARY Section 5:Well Completion Date Date well completed:Wednesday, March 08,1995 Section 6: Well Construction Details Borehole dimensions From To Diameter 01211 10 211391 6 Casin Wall jPressure From To Diameter Thickness lRating Joint Type -2 21 16 1 STEEL Driller Certification 9 39 a PVC All work performed and reported in this well log is in Completion PertlScreen compliance with the Montana well construction standards. *of Size of This report is true to the best of my knowledge. From To Diameter Openings Openings Description Name:SHAWN TONEY _._s: _ 4 0.02X1 ACIt)RYSL - Company:H&L DRILLING INC Annular Space SeallGrouVPacker License No:W WC447 • Cont. Date 3/8/1995 From I To I Description Fed? Completed: 0 121 IBENTONITE&CEMENT Montana's Ground-Water Information Center(GWIC) I Site Report I VA 1.2010 Page 1 of 1 MONTANA WELL LOG REPORT Other Options This well log reports the activities of a licensed Montana well driller, Plot this site on a topographic map serves as the official record of work done within the borehole and View scanned well log f512012009 9:06:09 AM) casing, and describes the amount of water encountered.This report is complied electronically from the contents of the Ground-Water Information Center(GWIC)database for this site.Acquiring water rights is the well owners responsibility and is NOT accomplished by the filing of this report. LEY"it Section 7:Well Test Data Gk!'.5�7�22� Total Depth: 32 Section 1:Well Owner ` am"a Mt+s1AR to Owner Name Water Temperature: BUCKLEY JOHN W. Bailer Test' Mailing Address with feet of drawdown after 1 hours. city state Zip Code Time of recovery_hours. CLANCY MT Recovery water level feet. 1MIaa1�k;— {C/L t Section 2: Location Township Range Section Quarter Sections 08N 03W 9 NE%SW% `During the well test the discharge rate shall be as uniform County Geocode as possible. This rate may or may not be the sustainable yield JEFFERSON of the well. Sustainable yield does not include the reservoir of the well casing. Latitude Longitude Geomethod Datum 46.457954 111.990613 TRS-SEC NAD83 Section 8: Remarks Altitude Method Datum Date Section 9: Well Log Addition Block Lot Geologic Source Unassigned Section 3: Proposed Use of Water From To Description DOMESTIC(1) 0 15 OLD WELL 15 23 CLAY AND SAND Section 4:Type of Work 23 32 FAULT ROCK Drilling Method.CHURN Section 5:Well Completion Date Date well completed:Tuesday,September 15, 1970 Section 6:Well Construction Details Borehole dimensions From To Diameter 01321 6 Casino Wall Pressure From To Diameter Thickness Rating Joint Type 0 124 16 1 1 1 ISTEEL Completion Perf/Screen Driller Certification e of Size of All work performed and reported in this well log is in From To Diameter openings openings Description compliance with the Montana well construction standards. ` 3M4 I I ERFORATC-0 gThis report is true to the best of my knowledge. Annular Space(Seal/Grout/Packer) Name:WESLEY LINDSAY Company:LINDSAY DRILLING There are no annular space records assigned to this well. License No:WWC-38 Date 9115/1970 Completed: Montana's Ground-Water Information Center (GWIC) I Site Report I V.11.2010 Page 1 of I MONTANA WELL LOG REPORT Other Options This well log reports the activities of a licensed Montana well driller, Plot this site on a topographic map serves as the official record of work done within the borehole and View scanned well log (5!19/200911:16:00 AM) casing, and describes the amount of water encountered. This report is complied electronically from the contents of the Ground-Water Information Center(GWIC) database for this site.Acquiring water rights is the well owners responsibility and is NOT accomplished by the filing of this report. MARKS STEVE&LARAO Section 7:Well Test Data C'�: A'I Total Depth: 228 Section 1:Well Owner Gtmft Waler Level:30 ` Owner Name Water Temperature: MARKS STEVE&LINDA Air Test` Mailing Address 10 gptrl/with drill stem set at_feet for 1 hours. City State zip Code Time of recovery_hours. CLANCY MT 59634 Recovery water level_feet. Section 2: Location Township Range Section Quarter Sections 08N 03W 4 NE% `During the well test the discharge rate shall be as uniform County Geocode as possible. This rate may or may not be the sustainable yield JEFFERSON of the well. Sustainable yield does not include the reservoir of the well casing. Latitude Longitude Geomethod Datum 46.480969 111.982309 TRS-SEC NAD83 Section 8: Remarks Attitude Method Datum Date Section 9:Well Log Addition Block Lot Geologic Source 211 BDBT-BOULDER BATHOLITH Section 3: Proposed Use of Water From To IDescription DOMESTIC(1) 01 4 TOP SOIL 41 17 BROKEN ROCK Section 4:Type of Work 17 30 DECOMPOSED GRANITE Drilling Method:AIR ROTARY 30 228 BEDROCK Section 5:Well Completion Date Date well completed:Thursday,April 07, 1983 Section 6:Well Construction Details Borehole dimensions From 7o Diameter 0 228 6 Casin Wall jPnessure From To Diameter IThickness lRating Joint Type 0 132 16 STEEL 10 1228 14 1 1 1 jpVC Driller Certification Com letion PerflScreen All work performed and reported in this well log is in q of Size of compliance with the Montana well construction standards. From To Diameter Openings Openings Description This report is true to the best of my knowledge. Name:TERRY LINDSAY 40 4 1!4 X 4 Company:LINDSAY DRILLING CO INC Annular Space SeallGrout/Packer License No:WWC-253 I Cont. Date 417/1983 From To Description Fed? Completed: 0 120 JBENTONME CLAY Montana's Ground-Water Information Center(GWIC) I Site Report I V.11.2010 Page I of 1 MONTANA WELL LOG REPORT Other Options This well log reports the activities of a licensed Montana well driller, Plot this site on a topographic map serves as the official record of work done within the borehole and View scanned well log (51191200911:34:12 AM) casing, and describes the amount of water encountered. This report is complied electronically from the contents of the Ground-Water Information Center(GWIC)database for this site.Acquiring water rights is the well owner's responsibility and is NOT accomplished by the filing of this report. me;Ift"'E.D.B E.D.y( Section 7:Well Test Data it 51163 Total Depth: 52 Section 1: Well Owner 4IR9N Wlaval:12 i Owner Name Water Temperature: HICKLIN,E.D.&E.D. Unknown Test Method Mailing Address ' f-20 gplh. city State Zip Code P .ymW..ift*-4L.ft44 CLANCY MT Time of recovery_hours. Recovery water level_feet. Section 2: Location Township Range Section Quarter Sections 08N 03W 4 SW'/.SE'/. 'During the well test the discharge rate shall be as uniform County Geocode as possible. This rate may or may not be the sustainable yield JEFFERSON of the well. Sustainable yield does not include the reservoir of the well casing. Latitude Longitude Geomethod Datum 46.469513 111.985063 TRS-SEC NAD83 Section 8: Remarks Altitude Method Datum Date • Section 9:Well Log Addition Block Lot Geologic Source 211 BDBT-BOULDER BATHOLITH Section 3: Proposed Use of Water From To Description DOMESTIC(1) 0 5 TOPSOIL STOCKWATER(2) 5 25 CLAY AND GRAVEL 25 52 DECOMPOSED BED ROCK Section 4: Type of Work Drilling Method:CHURN DRILL Section 5:Well Completion Date Date well completed:Wednesday,September 05, 1973 Section 6:Well Construction Details Borehole dimensions From To Diameter 0 52 6 Casing Wall Pressure From To Diameter Thickness Rating Joint Type 0 10 16 1 1 1 Driller Certification Completion Perf/Screen All work performed and reported in this well log is in #of Isize of compliance with the Montana well construction standards. From To Diameter Openings Openings I Description This report is true to the best of my knowledge. 6 1 1.25 X 1.5 PERFtaHA't71 Name:WESLEY LINDSAY Annular Space(Seal/GroutiPack @r) Company;LINDSAY DRILLING License No:WWC-38 There are no annular space records assigned to this well. Date 915/1973 Completed; Montana s Ground-Water Information Center (GWIC) I Site Report I V.11.2010 Page 1 of I MONTANA WELL LOG REPORT Other Options This well log reports the activities of a licensed Montana well driller, Plot this site on a topographic map serves as the official record of work done within the borehole and View scanned well log 15/191200911:33:52 AM) casing, and describes the amount of water encountered.This report is complied electronically from the contents of the Ground-Water Information Center(GWIC)database for this site. Acquiring water rights is the well owner's responsibility and is NOT accomplished by the filing of this report. 1 i"Na $fiEN t F, Section 7:Well Test Data ON RC Water Right: Total Depth: 140 =lfllatar'Lowil 47 Section 1:Well Owner Water Temperature: Owner Name Pump Test' MARKS STEVE AND LAURA Mailing Address Depth pump set for test feet. 30 LUMP GULCH UAC oW pump rate with—feet of drawdown after 9 hours city state Zip Code of pumping. CLANCY MT 59634 Time of recovery_L hours. Recovery water level 47 feet.fol Section 2: Location ' -93, Township Range Section Quarter Sections 08N 03W 4 SE/Sw'/, •During the well test the discharge rate shall be as uniform County Geocode as possible. This rate may or may not be the sustainable yield JEFFERSON of the well. Sustainable yield does not include the reservoir of Latitude Longitude Geomethod Datum the well casing. 46.469513 111.990572 TRS-SEC NAD83 Altitude Method Datum Date Section 8: Remarks . Addition Block Lot Section 9:Well Log Geologic Source Section 3: Proposed Use of Water Unassigned DOMESTIC(1) From To joescription Section 4:Type of Work 0 2 TOPSOIL Drilling Method:AIR ROTARY 2 30 SAND AND GRAVLE 30 60 DECOMPOSED BEDROCK Section 5:Well Completion Date 60 140 DUARZITE BEDROCK Date well completed:Friday,April 12,2002 Section 6:Well Construction Details Borehole dimensions From To Diameter 011401 6 asinci wall Pressure From To Diameter Thickness Rating Joint IType -2 56 6 CASING 40 140 4 PVC Com letion PerllScreen Driller Certification #of Size of From To Diameter Openings Openings Description All work performed and reported in this well log is in compliance with the Montana well construction standards. 4 1PERFURIXTEU This report is true to the best of my knowledge. Annular Space Seal/GrouUPacker) [ Na me:TERRY LINDSAY • Cont. Company:LINDSAY GRILLING CO INC From To Description Fed? License No:VWVC-253 0 20 BENTONITE Date 411 212 0 0 2 Completed: Montana's Ground-Water Information Center(GWIC) I Site Report I V.11.2010 Page I of I MONTANA WELL LOG REPORT Other Options This well log reports the activities of a licensed Montana well driller, Plot this site on a topographic map serves as the official record of work done within the borehole and View scanned well log (511912009 11:33:36 AMI casing, and describes the amount of water encountered. This report is complied electronically from the contents of the Ground-Water Information Center(GWIC)database for this site.Acquiring water rights is the well ownees responsibility and is NOT accomplished by the fling of this report. Us Now w A"JI STM Section 7:Well Test Data Goo W,'Y Mi Total Depth:400 Section 1:Well Owner wom NNW Owner Name Water Temperature: MARKS STEVE Pump Test' Mailing Address 30 LUMP GULCH Depth pump set for test_feet. city State Zip Code UWAm l pump rate with_feet of drawdown after_hours of CLANCY MT 59634 pumping. Time of recovery 24 hours. Section 2: Location Recovery water level 81 feet. Township Range Section Quarter Sections 08N 03W 4 SE%SW'/. County Geocode •During the well test the discharge rate shall be as uniform JEFFERSON as possible. This rate may or may not be the sustainable yield Latitude Longitude Geomethod Datum of the well. Sustainable yield does not include the reservoir of 46.459513 111.990572 TRS-SEC NAD83 the well casing. Altitude Method Datum Date Section 8: Remarks Addition Block Lot Section 9:Well Log Geologic Source Section 3: Proposed Use of Water Unassigned DOMESTIC(1) From To IDescription Section 4: Type of Work 0 2 TOPSOIL Drilling Method:AIR ROTARY 2 25 BROKEN ROCK 25 100 QUARTZITE Section 5:Well Completion Date 100 310 FAULTED GRANITE Date well completed:Wednesday,August 02,2000 310 400 QUARTZITE Section 6: Well Construction Details Borehole dimensions From To Diameter 0 400 8 Casin Wall Pressure From To Diameter Thickness Rating Joint Type 2 1231_2318 STEEL 25 132285126 17#STEEL Com letion PerVScreen Driller Certification #of Size of From To Diameter Openings Openings Description All work performed and reported in this well log is in compliance with the Montana well construction standards. i6" s t This report is true to the best of my knowledge. Annular Space(Seal/Grout/Packer) Name:TERRY LINDSAY Cont. Company:LINDSAY DRILLING CO INC From To Description Fed? License No:W WC-253 0 35 BENTONITE Date 802000 Completed: Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Appendix K Non Degradation Calculations i INFILTRATION CHAMBERS • Clancy,Jefferson County Wastewater PER-Groundwater Discharge DEQ-4 Level 2 System DESIGN FLOW= 35,000 GPD 4,679 CF/DAY ESTIMATED PERC RATE= 10.0 MIN/IN (NRCS SOILS;SITE DATA) APPLICATION RATE= 0.4 GPD/SQFT (FROM DEQ-4 TABLE 8-1) MINIMUM TREATMENT AREA= 87,500 SOFT (NOT INCL.REPLACEMENT AREA) 2.01 ACRES CHAMBER WIDTH= 3.0 FT (36"CHAMBER) TOTAL CHAMBER LENGTH= 29,167 LF 50% LEVEL II REDUCTION= 14,583 LF LATERAL LENGTH= 200.0 LF (USER DEFINED) TOTAL NUMBER OF LATERALS= 73 TOTAL AREA REQUIRED= 112,292 SOFT 2.58 ACRES TOTAL AREA REQUIRED= 224,583 SOFT WITH REPLACEMENT AREA 5.16 ACRES 'NOTE THAT THE TOTAL AREA REQUIRED IS AN ESTIMATE WHICH INCLUDES 10%ADDITIONAL AREA FOR PIPING, ZONES,SETBACKS, ETC. ACTUAL DIMENSIONS/AREAS SHALL BE CALCULATED FOR EACH SPECIFIC SITE AFTER THE GEOMETRIC DESIGN LAYOUT. I i i MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY . NITRATE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Model Updated 01124196 SITE NAME: Clancy Wastewater PER COUNTY: Jefferson LOT #: NOTES: Level II Treatment; DEQ-4 VARIABLES DESCRIPTION VALUE UNITS K Hydraulic Conductivity 62.8 fUday I Hydraulic Gradient 0.010 ftift D Depth of Aquifer(usually constant) 15.0 ft L Mixing Zone Length (see ARM 17.30.517(1)(d)(viii) 500 ft Y Width of Drainfield Perpendicular to Ground Water Flow 1000 ft Ng Background Nitrate (as Nitrogen) 0.82 mg/L Nr Nitrate (as Nitrogen) in Precipitation (usually constant) 1.0 mg/L Ne Nitrates in Effluent(50 for conventional; 24 for level II) 24 mg/L #1 Number of Single Family Homes on the Drainfield 140.0 QI Quantity of Effluent per Single Family Home(constant) 26.70 ft3/day P Precipitation 10.9 in/year V Percent of Precipitation Recharging Ground Water (usually constant) 0.20 EQUATIONS W Width of Mixing Zone Perpendicular to Ground Water Flow 1087.50 ft = (0.1 75)(L)+(Y) Am Cross Sectional Area of Aquifer Mixing Zone = (D)(W) 16312.50 ft2 As Surface Area of Mixing Zone = (L)(W) 543750.00 ft2 Qg Ground Water Flow Rate = (K)(1)(Am) 10236.09 ft3/day Qr Recharge Flow Rate = (As)(P/12/365)(V) 270.88 ft3/day Qe Effluent Flow Rate = (#I)(QI) 3738.00 f0day SOLUTION Nt Nitrate(as Nitrogen) Concentration at End of Mixing Zone 6.91 mg/L =((Ng)(Qg)+(Nr)(Qr)+(Ne)(Qe)) I ((Qg)+(Qr)+(Qe)) BY: Rich Fillbach DATE: January 21, 2010 REV. 12198 MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PHOSPHOROUS BREAKTHROUGH ANALYSIS SITE NAME: Clancy Wastewater PER COUNTY: Jefferson LOT #: NOTES: Level II Treatment; DEQ-4 VARIABLES DESCRIPTION VALUE UNITS Lg Length of Primary Drainfield as Measured Perpendicular to Ground 1000.0 It Water Flow L Length of Primary Drainfield's Long Axis 1000.0 ft W Width of Primary Drainfield's Short Axis 120.0 It B Depth to Limiting Layer from Bottom of Drainfield Laterals' 5.0 ft D Distance from Drainfield to Surface Water 1500.0 ft T Phosphorous Mixing Depth in Ground Water (0.5 ft for coarse soils, 1.0 ft Ne 1.0 ft for fine soils)" Sw Soil Weight (usually constant) 100.0 Iblft3 Pa Phosphorous Adsorption Capacity of Soil(usually constant) 200.0 ppm #1 Number of Single Family Homes on the Drainfield 140.0 CONSTANTS PI Phosphorous Load per Single Family Home (constant) 6.44 Ibs/yr X Conversion Factor for ppm to percentage (constant) 1.0E+06 EQUATIONS Pt Total Phosphorous Load = (PI)(#1) 901.60 Ibs/yr W1 Soil Weight under Drainfield = (L)(W)(B)(Sw) 60000000.0 Ibs W2 Soil Weight from Drainfield to Surface Water 169687500.0 Ibs =[(Lg)(D) + (0.0875)(D)(D)l (T)(Sw) P Total Phosphorous Adsorption by Soils = (W1 + W2)[(Pa)](X)] 45937.5 Ibs SOLUTION BT Breakthrough Time to Surf ace Water= P I Pt 51.0 years BY: Rich Fillbach DATE: January 22, 2010 NOTES: ' Depth to limiting layer is typically based on depth to water in a test pit or bottom of a dry test pit minus two feet to account for burial depth of standard drainfield laterals. " Material type is usually based on test pit. A soil that contains more than 35% silt and clay sized particles is considered fine grained. G:)WPBISUBDI VI WORHSPACINDEGIPBT.XLS REV. 04 12000 i ProjectClancy,Jefferson County Wastewater PER(1-05154 TO#43) Date:January 21,2010 Modified Cooper-Jacobs Equation Equation#1 Equation#1 Equation#1 Q(gpm) 125.00 Q(gpm) 120.00 Q(9pm) 20.00 Static Water level 81.00 Static Water level 47.00 Static Water level 12.00 Pump Level 168.00 Pump Level 93.00 Pump Level 42.00 S(drawdown) 87.00 S(drawdown) 46.00 S(drawdowri) 30.00 Aquifer:1500 unconfined 2000.00 Aquifer:1500 unconfined 2000.00 Aquifer:1500 unconfined 2000.00 2000 for confined 2000 for confined 2000 for confined Conversion factor 7.48 Conversion factor 7.48 Conversion factor 7.48 T(transmissivity) 384.17 T(transm(sslvlty) 697.51 T(transmissivity) 178.25 Equation 92 Equation#2 Equation#2 T(transmissivily) 384.17 T(transmissivily) 697.51 T(transmissivity) 178.25 S'(aquifer thickness) 10.00 S'(aquifer thickness) 10.00 B*(aquifer thickness) 10.00 K(hydraulic conductivity) 38.42 K h draulic conductivity) 69.75 K(hydraulic conductive 17.83 Equation#1 Equation#1 Equation#1 i Q(gpm) 30.00 Q(gpm) 20.00 Q(gpm) 60.00 Static Water level 15.00 Static Water level 7.00 Static Water level 5.00 Pump Level 20.00 Pump Level 30.00 Pump Level 29.00 S(drawdown) 5.00 S(drawdown) 23.00 S(drawdown) 24.00 Aquifer:1500 unconfined 2000.00 Aquifer:1500 unconfined 2000.00 Aquifer:1500 unconfined 2000.00 2000 for confined 2000 for confined 2000 for confined Conversion factor 7.48 Conversion factor TAB Conversion factor 7.48 T(transmissivity) 1604.28 T(transmissivily) 232.50 T(transmissivity) 668.45 Equation#2 Equation#2 Equation#2 T(transmissivily) 1604.28 T(transmissivily) 232.50 T(transmissivily) 668.45 B*(aquifer thickness) 10.00 B*(aquifer thickness) 10.00 B*(aquifer thickness) 10.00 K(hydraulic conductivity) 160.43 K(hydraulic conductvi 23,25 K 1hydraulic conductivity) 66.84 Avera e= 62.75 'Well Completion Tvoe Aquifer Thickness Perforated or screened Perforation/screen thickness Open Bottom 10 feet Open Hole Open hole interval(i.e.distance between bottom of casing and bottom of borehole) i I • ! i Hydraulic Conductivity and Transmissivity Calculations Project: Clancy,Jefferson County Wastewater PER(1-05154 TO#42) Date:January 21, 2010 Fetter Gwic Id 185081 Gwic Id 195743 Gwic Id 57163 Name Marks Name Marks Name Hicklin Legal Description SE,SW,S4,T8N,R3W Legal Description SE,SW,S4,T8N,R3W Legal Description SW,SE,S4,T8N,R3W Q(gpm) 125 Q(gpm) 120 Q(gpm) 20 Static level 81 Static level 47 Static level 12 Pump level 168 Pump level 93 Pump level 42 S(drawdown) 87 S(drawdown) 46 S (drawdown) 30 b*(aquifer thickness) 75 b*(aquifer thickness) 80 b*(aquifer thickness) 10 K 19.38 K 27.09 K 86.88 L)Nic Id 57223 iZ Nic Id 57211 Gwic Id 153540 Name Buckley Name Grace Name Deadmond Legal Description NE,SW,S9,T8N,R3W Legal Description NW,NE,S9,T8N,R3W Legal Description NE,SW,S9,T8N,R3W Q (gpm) 30 Q(gpm) 20 Q(gpm) 60 Static level 15 Static level 7 Static level 5 Pump level 20 Pump level 30 Pump level 29 S(drawdown) 5 S(drawdown) 23 S(drawdown) 24 b*(aquifer thickness) 8 b*(aquifer thickness) 4 b*(aquifer thickness) 10 K 473.35 K 259.53 K 210.63 Average= 179.48 Well Completion Type Aquifer Thickness Perforated or screened Perforation/screen thickness Open Bottom 10 feet Open Hole Open hole interval(i.e. distance between bottom of casing and bottom of borehole) Hydraulic Conductivity.xls Clancy, Montana Groundwater Discharge Calculation • Dilution calculation utilizing the following mass balance equation: C2 = C3(Q1+02)-CA (equ. 1) Q2 where: C, = Ambient(background)ground water nitrate+nitrite (as N)concentration(mg/Q. C2 = Allowable nitrate (as N) discharge concentration(mg/L). C3 = Ground water concentration limit for nitrate(as N)at the end of the mixing zone Q, = Ground water volume mixing with the discharge (ft /day) Q2= Design discharge volume (ft' /day) Known: C, = 0.82 mg/L C2= i mg/L C3 = 7.5 mg/L Q, = i ft'/day 02= 4,679 ft'/day I Solve Q,: . Q, = KiA (equ. 2) where: Q, = Ground water volume (ft'/day) K= hydraulic conductivity(ft/day) i = hydraulic gradient (ftift) A= cross-section area of flow at the down-gradient boundary of the 500-foot mixing zone (ft2) Q _ft'/day K= 62 ft/day i= 0.02 ft/ft A= 16,305 ft2 (1;087' X 15) Q, = 20,218 ft'/day Solve C2: _ C3(Q1+Q2) -C,Q7 (equ. 1) C2- 02 C2= 36.4 mglL BACKGROUND NITRATE Clancy, Jefferson County Wastewater PER PWS Well MT0001397 Clancy Elementary School District 01 Year Nitrate 2007 1.54 2008 1.19 2009 1.1 2010 1.07 Average = 1.28 PWS Well MT0001400 Chubby's Bar and Grill Year Nitrate 2007 0.41 2008 0.61 2009 0.48 Average = 0.50 PWS Well MT0003721 Chubby's Bar and Grill Year Nitrate 2007 0.49 2008 0.83 2009 0.71 Average = 0.68 Overall Average Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • Appendix L Climate Data BOULDER, MONTANA (241008) Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary Period of Record : 7/ 1/1948 to 8/31/2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average Max. 33.3 38.7 44.8 54.9 64.3 72.7 82.6 81.9 71.0 59.3 42.9 34.8 56.8 Temperature (F) Average Min. 9.4 14.3 19.1 27.1 35.3 42.6 47.9 46.0 37.0 28.2 18.6 11.5 28.1 Temperature (F) Average Total 0.45 0.32 0.50 0.81 1.78 2.05 1.37 1.21 1.02 0.59 0.52 0.43 11.05 Precipitation (in.) Average Total 7.1 3.9 6.4 3.9 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 3.9 5.1 31.5 SnowFall (in.) Average Snow 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Depth (in.) Percent of possible observations for period of record. Max. Temp.: 99% Min. Temp.: 98%Precipitation: 99% Snowfall: 76.1% Snow Depth: 68.3% Check Station Metadata or Metadata graphics for more detail about data completeness. Western Regional Climate Center, wrccr&,dri.edu 64 EAST HELENA, MONTANA (242634) r Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary Period of Record : 1/ 1/1925 to 2/2811958 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average Max. 27.8 33.8 42.3 56.2 66.3 72.9 85.2 82.8 70.7 58.6 42.3 33.4 56.0 Temperature(F) Average Min. 7.7 12.9 20.9 31.3 40.6 47.4 53.8 51.6 42.2 33.0 21.3 13.9 31.4 Temperature (F) Average Total 0.35 0.29 0.62 0.70 1.46 1.97 0.96 0.78 1.05 0.53 0.48 0.49 9.67 Precipitation(in.) Average Total 6.9 6.9 8.8 2.2 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 6.0 6.6 40.1 SnowFall (in.) Average Snow 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 Depth(in.) Percent of possible observations for period of record. Max. Temp.: 99.9% Min. Temp.: 100% Precipitation: 100% Snowfall: 99.7% Snow Depth: 99.7% • Check Station Metadata or Metadata graphics for more detail about data completeness. Western Regional Climate Center, wrccldJ�dri.edu HELENA WSO, MONTANA Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary Page 1 of 1 • HELENA WSO, MONTANA (244055) Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary Period of Record : 1/ 1/1893 to 8/31/2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average Max. 29.8 35.0 43.4 55.2 64.5 72.7 83.0 81.3 69.3 57.3 42.1 32.6 55.5 Temperature (F) Average Min. 11.4 15.5 22.4 31.8 40.4 47.7 53.6 51.8 42.5 33.4 22.6 14.7 32.3 Temperature(F) Average Total Precipitation (in.) 0.59 0.46 0.71 0.98 1.91 2.11 1.10 0.99 1.11 0.73 0.60 0.58 11.87 Average Total 8.7 7.0 8.4 5.1 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.2 3.0 6.5 8.1 49.9 SnowFall (in.) Average Snow Depth 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 (in.) Percent of possible observations for period of record. Max. Temp.: 99.9% Min. Temp.: 99.9%Precipitation: 99.5% Snowfall: 95.1% Snow Depth: 95.3% Check Station Metadata or Metadata eraohics for more detail about data completeness. Western Regional Climate Center, wrcen dri.edu Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Appendix M Total Retention Preliminary Design Calculations i 0 0 0 L Ceneral Clancy,Jefferson County Wastewater PER Summer Time FTE's= 350 Pond Sizing Calculations-Total Retention Alternative Winter Time FTE's= 350 Average Day Flows People/FTE= 1 GPD/FTE= I00 Pounds BOD,/person/day= 0.2 Summer Flow(gpd)= 35,000 Winter Flow(gpd)= 35,000 Summer BOD5 Load(lbs/day)= 70.0 Winter BOD5 Load(lbs/day)= 70.0 11.Primary Pond-Total Retention Water Depth Interior Useable Cumulative from Pond Length Radius Incremental Cumulative Detention Design BOD,Load(lbs/acre/day)= 30 Bottom(ft) Width(ft) (ft) (ft) Area(st) Volume(gal) Volume(gal) Time(days) Freeboard(ft)= 3 2 292 292 29 84,542 Operating Depth(ft)= 4 3 298 298 32 87,925 645,027 645,027 18 Sludge Depth(ft)= 2 4 304 304 35 91,364 670,543 1,315,569 38 Comer Radius at Top of Dikes(ft)= 50 5 310 310 38 94,860 696,481 2,012,051 57 6 316 316 41 98,413 722,843 2,734,894 78 Required Surface Area(acres)= 2.3. Primary Pond Water Surface Area(acres)= 2.3 Water Surface Width(ft)= 316 Calculated BOD5 Surface Load(lbs/acre/day)= 31.0 Water Surface Length(ft)= 316 Pond Top Surface Area(acres)= 2.5 Top Dike Width(ft)= 334 Primary Pond Volume= 2.7 MG Top Dike Length(11)= 334 III,Storage Pond-Total Retention Alternative Water Depth Interior Useable Cumulative from Pond Radius Incremental Cumulative Detention Average Day Flow(gpd)= 35,000 Bottom(ft) Width(it)Length(ft) (ft) Area(sf) Volume(gat) Volume(gal) Time(days) Freeboard(III= 3 1 711 711 20 505,178 Operational Depth(ft)= 7 2 717 717 23 513,635 3,810,315 3,810,315 109 Sludge Depth(III= 1 3 723 723 26 522,149 3,873,787 7,684,102 220 Comer Radius at Top of Dikes(ft)= 50 4 729 729 29 530,719 3,937,682 11,621,784 332 5 735 735 32 539,346 4,002,000 15,623,784 446 Water Surface Width(ft) 753 6 741 741 35 548,029 4,066,741 19,690,525 563 Water Surface Length(A)= 753 7 747 747 38 556,769 4,131,905 23,822,430 681 8 1 753 753 41 565,566 4,197,492 28,019,922 801 "Pop Dike Width(ft)= 771 Top Dike Length(ft)= 771 Storage Pond I-foot Surface Area(acres)= 11.6 Storage Pond Surface Arm(acres)= 13.0 Minimum Sin(acres) 13.0 Volume(MG)= 28.0 *Please refer to Table 93.1 in Circular DEQ-2 I Clancy Jefferson County Wastewater PER Monthly Water Balance Total Retention Laaoon Design flow 36,000 gpd Total Minimum Lagoon Area 16.2 acres Max Annual Seepage Rate 6 Inches Wastewater Flows 10-yr Wet Precip. Evaporation Evaporation Seepage Seepage Net Volume Cumulative Volume Month Da s ( allons Precip.(inches (gallons) (Inches) (gallons) {inches) (galtons) {gallons) {gallons) January 31 1,085,000 0.66 272,674 0.67" 275,868 0.51" 210,869 870,936 2,363,574 February 28 980,000 0.50 205,987 1.00" 413,803 0.46" 190,463 581,722 2,945,296 March 31 1,085,000 0.83 345,288 1.83" 758,638 0.51" 210,869 460,781 3,406,077 April 30 1,050,000 1.18 489,035 3.17" 1,310,375 0.49" 204,067 24,593 3,430,670 May 31 1,085,000 2.48 1,026,973 4.92" 2,034,529 0.51" 210.869 -133,426 3,297,244 June 30 1,050,000 2.93 1,212,213 5.67" 2,344,881 0.49" 204,067 -286,735 3,010,510 July 31 1,085,000 1.72 711,323 7.83" 3,241,454 0.51" 210,869 -1,655,999 1,354,510 August 31 1,085,000 1.50 620,926 6.58" 2,724,200 0.51" 210,869 -1,229,144 125,367 September 30 1,050,000 1.50 622,408 3.83" 1,586,243 0.49" 204,067 -117,902 7,464 October 31 1,085,000 0.87 361,589 2.50" 1,034,506 0.51" 210,869 201,214 208,678 November 30 1,050,000 0.76 314,168 1.17" 482,770 0.49" 204,067 677,331 677,331 December 31 1,085,000 0.69 286,011 0.83" 344,835 0.51" 210,869 815,307 1,492,838 Totals 365 12,775,000 15.63" 6,468,596 40.00" 16,552,103 6.00" 2,482,815 208,678 Montana City,Jefferson County Wastewater PER Determining the 2 Yr in 10 Yr Wet Precipitation Based on Western Regional Climate Center Records for Helena RGNL AP(COOP ID:244055) 2nd Wettest Yr 2nd Driest Yr 10 Yr Freq Year Annual Precip Ranking in 10-Year Cycle Each Cycle Each Cycle Precip 1970 9.74 8 1971 10.12 1 6 1972 8.22 9 8.22 1973 6.26 10 1974 10.45 4 :11975 20.94 1 20.94 1 0.07 7 11.33 2 11.33 10.96 3 10.39 5 17.05 1 17.05 13.81 4 _ 1982 13.98 3 1983 14.03 2 14.03 1984 9 9 9 1985 8.95 10 1986 12.09 6 _ 1987 10.03 8 . 1988 10.03 7 1989 12.49 5 1990 8.43 9 8.43 1991 11.92 4 1992 9.33 8 1993 18.81 1 18.81 1994 7.47 10 1995 12.41 3 1996 9.72 6 1997 10.57 5 1998 12.57 2 12.57 1999 9.54 7 2000 8.38 10 2001 10.31 6 2002 12.54 1 12.54 2003 9.34 8 2004 12.05 4 2005 12.16 3 2006 12.53 2 15.53 _ 2007 10.36 5 2008 9.24 9 _ 9.24 2009 9.94 7 •Precipitation in inches Avg of 10 Yr Freq 17.34 Ave of 2 yr dry 8.72 Avg of 2 year wet 13.371 1 2/9/2010 Montana City,Jefferson County Wastewater PER Determining the 2 Yr in 10 Yr Wet Precipitation Based on Western Regional Climate Center Records for East Helena(COOP ID: 242634) 2nd Wettest Yr 2nd Driest Yr 10 Yr Freq Year Annual Precip Ranking in 10-Year Cycle Each Cycle Each Cycle Precip 1928 6.61 7 1929 5.27 9 5.27 1930 6.83 6 1931 6.08 8 1932 10.16 2 10.16 1933 9.76 3 1934 7.94 5 1935 4.98 10 1936 9.1 4 1937 10.97 1 10.97 1938 11.51 3 1939 8.77 6 1940 7.91 7 1941 10.11 4 1942 6.13 10 1943 7.16 9 7.16 1944 12.48 2 12.48 1945 7.71 8 1946 9.08 5 _ 1947 15.06 1 15.06 1948 4.15 10 1949 9.05 7 1950 1L 05 4 1951 11.63 2 11.63 1952 9.11 6 1953 8.61 8 1954 9.57 5 1955 12.2 1 12.2 1956 8.37 9 _ _ 8.37 _ 1957 11.19 3 Avg of 10 Yr Freq 12.74 Ave of 2 yr dry 6.93 '*Precipitation in inches Avg of 2 year wet 11.421 2/9/2010 Clancy, Jefferson County Wastewater PER Determining the 2 Yr in 10 Yr Wet Precipitation Based on Western Regional Climate Center Records for Boulder(COOP ID: 241008) 2nd 2nd Wettest Driest Yr 10 Yr Yr Each Each Freq Year Annual Precip Ranking in 10-Year Cycle Cycle Precip 1970 11.87 5 1971 11.41 6 1972 8.95 8 1973 1 9.01 7 1974 8.78 9 8.78 1975 17.88 1 17.88 1976 13.97 2 13.97 1977 12.93 4 1978 13.62 3 1979 6.86 10 1980 17.5 1 17.5 1981 13.88 2 13.88 1982 12.37 4 - - 1983 11.68 5 1984 10.15 8 1985 10.3 7 . 1986 11.05 6 1987 9.52 9 9.52 1988 8.94 10 1989 12.55 3 1990 12.11 5 1991 13.86 3 H9-92 -8.68 9 8.68 1993 17.13 1 1 17.13 1994 9.47 7 1995 14.3 2 14.3 1996 9.06 8 1997 12.59 4 1998 10.07 6 1999 8.44 10 2000 6.89 10 2001 9.59 8 2002 9.11 91 9.11 2003 9.59 7 2004 12.39 1 1239 2005 12.39 2 12.39 2006 11.53 3 2007 10.28 6 - 2008 10.34 _- 2009 10.97 41. *Precipitation in inches Avg of 10 Yr Freq 16.23 Ave of 2 yr dry 1 1 9.02 Avg of 2 year wet 1 13.641 11 _ 10. r Wet Avg weather stations East Helena/ 12.74 Helena RGNL AP 17.34 Avera a 1 15.04 _ Boulder noe63 Average Total Helena AP Precipitation(in.) 0.59 0.98 7.91 2.11 1.1 0.98 1.11 0.73 0.6 0.58 11.8 Average Total East Helena Precipitation(in.) 0.35 0.7 1.46 ]205 0.96 0.78 1.05 0.53 0.48 0.49 9.6 Average Helena(s) 0.47 0.375 0.665 0.84 1.685 1.03 0.885 1.08 0.63 0.54 0.535 10. Average Total Boulder Precipitation(in.) 0.45 0.32 0.5 0.81 1.78 1-37 1.21 1.02 0.59 0.52 0.43 11.0 0.46 0.35 0.58 0.83 1.73 1.20 1.0511 1.05 0.611 0.531 0.48 10.91 Estimation of Evaporation from Shallow Fonds And Impoundments in Montana Donald F. Potts Miscellaneous Publication #48 March 1988 Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station i School of Forestry, University of Montana Missoula, MT 59812 i 37 Poo R — T O O E LI ERTYI H I L L I I D E R A - 9 L A I N E ,¢�N _ P HI.L L P S I C H 0 U T E A U r I1N _ E W I S C A S C A D E � F E R G U S i G A �x• A N O tPETROLEUM A�GHE R GIphG� ( WHEAT lA GOLDE MUSS E L S HELD N VALLEY ` R T IEFFERSON B OWATE - i j W� T YELLOWSTON �7~ j \GALLATIN I TILLWA7ERI I GRASS - P A R K I G MA 0 1 S O N I B w C A R B 0 j YELLOWSTONE 109 106 + }s~ 11 _ N A T I O#KN L/ V�JLt< 0, Y �1 4l7 K 40 IL s Ni _�_�~ Lilo ��• Fig. 2 MEAN ANNUAL EVAPORATION SHALLOW LAKES AND RESERVOIRS Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER • Appendix N Facultative Lagoon with Storage & Irrigation Preliminary Design calculations i I. General Clancy,Jefferson County Wastewater PER Summer Time FTE's= 350 Pond Sizing Calculations-Stroage&Irrigation Alternative Winter Time FTE's= 350 Average Day Flows People/FTE= 1 GPD/FTE= 100 Pounds BOD,/person/day= 0.2 Summer Flow(gpd)= 35,000 Winter Flow(gpd)= 35,000 Summer BOD5 Load(Ibs/day)= 70.0 Winter BODs Load(Ibs/day)= 70.0 If.Primary Pond-Faculadve Interior Useable Cumulative Water Depth from Pond Bottom Width Length Radius Incremental Cumulative Detention Design BOD,Load(lbs/acre/day)= 30 (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Area(so Volume(gal) Volume(gal) Time(days) Freeboard(ft)= 3 2 292 292 29 84,542 Operating Depth(ft)= 4 3 298 298 32 87,925 645,027 645,027 18 Sludge Depth(It)= 2 4 304 304 35 91,364 670,543 1,315,569 38 Comer Radius at Top of Dikes(ft)= 50 5 310 310 38 94,860 696,481 2,012,051 57 6 1 316 316 41 98,413 722,843 2,734,894 78 Required Surface Area(acres)= 2.3 Primary Pond Water Surface Area(acres)= 2.3 Water Surface Width(ft)= 316 Calculated BOD,Surface Load(Ibs/acre/day)= 31.0 Water Surface Length(ft)= 316 Top Dike Width(ft)= 334 Volume= 2.7 MG Top Dike Length(ft)= 334 Top of Dike Surface Area(acres)= 2.5 Ill.Storage Pond-Storage&Irrigation Useable Cumulative Water Depth from Length Interior Incremental Cumulative Detention Time Average Day Flow(gpd)= 35,000 Pond Bottom(ft) Width(ft) (ft) Radius(ft) Area(sf) Volume(gal) Volume(gal) (days) Freeboard(ft)= 3 1 312 312 20 97,001 Operational Depth(ft)= 7 2 318 318 23 100,670 739,245 739,245 21 Sludge Depth(ft)= 1 3 324 324 26 104,396 766,903 1,506,149 43 Corner Radius at Top of Dikes(ft)= 50 4 330 330 29 108,178 794,984 2,301,133 66 5 336 336 32 112,017 823,488 3,124,621 89 Water Surface Width(ft)= 354 6 342 342 35 115,912 852,415 3,977,035 114 Water Surface Length(ft)= 354 7 348 348 38 119,864 881,764 4,858,800 139 8 354 354 41 1.23,873 911,537 5,770,337 165 Top Dike Width(ft)= 372 Top Dike Length(ft)= 372 Storage Pond 1-foot Surface Area(acres)= 2.2 Top of Dike Surface Area(acres)= 3.1 Storage Pond Surface Area(acres)= 2.8 Volume(MG)= 5.8 Clancy,Jefferson County Wastewater PER Monthly Water Balance/Irrigation Requirements Storage&Irrigation Alternative L Precipitation and Evaporation for Montana City,Montana The Western Regional Climate Center(WRCC)stations for East Helena,Helena RGNL AP(Helena WSO),and Boulder are listed in the table below along with respective average annual precipitation and station elevation.The two Helena Stations were average for the Montana City project,and then to model Clancy,those numbers were averaged with Boulders weather salion since Clancy is approximately half way between the two. See attachments for NOAA and/or NRCS data summaries. The source of the data in the table below is indicated in the parenthesis under the station location. Table 1 Preci itation Data Climatological Station Average Annual 2 yr/10 yr Wet Precipitation Station Elevation Precipitation (inch) (0) (inch) East Helena (WRCC ID#242634) 3,950 9.67 11.42 Helena RGNL AP (WRCC ID#244055) 3,850 11.87 13.37 Helena Average 1 10.77 12.40 Boulder,MT (WRCC m#241008) 4,895 11.05 13.64 Clancy,MT 10.91 13.02 The following precipitation and evaporation data will be used in this analysis of alternatives. Average annual precipitation =10.91 in 2 yr in 10 yr dry precipitation =9.02 in 2 yr in 10 yr wet precipitation =13.02 in 10-yr.frequency precipitation rate =15.63 in Evaporation. Input Precipitation and Evaporation Data Estimation of Evaporation from Shal low =40.00 in Ponds&Impoundments in Montana (Donald F.Potts) Avenge Annual Evaporation =40.00 in The annual precipitation data was taken directly from the Western Regional Climate Center(WRCC)website. Data from the website is attached to these calculations.The 1 year/ 10 year wet precipitation rate was found to be 15.63 inches; average of Helena and Boulder weather stations(see attached sheers). The 10 year wet precipitation will be used in the water balance to determine the storage volume required. The Estimation of Evaporation from Shallow Ponds&Impoundments in Montana, by Donald F.Potts(March 1988)was used to determine the Average Annual Evaporation for Montana City,MT. The derived evaporation rate for this region is 40.0". The total annual evaportion was distributed monthly via the percent distribution from the Helena AP pan evaporation data. This • data was used in the water balance.A copy of the data is attached. Page 1 of 7 it To allow the preparation of the a water balance,monthly 10-yr. return period precipitation rates are calculated by multiplying the 10-yr annual wet precipitation(15.63 inches)by the ratio of average monthly precipitation(10.91 inches). Consumptive use estimates are based on data from Natural Resource&Conservation Service(MRCS). Net irrigation requirements are based on the 50%chance year provided by the MRCS. The NRCS data is summarized on the attached Irrigation Water Requimhents- Crop Data Summary sheets. • Page 2 of 7 I_ Table 2 Precipitation/Evaporation/Consumptive Use Data 10-Year Annual/ Monthly Consumptive Use Net Irrigation Requirement Month precipitation Monthly Evaporation Grass Hay Alfalfa Grass Hay Alfalfa Jan. 0.46" 0.66" 0.67" 0.00" 0.00" 0.00" 0.00" Feb. 0.35" 0.50" 1.00" 0.00" 0.00" 0.00" 0.00" Mar. 0.58" 0.83" 1.83" 0.00" 0.00" 0.00" 0.00" Apr. 0.83" 1.18" 3.17" 0.27" 0.00" O.12" 0.00" May 1.73" 2.48" 4.92" 3.26" 2.33" 2.38" 1.23" Jun. 2.05" 2.93" 5.67" 4.98" 6.09" 3.96" 5.01" Jul. 1.20" 1.72" 7.83" 6.51" 7.84" 5.84" 7.11" Aug. 1.05' 1.50" 6.58" 5.52" 6.46" 4.78" 5.68" Sep. 1.05" 1.50" 3.83" 2.92" 2.60" 2.34" 1.67" Oct. 0.61" 0.87' 2.50" 1.04" 0.00" 0.36" 0.00" Nov. 0.53" 0.76" 1.17" 0.00" 0.00" 0.00" 0.00" Dec. 0,41' 0.69" 0.83" 0.00" 0.00" 0.00" 0.00" Annual 10.91" 15-62" 40.00" 24.50" 25.32` 19.7R" 20.70" It. Other Variables Average Wastewater Flow(GPD): Winter =35,000 GPD Summer =35,000 GPD Input Flow and Pond Data Allowable Seepage(inches/year) =6.00 Inches Primary Treatment Cell(Acre): =2.26 Acres Primary Cell Total Volume(MG) =234 MG Primary Cell Storage Volume Available(MG) I =0.72 JMG Single Storage Cell(Acre): =2.84 Acres Storage Cell Available Volume(MG) =5.77 MG • Page 3 of 7 111. Water Balance for Storage and Irrigation Treatment Precipitation is based on the 10-yr frequency wet precipitation rate. Evaporation is based on average monthly evaporation rates. Irrigation data is from the NRCS normal year 50%chance. As allowed by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, a value of 6 inches/year for seepage from the pond was included in the water balance calculations. Table 3 Monthly Water Balance Storage and Irrigation(alfalfa) (Volumes in 1,000 Gallons) Month Wastewater Inflow Precipitation Evaporation Irrigation Seepage Net Volume Storage October 1085,00 133.21 346.40 0.00 69.28 802.54 802.54 November 105000 116.37 161.65 0.00 69.28 935.44 1737.98 December 1085.00 105.65 115.47 0.00 69.28 1005.91 2743.89 January 1085.00 101.06 92.37 0.00 69.28 1024.41 3768.30 February 980.00 76.56 138.56 0.00 69.28 848.72 4617.02 March 1085.00 127.09 254.02 0.00 69.28 888.79 5505.81 April 105000 180.68 438.77 0.00 69.28 722.64 6228.44 1/2 May 1 542.50 189.87 340.62 261.24 34.64 95.86 632431 Of-Season Subtotals 7962,50 1030.50 1887.86 261.24 519.59 1 6324.31 6324.31 1/2 May 542.50 189.87 340.62 261.24 34.64 95.86 6420.17 June 1050.00 448.64 785.16 2128.18 69.28 -1483.98 4936.20 July 1085.00 263.37 108537 3020.23 69.28 -2826.51 2109.69 August 1085.00 229.68 912.18 2412.78 69.28 -2079.56 30.13 Se tember 1050.00 229.68 531.14 709.39 69.28 -30.13 0.00 Subtotals 4812.50 1361.24 3654.48 8531.82 311.76 -6324.31 0.00 Annual 12775.00 2391.74 5542.33 8793.06 831.35 0.00 0.00 Total Available Storage(MG)- 6.491 Available Greater Than Required Total Required Stonge(MG)= 6.420 The above water balance determined that 5.9 million gallons of storage is required and approximately 8.0 million gallons would have to be disposed of by irrigation. The water balance verifies that the pond sizes are sufficient to meet the demands of the system. • Page 4 of 7 IV. Irrigation Requirements The following section evaluates the irrigation requirements for the proposed system using three separate approaches. The irrigation of two crops was considered for each approach,grass hay/pasture and alfalfa. The first two evaluation techniques, hydraulic loading and nitrogen uptake, are EPA approaches to design that must be satisfied prior to receiving approval from EPA for construction. The third approach is based on determining the minimal agricultural needs to ensure the water is used most efficiently. This approach would be more typical of an agricultural community. The irrigation requirement was distributed on a monthly basis based on monthly consumptive use data. The equations used in the preparation of the following tables were taken from the"Process Design Manual,Land Application of Municipal Wastewater",an EPA publication and the Draft DEQ-2 chapter 120. Percolation rates for soils were determined from NRCS soils data and utilized for the hydraulic loading calculation. Only 4%of the selected percolation rate of 2.0 in/hr was used per the EPA manual and recomendations in the Draft DEQ-2 chapter 120. Allowable nitrogen uptake for grass hay/ pasture was set at 86 kg4tatyr and the nitrogen uptake for alfalfa was set at 173 kg/ha/yr per USDA/NRCS web based crop nutrient program. Effective precipitation was used in the tables to account for inefficiencies of light precipitation events (Bauder,MSU). Irrigation application efficiency was assumed to be 100%. Table 4 Irrigation Based on Hydraulic Loading(EPA Formula) Grass Hay/Pasture Consumptive Use l0-year Wet Allowable Percolation Maximum Irrigation Month (inch) Precip.(inch) (inch) Application(inch) April 0.27" 1.18" 38.40" 37.49" May 3.26" 2.48" 40.32" 41.10" June 4.98" 2.93" 38.40" 40.45" July 6.51" 1.72" 40.32" 45.11" August 5.52" 1.50" 40.32" 44.34" September 2.92" 1.50" 38.40" 39.82" October 104" 0.87" 38.40" 38.57" Total 24.50" 12.1811 274.56" 286.88" Irrigation Volume Available (Gallons) 8,793,061.29 Irrigated Acreage Required (Acres) 1.13 Table 5 Irrigation Based on Hydraulic Loading(EPA Formula) Alfalfa Net Consumptive 10-year Wet Allowable Percolation Maximum Irrigation Month Use(inch) Precip.(inch) (inch) Application(inch) April 0.00" 1.18" 38.40" 37.22" May 2.33" 2.48" 4032" 40.17" Jane 6.09" 2.93" 38.40" 41.56" July 7.84" 1-72" 40.32" 46.44" August 6.46" 1.50" 40.32" 45.28" September 2.60" 1.50" 38.40" 39.50" Total 25.32"1 1131" 236.16" 250AT` Irrigation Volume Available (Gallons) 8,793,06129 Irrigated Acreage Required (Acres) 1.29 Page 5 of 7 I Table 6 Irrigation Based on Nitrogen Uptake(EPA Formula) Grass Hay/Pasture Maximum Applied Nitrogen Irrigation Consumptive Use Nitrogen Uptake Concentration Application Month (inch) (kg/ha year) (mg/1) Application Efficiency f (inches) April 0.27" 0.95 25 100% 20% 0.19" May 3.26" 11.44 25 100% 209A 2.25" June 4.98" 17.48 25 1000/. 20% 3.44" July 6.51" 22.85 25 100% 200/6 4.50" August 5.52" 19.38 25 1000% 20% 3.81" September 2.92" 10.25 25 1o0°/a 200/. 2.02' October 1.04' 3.65 25 100% 20% .72" Total 24.50" 86.0 16.93" Irrigation Volume Available (Gallons) 8,793,061.29 Irrigated Acreage Required (Acres) 19.13 Table 7 Irrigation Based on Nitrogen Uptake(EPA Formula) Alfalfa Maximum Applied Nitrogen Irrigation Consumptive Use Nitrogen Uptake Concentration Application Month (inch) (kglha year) (mg/1) Application Efficiency f (inches) April 0.00' 0.00 25 l00% 20% 0.00" May 2.33' 15.92 25 100% 20% 3.13" June 6.09" 41.61 25 100% 20% 8.19" July 7.84" 53.57 25 100% 20°% 10.54" August 6.46" 44.14 1 25 1000/. 20% 8.69" September 2.60" 17.76 25 100% 20% 3.50' Total 25.32" 173.0 34.06" Irrigation Volume Available (Gallons) 8,793,061.29 Irrigated Acreage Required (Acres) 9.51 Page 6 of 7 Table 8 Irrigation Based on Minimum Agricultural Needs Grass Hav/Pasture Irrigation Application w/ Consumptive Use Effective Precip, Irrigation Requirement EiTwiemry Loss/Leaching Month (inch) (50%Chance) (inch) (inches) May 3.26" 0.88" 2.38" 3.40" June 4.98" I.02" 3.96" 5.66" July 6.51" 0.67" 5.84" 8.34" August 5.52" 0.74" 4.78" 6.83" September 2.92" 0.57" 2.35' 3.36" Total 23.19^ 3.88" 19.31" 27.59" Irrigation Volume Available (Gallons) 8,793,061.29 lnigated Acreage Required (Acres) 11.74 Table 9 Irrigation Based on Minimum Agricultural Needs Alfalfa Irrigation Application wl Consumptive Use Effective Precip. Irrigation Requirement Efficiency Loss/Leaching Month (inch) (50%Chance) (inch) (inches) May 2.33" 0.60" 1.73" 2.47" June 6.09" 1.08' 5.01" 7.16" July 7.84" 0.72" 7.12" 10.17" August 6.46" 0.78" 5.68" 8.11" Total 22.72" 3.18" 19.54" 27.91" Irrigation Volume Available (Gallons) 8,793,061.29 Irrigated Acreage Required (Acres) t 1.60 The analysis shows the irrigation site is not hydraulically limited and there is plenty of available water stored to support the crop. The irrigation area is controlled by the nutrient uptake of the crop. Page 7 of 7 i Montana City,Jefferson County Wastewater PER • Determining the 2 Yr in 10 Yr Wet Precipitation Based on Western Regional Climate Center Records for Helena RGNL AP(COOP ID:244055) 2nd Wettest Yr 2nd Driest Yr 10 Yr Freq Year Annual Precip Ranking in 10-Year Cycle Each Cycle Each Cycle Pmelp 1970 9.74 8 1971 10.12 6 1972 8.22 9 8.22 1973 6.26 10 1974 10.45 4 1973 20.94 1 20.94 1976 10,07 7 1977 11.33 2 11.33 1978 10.96 3 1979 10.39 5 1980 17,05 1 17.05 1981 13,81 4 1982 13,98 3 1983 14.03 2 14.03 1984 9 9 9 1985 8.95 10 1986 12,09 6 1987 10.03 8 1988 10.03 7 1989 12.49 5 1990 8.43 9 8.43 1991 11.92 4 _ 1992 9.33 8 1993 18.81 1 18.81 1994 7.47 10 1995 12.41 3 1996 9.72 6 1997 10.57 5 1998 12.57 2 _-- 12.57 1999 9.54 7 2000 8.38 10 2001 10.31 6 2002 12.54 1 12.54 2003 9.34 8 2004 12.05 4 2005 12.16 3 2006 12.53 2 _ 15.53 2007 10.36 1 1 5 2008 9.24 9 -�_ 9.24 2009 9.94 7 j *Precipitation in inches Avtof Yr Freq 17.34 Av r dry 8.72 Aear wet 1 3.37 2/9/2010 Montana City,Jefferson County Wastewater PER Determining the 2 Yr in 10 Yr Wet Precipitation Based on Western Regional Climate Center Records for East Helena(COOP ID:242634) 2nd Wettest Yr 2nd Driest Yr 10 Yr Freq Year Annual Precip Ranking in 10-Year Cycle Each Cycle Each Cycle Precip 1928 6.61 7 1929 5.27 9 5.27 1930 6.83 6 1931 6.08 8 1932 10.16 2 10.16 1933 9.76 3 1934 7.94 5 1935 4.98 10 1936 9.1 4 1937 10.97 1 10.97 1938 11.51 3 1939 8.77 6 1940 7.91 7 L941 t0.tt 4 1942 6.13 10 1943 - 7.16 9 7.16 1944 12.48 2 12.48 1945 7.71 8 1946 9.08 5 1947 15.06 1 15.06 1948 4.15 t0 _ 1949 9.05 7 1950 11.05 4 1951 11.63 2 11.63 1952 9.11 6 1953 8.61 8 1954 9.57 5 1955 12.2 1 12.2 1956 8.37 9 8.37 1957 11.19 3 - - Avg of 10 Yr Freq 12.74 Ave of 2 yr dry 6.93 *Precipitation in inches Avg of 2 year wet 11-421 2/9/2010 Clancy,Jefferson County Wastewater PER 0 Determining the 2 Yr in 10 Yr Wet Precipitation Based on Western Regional Climate Center Records for Boulder(COOP ID:241008) 2nd 2nd Wettest Driest Yr 10 Yr Yr Each Each Freq Year Annual Precip Ranking in 10-Year Cycle Cycle Precip 1970 11.87 5 1971 11.41 6 1972 8.95 8 1973 9.01 7 1974 8.78 9 8.78 1975 17.88 1 17.88 1976 13.97 2 13.97 1977 12.93 4 1978 13.62 3 1979 6.86 10 1980 17.5 1 17.5 1981 13.88 2 13.88 1982 12.37 4 1983 11.68 5 1984 10.15 8 1985 10.3 7 1986 11.05 1 6 1987 9.52 9 9.52 1988 8.94 10 1989 12.55 3 1990 12.11 5 1991 13.86 3 2992 8.68 9 8.68 1993 17.13 1 17.13 1994 9.47 7 1995 14.3 2 14.3 1996 9.06 8 1997 12.59 4 1998 10.07 6 1999 8.44 10 2000 6.89 10 2001 9.59 8 2002 9.11 9 9.11 2003 9.59 7 2004 12.39 1 12.39 2005 12.39 2 12.39 2006 11.53 3 2007 10.28 6 2008 10.34 5 2009 10.97 4 *Precipitation in inches Avg of 10 Yr Freq 16.23 Ave of 2 yr dry I I 9.02 Avg of 2 year wet 1 13.64 • 10- r Wet Avg weather stations East Helena 1 12.74 Helena RGNL AP 17.34 Avera a 15.04 Boulder 16.23 Average 15.63 Average Total Helena AP Precipitation(in.) 0.59 0.46 0.71 0.96 1.91 2.11 1.1 o.99 1.11 0.73 0.6 0.58 11.6 Average Total East Helena Precipitation(in.) 0.35 029 0.62 0.7 1.46 1.97 0.96 0.76 1.05 0.53 0.48 0.49 9.6 Averse Helena s 0.47 0.375 0.665 0.84 1.685 2.04 1.03 0.885 1.08 0.63 0.54 0.535 10.7 Average Total Boulder Precipitation(in.) 0.45 0.32 0.5 0.81 1.78 2.05 1.37 1.21 1.02 0.59 0.52 0.43 11.0 0.46 0.35 o.58 0.83 1.73 2A5 1.20 1.05 1.o5 0.61 0.53 0.48 10.91 0 0 0 Clancy, Jefferson County Wastewater PER Storage and Irrigation Alternative -Facultative Primary Cell Primary Pond Storage Pond Top of Dike Width (ft) = 10.0 Top of Dike Width (ft) = 10.0 Slope?:I = 3.0 Slope ?:1 = 3.0 Top of Pond Width (ft) = 334.0 Top of Pond Width (ft) = 372.0 Top of Pond Length (ft) = 334.0 Top of Pond Length (ft)= 372.0 Total Depth of Pond (ft) = 9.0 Total Depth of Pond (ft) = 11.0 Depth of Cut(ft) = 3.3 Depth of Cut(ft) = 4.0 Top Soil Removal Depth (ft) = 0.75 Top Soil Removal Depth (ft) = 0.75 Bottom of Pond Width (ft) = 280 Bottom of Pond Width (ft) = 306 Bottom of Pond Length (ft) = 280 Bottom of Pond Length (ft) = 306 Total Top Soil Removal (cyds) = 3,622 Total Top Soil Removal (cyds) = 4,511 Total Excavation (cyds) = 7,820 Total Excavation (cyds) = 12,012 Total Embankment (cyds) = 7,996 Total Embankment(cyds) = 12,509 Net Borrow(cyds) = 176 Net Borrow(cyds) = 497 Liner Material Required (sf)= 125,007 Liner Material Required (sf) = 156,188 Cushion (cy)= 2315 Cushion (cy)= 2892 Cover(cy)= 1157 Cover(cy)= 1446 I Crop Nutrient Results selEtt crops neout me Cmp Nutrient tool Hutment Data Sources nownlo.Cmp Nuttknr Datari Contents • Summary of Selected Crops • Alfalfa+Orchard rass for hay Y • Alfalfa for hay • Grass,for hay Nutrient Report Summary for the Crop(s) Selected The table below summarizes the hulriants removed for the crops selected in me previous page.Crop nutrient information for irldivalual crops fallow Me summary table. Forage Alfalfa+Orchardgass,for hay Alfalfa,for hay Grass,for hay Aboveground biomass+Aboveground btamass+Aboveground biomass Nutrients Removed In harvested part Nutrients removed in harvested part Oblacre) 1,bracre)at user specified yield level at user specified yield level and user specifed acres. Crop Nitrogen Phosphorus Potauium Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Aeres Alfalfa+urrnardgrass,for hay 1455468 15.7219 0 145.546(1 15.7219 0 1 Alfalfa,for hay 163.779 15-3454 124 4553 161779 15.3454 124.4553 1 Grass,for hay 77.1255 11.1216 73.6198 77.1255 11.1218 73.6198 1 Totals 3136.4513 42.1891 198.0751 386.4513 42.1891 198.0751 it Irrigation Water Requirements Crop Data Summary Job: Jefferson County PER Crop: Alfalfa Hay Location: Montana City & Clancy County: Yellowstone, MT By: 1-05154 Date: 01/19/10 Weather Station: BROADVIEW Sta No: MT1149 Latitude: 4606 Longitude: 10853 Elevation: 3880 feet above sea level Computation Method: Blaney Criddle (TR21) Crop Curve: Blaney Griddle Perennial Crop Net irrigation application: 1 inches Estimated carryover moisture used at season: Begin Growth: 5/10 End Growth: 9/22 Begin: 0.5 inches End: 0.5 inches Total Dry Year Normal Year Monthly 80% Chance (1) 50, Chance(1) Average Peak Month ET -- Daily Daily Effective Net Irrigation Effective Net Irrigation ETc ETPk (3) Precipitation Regirements Precipitation Reqirements f che .�January � In0 00 O.00eS 1 0.00 (2)� O.00es 0.00 (2) J 0.00 s inches February 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 March 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 April 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 May 2.41 0.68 1.24 0.90 1.02 0.11 June 6.31 0.97 5.34 1.29 5.02 0.21 0.25 July 8.06 0.64 7.42 0.85 7.21 026 0.33 August 6.73 0.58 6.15 0.77 5.96 0.22 0.27 September 2.72 0.39 1,83 0.51 1.70 0.12 October 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 November 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 December 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 26.23 3.25 21.98 4.32 20.91 (1) For 80 percent occurrence, growing season effective precipitation will be equaled or exceeded 8 out of 10 years. For 50 percent chance occurrence, effective precipitation will be equaled or exceeded 1 out of 2 years. (2) Net irrigation requirements is adjusted for carryover moisture used at the beginning of the season and carryover moiature used at the end of the growing season. (3) ET Evapotranspiration)is adjusted upwards 10%per 1000 meters above sea level. Date: 1/19/2010 i Irrigation Water Requirements Crop Data Summary Job: Jefferson County PER Crop: Grass Hay Location: Montana City & Clancy County: Yellowstone, MT By: 1-05154 Date: 01119110 Weather Station: BROADVIEW Sta No: MT1149 Latitude: 4508 Longitude: 10853 Elevation: 3880 feet above sea level Computation Method: Blaney Griddle(TR21) Net irrigation application: 1 inches Crop Curve: Blaney Griddle Perennial Crop Estimated carryover moisture used at season: Begin Growth: 4120 End Growth: 10120 Begin: 0.5 inches End: 0.5 inches Total Dry Year Normal Year 80%Chance (1) 50% Chance (1) Average Peak Monthly Daily Daily Month ET Effective Net Irrigation Effective Net Irrigation ETc ETPk (3) Precipitation Reqirements Precipitation Regirements inches nches inches(2) inches inches (2) inches inches _.. ..- --- _--- --- -.- _.-_-1------_ 1._ -. _�._--l January 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 February 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 March 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 April 0.80 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.10 0.07 May 3.36 1.00 2.37 1.32 2.04 0.11 0.13 June 5.16 0.91 4.25 1.21 3.95 0.17 0.20 July 6.70 0.59 6.11 0.79 5.91 0.22 0.27 August 5.75 0.55 5.20 0.73 5.02 0.19 0.23 September 3.05 0.52 2.53 0.69 2.36 0.10 0.11 October 1.18 0.22 0.46 0.29 0.39 0.06 November 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 - December 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 26.00 3.93 21.07 5.23 19.77 (1) For 80 percent occurrence, growing season effective precipitation will be equaled or exceeded 8 out of 10 years. For 50 percent chance occurrence, effective precipitation will be equaled or exceeded 1 out of 2 years. (2) Net irrigation requirements is adjusted for carryover moisture used at the beginning of the season and carryover moiature used at the end of the growing season. (3) ET Evapotranspiration) is adjusted upwards 10% per 1000 meters above sea level. Date: 111912010 Irrigation Water Requirements Crop Data Summary Job: Jefferson Co. Wastewater PER Crop: Alfalfa Hay Location: Montana City& Clancy County: Carbon, MT By: 1-05154 Date: 01(19110 Weather Station: JOLIET Sta No: MT4506 Latitude: 4529 Longitude: 10858 Elevation: 3700 feet above sea level Computation Method: Blaney Criddle(TR21) Crop Curve: Blaney Criddle Perennial Crop Net irrigation application: 1 inches Estimated carryover moisture used at season: Begin Growth: 5/10 End Growth: 9/22 Begin: 0.5 inches End: 0.5 inches -T- Total -_ _ -- Daily O O 9 Dry Year Normal Year 1 Monthly 80% Chance 1 50% Chance 1 Average Peak Month ET Daily Effective Net Irrigation Effective Net Irrigation ETc ETPk (3) Precipitation Regirements Precipitation Reqirements inches inches inches(2) inches mches (2) inches inches January 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 February 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 March 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 April 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 May 2.50 0.82 1.18 1.07 0.93 0.11 June 6.35 0.94 5.41 1.22 5.13 0.21 0.25 July 8.10 0.51 7.59 0.66 7.44 0.26 0.33 August 6.63 0.57 6.07 0.74 5.90 0.21 0.27 September 2.77 0.48 138 0.63 1.64 0.13 October 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 November 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 December 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 26.35 3.32 22.03 4.31 21.04 (1) For 80 percent occurrence, growing season effective precipitation will be equaled or exceeded 8 out of 10 years. For 50 percent chance occurrence,effective precipitation will be equaled or exceeded 1 out of 2 years. (2) Net irrigation requirements is adjusted for carryover moisture used at the beginning of the season and carryover moiature used at the end of the growing season. (3) ET Evapotranspiration) is adjusted upwards 10% per 1000 meters above sea level. Date: 1/19/2010 Irrigation Water Requirements Crop Data Summary 7 Job Jefferson Co. Wastewater PER Crop: Grass Hay Location: Montana City& Clancy County: Carbon, MT By: 1-05154 Date: 01/19110 Weather Station: JOLIET Sta No: MT4506 Latitude: 4529 Longitude: 10858 Elevation: 3700 feet above sea level Computation Method: Blaney Criddle(TR21) Crop Curve: Blaney Criddle Perennial Crop Net irrigation application: 1 inches Estimated carryover moisture used at season: Begin Growth: 4120 End Growth: 10120 Begin: 0.5 inches End: 0.5 inches Total Dry Year Normal Year Monthly 80% Chance 50% Chance Average Peak Month Monthly - Daily Daily Effective Net Irrigation Effective Net Irrigation ETc ETPk i (3) Precipitation Reqirements Precipitation Regirements inches inches inches(2) inches inches(2) inches tinches January 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 February 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 March 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 April 0.84 0.24 0.10 0.31 0.03 0.08 May 3.46 1.21 2.25 1.57 1.89 0.11 0.13 June 5.19 0.88 4.31 1.14 4.05 0.17 0.20 July 6.73 0.47 6.26 0.61 6.12 0.22 0.27 August 5.67 0.54 5.13 0.70 4.97 0.18 0.23 September 3.13 0.65 2.48 0.85 2.28 0.10 0.12 October 1.20 0.32 0.38 0.41 0.29 0.06 November 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 December 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 J TOTAL 26.21 4.31 20.90 5.59 19.62 (1) For 80 percent occurrence, growing season effective precipitation will be equaled or exceeded 8 out of 10 years. For 50 percent chance occurrence, effective precipitation will be equaled or exceeded 1 out of 2 years. (2) Net irrigation requirements is adjusted for carryover moisture used at the beginning of the season and carryover moiature used at the end of the growing season. (3) ET Evapotranspiration) is adjusted upwards 10% per 1000 meters above sea level. Date: 1/19/2010 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Appendix O Aerated Lagoon with Storage & Irrigation Preliminary Design calculations i • 9 0 0 I. General Clancy,Jefferson County Wastewater PER Summer Time FTE's= 350 Pond Sizing Calculations-Stroage& Irrigation Alternative Winter Time FTE's= 350 Average Day Flows People/FTE= I GPD/FTE= 100 Pounds BODS/person/day= 0.2 Summer Flow(gpd)= 35,000 Winter Flow(gpd)= 35,000 Summer BODS Load(lbs/day)= 70.0 Winter BOD5 Load Qbs/day)= 70.0 11. Pri ma ry Pond-Aerated Interior Uscable Cumulative Water Depth from Pond Bottom Width Length Radius Incremental Cumulative Detention Freeboard(ft)= 3 (ft) (0) (ft) (ft) Area(st) Volume(gal) Volume(gal) Time(days) Operating Depth(ft)= 10 2 68 68 11 4,520 Sludge Depth(ft)= 2 3 74 74 14 5,308 36,717 36,717 1 Comer Radius at Top of Dikes(ft)= 50 4 80 80 17 6,152 42,820 79,537 2 5 86 86 20 7,053 49,347 128,884 4 6 92 92 23 8,010 56,296 185,180 5 7 98 98 26 9,024 63,668 248,848 7 Water Surface Width(ft)= 128 8 104 104 29 10,094 71,463 320,311 9 Water Surface Length(ft)= 128 9 110 110 32 11,221 79,681 399,993 11 Length to Width Ratio(x:1)= 1 10 116 116 35 12,404 88,322 488,315 14 Top Dike Width(ft)= 146 11 122 122 38 13,644 97,396 585,701 17 Top Dike Length(ft)= 146 12 128 128 41 14,941 106,873 692,574 20 Top of Dike Surface Area(acres)= 0.44 Primary Pond 2'Surface Area(acres)= 0.1 Total Number of Aerated Cells= I Pond Top Surface Area(acres)= 0.3 Minimum Days Under Aeration= 20 Volume(MG)= 0.7 Ill.Storage Pond-Storage& Irrigation Useable Cumulative Water Depth from Length Interior Incremental Cumulative Detention Time Average Day Flow(gpd)= 35,000 Pond Bottom(ft) Width(ft) (ft) Radius(ft) Area(sf) Volume(gal) Volume(gal) (days) Freeboard(ft)= 3 1 341 341 20 115,938 Operational Depth(ft)= 7 2 347 347 23 119,955 882,195 882,195 25 Sludge Depth(ft)= 1 3 353 353 26 124,029 912,456 1,794,652 51 Corner Radius at Top of Dikes(ft)= 50 4 359 359 29 128,159 943,140 2,737,792 78 5 365 365 32 132,346 974,247 3,712,039 106 Water Surface Width(ft)= 383 6 371 371 35 136,589 1,005,777 4,717,816 135 Water Surface Length(ft)= 383 7 377 377 38 140,889 1,037,730 5,755,546 164 8 383 383 41 145,246 1,070,105 6,825,651 195 Top Dike Width(ft)= 401 Top Dike Length(ft)= 401 Storage Pond 1-foot Surface Area(acres)= 2.7 Top of Dike Surface Area(acres)= 3.6 Storage Pond Surface Area(acres)= 3.3 Volume(MG)= 6.8 it Clancy,Jefferson County Wastewater PER Monthly Water Balance/Irrigation Requirements Storage&Irrigation Alternative 1. Precipitation and Evaporation for Gallatin Gateway,Montana The Western Regional Climate Center(WRCC)stations for East Helena, Helena RGNL AP(Helena WSO),and Boulder are listed in the table below along with respective average annual precipitation and station elevation.The two Helena Stations were average for the Montana City project,and then to model Clancy,those numbers were averaged with Boulder's weather sation since Clancy is approximately half way between the two. See attachments for NOAA and/or NRCS data summaries. The source of the data in the table below is indicated in the parenthesis under the station location. Table 1 Precipitation Data Climatological Station Average Annual 2 yr/10 yr Wet Precipitation Station Elevation Precipitation (inch) (d) (inch) East Helena (WRCC ID#242634) 3,950 9.67 11.42 Helena RGNL AP (WRCC m#244055) 3,850 11.87 13.37 Helena Average 1 10.77 1 12.40 Boulder,MT (WRCC ID#241008) 4,895 11.05 1164 Clancy,MT 10.91 13.02 The following precipitation and evaporation data will be used in this analysis of alternatives. Average annual precipitation =10.91 in 2 yr in 10 yr dry precipitation =9.02 in 2 yr in 10 yr wet precipitation =13.02 in 10-yr.frequency precipitation rate =15.63 in Evaporation: Input Precipitation and Evaporation Data Estimation gfEvaporafionfram Shallow =40.00 in Ponds&Impoundments in Montana (Donald F.Potts) Averse Annual Evaporation =40.60 is The annual precipitation data was taken directly from the Western Regional Climate Center(WRCC)website. Data from the website is attached to these calculations.The I year/ 10 year wet precipitation rate was found to be 15.63 inches;average of Helena and Boulder weather stations(sce attached sheets). The 10 year wet precipitation will be used in the water balance to determine the storage volume required. The Estimation of Evaporation from Shallow Points&Impoundments in Montana, by Donald F.Potts(March 1988)was used to determine the Average Annual Evaporation for Montana City,MT. The derived evaporation rate for In,region is 40.0". The total annual evaportion was distributed monthly via the percent distribution from the Helena AP pan evaporation data. This data was used in the water balance.A copy of the data is attached. Page 1 of 7 To allow the preparation of the a water balance,monthly 10-yr. return period precipitation rates are calculated by multiplying the 10-yr annual wet precipitation(15.63 inches)by the ratio of average monthly precipitation(10.91 inches). Consumptive use estimates are based on data from Natural Resource&Conservation Service(NRCS). Net irrigation requirements are based on the 50%chance year provided by the NRCS. The NRCS data is summarized on the attached Irrigation Water Requirments- Crop Data Summary sheets. i i Page 2 of 7 • Table 2 Precipitation/Evaporation/Consumptive Use Data 10-Year Annual! Monthly Consumptive Use Net Irrigation Requirement Month Precipitation Monthly Evaporation Grass Hay Alfalfa Grass Hay Alfalfa Jan. 0.46" .0.66" 0.67" 0.00" 0.00" 0.00" 0.00" Feb. 0.35" 0.50" 1.00" 0.00" 0.00" O.W 0.00' Mar. 0.58" 0.83' 1.83" 0.00" 0.00" 0.00" 0.00" Apr. 0.83" 1.18' 3.17" 0.27" 0.00' 0.12" 0.00" May 1.73" 2.48" 4.92" 326" 2.33" 2.38" 1.23" Jun. 2.05" 2.93" 5.67" 4.98" 6.09" 3.96" 5.01" Jul. 1.20" 1.72" 7.83" 6.51' 7.84" 5.84" 7.11" Aug. 1.05" 1.50" 6.58" 5.52" 6.46" 4.78" 5.68" Sep. 1.05" 1.50" 3.83" 2.92' 2.60" 2.34• 1.67" Oct. 0.61" 0.87" 2.50" 1.04" 0.00" 0.36" 0.00" Nov. 0.53' 0.76" 1.17" 0.00" 0.00" 0.00" 0.00" Dec. 0.48" 1 0.69" 0.83" 1 0.00" 0.00" 090" 0.00" Annual 10.9 P' 15.62" 40.00" 24.50" 25.32' 19.78" 20.70" 11. Other Variables Average Wastewater Flow(GPD): Winter =35.000 GPD Summer =35,000 GPD Input Flow and Pond Data • Allowable Seepage(inches I year) =6.00 Inches Primary Treatment Cell(Acre): =0.34 Acres Primary Cell Total Volume(MG) =0.69 MG Primary Cell Storage Volume Available(MG) �MG Single Storage Cell(Acre): =3.33 Acres Storage Cell Available Volume(MG) =6.82 MG Page 3 of 7 116 Water Balance for Storage and Irrigation Treatment . Precipitation is based on the 10-yr frequency wet precipitation rate. Evaporation is based on average monthly evaporation rates. Irrigation data is from the NRCS normal year 50%chance. As allowed by the Monona Department of Environmental Quality, a value of 6 inchestyew for seepage from the pond was included in the water balance calculations. Table 3 Monthly Water Balance Storage and Irrigation(alfalfal (Volumes in 1,000 Gallons) F Wastewater Inflow Precipitation Evaporation Irrigation Seepage Ne[Volume Storage 1085.00 96.43 249.62 0.00 49.92 881.88 881.88 1050.00 84.24 116.49 0.00 49.92 967.83 1849.71 1085.00 76.48 83.21 0.00 49.92 1028.35 2878.06 1085.00 73.16 66.57 0.00 49.92 1041.67 3919.72 980.00 55.42 99.85 0.00 49.92 885.65 4805.37 1085.00 92.00 183.06 0.00 49.92 944.02 5749.39 1050.00 130.80 316.19 0.00 49.92 814.68 6564.07 542.50 137.45 245.46 294.53 24.96 114.99 6679.06 Off-Season Subtotals 7962.50 745.98 1360.46 294.53 374.44 6679.06 6679.06 1/2 May 542.50 137.45 245.46 294.53 24.96 114.99 6794.06 June 1050.00 324.77 565.82 2399.30 49.92 -1640.27 5153.79 July 1085.00 190.65 782.16 3405.00 49.92 -2961.43 2192.36 August 1085.00 166.27 657.35 2720.17 49.92 -2176.17 16.18 September 1050.00 166.27 382.76 799.77 49.92 -16.18 0.00 Subtotals 4812.50 985.41 2633.54 9618.76 224.66 -667%06 0.00 Annual 1 12775.00 1 1731.39 3994.00 9913.29 599.10 0.00 0.00 Total Available Storage(MG)= 6.823 Available Greater Than Required Total Required Storage(MG)= 6.794 The above water balance determined that 6.2 million gallons of storage is required and approximately 8.9 million gallons would have to he disposed of by irrigation. The water balance verifies that the pond sizes are sufficient to meet the demands of the system. Page 4 of 7 IV. Irrigation Requirements The following section evaluates the irrigation requirements for the proposed system using three separate approaches. The irrigation of two crops was considered for each approach, grass hay/pasture and alfalfa. The first two evaluation techniques, hydraulic loading and nitrogen uptake,are EPA approaches to design that must be satisfied prior to receiving approval from EPA for construction. The third approach is based on determining the minimal agricultural needs to ensure the water is used most efficiently. This approach would be more typical of an agricultural community. The irrigation requirement was distributed on a monthly basis based on monthly consumptive use data. The equations used in the preparation of the following tables were taken from the"Process Design Manual,land Application of Municipal Wastewater",an EPA publication and the Draft DEQ-2 chapter 120. Percolation rates for soils were determined from NRCS soils data and utilized for the hydraulic loading calculation- Only 4%of the selected percolation rate of 2.0 in/hr was used per the EPA manual and recomendations in the Draft DEQ-2 chapter 120. Allowable nitrogen uptake for grass hay/ pasture was set at 86 kg/ha/yr and the nitrogen uptake for alfalfa was set at 173 kg/ha/yr per USDA/NRCS web based crop nutrient program. Effective precipitation was used in the tables to account for inefficiencies of light precipitation events (Bauder,MSU). Irrigation application efficiency was assumed to be 100 9/6. Table 4 Irrigation Based on Hydraulic loading(EPA Formula) Orals Hay/Pasture Consumptive Use 10-year Wet Allowable Percolation Maximum Irtigation Month (inch) Precip.(inch) (inch) Application(inch) April 0.27" 1.18" 38.40" 37.49" May 3.26" 2.48" 40.32" 41.10" June 4.98" 2.93" 38.40" 40.45" July 651" 132" 40.32" 45.11" August 5.52" 1.50" 40.32" 44.34" September 2.92' 1.50' 38.40" 39.82" October 1.04" 0.87" 38.49' 1 38.57" Total 24.50" 12.18" 27456" 286.88" Irrigation Volume Available (Gallons) 9,913,290.24 Irrigated Acreage Required (Acres) L27 Table 5 Irrigation Based on Hydraulic Loading(EPA Formula) Alfalfa Net Consumptive 10-year Wet Allowable Percolation Maximum Irrigation Month Use(inch) Precip.(inch) (inch) Application(inch) April 0.00" 1.18" 38.40" 37.22" May 2.33" 2.48" 40.32" 40.17" June 6.09" 2.93" 38.40" 41.56" July 7.84" 1.72" 40.32" 46.44" August 6.46" 1.50" 40.32" 45.28" September 2.60" 1.50" 38.40" 39-50" Total 25.32" 11.31" 236.16" 250.17" Irrigation Volume Available (Gallons) 9,913,290-24 Irrigated Acreage Required (Acres) 1.46 Page 5 of 7 i Table 6 • Irrigation Rased on Nitrogen Uptake(EPA Formula) Grass Flay/Pasture Maximum Applied Nitrogen irrigation Consumptive Use Nitrogen Uptake Concentration Application Month (inch) (kglha year) (mg4) Application Efficiency f (inches) April 0.27" 0.95 25 100% 200% 0.19" May 3.26" 11.44 25 100% 20% 2.25" June 4.98" 17.48 25 100% 20% 344" July 6.51" 22.85 25 100% 20% 4.50" August 5.52" 19.38 25 1000% 200/4 3.81" September 2.92" 10.25 25 100% 20% 2.02" October 1.04" 3.65 25 100% 200% .72" Total 24.50" 86.0 16.93" Irrigation Volume Available (Gallons) I 1 9,913,290.24 Irrigated Acreage Required (Acres) 21.57 Table 7 Irrigation Rased on Nitrogen Uptake(EPA Formula) ARM& Maximum Applied Nitrogen Irrigation Consumptive Use Nitrogen Uptake Concentration Application Month (inch) (kg/ha year) (mg/I) Application Efficiency f (inches) Aril 0.00" 0.00 25 100% 20% 0.00" May 2.33" 15.92 25 100% 20% 3.13" June 6.09" 41.61 25 100% 20% 8.19" July 7."' 53.57 25 100% 20% 10.54" August 6.46" 44.14 25 l00% 20% 8.69" September 2.60" 17.76 25 100% 20% 3.50" Total 25.32" 173.0 34.06" Irrigation Volume Available (Gallons) 9,913,290.24 Irrigated Acreage Required (Acres) 10.72 I Page 6 of 7 • Table 8 Irrigation Based on Minimum Agricultural Needs Grass Ilay I Pasture Irrigation Application w' Consumptive Use Effective Precip. Irrigation Requirement Efficiency Loss/Leaching Month (inch) (50%Chance) (inch) (inches) May 3.26" 0.88" 2.38" 3.40" June 4.98" 1.02" - 3.96" 5.66" July 6.51" 0.67" _ 5.84" 8.34" August 5.52" 0.74" 4,78" 6.83" September 2.92" 0.57" 2.35" 3.36" Total 23.19" 3.88" 19.31" 27.59" Irrigation Volume Available (Gallons) 9.913,290.24 Irrigated Acreage Required (Acres) 13.24 Table 9 Irrigation Based on Minimum Agricultural Needs Alfalfa Irrigation Application w/ Consumptive Use Effective Precip. Irrigation Requirement Efficiency Loss/Leaching Month (inch) (50%Chance) (inch) (inches) May 2.33" 0.60" 1.73" 2.47" June 6.09" 1.08" 5.01" 7.16" July 7.84" 0.72" 7.12" 10.17" August 6.46" 0.78" 5.68" 8.11" Total 22,72" 3.18" 19.54" 27.91" Irrigation Volume Available (Gallons) 9,913,29014 Irrigated Acreage Required (Acres) 13.08 The analysis shows the irrigation site is not hydraulically limited and there is plenty of available water stored to support the crop. The irrigation area is controlled by the nutrient uptake of the crop. Page 7 of 7 Montana City,Jefferson County Wastewater PER i the 2 Yr in 10 Yr Wet Precipitation itation P Based on Western Regional Climate Center Records for Helena RGNL AP(COOP ID:244055) 2nd Wettest Yr 2nd Driest Yr 10 YrFreq Year Annnal Precip Ranking in 10-Year Cycle Each Cycle Each Cycle Preeip 1970 9.74 8 1971 10.12 6 1972 8.22 9 8.22 1973 6.26 10 1974 10.45 4 1975 20.94 1 20.94 1976 10,07 7 1977 11.33 2 11.33 1978 10.96 3 _ 1979 10.39 5 1980 17.05 1 17.05 1981 13.81 4 1982 13.98 12 =1983 14.03 14.03 1984 9 9; 9 __ _ 1985 8.95 10 _ 1986 12.09 _ 6 - 1987 10.03 8 -- -� • 1988 10,03 7 1989 12.49 5 1990 8.43 9 8.43 1991 11.92 4 1992 9.33 8 1993 18.81 1 18.81 1994 7.47 1995 12.41 3 1996 9.72 6 1997 10.57 5 1998 12-571 2 12.57 _ 1999 9.54 7 2000 8.38 10 2001 10.31 6 2002 12.54 1 12.54 2003 9.34 8 2004 12.05 4 _ 2005 12.16 3 2006 12.53 2 15.53 2007 10.36 2008 9.24 9 9.24 2009 9.94 7 *Precipitation in inches Avg of 10 Yr Freq 17.34 Ave of 2 yr dry 8.72 1. Avg of 2 year wet 13.371 1 2/9/2010 Montana City,Jefferson County Wastewater PER Determining the 2 Yr in 10 Yr Wet Precipitation Based on Western Regional Climate Center Records for East Helena(COOP ID:242634) 2nd Wettest Yr 2ad Driest Yr 10 Yr Freq r1929 Annual Precip Ranking in 10-Year Cycle Each Cycle Each Cycle Precip 6.61 7 5.27 9 5.27 6.83 6 6.08 8 1932 10.16 2 10.16 -- - -- --- - -- 1933 9.76 3 1934 7.94 5 _ 1935 4.98 10 1936 9.1 4 1937 10.97 1 10.97 1938 11.51 3 1939 8.77 6 -�--- -- - 1940 7.91 7 - - 1941 10.11 4 1942 6.13 10 _ 1943 7.16 9 7.16 1944 12.48 -- 2 --12.48 - 1945 7.71 - 8 1946 9.08 5 1947 15.06 - 1 _- 15.06 1948 4.15 10 1949 05 7 _ 1951 11.05 4 _ 1951 1163 2 11.63 1952 9.11 6 -.. 1953 8.61 8 1954 9.57 5 1955 12.2 1 12.2 1956 8.37 9 8.37 1957 11.19 3 - Avg of 10 Yr Freq 3.74 Ave of 2 yr dry 6.93 *Precipitation in inches Avg of 2 year wet 11.421 • 2/92010 Clancy,Jefferson County Wastewater PER • Determining the 2 Yr in 10 Yr Wet Precipitation Based on Western Regional Climate Center Records for Boulder(COOP ID: 241008) 2nd 2nd Wettest Driest Yr 10 Yr Yr Each Each Freq Year Annual Precip Ranking in 10-Year Cycle Cycle Precip 1970 11.87 5' 1971 11.41 6 1972 8.95 8 1973 9.01 7 1974 8.78 9 8.78 1975 17.88 1 17.88 1976 13.97 2 13.97 1977 12.93 4 1978 13.62 3 1979 6.86 10 P1980 17.5 I _ 17.5 13.88 2 13.88 12.37 4 11.68 5 10.15 8 10.3 7 1986 11.05 6 1987 9.52 9 9.52 1988 8.94 10 1989 12.55 3 1990 12.11 5 1991 13.86 3 1992 8.68 9 8.68 1993 17.13 1 17.13 1994 9.47 7 1995 14.3 2 14.3 1996 9.06 8 1997 12.59 4 1998 10.07 6 1999 8.441 10 2000 6.89 10 2001 9.59 8 2002 9.11 9 9.11 2003 9.59 7 2004 12.39 1 12.39 2005 12.39 2 12.39 2006 11.53 3 2007 10.281 6 2008 10.34 5 2009 10.97 4 'Precipitation in inches Avg of 10 Yr Freq 16.23 • Ave of 2 yr dry 9.02 Avg of 2 year wet 1 13.641 1 i 10-yr Wet Avg weather stations _ East Helena I 12.74 _ -� Helena RGNL AP 17.34 _ _ Average 15.04 Boulder _ 16.23 Average 15.63 Average Total Helena AP Precipitation(in.) 0.59 0.48 0.71 0.98 1.91 2.11 1.1 0.99 1.11 0.73 0.6 0.58 11.87 Average Total East Helena Precipitation(in.) 0.35 0.29 0.62 0.7 1.46 1.97 0.96 0.78 1.05 0.53 0.48 0.49 9.67 A 0.47 0.375 0.885 0.84 1.685 2.04 1.03 0.885 1.08 0.63 054 0535 1077 Average Total Precipitation(in.) 0.45 0.32 0.5 0.81 1.78 2.05 1.37 1.21 1.02 0.59 0.52 0.43 11.05 0.46 0.35 0.58 0.83 1.73----2-.O-Sr- .05 1.20 1.05 1.05 0.61 0.53 0.48 10.91 Clancy, Jefferson County Wastewater PER Storage and Irrigation Alternative -Aerated Primary Cell Primary Pond Storage Pond Top of Dike Width (ft) = 10.0 Top of Dike Width (ft) = 10.0 Slope?:1 = 3.0 Slope ?:1 = 3.0 Top of Pond Width (ft) = 146.0 Top of Pond Width (ft) = 401.0 Top of Pond Length (ft)= 146.0 Top of Pond Length (ft)= 401.0 Total Depth of Pond (ft) = 15.0 Total Depth of Pond (ft)= 11.0 Depth of Cut(ft) = 10.0 Depth of Cut(ft) = 3.8 Top Soil Removal Depth (ft) = 0.75 Top Soil Removal Depth (ft) = 0.75 Bottom of Pond Width (ft) = 56 Bottom of Pond Width (ft) = 335 Bottom of Pond Length (ft) = 56 Bottom of Pond Length (ft) = 335 Total Top Soil Removal (cyds) = 812 Total Top Soil Removal (cyds) = 5,198 Total Excavation (cyds) = 2,667 Total Excavation (cyds) = 13,389 Total Embankment (cyds) = 2,972 Total Embankment(cyds) = 14,102 Net Borrow(cyds) = 305 Net Borrow(cyds) = 714 Liner Material Required (so = 42,174 Liner Material Required (sf) = 179,276 Cushion (cy)= 781 Cushion (cy)= 3320 Cover(cy)= 390 Cover(cy)= 1660 I Select[Crops AEOUt Me Goo WreM TW xuo-le 11 IMs So. oaenloaa oup Nulde t oiii Contents • Sommoryar Selected Grope • Alfalfa+Orchardgrass,for hay • Alfalfa for hay • Grass,for hay Nutrient Report Summary for the Crop(s) Selected The table belovi summarizes the romance removed for the crops selected in the previous page.Crop nutrient Infoml for individual crops follox the summary table. Forage Alfalfa+Orchardgrass,for hay Alfalfa,for hay Grass,for hay Aboveground biomass+Aboveground biomass+Aboveground biomass Nutrients Removed in harvested part Nutrients removed in harvested part llWacre) ( ate cre)at user spaclfled yield larval at user specified yield level and user specified acres. Crop Nhrogen Phosphorus Potassium Nitrogen Phosahonce Potassium Acres Alfalfa+Ormardgrass,for hay 145.5468 15.7219 0 1455468 15.7219 0 1 Alfalfa,for hay 163 779 15.3454 124.4553 163.779 15 3454 124.4553 1 Grass,for hay 77.1255 11.1218 716198 77.1255 11.1218 73.6198 1 Totals 386.4513 42.1891 1980751 386A513 42.1891 198.0751 Irrigation Water Requirements Crop Data Summary Jefferson County PER Crop: Alfalfa Hay Location: Montana City & Clancy County: Yellowstone, MT By: 1-05154 Date: 01/19110 Weather Station: BROADVIEW Sta No: MT1149 Latitude: 4606 Longitude: 10853 Elevation: 3880 feet above sea level Computation Method: Blaney Criddle(TR21) Crop Curve: Blaney Criddle Perennial Crop Net irrigation application: 1 inches Estimated carryover moisture used at season: Begin Growth: 5110 End Growth: 9122 Begin: 0.5 inches End: 0.5 inches �- Total Dry Year T Normal Year Monthly 80%Chance (1) 50% Chance (1) Average Peak Month ET I Daily Daily Effective FReqirements et Irrigation Effective Net Irrigation ETc ETPk (3) Precipitation Precipitation Reqirements inches inches inches(2) I inches inches(2) inchesi inches January 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 February 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 March 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 April 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 May 2.41 0.68 1.24 0.90 1.02 0.11 June 6.31 0.97 5.34 1.29 5.02 0.21 0.25 July 8.06 0.64 7.42 0.85 7.21 0.26 0.33 August 6.73 0.58 6.15 0.77 5.96 0.22 0.27 September 2.72 0.39 1.83 0.51 1.70 0.12 October 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 November 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 December 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 26.23 3.25 21.98 4.32 20.91 (1) For 80 percent occurrence, growing season effective precipitation will be equaled or exceeded 8 out of 10 years. For 50 percent chance occurrence, effective precipitation will be equaled or exceeded 1 out of 2 years. (2) Net irrigation requirements is adjusted for carryover moisture used at the beginning of the season and carryover moiature used at the end of the growing season. (3) ET Evapotranspiration) is adjusted upwards 10% per 1000 meters above sea level. Date: 1/19/2010 Irrigation Water Requirements Crop Data Summary Job: Jefferson County PER Crop: Grass Hay • Location: Montana City& Clancy County: Yellowstone, MT By 1-05154 Date: 01119110 Weather Station: BROADVIEW Sta No: MT1149 Latitude: 4606 Longitude: 10853 Elevation: 3880 feet above sea level Computation Method: Blaney Criddle (TR21) Crop Curve: Blaney Criddle Perennial Crop Net irrigation application: 1 inches Estimated carryover moisture used at season: Begin Growth: 4/20 End Growth: 10/20 Begin: 0.5 inches End: 0.5 inches Total Dry Year Normal Year T Monthly 80% Chance (1) 50% Chance (1) Average Peak Month ET Daily Daily Effective Net Irrigation Effective Net Irrigation ETC ETPk (3) Precipitation Reqirements Precipitation li Regirements inches inches inches(2) inches inches(2) inches inches January 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 February 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 March 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 April 0.80 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.10 0.07 May 3.36 1.00 2.37 1.32 2.04 0.11 0.13 June 5.16 0.91 4.25 1.21 3.95 0.17 0.20 July 6.70 0.59 6.11 0.79 5.91 0.22 0.27 August 5.75 0.55 5.20 0.73 5.02 0.19 0.23 September 3.05 0.52 2.53 0.69 2.36 0.10 0.11 October 1.18 0.22 0.46 0.29 0.39 0.06 November 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 December 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 LLL TOTAL 26.00 3.93 21.07 5.23 19.77 (1) For 80 percent occurrence, growing season effective precipitation will be equaled or exceeded 8 out of 10 years. For 50 percent chance occurrence, effective precipitation will be equaled or exceeded 1 out of 2 years. (2) Net irrigation requirements is adjusted for carryover moisture used at the beginning of the season and carryover moiature used at the end of the growing season. (3) ET Evapotranspiration) is adjusted upwards 10% per 1000 meters above sea level. Date: 1/19/2010 Irrigation Water Requirements • Crop Data Summary Job: Jefferson Co. Wastewater PER Crop: Alfalfa Hay Location: Montana City& Clancy County: Carbon, MT By: 1-05154 Date: 01/19/10 Weather Station: JOLIET Sta No: MT4606 Latitude: 4529 Longitude: 10858 Elevation: 3700 feet above sea level Computation Method: Blaney Griddle (TR21) Crop Curve: Blaney Griddle Perennial Crop Net irrigation application: 1 inches Estimated carryover moisture used at season: Begin Growth: 5110 End Growth: 9122 Begin: 0.5 inches End: 0.5 inches __ _�_ Dry Year Normal Year Total 80% Chance (1) 50% Chance(1) Average Peak Monthly Daily Daily Month ET Effective Net Irrigation Effective Net Irrigation ETc ETPk (3) Precipitation Reqirements PrecipitationTRegirements� I _ inches inches inches (2) inches inches (2) inches Lnch es January 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 February 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 March 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 April 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 May 2.50 0.82 1.18 1.07 0.93 0.11 June 6.35 0.94 5.41 1.22 5.13 0.21 0.25 July 8.10 0.51 7.59 0.66 7.44 0.26 0.33 August 6.63 0.57 6.07 0.74 5.90 0.21 0.27 September 2.77 0.48 1.78 0.63 1.64 0.13 October 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 November 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L December 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 26.35 3.32 22.03 4.31 21.04 (1) For 80 percent occurrence, growing season effective precipitation will be equaled or exceeded 8 out of 10 years. For 50 percent chance occurrence, effective precipitation will be equaled or exceeded 1 out of 2 years. (2) Net irrigation requirements is adjusted for carryover moisture used at the beginning of the season and carryover moiature used at the end of the growing season. (3) ET Evapotranspiration) is adjusted upwards 10% per 1000 meters above sea level. Date: 1/1912010 Irrigation Water Requirements Crop Data Summary Job: Jefferson Co. Wastewater PER Crop: Grass Hay Location: Montana City ✓£Clancy County: Carbon, MT By: 1-05154 Date: 01/19/10 Weather Station: JOLIET Sta No: MT4506 Latitude: 4529 Longitude: 10858 Elevation: 3700 feet above sea level Computation Method: Blaney Criddle (TR21) Crop Curve: Blaney Criddle Perennial Crop Net irrigation application: 1 inches Estimated carryover moisture used at season: Begin Growth: 4120 End Growth: 10120 Begin: 0.5 inches End: 0.5 inches - -- - - Total Dry Year T Normal Year Monthly 80% Chance (1) 50% Chance (1) Average Peak [Month ET Daily Daily Effective Net Irrigation Effective Net Irrigation ETc ETPk (3) PRegirements Precipitation Reqirements nches hes inches (2) inches inches (2) inches inches January 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 February 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 March 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 April 0.84 0.24 0.10 0.31 0.03 0.08 May 3.46 1.21 2.25 1.57 1.89 0.11 0.13 June 5.19 0.88 4.31 1.14 4.05 0.17 0.20 July 6.73 0.47 6.26 0.61 6.12 0.22 0.27 August 5.67 0.54 513 0.70 4.97 0.18 0.23 September 3.13 0.65 2.48 0.85 2.28 0.10 0.12 October 1.20 0.32 0.38 0.41 0.29 0.06 November 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 December 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 26.21 4.31 20.90 , 5.59 19.62 (1) For 80 percent occurrence, growing season effective precipitation will be equaled or exceeded 8 out of 10 years. For 50 percent chance occurrence, effective precipitation will be equaled or exceeded 1 out of 2 years. (2) Net irrigation requirements is adjusted for carryover moisture used at the beginning of the season and carryover moiature used at the end of the growing season. (3) ET Evapotranspiration) is adjusted upwards 10% per 1000 meters above sea level. Date: 1/19/2010 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Appendix P Level 2 Treatment Preliminary Design Calculations . INFILTRATION CHAMBERS Clancy,Jefferson County Wastewater PER-Groundwater Discharge DEQ-4 Level 2 System DESIGN FLOW= 35,000 GPD 4,679 CF/DAY ESTIMATED PERC RATE= 10.0 MIN/IN (NRCS SOILS; SITE DATA) APPLICATION RATE= 0.4 GPD/SQFT (FROM DEQ-4 TABLE 8-1) MINIMUM TREATMENT AREA= 87,500 SQFT (NOT INCL. REPLACEMENT AREA) 2.01 ACRES CHAMBER WIDTH= 3.0 FT (36"CHAMBER) TOTAL CHAMBER LENGTH = 29,167 LF 50%LEVEL II REDUCTION= 14,583 LF LATERAL LENGTH= 200.0 LF (USER DEFINED) TOTAL NUMBER OF LATERALS= 73 TOTAL AREA REQUIRED= 112,292 SOFT 2.58 ACRES TOTAL AREA REQUIRED= 224,583 SOFT WITH REPLACEMENT AREA 5.16 ACRES "NOTE THAT THE TOTAL AREA REQUIRED IS AN ESTIMATE WHICH INCLUDES 10%ADDITIONAL AREA FOR PIPING, ZONES,SETBACKS, ETC. ACTUAL DIMENSIONS/AREAS SHALL BE CALCULATED FOR EACH SPECIFIC SITE AFTER THE GEOMETRIC DESIGN LAYOUT. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY . NITRATE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Model Updated 01/24/96 SITE NAME: Clancy Wastewater PER COUNTY: Jefferson LOT #: NOTES: Level II Treatment; DEQ-4 VARIABLES DESCRIPTION VALUE UNITS K Hydraulic Conductivity 62.8 ft/day Hydraulic Gradient 0.010 ft/ft D Depth of Aquifer(usually constant) 15.0 ft L Mixing Zone Length (see ARM 17.30.517(1)(d)(viii) 500 ft Y Width of Drainfield Perpendicular to Ground Water Flow 1000 ft Ng Background Nitrate (as Nitrogen) 0.82 mg/L Nr Nitrate (as Nitrogen) in Precipitation (usually constant) 1.0 mg/L Ne Nitrates in Effluent(50 for conventional; 24 for level 11) 24 mg/L #1 Number of Single Family Homes on the Drainfield 140.0 . QI Quantity of Effluent per Single Family Home (constant) 26.70 ft3/day P Precipitation 10.9 in/year V Percent of Precipitation Recharging Ground Water(usually constant) 0.20 EQUATIONS W Width of Mixing Zone Perpendicular to Ground Water Flow 1087.50 ft =(0.175)(L)+(Y) Am Cross Sectional Area of Aquifer Mixing Zone = (D)(W) 16312.50 ft2 As Surface Area of Mixing Zone = (L)(W) 543750.00 ft2 Qg Ground Water Flow Rate =(K)(1)(Am) 10236.09 ft3/day Qr Recharge Flow Rate =(As)(P/12/365)(V) 270.88 ft3/day Qe Effluent Flow Rate = (#I)(QI) 3738.00 ft3/day SOLUTION Nit Nitrate(as Nitrogen) Concentration at End of Mixing Zone 6.91 mg/L =((Ng)(Qg)+(Nr)(Qr)+(Ne)(Qe))/((Qg)+(Qr)+(Qe)) BY: Rich Fillbach DATE: January 21, 2010 REV. 12198 • . MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PHOSPHOROUS BREAKTHROUGH ANALYSIS SITE NAME: Clancy Wastewater PER COUNTY: Jefferson LOT #: NOTES: Level II Treatment, DEQ-4 VARIABLES DESCRIPTION VALUE UNITS Lg Length of Primary Drainfield as Measured Perpendicular to Ground 1000.0 ft Water Flow L Length of Primary Drainfield's Long Axis 1000.0 ft W Width of Primary Drainfield's Short Axis 120.0 ft B Depth to Limiting Layer from Bottom of Drainfield Laterals' 5.0 ft D Distance from Drainfield to Surface Water 1500.0 ft T Phosphorous Mixing Depth in Ground Water(0.5 ft for coarse soils, 1.0 ft Ne 1.0 ft for fine soils)"` Sw Soil Weight (usually constant) 100.0 Ib/ft3 Pa Phosphorous Adsorption Capacity of Soil (usually constant) 200.0 ppm #1 Number of Single Family Homes on the Drainfield 140.0 CONSTANTS PI Phosphorous Load per Single Family Home (constant) 6.44 Ibs/yr X Conversion Factor for ppm to percentage (constant) 1.0E+06 EQUATIONS Pt Total Phosphorous Load = (PI)(9) 901.60 Ibs/yr W1 Soil Weight under Drainfield = (L)(W)(B)(Sw) 60000000.0 Ibs W2 Soil Weight from Drainfield to Surface Water 169687500.0 Ibs = [(Lg)(D) + (0.0875)(D)(D)] (T)(Sw) P Total Phosphorous Adsorption by Soils = (W1 + W2)[(Pa)/(X)] 45937.5 Ibs SOLUTION BT Breakthrough Time to Surface Water = P/ Pt 51.0 years BY: Rich Fillbach DATE: January 22, 2010 NOTES: ' Depth to limiting layer is typically based on depth to water in a test pit or bottom of a dry test pit minus two feet to account for burial depth of standard drainfield laterals. " Material type is usually based on test pit. A soil that contains more than 35% silt and clay sized particles is considered fine grained. G:1WPBlSUBDIVIWORKSPACINDEGIPBLXLS REV.0412000 ProjeckClancy,Jefferson County Wastewater PER(1-05154 TO#43) . Date:January 21,2010 Modified Cooper-Jacobs Equation Equation#1 Equation 91 Equation#1 Q(gpm) 125.00 Q(gpm) 120.00 Q(gpm) 20.00 Static Water level 81.00 Static Water level 47.00 Static Water level 12.00 Pump Level 168.00 Pump Level 93.00 Pump Level 42.00 S(drawdown) 87.00 S(drawdown) 46.00 S(drawdown) 30.00 Aquifer:1500 unconfined 2000.00 Aquifer:1500 unconfined 2000.00 Aquifer:1500 unconfined 2000.00 2000 for confined 2000 for confined 2000 for confined Conversion factor 7.48 Conversion factor 7.48 Conversion factor 7.48 T(transmissivity) 384.17 T(transmissivity) 697.51 T(transmissivity) 178.25 Equation#2 Equation 92 Equation 92 T(transmissivity) 384.17 T(transmissivity) 697.51 T(transmissivity) 178.25 B'(aquifer thickness) 10.00 B`(aquifer thickness) 10.00 B'(aquifer thickness) 10.00 K(hydraulic conductivity) 38.42 K(hydraulic conductivity) 69.75 K h draulic conductivity) 17.83 Equation#1 Equation#1 Equation#1 Q(gpm) 30.00 Q(gpm) 20.00 Q(gpm) 60.00 Static Water level 15.00 Static Water level 7.00 Static Water level 5.00 Pump Level 20.00 Pump Level 30-00 Pump Level 29.00 S(drawdown) 5.00 S(drawdown) 23.00 S(drawdown) 24.00 Aquifer:1500 unconfined 2000.00 Aquifer:1500 unconfined 2000.00 Aquifer:1500 unconfined 2000.00 2000 for confined 2000 for confined 2000 for confined Conversion factor 7.48 Conversion factor 7.48 Conversion factor 7.48 T(transmissivity) 1604.28 T(transmissivity) 232.50 T(transmissivity) 668.45 Equation#2 Equation#2 Equation#2 T(transmissivity) 1604.28 T(transmissivity) 232.50 T(transmissivity) 668.45 B`(aquifer thickness) 10.00 B'(aquifer thickness) 10.00 B'(aquifer thickness) 10.00 K (hydraulic conductivity) 160.43 K(hydraulic conductivl 23.25 K h raulic conductivl 66.84 Avera e= 62.75 `Well Completion Tvgg Aquifer Thickness Perforated or screened Perforation/screen thickness Open Bottom 10 feet Open Hole Open hole interval(i.e.distance between bottom of casing and bottom of borehole) 0 0 0 Hydraulic Conductivity and Transmissivity Calculations Project: Clancy, Jefferson County Wastewater PER(1-05154 TO#42) Date: January 21, 2010 Fetter Gwic Id 185081 Gwic Id 195743 Gwic Id 57163 Name Marks Name Marks Name Hicklin Legal Description SE,SW,S4,T8N,R3W Legal Description SE,SW,S4,T8N,R3W Legal Description SW,SE,S4,T8N,R3W Q(gpm) 125 Q(gpm) 120 Q(gpm) 20 Static level 81 Static level 47 Static level 12 Pump level 168 Pump level 93 Pump level 42 S(drawdown) 87 S(drawdown) 46 S(drawdown) 30 b*(aquifer thickness) 75 b*(aquifer thickness) 80 b*(aquifer thickness) 10 K 19.38 K 27.09 K 86.88 ]r✓ic Id 57223 JNIC Id 57211 Gwic Id 153540 Name Buckley Name Grace Name Deadmond Legal Description NE,SW,S9,T8N,R3W Legal Description NW,NE,S9,T8N,R3W Legal Description NE,SW,S9,T8N,R3W Q(gpm) 30 Q(gpm) 20 Q(gpm) 60 Static level 15 Static level 7 Static level 5 Pump level 20 Pump level 30 Pump level 29 S(drawdown) 5 S(drawdown) 23 S(drawdown) 24 b*(aquifer thickness) 8 b*(aquifer thickness) 4 b*(aquifer thickness) 10 K 473.351 K 259.53 K 210.63 Average= 179.48 *Well Completion Type Aquifer Thickness Perforated or screened Perforation/screen thickness Open Bottom 10 feet Open Hole Open hole interval (i.e.distance between bottom of casing and bottom of borehole) Hydraulic Conductivityxls Clancy, Montana Groundwater Discharge Calculation Dilution calculation utilizing the following mass balance equation: C = C3(Q,+Qz)-CA (equ. 1) z Qz where: C, = Ambient(background) ground water nitrate+nitrite (as N) concentration (mg/Q. C2 = Allowable nitrate (as N) discharge concentration (mg/L). C3 = Ground water concentration limit for nitrate (as N)at the end of the mixing zone Q, = Ground water volume mixing with the discharge(ft'/day) Q2= Design discharge volume(ft'/day) Known: C, = 0.82 mg/L C2 = mg/L C3 = 7.5 mg/L Q, = ft'/day 02= 4,679 ft'/day Solve Q,: Q, = KiA (equ. 2) where: Q, = Ground water volume (ft'/day) K = hydraulic conductivity(ft/day) i = hydraulic gradient(ft/ft) A = cross-section area of flow at the down-gradient boundary of the 500-foot mixing zone (ft2) Q, = ft'/day K = 62 ft/day i = 0.02 ft/ft A = 16,305 ft2 (1,0 87 X 15') Q, = 20,218 ft"/day Solve C2: Cz = C3(Qi+Q2) - CA (equ. 1) Q2 C2 = 36.4 mg/L BACKGROUND NITRATE Clancy, Jefferson County Wastewater PER PWS Well MT0001397 Clancy Elementary School District 01 Year Nitrate 2007 1.54 2008 1.19 2009 1.1 2010 1.07 Average = 1.28 PWS Well MT0001400 Chubby's Bar and Grill Year Nitrate 2007 0.41 2008 0.61 2009 0.48 Average = 0.50 PWS Well MT0003721 Chubby's Bar and Grill Year Nitrate 2007 0.49 2008 0.83 2009 0.71 Average = 0.68 Overall Average= 0.82 % C'ea Equgx (� I spi 61 nent,Inc. 1408 Gold Ave.#6. Bozeman,MT 59715 Ph 406-586-1700 - Fax 406-586-1710 Clancy Community System - Jefferson County, MT Estimated Actual 30-Day Average Flow 5/17/2009 Actual Number of Guests GPD/Guest Influent BOD lb BODS/day Concentration Facility Flow mg/L lb Residential Homes 21.U00 210 36.78 Commercial 0 800 0.00 Total Flow 9pa Total lb BOD,/day 21000 36.78 GPD/Pod 2,100 #pods required III BODs/AX-20 Pod 9.1 4.05 •of pods proposed 10.0 Design Flow / Peak Daily Flow Design Number of Guests GPD/Guest Influent BOD lb BOD5/day Concentration Facility Flow mg/L ib Residential Homes 35,000 275 80.27 Commercial 0 800 0.00 Total Flow gpd Total lb BOD,/day 35,000 80.27 Notes: GPD/Pod #pods required It,BOD./AX-20 Pod 3,500 9.9 8.10 •of pods proposed •Minimum Recurculation Tank Is 1.5x Design Flow 10.0 or 52,500 Gallons •Minimum Primary Septic Tank is 3.Ox Design Flow or 150,000 Gallons for a central tank,or use individual tanks sized to DEQ4. •Expected TN reduction is 60%,dependent on available alkalinity and other unknown factors. •Maximum IN reduction is possible with the addition of a carbon up0ow filter. •Expected BOD reduction is a95% •Expected Phosphorous reduction is 0% Is Operation and Maintenance Cost ca Estimating Worksheet "�` qW ft pr . l-W348-9643 Application System Data Due to variations in system design, System Design Flow(gpd) 35,000 labor rates,and power usage costs,this Number of AdvanTex Cells 1 Operation and Maintenance Cost Number of AX 100 Pods per Cell 10 Estimating Worksheet should be used Total Number of Pumping Packages 5 as a guideline only.This worksheet Total Number of Automatic Distributing Vail) Number of Recirculating Splitter Valves I does not include estimates for primary treatment,sludge handling, Number of Ventilation Fans 4 Maintenance Provider Costs,$/hr $75.00 Project:Clancy,Montana Power Usage Costs,$/kWh $0.09 Date Prepared: 18-May-10 Pump Run Time 15.0% Prepared by:Steve Anderson Monthly fee for phone service $50.00 Compare Events per Labor per Yearly Yearly O&M Category at Year Event Labor Costs Component Maintenance Clean Pumping Packages 5 1 0.75 3.75 $281.25 Clean Biombe Filters 5 1 0.5 2.5 $187.50 Clean Recirculating Splitter Valve I I 1 1 $75.00 Inspect Automatic Distributing Valve 0 4 0.25 0 $0.00 Inspect Ventilation Fan Assembly 4 4 0.25 4 $300.00 Telemetry Control Panel,Data Logging 1 12 1 12 $900.00 System Maintenance Visual Inspection of System l0 12 0.4 48 $3,600.00 Measure Sludge Levels in Septic Tank 3 1 0.25 0.75 $56.25 Measure Sludge Level,Recirc.Tank 2 1 0.25 0.5 $37.50 Measure Pod Inlet Pressure 10 1 0.25 2.5 $187.50 Flush Distribution Laterals 10 1 0.1 1 $75.00 Clean AdvanTex Nozzles 10 1 1 10 $500.00 Misc. Record Keeping 1 4 1 4 $300.00 Emergency Maintenance 1 4 1 4 $300.00 Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs. Subtotal 6,800.00 O&M Category Compone Events per Run Time }'early Yearly Operational Costs Power Usage,Pumping Systems 10 8760 hrs 15% 13140 $1,903.99 Power Usage,Ventilation Fans 2 8760 hm 100% 17520 $197.10 Other Costs Monthly Fee TeleComm"'Control Panel,Phone Lin 1 12 months $50.00 $600.00 Total Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs: 1 $9,501.09 Rev.2.0-10/04 AdvanTex®-AV 00 Treatment System Cg Cost Estimating Worksheet IncGxdlhl I-888-348-9843 Application System Data This cost estimating worksheet should be used for System Design Flow(gpd) 35,000 preliminary cost estimating only. Due to variances in Design Loading Rate(gal/sq.ft./day) 35 products specified,recirculation tank costs,as well as Number of AdvanTex AX 100 Pods 10 Recirculating Tank Capacity(gallons) 52,500 labor and engineering costs,a low and high range Septic Tank Capacity 100,000 estimate is provided.Shipping and handling charges Number of Duplex Pumping Packages 5 are not included,except as noted. Number of Automatic Distributing Valves 0 Number of Recirculating Splitter Valves I Project:Clancy,Montana-Community System Number of Ventilation Fan Assemblies 2 Date 5/18/10 Prepared by: Steve Anderson I Unit Cost Range Total Cost Range Low High Low I High Materials Recirculation Tank Delivered to site $1.40 $1.65 $73,500 $86,625 Septic Tank(s) Delivered to site $1.40 $1.65 $140,000 $165,000 Tank Access Equipment Risers,lids,adapters,epoxy $499 $599 $2,996 $3,595 Pumping Equipment Pumps,vault,discharge,splice box,float assembly, $2,451 $2,923 $12,255 $14,617 Control Panel Control panel with Remote Telemetry $7,000 $10,000 $7,000 $10,000 Automatic Distributing Valve Distributing valve,enclosure,lid $573 $661 $o $0 Miscellaneous Equipment Piping,fittings,glue $125 $190 $1,250 $1,900 Recirculating Valve Recitc.splitter or ball valve,grommets $1,076 $1,400 $1,076 $1,400 Neater/Ventilation Fan Assembly Fan basin,carbon basin,air inlet $3,223 $4,467 $6,445 $8,933 AdvanTex Equipment AdvanTex Filter(AX100) $18,026 $18,026 $180,346 $180,346 Materials Subtotal $424,868 $472,416 Misc. Operation and Maintenance Manual Two copies of project-specific O&M Manual $300 $300 $300 $300 *Total Treatment Material, Start-up and Operational Costs $425,168 $472,716 Cost per Treated Gallon $12.15 $13.51 *Cost estimate does not include materials costs for collection,dispersal system or any installation costs. Rev.4.1 -5/07 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Appendix Q Pump Sizing Calculations � i Project Name Clancy Sewer alternative S-1 System Inputs System TDH NPSH GPM 100 200 300 GPM 100 200 300 Pump Model GPM Static Lift,ft 10 30 30 Static 30 10 30 APE-66103 100 200 300 Forcemain Diamter,in 6 6 6 FM Friction 1.98 ft 7.13 ft 15.10 ft NPSHr 1.73913 3.478261 5.2 Forcemain Length,ft 2150 2150 2150 SUC Friction 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0.01 ft NPSHa @ Max GPM 28.00 Forcemain C Value 140 140 140 CV Friction 0.100 0.175 0.250 Dual Disc CV Diameter,in 6 6 6 Hydrant Friction 0.2 0.5 0.9 NPSHa-NPSHr 22.78(must be>2) Residule Pressure at Hyd(psi) 0 0 0(Prot P51) Res Pressure(ft) 0 0 0 Suction Pipe Diameter,in 10 30 10 TDH 12 18 Z6 Suction Pipe Length,ft 0 0 0 Suction Lift,ft(♦/-) 0 0 0 System Curve Points S=Uon C Value 140 140 140 GPM TDH Discharge Friction Calculations Pump Elevation,it 4210 4210 4210 0 SO Water Temperature,f 70 70 70 100 12 L 2150.0 It L 2150.0 ft L 2150A ft 200 18 Q 100.0 Q 200.0 Q 300.0 '�.. 300 26 D 6.0 in D 6.0 in D 6.0 in 160 T- --------- C 140 C 140 C 140 APE-6610300 30HP 10.00" 140 'f--.'. _.-..-__-- 0 95 120 - - _.____ Z50 94 TDH 1.98 It TDH 7.13 ft TDH 15.10 ft 500 92 100 -I----i- - - -- ---- 750 90 ----System Curve 1 1000 85 Suction Friction Calculations so I -54025b10 i 1500 64 L 0.0 It L 0.0 ft L 0.0k -40%Eff 1750 50 Q 100.0 Q 200.0 Q 300.0 2000 35 D 10.0 In D 10.0 in D 10.0 in C 140 C 140 C 140 20 ---- --------- ----- APL-6610400 40HP 10.75" 0 114 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 250 113 TDH O.00ft TDH 0.00 ft TDH 0.01 ft 500 111 L--____. _-- 750 109 Project Name Clancy Sewer Alternative S-2 System Inputs System TDH NPSH GPM 100 200 300 GPM 100 200 300 Pump Model GPM Static Lift,ft 16 16 16 Static 16 16 16 APE-66103 100 200 300 Forcemain Diamter,in 6 6 6 FM Friction 4.88 ft 17.58 ft 37.21 ft NPSHr 1.73913 3.478261 5.2 Forcemain Length,ft 5300 5300 5300 SUC Friction 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0.01 It NPSHa @ Max GPM 28.00 Forcemain C Value 140 140 140 CV Friction 0.100 0.175 0.250 Dual Disc CV Diameter,in 6 6 6 Hydrant Friction 0.2 0.5 0.9 NPSHa-NPSHr 22.78(must be 2) Residule Pressure at Hyd(psi) 0 0 D(Picot PSI) Res Pressure(ft) 0 0 9 Suction Pipe Diameter,in 10 10 10 TDH 21 34 54 Suction Pipe Length,k 0 0 0 Suction Lift,ft(+/-) 0 0 0 System Curve Points Suction C Value 140 140 140 GPM TDH Discharge Friction Calculations Pump Elevation,ft 4210 4210 4210 0 16 Water Temperature,f 70 70 70 100 21 L 5300.0 ft L 5300.0 ft L 5300.0 ft 200 N Q 100.0 Q 200.0 Q 300.0 300 54 D 6.0 in D 6.0 in D 6.0 in 160 - ----'---- C 140 C 140 C 140 --- ----_ -' APE-6610300 30HP 10.00" 140 0 95 120 - ---- -- -- - 94 TDH 4.88 ft TDH 17.58 ft TDH 37.21 It 500 92 100 - -. ----- 750 90 I �v -svnem Curve 1 1000 85 Suction Friction Calculations BO --------- 1250 75 54Q250-10 1500 64 L 0.0 ft L 0.0 ft L 0.0 ft 601---. _y0g6 ER 1750 50 Q 100.0 Q 200.0 Q 3000 _ 1 2000 35 D 10.0 in D 10.0 in D 10.0 in 40 -. ___ �- C 140 C 140 C 140 20 .------- ---- - -- APE-6610400 40HP 10.75' 0 114 0 -- r- ---T-- 250 113 TDH O.00ft TDH O.00 f[ TDH 0.01 ft 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 500 111 750 109 Project Name Clancy Sewer Alternative S-3 System Inputs System TDH NPSH GPM 100 200 300 GPM 100 200 300 Pump Model GPM Static Lift,it 64 64 64 Static 64 64 64 APE-66103 100 200 300 Forcemain Diamter,in 6 6 6 FM Friction 5.33 ft 19.23 ft 40.72 ft NPSHr 1.73913 3.478261 5.2 Forcemain Length,ft 5800 5800 5800 SUC Friction 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0.01 ft NPSHa @ Max GPM 28.00 Forcemain C Value 140 140 140 CV Friction 0.100 0.175 0.250 Dual Disc CV Diameter,in 6 6 6 Hydrant Friction 0.2 0.5 0.9 NPSHa-NPSHr 22.78(must be>2) Residule Pressure at Hyd(psi) 0 0 0(Pitot PSI) Res Pressure(ft) 0 0 0 Suction Pipe Diameter,in 10 30 10 TDH 70 84 106 Suction Pipe Length,ft 0 0 0 Suction Lift,it(+/-) 0 0 0 System Curve Points Suction C Value 140 140 140 GPM TDH Discharge Friction Calculations Pump Elevation,It 4210 4210 4210 0 64 Water Temperature,f 70 70 70 100 70 L 5800+0 it L S800.0 ft L 5800.0 ft 200 84 Q 100.0 Q 200.0 Q 300.0 300 106 D 6.0 in D 6.0 in D 6.0 in 1 160 -. C 140 C 140 C 140 ICI APE-6610300 30HP 10.00" 140 0 95 110 . -_- _ __ 250 94 TDH 5.33 it TDH 19.23 it TDH 40.72 ft � 800 92 100 750 90 System Curve 1 1000 85 Suction Friction Calculations a0 --- 1 1250 75 540250-10 1500 64 L 0.0 ft L 0.0 h L 0.0 it i --- - -x096 Efl 1750 50 Q 100.0 Q 200.0 Q 300.0 40 2000 35 D 10.0 in D 10.0 in D 10.0 in C 140 C 140 C 140 20 ---.---_. ---_._.__.__-____ APL•6610400 40HP 10.75" 0 114 I o - T-r�-----r i 250 113 TDH 0.00 It TDH 0.00 ft TDH 0.01 ft 0 100 200 300 400 SOO wo 1 500 111 ___- -__._.__.. _.._....___-___- -__-. 750 109 Project Name Clancy Sewer Alternative S-4 System Inputs System TDH NPSH GPM 100 200 300 GPM 100 200 300 Pump Model GPM Static Lift,k 8 8 8 Static 8 8 8 APE-66103 100 200 300 Forcemain Diamter,in 6 6 6 FM Friction S.33 ft 19.23 ft 40.72 It NPSHr 1.73913 3.478261 5.2 Forcemain Length,ft 5800 5800 5800 SUC Friction 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0.01 ft NPSHa @ Max GPM 28.00 Forcemain C Value 140 140 140 CV Friction 0.100 0.175 0.250 Dual Disc CV Diameter,in 6 6 6 Hydrant Friction 0.2 0.5 0.9 NPSHa-NPSHr 22.78 (must be>2) Residule Pressure at Hyd(psi) 0 0 0(Pitot PSI) Res Pressure(ft) 0 0 0 Suction Pipe Diameter,in 10 10 10 TDH 14 28 50 Suction Pipe Length,ft 0 0 0 Suction Lift,ft(./-) 0 0 0 System Curve Points Suction C Value 140 140 140 GPM TDH Discharge Friction Calculations Pump Elevation,It 4210 4210 4210 0 8 Water Temperature,f 70 70 70 100 14 L 9a00.0 ft L 5800.0& L 5800.0 ft 200 28 Q 100.0 Q 200.0 Q 300.0 300 50 O 6.0 in D 6.0 in D 6.0 in -160 - -- C 140 C 140 C 140 APE-6610300 30HP 10.00" 140 ------'--- 0 95 250 94 TDH S.33 ft TDH 19.23 ft TDH 40.72 ft 110 SW 92 too -- - 750 90 -,-System Curve 1000 85 Suction Friction Calculations 80 -- -- -- 1250 75 544250-10 i 1500 64 L 0.0 It L 0.0 ft L 0.0 k 60 -- ___. -- -4095 Eff 1 1750 SD Q 100.0 Q 200.0 Q 300.0 a0 ---y - - i 2000 35 D 10.0 in D 10.0 in D 10.0 in C 140 C 140 C 140 20 _ __ _____ -- APE-6610400 40HP 10.75" 0 114 0 ---r"---'--� -' I 250 113 TDH 0.00 ft TDH 0100 h TDH 0.01 ft 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 500 111 750 109 i I 9 i ! Project Name Clancy Sewer Alternative S-S System Inputs System TDH NPSH GPM 100 200 300 GPM 100 200 300 Pump Model GPM Static Lift,ft 234 234 234 Static 234 234 234 APE-66103 100 200 300 Forcemain Diamter,in 6 6 6 FM Friction 5.73 It 20.64 ft 4170ft NPSHr 1.73913 3.478261 5.2 Forcemain Length,ft 6225 6225 6225 SUC Friction 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0.01 ft NPSHa @Max GPM 28.00 Forcemain C Value 140 140 140 CV Friction 0.100 0.175 0.250 Dual Disc CV Diameter,in 6 6 6 Hydrant Friction 0.2 0.5 0.9 NPSHa-NPSHr 22.78(Must be>2) Residule Pressure at Hyd(psi) 0 0 0(Pitot PSI) Res Pressure(ft) 0 0 9 Suction Pipe Diameter,in 10 10 10 TDH 240 255 279 Suction Pipe Length,ft 0 0 0 Suction Lift,ft(a/-) 0 0 0 System Curve Points Suction C Value 140 140 140 GPM TDH Discharge Friction Calculations Pump Elevation,It 4210 4210 4210 0 234 Water Temperature,( 70 70 70 100 240 L 6225.0 It L 622510ft L 622S.0 ft 200 255 Q 100.0 Q 200.0 Q 300.0 300 279 D 6.0 in D 6.0 in D 6.0 in 160 T- .___.-___-- - __ C 140 C 140 C 140 APE-6610300 30HP 10.00" 140 0 95 250 94 TDH 5.73 ft TDH 20.64 it TDH 43.70 ft 120 ---- f ---- 500 92 1001.__ -- __-___- -_ I 750 90 ,._.--- --System Curve 1000 85 Suction Friction Calculations 80 ---- --- 1250 75 -54(U50.10 1 1500 64 L 0.0 It L 0.0 It L 0.0 it I -4096 E(f 1750 50 Q 100.0 Q 200.0 Q 3000 _ _ _____ 20M 35 D 10.0 in D 10.0 in D 10.0 in 40 - C 140 C 140 C 140 20 -.-._.-___._- ----__._-__. APE-6610400 40HP 10.75" 0 114 0 - --� - -- -T'- 250 113 TDH 0.00 ft TDH 0.00 ft TDH 0,0I It 0 100 200 300 400 500 rA0 500 111 L __._. . __._.._ -_. __ _i 7S0 109 Jefferson County, Montana Clancy Wastewater System PER Appendix R Documentation of Public Meeting • MEETING REGARDING PROPOSED CLANCY WASTEWATER TREATMENT JUNE 8,2010 Present: Commissioners Lythgoe, Kirsch and Wortman; Megan Bullock, County Sanitarian; Harold Stepper, County Planner; Todd Kuxhaus and Rich Fillbach,Great West Engineering; Bill Gruber, Dave Simac, Chuck &Betty Notbohm, Bruce&Jeanne Nevins, Ber&Estella Conrad, Ed Leo, Bill & Maryanne Rainey, Brian & Barb Erlandson, Donna Reed, Mike Foley, Sharon Grace, Alan Smith,Tim Grace, Dave Leitheiser, Peter Peter III,Nic Bair, Doug Dodge, Ken& Becky Cottrell, Tim Rusdal, Jason Gilliland, Joe Carter, Bob Marks, Matt&Andrea Dolezal, Steve Marks Commissioner Lythgoe opened the meeting by welcoming those in attendance. He stated that the County isn't trying to shove anything down anyone's throat; Megan has identified some issues in Clancy that the Commission agreed should be investigated. The final decision, however, will be up to the residents. Chuck Notbohm asked how all this got started. Megan Bullock stated that she has been with Jefferson County for 18 years, 15 of those in • Environmental Health. Several years ago the Commission requested that Great West Engineering conduct a study in the Montana City area on the feasibility of a wastewater district. In the fall of 2009, she approached the Commission to suggest that the focus be redirected to Clancy as she had increasingly been seeing failing septic systems. The original town site dates back to 1895 and many of the lots are very small, with no adequate area for replacement systems. Also, required set-backs will make it difficult, if not impossible, to site a replacement system in many lots. Megan said that she feels strongly that a wastewater treatment system should be considered. If as a community they decide that they don't want a community system, they need to realize that they may not have an option in the future. If someone's septic fails, they might have to consider a holding tank which, if they are conservative,they may only need to have pumped once a week at a cost of approximately$160.00. Megan stated that people need to think of the future; tonight they are here to look at options available and she asked that everyone listen with an open mind. This system would be good for the community of Clancy as a whole. Todd Kuxhaus, Great West Engineering, gave a Power Point presentation covering the background of the project, the proposed area, types of systems and costs. Joe Carter asked how the district boundaries were determined. Todd stated that they identified areas with small lots and existing problem areas. Megan added that a major consideration was reserve expansion area. I Someone questioned why a new subdivision was not included in the proposed district. Todd said . that higher income areas might make them ineligible for some grants. Also, the subdivision has Public meeting-Clancy wastewater June 8,2010 1 I newer homes and larger lots. Dave Leitheiser asked who would vote on the creation of the district. Todd answered that property owners within the proposed district boundary would be the ones to vote. Nic Bair asked where they are proposing the treatment system would be located. Todd said that everything is really preliminary at this time; they are still looking at several possible areas and they aren't ready to identify those at this time. Someone stated that they own commercial property and a rental but he lives in Lewis and Clark County and asked if he would be able to vote. Todd said that he would; the actual owners of the property are the ones who will vote on the formation of the district. Dave Leitheiser said that he talked to his neighbors on Main Street. Their systems vary in age and there is an open area below them. They would like the boundary moved to exclude them. Chuck Notbohm said that he has talked to Megan and is aware of the problems, but there are five there that have good systems and plenty of room for replacement drainfields. Todd noted that many times when someone installs a replacement system they still have to go through sanitary regulations, which could change disallowing replacement systems. Commissioner Wortman said that this is all really preliminary at this time; they had to start somewhere. What they want out of this meeting is if the people in Clancy feel that there is a • need for the project and if they want to proceed. Alan Smith said that the school has a substantial amount of land, but it is along the creek. He asked what they are currently using. Megan said that they have on-site treatment, but the regulations are changing and she feels that they school would be in a bad place if they had to replace their system. They would have to go through DEQ for approval. Dave Leitheiser said that he is not opposed to the system. He feels that the system is needed, but he doesn't need it. Commissioner Lythgoe asked who owns the property below the people who want to be excluded. Dave said that it belongs to the Marks Ranch. Commissioner Lythgoe stated that the homeowners have no control over that land, and there is the possibility that they could end up with houses down there. Alan Smith asked that if the initial district proposal were to fail, could they re-structure the district and vote again. Commissioner Lythgoe answered that if the district proposal died the first time, it doesn't mean that the County would abandon the project. People recognize that there is a potential problem. On the north end, the county should have done this 20 years ago; now the problem is so huge that we can't afford to do anything. We have the opportunity to do something now in Clancy. Donna Reed stated that they have one of the places that is a problem; the septic systems area very close to each other and their drainfield is out into the alley. Public meeting- Clancy wastewater June 8,2010 2 Sharon Grace asked who determined the boundaries and how. Todd said that it was up to the county; they took into consideration lot size, well location and the possibility for a replacement system. Megan stated that she has been doing this for fifteen years, so it was really logical to her where the boundary should be. Someone asked if they are within the district,would they need to hook into the central system right away and if not, would they still pay the fee. Todd said that people within the district would have to pay the fee if they were hooked up or not; people are all assessed the fee regardless. If they refuse to be hooked in, service would go to the property boundary and be capped. Alan asked at what point in time the line fees will start. Todd answered that it would be after the system is installed and on-line. Betty Notbohm asked about the income survey, and if people will pay more if they make more. Todd answered that they will not. They need a certain percentage of the median household income to qualify for grants. Commissioner Lythgoe said that if people in the district don't meet the median household income, it may take longer to fund the system. Todd noted that even if the district is formed, there will be a debt election to move forward. Bob Marks asked if there is a stopping point if the funding doesn't come through and it gets too • expensive. Todd said that there is; there is a way to bundle the funding applications so that there is a way out. Also, once the district is formed a board will be elected. The board will establish the maximum acceptable user rate. Alan asked how the district could grow. Todd said that generally, people would have to pay their way in. Someone asked again how the district boundary was determined and why the new subdivision wasn't included. Megan said that, as had already been explained, the bottom lots in the subdivision are already on a community system and the upper lots are on a sand-lined drain field. Also, those systems are all new and the lots are larger, allowing ample room for a replacement system if needed. Megan urged everyone to consider that even if their system is working, it isn't out-of-sight, out-of-mind. People need to look at the big picture; wastewater isn't being treated properly. Tim Grace asked who will be pursuing the grants. Todd stated that his firm, Great West,will be doing this. Steve Marks asked if there has been any due diligence on the present septic systems. Todd said that this will be the next step in determining the district boundaries. Someone asked if there are currently any groundwater or well issues in Clancy. Megan said that • there are currently groundwater problems. Public meeting- Clancy wastewater June 8,2010 3 Someone asked if businesses will be paying the same fees as a household. Todd said that businesses will typically pay a higher fee based on size and usage. Someone asked if the district would be for wastewater as well as water. Todd said that the district would be formed as a water and sewer district,but if no water problems are identified, there will be no need for the water portion. Commissioner Lythgoe said that bottom line,the county either needs to stop spending money on this or identify the boundaries and move forward with the process to form a district. He is hoping to hear some sort of consensus, if the people within the proposed boundary want to move forward. By a show of hands, the consensus was to move forward. ATTEST: BONNIE RAMEY TOMAS E. LYTHGOE, CHAIR CLERK AND RECORDER DAVE KIRSCH, COMMISSIONER LEONARD WORTMAN, COMMISSIONER Public meeting- Clancy wastewater June 8, 2010 4 CLANCY Wastewater Treatment System Preliminary Engineering Presentation June 8,2010 Todd K..ha�,PE Gre/ a est engln%nN Why Are We Here? • Jefferson County Has Identified a Need • Talk About the Proposed District Boundary • Explain Potential Wastewater Disposal Alternatives and Costs(Preliminary Engineering Report) • Discuss the Implementation Process and Schedule • Determine if the Public Supports the Project Proposed Clancy Water and Sewer District Nom ` Preliminary Engineering Report • What is a Preliminary Engineering Report? • Required by Funding Agencies to Qualify for Grants • Describes the Project • Evaluale Alternatives including Selection of a Preferred Alternative • Establishes Costs Considerations for Clancy • Predate Health Regulations • Failing Septic Systems Potential Public Health Risks: •Water Quality • Groundwater contamination •Well&Septic Separation from individual septic systems that are out of compliance. • Coarse Grain Soils • New System Compliance • Replacement Systems •Variance Requests •Town Growth Limitations Evaluation of Existing Conditions • Existing Septic Systems -Approximately 103 systems in Proposed District n 89 Residential e 7 Institutional(Schools,Churches,etc) n 7 Commercial -obsolete Systems v Cesspools P Metal Septic Tanks -Many unknown Systems 4 7 Evaluation of Existing Conditions • Existing Wastewater Flows Existing I Design Flows and EDU's ExYgn 8• Ic ExYNnp Fbw p.•Ig�Flw TYPE p ExYIiIpEDV. ay.Ym. IvM Ivw9 ong,", 09 A9 zz,aCO 25.100 NetlWblul } JO IE00 8,600 CommvcW ] 6 1.5W 2000 I Tree 2s stASV zs,so6 Ne , 22.000 36,000 EM•EwMYmPwWgU•M ,rd•G 11—en base•. w.rnr Need for the Project • Public Health and Safety • Growth of Community ! Population Data YEAR ci..,P.gul•pan C..MY Mama" n8o 7N. -Tft ago IgYldn) PopuYllon PepuNlien tva6 - },we ]6a,oes zao6 1ep 1p.64e W3 283 20m. -_ _. m 1157 W11. 20N 262 na) _ b0 Design Requirements and Regulations_ • Montana Department of Environmental Quality - DEG 2 Design Standards for Wastewater Facilities - DEG 4 Standards for SUbsurlace Wastewater System • Public Systems -15 or more services serving 25 or more persons • US Clean Water Act • Montana Water Quality Act • MT Wastewater Treatment Revolving Fund Act • Public Water Supply Act • Public Health law Z Alternative Screening Process • Collection Systems Alternatives • Gravity Collection System •Street Layout Option •Alley Layout Option • Pressurized Collection System •STEP Systems •Individual Grinder Pumps(Hybrid) • Lift Station Alternatives •Single Centralized Lift Station •Multiple Smaller Lift Stations •IncivkWal Grinder Pump Systems Alternative Screening Process Treatment Systems Alternatives 1. No Action Alternative 2. Total Retention Ponds(Evaporation) 7. Storage 8 irrigation(Low Rate Land Application) 4. Naturally Aerated Facultative Lagoons S. Mechanically Aerated Lagoons 6. Septic Tank and Pressure Dosed Dralnfield T Sepds Tank l Level 2 Treatment l Pressure Dosed Drainfield S. Constructed Wglands 6. Mechanical Treatment Plant Alternative Analysis • Alternatives that Passed the initial screening: • Gravity Collection System w Street Layout w Alley Layout Single Centralized Lift Stadun •Packaged Submersible •Wet WelllDry Well n Suction • Treatment Alternatives •No Action •Storage and Inigatbn(Lon Rate Lard Application) •Septic Tank I Level 2 Treatment I Drainfiekl •Sbls atal Nutrient Revol(BNR)Mechanical Plant A Features of Preliminary Collection System Project FeMres .e+n<ra nwi�lwnma�n - 2,.. •�5.600.ba�mliec4mmein •Ni N M"way algnmenl Pi,nN m •1�3serv�ro ronrec�pns ._. I♦ ' h IL Features of Preliminary Collection System Alley Leyou{ � aa • �T� 1 � I 1 r+�—� •wy'� is-♦ Features of Preliminary Lift Station Project Features •P&Se]Btl 5WM1 LM 51&ip1 •�wilpurp[uAigxaim /� �610 1511p1 { .MJgpm •3Pnau pvrsu�ly i� _ •E�ro�cco�mvSMam .9a1+s Y�wAery •Lauue'n ea4oe]Vlry s�sainyedwy Features of Preliminary Storage and Irrination WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE Project Features •2001 gan Itstatlon •2]ame gmayprd I nalu!allyaeraleU � - 1 •2b d •IOaam N�meaeaercPla�e - leal 0.,s .Iroo,ener9a Per„� •5%ttrMy TatlrreN atabR •uvolNN«amsyawrr - , ,lilYk Features of Preliminary Septic Tank I Level 2 Treatment WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE Project Featums •I1)0,000v1WCvIrW1zw Sc,e tan6 •5'{5008BIIOIr reairoulellm leek •IP ostextrea'meMlilm Iw%ro ) •6a.1N0 larw 1,torn" (tta0 ereraaPOSaare I \ Aalnlleb) •omuMwbr D Permit R9pr[e] .9emn+WTteamwA araWrls 4. Features of Preliminary Mechanical Treatment Plant WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE Project Features�1 •MigM1 leM Oltraalmenl - - •mtrs aler 3.mlarye tM1rWglr uMEalbn Ballcie5 •Ca01WpNtpxak'maWretl Cam.. ppp ` •Ircreautl \ _ •NCAatlMrtpanrrenl M •",haucWNIe m F Example of a Mechanical Treatment Plant WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE I i.6- k 1 RAE Water&Sewer District Si Treatment Plan, Criteria Used to Rank Alternatives 1. Technical Feasibility 2. Environmental Impacts 3. Financial Feasibility d. Public Health and Safety S. Operational and Maintenance Considerations 6. Public Comments Preliminary Cost Estimates feet". vi ' CWryWxYntlelinnMeMSyrnm 'i PxMMAIMmenns PnWWnvyPmenlWOIM1AmS/rn ' mrlaa3l fs� W%O p.m .. S4tm 3prre Nen Ar 11 s."s iii 3t05 III RO SSW aA L RMS 1—se 7 • Preliminary Selection of Preferred Alternative Selection of Preferred Alternative Draft Preferred Alternative for Clancy • Collection System: Gravity Collection—Alley Layout • • Lift Station: Single Centralized Packaged Submersible • Treatment System: Storage and Irrigation or Level 2 (Tie) SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON PUBLIC INPUTI i Estimated Cost of Draft Preferred Alternative= $5,007.0 Annual Estimated Cost for O&M-$39.500 Project Funding Strategy FUNDING STRATEGY aVYNaRYPoR PREFEmiEe1Itmu INE tEackvtarl 6o ur.Of nn� R • Implementation Process &Schedule r.n — r. WHERE TO GO FROM HERE? • Public Opinion • Is More support for the project? • District Formation If supported,should the County look into formation of a Water and Sewer District? • Income Survey • To determine grant eligibility,an income survey would be very helpful,if not required. Questions? Gre/ attest engineenrg I 0 Gr/ eatWest engineenng �n