&ER&
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring
and Support Laboratory
PO. Box 15027
Las Vegas NV 89114
EPA-600/7-79-249
December 1979
Research and Development
Assessment of Energy
Resource Development
Impact on Water Quality:
The Tongue and Powder
River Basins
Interagency
Energy-Environment
Research
and Development
Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad categories
were established to facilitate further development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster
technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields. The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGYENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the effort
funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and Development
Program. These studies relate to EPA'S mission to protect the public health and welfare
from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy systems. The goal of the Pro-
gram is to assure the rapid development of domestic energy supplies in an environ-
mentally-compatible manner by providing the necessary environmental data and
control technology. Investigations include analyses of the transport of energy-related
pollutants and their health and ecological effects; assessments of, and development of,
control technologies for energy systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range
of energy-related environmental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
EPA-600/7-79-^49
December 1979
ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
ON WATER QUALITY
The Tongue and Powder River Basins
S. M. Mel aneon
Biology Department
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
and
B. C. Hess and R. W. Thomas
Monitoring Operations Division
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SUPPORT LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
Protection of the environment requires effective regulatory actions that
are based on sound technical and scientific data. This information must
include the quantitative description and linking of pollutant sources,
transport mechanisms, interactions, and resulting effects on man and his
environment. Because of the complexities involved, assessment of specific
pollutants in the environment requires a total systems approach that
transcends the media of air, water, and land. The Environmental Monitoring
and Support Laboratory-Las Vegas contributes to the formation and enhancement
of a sound monitoring data base for exposure assessment through programs
designed to:
t develop and optimize systems and strategies for monitoring pollutants
and their impact on the environment
t demonstrate new monitoring systems and technologies by applying them to
fulfill special monitoring needs of the Agency's operating programs
This report presents an evaluation of surface water quality in the Tongue
and Powder River Basins and discusses the impact of energy development upon
water quality and water availability. The water quality data collected to
date and presented in this report may be considered baseline in nature and
used to evaluate future impacts on water quality. This report was written for
use by Federal, State, and local government agencies concerned with energy
resource development and its impact on western water quality. Private
industry and individuals concerned with the quality of western rivers may also
find the document useful. This is one of a series of reports funded by the
Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development Program. For further
information contact the Water and Land Quality Branch, Monitoring Operations
Division.
George B. Morgan
Director
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas
iii
-------
SUMMARY
Development of fossil fuel, uranium, and other energy reserves located in
the Western United States is essential. These resources are located primarily
in the Northern Great Plains and the Colorado Plateau. Because of our
national dependence upon oil and gas, conversion of coal to these liquid and
gaseous forms is anticipated.
Development of these resources cannot be accomplished without some
environmental impact. The potential for serious degradation of air, land, or
water quality exists. Pollution may occur during any or all stages of the
extraction, refining, transportation, conversion, or utilization processes.
Secondary impacts resulting from increased population pressures, water
management, and development of supportive industries are expected. Potential
contamination of ground-water supplies from in situ coal conversion facilities
and nonpoint pollution from sources such as stack emissions, airborne dust,
and localized "spills" are of particular concern in the Tongue and Powder
River Basins. With careful planning and regulation, such impacts can be
minimized and held within tolerable levels.
The primary objective of this report is to evaluate the existing water
quality monitoring network in the Tongue and Powder River Basins and to
recommend needed modifications to the present sampling program. As a basis
for these recommendations, known developments, both present and planned, are
discussed, and available data examined. The impact of developers on both
water quality and quantity is defined. Two areas of particular concern are
coal strip mining activities in the vicinity of Sheridan and oil field
operations in the Salt Creek watershed.
A monitoring network designed to detect trends in surface water quality is
proposed on the basis of our present knowledge. Such a network minimizes the
number of observations at the expense of the number of stations in order to
provide statistically valid data. This network consists of 21 stations
(including stations in Armells, Sarpy, and Rosebud Creek drainages):
USGS Station^ Description
06294940 Sarpy Creek near Hysham, MT
06294980 East Fork Armells Creek near Col strip, MT
06294995 Armells Creek near Forsyth, MT
06295400 Rosebud Creek above Pony Creek, MT
06296003 Rosebud Creek at mouth, near Rosebud, MT
06299980 Tongue River at Monarch, WY
06305500 Goose Creek below Sheridan, WY
06306300 Tongue River at State line near Decker, MT *
iv
-------
USGS Station^ Description
06307610 Tongue River below Hanging Woman Creek, MT
06308400 Pumpkin Creek near Miles City, MT
06308500 Tongue River at Miles City, MT
06312500 Powder River near Kaycee, WY
06313400 Salt Creek near Sussex, WY
06313500 Powder River at Sussex, WY
06324000 Clear Creek near Arvada, WY
06324500 Powder River at Moorhead, MT
06326300 Mizpah Creek near Mizpah, MT
06326500 Powder River near Locate, MT
06295000 Yellowstone River at Forsyth, MT
06326530 Yellowstone River at Terry, MT
not established Powder River at mouth, MT
A similar network for ground-water monitoring needs to be implemented;
however, presently available data are insufficient to adequately determine
station locations.
Biological, physical, and chemical parameters likely to be affected by
energy resources development activities were determined. Salinity and
suspended sediment concentrations are already a problem in the Powder River
Basin, and a number of trace elements are regularly found in excessively high
concentrations throughout both basins, particularly during high runoff
periods. Physical and chemical parameters recommended as top priority for
monitoring are:
Total alkalinity Total iron
Total aluminum Total lead
Total ammonia Dissolved magnesium
Total arsenic Total manganese
Total beryllium Total mercury
Bicarbonate Total molybdenum
Biological oxygen demand Dissolved oxygen
of bottom sediments Total nickel
Total boron Pesticides
Total cadmium Petroleum hydrocarbons
Total organic carbon pH
in bottom sediments Total phosphorus
Dissolved calcium Dissolved potassium
Chloride Total selenium
Total chromium Dissolved sodium
Specific condi n ce Dissolved sulfate
Total copper Suspended sediments
Total cyanide Temperature
Flow Total dissolved solids
Fluoride Total zinc
Biological monitoring is considered to be presently the most feasible
method of assessing the impact of the introduction of an extensive number of
organic chemicals into the environment such as may result from in situ coal
-------
conversion activities. Those biological analyses recommended as having top
priority for monitoring water quality in the Tongue and Powder River Basins
include:
Macroinvertebrates - Counts and identifications, biomass
Periphyton - Biomass, growth rate, identification and relative
abundance determinations
Fish - Identification and enumeration, toxic substances in tissue
Macrophytes - Species identification and community association
Zooplankton (lentic only) - Identification and count
Phytoplankton (lentic only) - Chlorophyll a, identification and
enumeration
Microorganisms - Total fecal coliform
In order to obtain sufficient data for trend analyses, collection of
physical/chemical parameters on a weekly basis at the Tongue River station at
Miles City and the Powder River station at Moorhead is recommended. If
resources permit, the Rosebud Creek station at the mouth should also be
sampled weekly. All other priority stations should collect physical/chemical
data on a monthly basis to provide spatial distribution data. Sediment
samples should be collected on a monthly basis, and biological samples on a
seasonal or semiannual basis (except for monthly bacteriological analyses).
Semiannual water samples for organic analyses are recommended.
In both the Tongue and Powder River Basins, water availability will be the
major factor limiting future development of energy resources. However, until
the Yellowstone Moratorium is ended and those water reservation requests that
are pending are resolved, it is not known how much water is actually available
for utilization or to what extent future users will impact the basins.
Establishment of enforceable minimum instream flow requirements in both basins
is recommended in light of the anticipated impact to fisheries and recreation
activities during low water years as a result of increasing energy
development.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Summary iv
Figures viii
Tables ix
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 4
3. Recommendations 6
4. Study Area 8
Geography 8
Water resources 25
Water uses 28
Fish and wildlife resources 28
Mineral resources 34
5. Energy Resource Development 35
Active development 35
Future development 49
Transportation of energy resources 54
6. Other Sources of Pollution 59
Erosion 59
Mine drainage 59
Urban runoff 60
7- Water Requirements 61
Water rights 61
Water availability 62
Tongue and Powder River withdrawals 66
Water availability versus demand 73
8. Water Quality 76
Sources of data 76
Summary of physical and chemical data 76
Impact of development on surface water 76
Impact of development on ground water 103
9. Assessment of Energy Resource Development 108
Impact on water quantity 108
Impact on water quality 109
10. Recommended Water Quality Monitoring Parameters Ill
Physical and chemical parameters Ill
Biological parameters 119
11. Assessment of Existing Monitoring Network . 127
Referencer 133
Appendices 139
A. Conversion factors 139
B. Chenical and physical data 141
C. Parameters exceeding water quality criteria 184
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Location of the Tongue and Powder River Basins 9
2 The geologic structure of the Tongue and Powder River
Basins 14
3 Generalized geological stratigraphic sequence in the
Powder River Basin 15
4 Location and publication number of USGS bulletins
addressing coal fields in the Tongue and Powder River
Basins 17
5 Generalized surface outcrops of the geologic formations in
the Tongue and Powder River Basins 18
6 Location of counties, National forests, Indian reservations,
and experimental stations in the Tongue and Powder River
Basins 23
7 Distribution of wildlife with respect to habitat near
Col strip, Montana 30
8 Location of coal mines in the Tongue and Powder River
Basins 37
9 High Btu gas liquid pipelines proposed by the year 2000
for the Western United States 55
10 Unit coal energy to be transported from the Western
United States by the year 2000 56
11 Electricity expected to be transported from the Western
United States by the year 2000 57
12 Location of U.S. Geological Survey sampling stations in
the Sarpy, Armells, Rosebud, Tongue, and Powder River
Basins 80
13 Distribution of major cations and anions at selected
stations in the Tongue, Powder and Rosebud River Basins,
1976 .83
viii
-------
TABLES
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Summary of Total Projected Annual Energy Production Levels
from Advanced Sources
Major Tributaries Impacting the Sarpy, Armells, Rosebud,
Tongue, and Powder Rivers
Major Buttes and Mountains Contributing to Runoff in the
Tongue and Powder River Basins
Climate Variations Throughout the Tongue and Powder River
Basins, 1965-1974
Predicted Regional Populations for Big Horn, Powder River,
and Rosebud Counties, Montana, and Campbell County,
Wyoming
Occupational Distribution for Rosebud County, Montana,
1970
Occupational Distribution for Campbell County, Wyoming,
1975
The Distribution of Land Ownership in Yellowstone, Big Horn,
Rosebud, Custer, and Powder River Counties, 1972 ....
Projected Land Use in Big Horn, Powder River, and Rosebud
Counties, Montana, for Energy Facilities and Urban
Development Through the Year 2000
Projected Land Use in Campbell County, Wyoming, for Energy
Facilities and Urban Development Through the Year 2000 .
New Reservoirs Proposed for Future Development in the
Powder and Tongue River Basins, Montana and Wyoming . . .
The Characteristic Fauna of the Grassland Biotope in the
Tongue and Powder River Basins
The Characteristic Fauna of the Ponderosa Biotope in the
Tongue and Powder River Basins
Page
2
10
11
12
19
20
21
22
24
24
26
29
31
IX
-------
Number Page
14 The Characteristic Fauna of the Riparian Biotope in the
Tongue and Powder River Basins 32
15 Fish Species Known to Occur in the Tongue and Powder River
Basins 33
16 List of Strippable Subbituminous and Lignite Coal Fields in
the Powder, Tongue, Rosebud, Sarpy, and Armells Creeks
Watersheds in Montana 38
17 Summary of Existing Mines Within 160 km of the Decker Mine,
Tongue River Basin, Montana 40
18 Yearly Production of Coal, Big Sky Mine, Montana 44
19 Rehabilitation Potential Ratings for Coal Producing Areas
in the Tongue and Powder River Basins Using the Packer
System of Classification 46
20 Existing Powerplants in the Tongue-Powder River Study Area 47
21 Proposed Powerplants in the Tongue-Powder River Study Area 48
22 Future Coal Liquefaction-Gasfication Plants in the Tongue
and Powder River Basins 50
23 Anticipated Water Requirements for Energy Facilities in
the Col strip, Montana, Area in the Year 2000 51
24 Coal Slurry Pipelines Proposed in the Tongue-Powder River
Basin Study Area 52
25 Applications for Reservations of Water in the Tongue,
Powder, Rosebud, Sarpy, and Armells Creek Basins
Suspended by the Yellowstone Moratorium in Montana ... 63
26 Anticipated Changes in Surface Water Depletion Levels in
the Tongue and Powder River Basins, Northeast Wyoming . . 64
27 Anticipated Levels of Water Depletion for Consumptive Use
by Year 2000 in the Tongue and Powder River Basins ... 65
28 Water Consumption Demands from Energy Development
Activities Expected in the Tongue and Powder River Basins
by the Year 2000 at Maximum Projected Development Levels 66
29 Tongue and Powder River Basin Waters used for Irrigation in
Montana 68
-------
Number Page
30 Domestic Waste Treatment Facilities in the Tongue and
Powder River Basins 71
31 Industrial Dischargers in the Tongue and Powder River
Basins, Northeastern Wyoming 72
32 Minimum Annual Instream Flow Requirements Requested by
the Montana Fish and Game Commission for a Number of
Tributaries in the Powder River Study Area 74
33 Projected Average Annual Livestock Water Use in the
Yellowstone River Basin 75
34 U.S. Geological Survey Sampling Stations in Sarpy, Armells,
and Rosebud Creeks 77
35 U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Forest Service Sampling
Stations in the Tongue River 78
36 U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Forest Service Sampling
Stations in the Powder River 79
37 Distribution of Major Cations and Anions at Selected
Stations in the Tongue, Powder, and Rosebud Rivers, 1974
and 1976 82
38 Water Quality Criteria Recommended by the National Academy
of Science 87
39 Sawyer's Classification of Water According to Hardness
Content 88
40 Total Dissolved Solids Hazard for Irrigation Water .... 89
41 Total Dissolved Solids Hazard for Water Used by Livestock . 91
42 Maximum Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations of Surface
Waters Recommended for Use as Sources for Industrial
Water Supplies 92
43 Elemental Composition of Coal from a Number of Coal Fields
Throughout the Western Energy Development Area 94
44 Parameters Exceeding EPA or National Academy of Sciences
Water Quality Criteria, 1974-77, at U.S. Geological
Survey Stations in Sarpy, Armells, Rosebud, Tongue, and
Powder River Basins 96
XI
-------
Number Page
45 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Drinking Water
Regulations for Selected Radionuclides 99
46 Results of Chemical Analyses of Ground Water Collected from
Principal Aquifers in the Northern Powder River Valley
of Montana 104
47 Results of Chemical Analyses of Ground Water Collected from
Principal Aquifers in Rosebud County, Montana 105
48 Water Quality of Two Wells in Mined and Unmined Areas . . . 107
49 Priority I, Must Monitor Parameters for the Assessment of
Energy Development Impact on Water Quality in Sarpy,
Armells, Rosebud, Tongue, and Powder River Basins .... 113
50 Priority II, Parameters of Major Interest for the Assessment
of Energy Development Impact on Water Quality in Sarpy,
Armells, Rosebud, Tongue, and Powder River Basins .... 116
51 Priority III, Parameters of Minor Interest That Will
Provide Little Useful Data for the Assessment of Energy
Development Impact on Water Quality in Sarpy, Armells,
Rosebud, Tongue, and Powder River Basins 117
52 Priority I Biological Parameters Recommended for Monitoring
Water Quality in the Tongue and Powder River Basins . . . 122
53 Priority II Biological Parameters Recommended for Monitoring
Water Quality in the Tongue and Powder River Basins . . . 125
54 Parameters Monitored by the Existing Sampling Network at
Selected Stations in the Tongue and Powder River Basins
and Their Average Frequency of Measurement 129
55 U.S. Geological Survey Stations Recommended to Have the
Highest Sampling Priority in the Tongue-Powder River Study
Area for Monitoring Energy Development 132
Bl Data From Selected Parameters, 1974-77, at U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the Rosebud Creek Basin . . . 142
B2 Flow, 1973-78, at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling Stations
in the Tongue River Basin 147
B3 Total Dissolved Solids, 1970-77, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Tongue River Basin 148
XI1
-------
Number Page
B4 Conductivity, 1970-77, at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling
Stations in the Tongue River Basin 149
B5 Dissolved Calcium, 1970-77, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Tongue River Basin 150
B6 Dissolved Sodium, 1970-77, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Tongue River Basin 151
B7 Dissolved Magnesium, 1970-77, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Tongue River Basin 152
B8 Dissolved Potassium, 1970-77, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Tongue River Basin 153
B9 Bicarbonate Ion, 1970-77, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Tongue River Basin 154
BIO Sulfate, 1970-77, at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling
Stations in the Tongue River Basin 155
Bll Chloride, 1970-77, at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling
Stations in the Tongue River Basin 156
B12 Dissolved Silica, 1970-77, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Tongue River Basin 157
B13 Total Hardness, 1970-77, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Tongue River Basin 158
B14 Total Iron, 1970-77, at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling
Stations in the Tongue River Basin 159
B15 Total Manganese, 1974-77, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Tongue River Basin 160
B16 Temperature, 1970-77, at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling
Stations in the Tongue River Basin 161
B17 Dissolved Oxygen, 1970-77, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Tongue River Basin . 162
B18 pH, 1970-77, at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling Stations
in the Tongue River Basin 163
B19 Total Alkalinity, 1970-77, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Tongue River Basin 164
B20 Flow, 1972-78, at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling
Stations in the Powder River Basin 165
xiii
-------
Number Page
B21 Total Dissolved Solids, 1970-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Powder River Basin 166
B22 Conductivity, 1970-78, at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling
Stations in the Powder River Basin 167
B23 Dissolved Calcium, 1970-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Powder River Basin 168
B24 Dissolved Sodium, 1970-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Powder River Basin 169
B25 Dissolved Magnesium, 1970-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Powder River Basin 170
B26 Dissolved Potassium, 1970-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Powder River Basin 171
B27 Bicarbonate Ion, 1970-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Powder River Basin 172
B28 Sulfate, 1970-78, at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling
Stations in the Powder River Basin 173
B29 Chloride, 1970-78, at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling
Stations in the Powder River Basin ..... 174
B30 Dissolved Silica, 1970-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Powder River Basi-n 175
B31 Total Hardness, 1970-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Powder River Basin 176
B32 Total Iron, 1970-78, at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling
Stations in the Powder River Basin 177
B33 Total Manganese, 1970-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Powder River Basin 178
B34 Temperature, 1970-78, at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling
Stations in the Powder River Basin 179
B35 Dissolved Oxygen, 1972-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Powder River Basin 180
B36 pH, 1970-78, at U.S. Geological Survey Sampling Stations
in the Powder River Basin 181
B37 ' Total Alkalinity, 1970-78, at U.S. Geological Survey
Sampling Stations in the Powder River Basin 182
xiv
-------
Number Page
B38 Suspended Sediments, 1972-78, at Selected U.S. Geological
Survey Sampling Stations in the Tongue and Powder River
Basins 183
Cl Parameters Exceeding Water Quality Criteria in the Tongue
and Powder River Basins, and Their Total Number of
Observed Violations, 1974-77 185
xv
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This report is part of a rnultiagency study involving the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) under various interagency agreements. The
primary objective of this report series is to evaluate the existing water
quality monitoring network in each study basin and to recommend needed
modifications to the present sampling program design. As a basis for
monitoring strategies recommended in this report, known energy developments,
both present and planned, are defined, and available baseline data in the
Tongue and Powder River Basins are examined. For assessment of these
monitoring strategies, the impact of ongoing and anticipated energy
development on both water quality and quantity in the western energy basins is
considered. Future documents will present more detailed analyses of potential
impacts from various energy technologies, sampling methodologies and frequency
requirements, and site alternatives in light of updated information regarding
water right allocations.
Throughout the 1950's, the United States was effectively energy
self-sufficient, satisfying its needs with abundant reserves of domestic
fuels, such as coal, oil and gas, and hydroelectric power- However, energy
consumption has been increasing during the past 10 years at an annual rate of
4 to 5 percent, a per capita rate of consumption eight times that of the rest
of the world (Federal Energy Administration, 1974). The Federal Energy
Administration (1974) in the "Project Independence" report states that:
By 1973, imports of crude oil and petroleum products accounted for
35 percent of total domestic consumption.
Domestic coal production has not increased since 1943.
Exploration for coal peaked in 1956, and domestic production of crude
oil has been declining since 1970.
Since 1968, natural gas consumption in the continental United States
has been greater than discovery.
The United States now relies on oil for 46 percent of its energy needs,
while coal, our most abundant domestic fossil fuel, serves only 18 percent of
our total needs (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1977). In light of the fact that
we have only a few years remaining of proven oil and gas reserves, and to
reduce our vulnerable dependency upon foreign oil, the Federal Government is
promoting the development of untapped national energy resources in
1
-------
anticipation of upcoming energy requirements. Included among these resources
are the abundant western energy reserves. Over half of the Nation's coal
reserves are Tocated in the Western United States, as well as effectively all
of the uranium, oil shale, and geothermal reserves. Table 1 shows the
projected national annual production levels for some recently expanding energy
sources through the year 2000.
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF TOTAL PROJECTED ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION LEVELS
FROM ADVANCED SOURCES (1015 joules per year)
Source
Solar
Geothermal
Oil shale
Solid wastes
Total
1970
0
1.8
0
0
1.8
1975
0
14
0
10
24
1980
0
72
610
55
737
1985
400
180
2,000
300
2,880
1990
2,500
360
2,700
950
6,510
1995
4,000
720
3,400
3,000
11,120
2000
12,000
1,400
4,000
10,000
27,400
U.S. demand 70,000 83,000 98,000 120,000 140,000 170,000 200,000
Percent of
U.S. demand
filled by
above sources 3xlO~3 3xlO'2 0.8 2 5 6 13
Source: Modified from Hughes et al. (1974).
In the Tongue and Powder River Basins, energy resource development will
primarily be the increased strip mining of coal with construction of
associated coal gasification facilities, coal-fired powerplants, and
transportation facilities. Development of uranium reserves, oil and gas
fields, and other resources will occur but to a much lesser extent. It is
difficult to assess the extent and severity of degradation in environmental
-------
quality that can be expected from this development. However, one of the
biggest impacts will undoubtedly result from competition for water resources
created by growing demands of municipal, industrial, agricultural, and
reclamation projects. Energy development, which requires large amounts of
water during extraction, transport, and conversion of resources to a usable
form, can potentially have a great impact on water quality in the basin.
-------
2. CONCLUSIONS
1. Surface water availability in the study area will be a factor
limiting future growth and development patterns, including development of
energy resources. However, it cannot be presently determined to what extent
future users will impact the basins, since it is not known how much water is
actually available for utilization or which water reservation requests filed
during the Yellowstone Moratorium will be approved. It is expected that
additional storage facilities must be created if water is to be available for
anticipated developers. Transport of water from the Yellowstone River, as
well as expanded use of regional ground-water resources, are other mechanisms
expected to assume increasing importance in meeting projected industrial
development in the Tongue and Powder River Basins.
2. Water quality throughout the Tongue and Powder River Basins is highly
variable and strongly influenced by episodic high runoff and volumes of ground
water found in the base flow of intermittent tributaries. Salinity and
suspended sediment concentrations are already a problem in the Powder River,
and a number of trace elements regularly exceed recommended criteria levels in
the basins during high flow events. Existing water quality can be expected to
further deteriorate as availability of water is reduced with increasing
regional development. The parameters most likely affected by increased
activities in the basins are salinity, elemental toxic substances, suspended
sediment, nutrients, temperature, pH, alkalinity, and flow.
3. Agriculture, primarily irrigation, will continue to be the major
consumer of water in the Tongue and Powder River Basins. Regional high
salinity levels already largely restrict the variety of crops grown in the
area, and increasing salinity, particularly in combination with reductions in
flow, could have a major impact on this important user.
4. Point source discharge of pollutants from most energy development
sites will most likely be localized and not pose a problem to overall water
quality in the basins if discharge limitations are strictly enforced. Rather,
nonpoint pollution from such sources as stack emissions, airborne dust, and
subsurface drainage will be the major contributors. Runoff of effluents
released from evaporation ponds to ground water or through overflow during
storms poses an additional water quality threat, and regular monitoring for
potential violation from energy development operation sites should be
required.
5. Although point source discharges from traditional energy developments
are not likely to pose water quality problems, the potential for direct
contamination from in situ coal conversion activities is substantial. Organic
-------
pollutants from this source are of special concern because of the lack of
available data regarding both their nature and quantity.
6. Secondary development pollution impacts are likely to become a major
contributing problem to water quality in the Tongue and Powder River Basins.
Increases in organic pollutants and IDS levels from urban runoff and hydraulic
modifications and pollution from the expanding use of water conditioners are
expected.
7. In addition to the long-term trends, an increased number of pollution
"episodes" (spills, etc.) are expected as a result of the increased transport
of energy products in the area and the likelihood of flood runoffs from waste
disposal, cooling systems, or mining sites. These brief but massive events
could cause both short- and long-term effects that would be disastrous to both
the ecology and the economy of the area.
8. The present U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) sampling network in the
Tongue and Powder River Basins area is situated adequately for monitoring the
impact of energy development in that area. Twenty-one USGS sampling stations
have been selected as having the highest sampling priority throughout the
basins examined in this report for energy monitoring efforts. Priorities have
also been established for selection of water quality parameters necessary to
monitor impacts from energy development in these rivers.
-------
3. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. An expansion in the number of parameters regularly monitored to
assess the impact of energy development on surface water quality in the Tongue
and Powder River Basins is recommended. In particular, most trace elements
and nutrients, which are presently collected only irregularly, should be
incorporated into a more standardized sampling program. Pesticides, oils and
greases, and organics such as phenols are other parameters that should be made
part of a regular, if occasional, monitoring effort. Increased use of
biological monitoring as a tool for measurement of long-term water quality
trends is recommended.
2. The following water quality parameters are recommended for sampling
to adequately assess energy resource development impact in the Tongue and
Powder River Basins:
Total alkalinity Chloride Dissolved oxygen
Total aluminum Total chromium Total nickel
Total ammonia Specific conductance Pesticides
Total arsenic Total copper Petroleum hydrocarbons
Total beryllium Total cyanide pH
Bicarbonate Flow Total phosphorus
Biological oxygen demand Fluoride Dissolved potassium
of bottom sediments Total iron Total selenium
Total boron Total lead Dissolved sodium
Total cadmium Dissolved magnesium Dissolved sulfate
Total organic carbon Total manganese Suspended sediments
in bottom sediments Total mercury Temperature
Dissolved calcium Total molybdenum Total dissolved solids
Total zinc
3. The following U.S. Geological Survey stations are recommended to have
the highest sampling priority in the Tongue and Powder River Basins study area
for monitoring energy development impact on surface waters:
Sarpy Creek near Hysham, MT
East Fork Armells Creek near Colstrip, MT
Armells Creek near Forsyth, MT
Rosebud Creek above Pony Creek, MT
Rosebud Creek at mouth, near Rosebud, MT
Tongue River at Monarch, UY
Goose Creek below Sheridan, WY
Tongue River at State line near Decker, MT
Tongue River below Hanging Woman Creek, MT
-------
Pumpkin Creek near Miles City, MT
Tongue River at Miles City, MT
Powder River near Kaycee, WY
Salt Creek near Sussex, WY
Powder River at Sussex, WY
Clear Creek near Arvada, WY
Powder River at Moorhead, MT
Mizpah Creek near Mizpah, MT
Powder River near Locate, MT
Yellowstone River at Forsyth, MT
Yellowstone River at Terry, NTT
Powder River at mouth, MT
4. An improvement in uniformity of sampling at monitoring stations in
the Tongue and Powder River Basins to allow temporal and spatial comparisons
of accumulated data, particularly for the trace elements, is recommended. The
Tongue River station at Miles City and the Powder River station at Moorhead
should be sampled weekly in order to permit meaningful trend analyses. If
resources permit, an additional station on Rosebud Creek at the mouth should
also be sampled weekly. A station should be added on the Powder River at the
mouth. This site, as well as the 18 other priority stations throughout the
study area, should be monitored on a monthly basis to provide spatial
distribution data.
5. Continued research to determine the nature and extent of pollution
discharges from developing coal gasification and conversion sites is
recommended, especially for those in situ project areas that will create many
potentially harmful organic compounds. The exact nature and degree of escape
of these compounds is presently unknown.
6. Establishment of enforceable minimum instream flow requirements in
the Tongue and Powder River Basins is recommended in light of the anticipated
impact to fisheries and recreational activities during low water years as a
result of increasing energy development.
7. Salinity discharges from oil field operations in the Salt Creek
watershed should be further evaluated and mitigation measures discussed.
Consideration should be given to modification of permit discharge requirements
for oil producers in the Salt Creek field. This would substantially reduce
TDS loading to the Powder River drainage basin.
-------
4. STUDY AREA
GEOGRAPHY
Location and Size
The Tongue and Powder River Basins (Figure 1) are located in a drainage
area between the Big Horn Mountains on the southwest border and the Bear Lodge
Mountains on the southeast side. The area's cornerstones include Hysham,
Montana (NW); Terry, Montana (NE); 20 km north of Casper, Wyoming (SE); and
the Rattlesnake Hills, 80 km west of Casper (SW).
Five drainage basins are included in the study area. These are: the
Powder and Tongue Rivers, and the Sarpy, Armells, and Rosebud Creeks, all five
of which flow northeasterly into the Yellowstone River (Figure 1). The Tongue
and Powder are perennial rivers, which originate in the high mountains of
Wyoming (Knapton and McKinley, 1977). Rosebud Creek, which originates a few
miles north of the Wyoming-Montana State line, is also a perennial stream,
which drains the eastern sides of the Wolf and Rosebud Mountains. Sarpy and
Armells Creeks, which originate in the Little Wolf Mountains, are primarily
intermittently flowing water bodies with some year-round flow near their
respective confluence points with the Yellowstone River (Knapton and McKinley,
1977). The study area drains portions of 10 counties in the States of Wyoming
and Montana and extends approximately 193 km east and west, between the
communities of Hysham and Terry on the Yellowstone River, and 400 km north and
south between the Yellowstone River and Casper, Wyoming. Table 2 shows the
approximate drainage area and major inflowing tributaries to the five study
basins.
The Tongue and Powder River Basins study area is approximately 72,000
and includes all or part of the following counties from north to south:
Prairie, Custer, Rosebud, Carter, Powder River, and Big Horn Counties in
Montana and Campbell, Sheridan, Johnson, and Natrona Counties in Wyoming.
The minimum elevation in the Tongue and Powder River drainages is 686 m
near the confluence of the Powder and Yellowstone Rivers in Montana, and the
maximum elevation is 4,012 m at the summit of Cloud Peak in the Big Horn
Mountains of Wyoming (Missouri River Basin Commission, 1978b). In general,
the Big Horn Mountains have a regional elevation ranging between 2,438 and
3,047 m. The mountains give way abruptly to a relatively narrow band of
foothills that stand about 609 m above the plains. The Bear Lodge Mountains
on the eastern side of the study area reach elevations of 2,028 m at Warren
Peak, 1,500 m at Table Mountain, and 1,560 m at Devils Tower National Monument
(Table 3) and supply water to the eastern portion of the study area drainages.
8
-------
Figure 1.
Location of the Tongue and
Powder River Basins.
-------
TABLE; 2. MAJOR TRIBUTARIES IMPACTING THE SARPY, ARMELLS, ROSEBUD, TONGUE, AND POWDER RIVERS
Mainstem
Sarpy Creek
Armell s Creek
Rosebud Creek
Tongue River
Powder River
Total
Total Drainage
Area
(km2)
1,173
958
3,408
13,932
34,159
53,630
Major Tributaries
Bear Creek, West Bear Creek, East Fork Sarpy
Creek
East and West Forks Armells Creek
Muddy Creek, Lame Deer Creek, Greenleaf Creek,
Sprague Creek
Hanging Woman Creek, Otter Creek, Pumpkin Creek,
Goose Creek, North Fork Tongue River
Clear Creek, Little Powder River, Mitzpah Creek,
Crazy Woman Creek
Sources: Modified from U.S. Geological Survey (1976), Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation (1976c), and Knapton and McKinley (1977).
-------
TABLE 3. MAJOR BUTTES AND MOUNTAINS CONTRIBUTING TO RUNOFF IN THE TONGUE
AND POWDER RIVER BASINS
Butte or Mountain
Warren Peak
Table Mountain
Devils Tower National Monument
Pumpkin Butte
Liscom Butte
Wildhog Butte
Garfield Peak
Poker Jim Butte
Home Creek Butte
Badger Peak
Little Wolf Mountains
Fisher Butte
State
Wyoming
Wyomi ng
Wyomi ng
Wyomi ng
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
Elevation
(m)
2,028
1,500
1,560
1,523
1,315
1,243
1,315
1,243
1,344
1,348
1,097
1,340
Climate
The Tongue and Powder River Basins have generally a semi arid climate that
is typical of much of the Northern Great Plains Region (Montana Department of
State Lands, 1977). The weather is characterized by cold winters, warm
summers, and extreme annual and seasonal variations in temperature and
precipitation (U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Department of State Lands,
1977). Elevations of a number of sites throughout the basins, as well as
average annual rainfall and length of growing season are shown in Table 4.
Climate in this area of Montana is largely influenced by surrounding
mountain ranges, particularly the Big Horn Mountains (U.S. Geological Survey
and Montana Department of State Lands, 1977). During winter months, high
11
-------
TABLE 4. CLIMATE VARIATIONS THROUGHOUT THE TONGUE AND POWDER RIVER
BASINS, 1965-74
Station
Elevation
(m)
Mean Length of
Growing Season
(days)
Mean Annual
Precipitation
(cm/yr)
Montana
Biddle
Birney
Broadus
Busby
Col strip
Forsyth
Miles City
1,096
968
924
1,052
982
830
801
117
111
114
92
115
133
140
37.1
35.6
36.6
43.7
42.9
33.5
40.6
Wyomi ng
Arvada
Buffalo
Clearmont
Gillette 2E
Gillette 18SW
Kaycee
Leiter
Powder River
Sheridan
1,122
1,416
1,236
1,389
1,494
1,420
1,280
1,798
1,158
116
107
100
120
112
100
126
102
103
33.8
34.5
37.6
42.4
40.9
32.3
38.4
28.0
38.6
Source: Modified from Toy (1976).
pressure arctic air masses move south along the eastern side of the Canadian
Rockies. These arctic storms usually deposit snow only in localized areas to
the northern, northeastern, and eastern slopes of the mountain ranges.
Frequently accompanying high winds produce characteristic blizzards and
blowing snow throughout the area (U.S. Geological Survey, 1976). These severe
cold winter spells are generally brief, and deep snow accumulation is uncommon
because of thaws during periodic warm spells, which cause many intermittent
streams to flow (Knapton and McKinley, 1977). Nevertheless, winters have been
reported with snow buildup of 76 to 102 cm in the Col strip area (Radian
Corporation, 1976).
12
-------
Spring and early summer in the area are the times of greatest annual
precipitation. During this time the basins generally receive about 50 percent
of their annual rainfall (Knapton and McKinley, 1977), with May and June
having the highest monthly averages (U.S. Geological Survey, 1976). Most of
this precipitation is ^rom moisture-laden tropical air masses that are drawn
northward from the Quit of Mexico and produce summer thunderstorms. These
storms are commonly accompanied by high winds and hail and result in localized
flash flooding (U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Department of State Lands,
1977). Air masses moving eastward from the Pacific Ocean also contribute some
summer rainfall to the region. Late summer typically consists of hot, dry
-------
\ \ £ ViSheridan /
V'*.\ \ *\ Powder River Basin - . v-v'.
^ ^ ' < I \ \ %
;\ I Lead \ V*-.^5
*.\ : i ^^.
Gillette %\ | I "«
' ^*
Big Horn Basing. ^> \\
^ \\ "
Worland
Wyoming
(Riverton
Wind River Basin
scottsb.uff Nebraska
»^^
Figure 2. The geologic structure of the Tongue and Powder River Basins.
14
-------
ERA PERIOD
EPOCH
Quaternary
Holocene
Pleistocene
Tertiary
Eocene
Pal eocene
FORMATION
EAST
PERIOD
EPOCH
Terrace Deposits White River
Permian
>
j Pennsylvanlan
'Mississippi '
"Devonian
-1 Ordovlclan
* Canbr1an
- "'"'""
"Wasatch
Fort Union
Tongue River Hem.
Lebo Shale Mem.
Tullock Hen.
Lance (Hell Creek)
Lewis Sh
Teckla SS
Teapot SS
Bear Pair Sh
Parknan SS
Sussex SS
Shannon SS
Cody Sh
Frontier SS
(Kail Creek)
Moury Sh
Muddy SS ;
Theraopolls
Rusty Beds
Lakota SS =
Morrison _
S»1ft
Rlerdon
^Gypsum Springs-Piper
CroS Mountain SS I
Chugvater (Red Peak)
Olnooody =
Photphorla
"Tensleep SS ,
Ansden Darwin (CaspeT
"Midison LS
Darby (Duperov) =
Blohorn oVlomtte {=
Hardins SSJGros Ventre
Flathead
. «* Tertiary
Kasatch Eocene
Fort Union Pal eocene
Tongue River Mem.
tf
f
&
&
/ ^ r, * A
* g
-------
east. Of particular economic interest are the Fort Unici Formation,
especially the Tongue River Member, which contains most of the coal reserves
in the area, and the Montana Group, which has produced nearly half the oil
from the State of Wyoming (Wyoming Geological Association Technical Studies
Committee, 1965). Coal in the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation
exists in thick seams, some in excess of 10 meters. These are exposed or lie
near the surface over much of the study area. The coal beds are generally
extensive and can be traced for long distances, but varying thicknesses and
different researches have resulted in confusing and overlapping nomenclature.
Both the Tongue River Member and the overlying Wasatch Formation have been
described in detail through a series of USGS Bulletins addressing area coal
fields (Bryson and Bass, 1973). The location and publication number of each
report is shown in Figure 4.
Generalized surface outcrops of the geologic formations are shown in
Figure 5. Recent alluviums fill most stream valleys but have been omitted
from the figure. Water quality is greatly affected by the geology of the
aquifer and surface watershed exposures. Most of the surface exposures
consist of interbedded siltstones, claystones, and sandstones with smaller
amounts of carbonates and other evaporites. Hinkley and Ebens (1976) found
quartz, kaolinite, and chlorite contents to vary significantly on a regional
scale. Ebens and McNeal (1976), reporting on the geochemistry of the Fort
Union Formation, note that in the shales (silt and claystones) most elemental
variation occurs at local scales (25 km^ cells) except for sodium, which
showed regional variation. In sandstone, however, carbon, sodium, magnesium,
and zinc all exhibited strong regional distributions. Feder and Saindon
(1976) found that variation in ground-water chemical composition was on a
large geographic scale. Dettman et al. (1976) noted the effect of area
geology on water quality in the Tongue River-Goose Creek area. Knapton and
McKinley (1977) described variation in water quality for area streams and
ascribed many changes to area! geology (including ground-water discharges)
noting that "downstream changes in major ions . . . were rather abrupt and
appeared to correlate with changes in lithology." These effects are not
unexpected since the dominant formations, the Wasatch, Fort Union, and Lance,
were deposited in an environment of swampy flood plains, meandering streams,
and coastal plains. These environments are characterized by rapidly changing
sedimentary conditions and the deposition of intermixed lithofacies of sands,
silts, clays, and organics. The chemical constituents of these relatively
local deposits could be anticipated to vary significantly.
Population and Economy
The population of the Tongue and Powder River Basins is primarily
distributed throughout a number of small rural communities. Although there
exist some cities of substantial size, such as Miles City (9,023), Sheridan
(10,856), and Gillette (7,194), the average population density for the area is
only 0.4 persons per km^ (Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation, 1976a). The smaller basin communities such as Forsyth and
Decker rely heavily on supplies and services from nearby major population
centers (U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Department of State Lands, 1977).
16
-------
Figure 4.
Location and publication
number of USGS bulletins
addressing coal fields
in the Tongue and Powder
River Basins.
17
-------
E3
Ews - Wasatch Formation
Efu - Fort Union Formation
El - Lance Formation
Kmv - Mesa Verde Group
Kce - Claggett and Eagle
Formations
Km - Montana Group
Kc - Colorado Group
KJ - Morrison and
Cloverly Formations
J - Sundance and
Ellis Formations
Tr - Chugwater-Spearfish
Formation
CP - Pennsylvanian Rocks
Cm - Mississippian Rocks
DC - Devonian to Cambrian
AR - Archean Rocks
Figure 5. Generalized surface outcrops of the geologic formations in the
Tongue and Powder River Basins.
18
-------
Population in the Tongue and Powder River Basins fluctuates with changing
economic trends. It is expected that mining will have a major influence on
future populations, with increases of up to 40 percent by 1985 for Col strip
and Forsyth. Mining will bring jobs and influence the population to relocate
from rural communities to urban centers, as well as encourage migration of
mine workers from other States (Northern Great Plains Resource Program, 1974).
In 1974, Rosebud County had shown an increase in population of 27.7 percent
over five years. Sheridan and Big Horn Counties showed increases of 8.1
percent and 4.4 percent, respectively (U.S. Geological Survey and Montana
Department of State Lands, 1977). Population growth is expected to continue
in Big Horn, Powder River, and Rosebud Counties, the primary coal mining
areas, over the next 20 years (Table 5).
TABLE 5. PREDICTED REGIONAL POPULATIONS FOR BIG HORN, POWDER RIVER, AND
ROSEBUD COUNTIES, MONTANA, AND CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING*
Year
Big Horn, Powder River, and
Rosebud Counties, Montana
Campbell County, Wyoming
1980
1985
1990
2000
11,600
53,4UO
74,800
215,100
14,200
25,000
32,200
81,100
*Based on population projections after 1975 assuming nominal case population
development.
Source: Modified from University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation (1977b).
The Indian population in the study area is of economic significance since
many of the mining and agricultural jobs throughout the region are held by
Indians (University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation, 1977b). In Big Horn
and Rosebud Counties, Indians comprise, respectively, 38.9 percent and 30.2
percent of the total populations (U.S. Geological Survey and Montana
Department of State Lands, 1977). Populations on the Crow Reservation have
risen from 3,678 in 1963 to 4,334 in 1973, representing a 17.8 percent
increase. The Cheyenne population has increased from 2,166 to 2,926, a 35.1
percent increase over the same time period.
19
-------
The distribution of occupations in Rosebud and Campbell Counties is shown
in Tables 6 and 7. In Rosebud County, agriculture is second only to community
services, which is a grouping of several urban occupations (U.S. Geological
Survey, 1974). It is noteworthy that in the later occupational data available
for Campbell County, both mining and construction have jumped considerably;
this trend in Campbell County could well represent the future for Rosebud and
Big Horn Counties as well.
TABLE 6. OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION FOR ROSEBUD COUNTY, MONTANA, 1970
Occupation Percent of Total
Working Population
Agriculture 22.8
Mi ni ng 2.8
Construction 5.2
Manufacturing 7.8
Railroads 4.5
Other transportation 0.3
Communication 0.4
Community services 38.9
Welfare, religious, and nonprofit
organizations 9.3
Public administration 8.0
Source: Modified from U.S. Geological Survey (1974).
20
-------
TABLE 7. OCCUPATION DISTRIBUTION FOR CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING, 1975
Occupation Percent of Total
Working Population
Agriculture 8.4
Mining 20.3
Construction 23.1
Manufacturing 2.4
Transportation 6.6
Communication and utilities 2.5
Financial, insurance, and real estate 3.0
Community services 16.6
Retail trade 13.0
Public administration 1.8
Wholesale trade 2.3
Source: Modified from University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation (1977b).
Land Ownership and Usage
The greatest percentage of land in the Tongue and Powder River Basins is
privately owned (Table 8). There are two Indian reservations in the study
area, the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation (1,758 km2) and the Crow
Indian Reservation (6,321 km2). The former borders on the Tongue River
(Figure 6) and includes much of Rosebud Creek (Northern Great Plains Resource
Program, 1975).
The Tongue River Basin is approximately one-third (1,259 km2) National
forest land. It originates in the Bighorn National Forest and, further
downstream, borders the Custer National Forest. Portions of the mainstem
Powder River, Clear Creek, and Crazy Woman Creek flow through National forest
land; however, the basin is predominately privately owned with sections of
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. Much of the upland forested areas are
21
-------
TABLE 8. -THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND OWNERSHIP IN YELLOWSTONE, BIG HORN,
ROSEBUD, CUSTER, AND POWDER RIVER COUNTIES, 1972
Percent of County Land
County
Private Federal State Indian
Yel 1 owstone
Big Horn
Rosebud
Powder River
Custer
82
34
67
63
77
5
14
11
28
17
4
3
6
9
6
9
49
7
0
0
Source: Modified from Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservati on (1976a).
set aside for recreation, grazing, and limited timber production (Northern
Great Plains Resource Program, 1974).
Approximately 90 percent of the land use in Big Horn and Rosebud Counties,
Montana, and Sheridan County, Wyoming, is agricultural. Most of this land is
used for grazing; however, small grains and alfalfa are grown on about 5
percent of the total land used for agriculture. The nonagricultural land is
composed of residential areas, streams, and water bodies (U.S. Geological
Survey and Montana Department of State Lands, 1977).
Mining represents approximately 3.5 percent of the land use in Montana and
is on land leased from both private and Indian owners. As industry increases
in the Tongue and Powder River Basins, so will the need for land. Within Big
Horn, Powder River, and Rosebud Counties, it is estimated that a total of
6,340 km2 will be needed by the year 2000 for energy facilities (University
of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation, 1977b). This represents 18.3 percent of
the total land in these three counties. Urban demands will increase to 150.6
km2, or 0.4 percent of the total land available in these three counties by
the year 2000 (Tables 9 and 10). Land requirements for energy development in
Campbell County are projected to increase to 1,509 km2 or 12.2 percent of
the total land available, with urban development demands increasing to 0.5
percent of the total (University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation, 1977b).
-------
Seal* t 1.000.000
Crook
Crow Indian Reservation
^ Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation
C Lister National Forest
Ft Keogh Livestock Experiment Station
Bighorn National Forest
Figure 6. Location of counties,
National forests, Indian
reservations, and
experimental stations in
the Tongue and Powder
River Basins.
23
-------
TABLE 9. PROJECTED LAND USE IN BIG HORN, POWDER RIVER, AND ROSEBUD COUNTIES,
MONTANA, FOR ENERGY FACILITIES AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE
YEAR 2000*
Year
1980
1985
1990
2000
Total 1
Energy
(km2)
505
1,981
2,722
6,341
Facilities
(% of total
1.46
5.73
7.88
18.34
and available: 34
Urban
) (km2)
8
37
52
151
,572 km2
Development
(% of total)
0.02
0.11
0.15
0.44
Combi
(km2) (%
513
2,018
2,774
6,462
ned Use
of total )
1.48
5.84
8.03
18.78
*Based
Source:
on nomi
nal case development projections.
Modified from University of
TABLE 10.
PROJECTED
FACILITIES
LAND USE IN
AND URBAN
Oklahoma and
Radian Corporation (1977b)
CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING, FOR ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE YEAR 2000*
Year
1980
1985
1990
2000
Total 1
Energy
(km2)
698
910
1,193
1,509
Facilities
(% of total
5.66
7.39
9.69
12.25
and available: 12
Urban
) (km2)
10
18
22
57
,318 km2
Development
(% of total)
0.08
0.14
0.18
0.46
Combi
(km2) (%
708
.23
1,215
1,566
ned Use
of total )
5.74
7.53
9.87
12.71
*Based on nominal case development projections.
Source: Modified from University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation (1977b)
24
-------
WATER RESOURCES
Lotlc
The Tongue River originates on the eastern slopes of the Big Horn
Mountains in Wyoming and flows from its headwaters in the southeastern edges
of the Big Horn Mountains in Wyoming to its confluence with the Yellowstone
River in Montana. The Tongue River provides approximately 3.4 percent and the
Powder River 4.9 percent of the total flow in the Yellowstone River at their
respective points of confluence (Knapton and McKinley, 1977).
Clear Creek and Crazy Woman Creek, major perennial tributaries to the
Powder River (Table 2), as well as the North Fork Tongue River and Goose
Creek, perennial drainages in the Tongue River Basin, originate in Wyoming.
Mountain snowpack melt in the Big Horn Mountains produces spring flooding and
maintains flow in these tributaries to the Powder and Tongue Rivers throughout
the summer months. The Little Powder River receives its reserves from the
Black Hills area and Thunder Basin drainage in Wyoming. The remaining major
streams flowing into the Powder and Tongue originate in Montana and are
primarily fed by snowmelt from the Rosebud and Little Wolf Mountains and by
precipitation. Many of these streams are intermittent; it is estimated that
only 3 percent of the precipitation that falls into the area leaves as
streamflow (U.S. Geological Survey, 1976).
j_entic
Although there are more than 1,500 natural lakes in Montana, and over
60 reservoirs having storage capacities greater than 6.2 million m^, the
majority of these water bodies are located in the western and south-central
portions of the State (Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation, 1976c). In the Tongue-Powder River study area, there are only
two lentic water bodies of any size: the Tongue River Reservoir (surface area
14.2 km2) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977c) and Lake de Smet in
the Powder River drainage (surface area 10.7 km2) (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1977b). Farm and stock ponds provide a significant amount
of additional water storage in the two basins, and a great many small mountain
lakes exist in the upper elevations of Wyoming that feed tributaries to the
basins (Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 1976c).
There are three small storage reservoirs in Wyoming that somewhat regulate
flow in the upper Powder River (Missouri River Basin Commission, 1978b).
There are a number of plans underway to provide additional storage on
major tributaries throughout the Yellowstone River Basin to help meet
increasing demands, particularly industrial, for water supplies. Three new
reservoirs have been proposed for the Powder River, and two new reservoirs
suggested for tributaries flowing south into the Yellowstone River between the
communities of Hysham and Miles City (Table 11). Construction of a new Tongue
River Dam 6 km downstream of the existing facility has also been proposed.
25
-------
TABLE 11. NEW RESERVOIRS PROPOSED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE POWDER AND TONGUE RIVER BASINS,
MONTANA AND WYOMING
Reservoir Name
Location
Anticipated Firm
Annual Yield Purpose
(m3 x 106)
Moorhead Reservoir Powder River, astride the
Montana-Wyoming State line
133.217
(70.309
62.908
Industrial
MT,
WY)
ro
o\
Hole-in-the-Wall
Reservoir
Middle Fork Powder River, WY
24.670
Industrial, irrigation
Box Elder Reservoir
Offstream reservoir using
Clear and Piney Creeks, WY
for water source
37.005
Industrial, private
Cedar Ridge Reservoir Starved-to-Death Creek, MT
148.019
Offstream storage of flows
of the Yellowstone River
Mew Tongue River
Reservoir
6.3 km downstream from existing
dam or at conf1uence of Tongue
River with Fourmile Creek
123.349
Industrial, irrigation
Sources: Modified from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1972) and U.S. Geological Survey and Montana
Department of State Lands (1977).
-------
Ground Water
Most of the water used for municipal and industrial purposes in the study
basins is supplied by the ground-water resources in Montana and Wyoming.
Aquifers in the coal beds, particularly in the Tongue River Member, are the
most extensive in use and the most predictable sources of ground water (U.S.
Geological Survey and Montana Department of State Lands, 1977). Generally,
these aquifers are under artesian pressure and sufficiently permeable to yield
adequate amounts of water for domestic and stock use. Sandstone aquifers in
the Tongue River Member occur as discontinuous lenses in the otherwise less
permeable material that forms the overburden and interburden above and below
the coal beds (U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Department of State Lands,
1977). These sandstone aquifers are little used since they are of limited
area! extent and their wells do not yield long-term or dependable supplies.
Alluvium in some regions is a productive aquifer along streams and rivers
where the sand, silt, and clay has not cemented or consolidated (Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 1976c). In the Decker area,
water from surface runoff or precipitation enters the highly permeable clinker
and settles in a zone of saturation, which becomes another additional source
of ground-water supplies. Siltstone, mudstone, and shale are relatively
impermeable, and wells drifted in these rocks generally yield little or no
water.
It is believed that deep ground-water resources are even more extensive in
the Missouri River Basin than reserves in shallow aquifers, although
quantitative estimates are not available (Lord et al., 1975). Potential
ground-water supplies exist in the deeper aquifers such as the Fox Hills
aquifer and Madison limestone; however, at present there are no plans to
commercially develop ground water from these deep sources.
Ground-water supplies are largely recharged by precipitation. In the
Sarpy Creek region, approximately 63 percent of the net area precipitation is
leached into the soil to ground water, and 37 percent ends up as streamflows
(U.S. Geological Survey, 1976). Ground-water recharge is reduced during the
growing season when surface flows are less and evaporation and transpiration
demands by vegetation take up much of the precipitation moisture from the soil
(U.S. Geological Survey, 1976). During the summer months, precipitation and
snowmelt runoff are reduced and natural ground-water discharge becomes the
only source of flow for many of the tributaries of the study area (Knapton and
McKinley, 1977). The Tongue River Reservoir represents a low point, or sink,
into which shallow ground-water aquifers also discharge; the rate of discharge
is dependent on water surface elevation of the reservoir.
Ground water is primarily used for livestock and industrial purposes; in
the Sarpy Creek area, livestock accounts for 90 percent of the ground-water
consumption (U.S. Geological Survey, 1976). The rural, public supply, and
irrigational demands for water in Montana and Wyoming (0.09, 0.21, and 0.34
million m^/day, respectively) place a significant strain on ground-water
supplies in those areas in which surface water is not available or would have
to be imported (McGuinness, 1963). Ground water used for these purposes,
however, general ly must be supplemented with surface flow since it is commonly
heavily mineralized and unacceptable for most uses directly.
v
27
-------
Ground water is expected to assume an increasingly important role in
industrial development and water needs in Montana and Wyoming (McGuinness,
1963). However, in the Tongue and Powder River Basin areas, the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation (1972) reports "development of ground-water resources will not
produce an adequate water supply for industrial needs of the size
anticipated." The scarcity of these ground-water resources may become acute
in areas in which rainfall does not produce sufficient runoff for immediate
use or creation of storage facilities and does not regenerate the existing
aquifers.
WATER USES
The unspoiled surface water resources in the arid Tongue and Powder River
watersheds serve a variety of needs. Perennial streams in the basins, as well
as the Tongue River Reservoir, provide water for such uses as municipal water
supplies, irrigation, recreational activities (including fishing and other
sports), industrial needs, livestock watering, governmental uses (fisheries
and State water), and limited generation of electricity.
FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
The Tongue and Powder River drainage areas support a variety of fish and
wildlife. These study areas are comprised of four major biotopes, or habitat
types, in which the species compositions directly or indirectly reflect the
local economy and environment.
The grassland biotope is characterized by open grasslands with varying
amounts of sagebrush and other shrubs. Some of these characteristic grasses
include: green needlegrass, Sandberg bluegrass, and prairie junegrass. This
biotope is located at lower elevations in the rolling valleys of the badlands
near the Tongue River; 80 to 90 percent of the basin areas suitable for strip
mining are in this biotope (U.S. Geological Survey, 1974). Mammals in the
area include the pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), whitetail
jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii), and prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). The
avian population includes the western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), horned
lark (Eremophila alpestris), Brewer's sparrow (Spizella breweri), and others
(Table 12). This biotope is of great economic interest as a key area of
competition for grazing between livestock and naturally occurring species
(Radian Corporation, 1976). Other important human impacts to this habitat
include agricultural cultivation and sagebrush eradication. Expansions in
cultivation result in a new habitat that may, as a result of increased water
availability and niche space, introduce new species. However, the cultivation
of land may abolish other species or create physical barriers that restrict (
the population to unfavorable habitat. Figure 7 illustrates that to maintain i
wildlife diversity requires a preservation of mixed habitats. The species
limited to the exterior of the figure represent those species most vulnerable
to extinction via elimination of habitat. An example of this is the process
of sagebrush eradication, which will affect the population of resident
wildlife such as the sage grouse but will allow native grassland species to
move into the area.
28
-------
TABLE 12. THE CHARACTERISTIC FAUNA OF THE GRASSLAND BIOTOPE IN THE TONGUE
AND POWDER RIVER BASINS
Mammals
Common Name
Pronghorn antelope
Whitetail jackrabbit
Ord kangaroo rat
Western harvest mouse
Least chipmunk
Badger
Prairie vole
Scientific Name
Antilocapra americana
Lepus townsendii
Dipodomys ordii
Reithrodontomys megalotis
Eutamias minimus
Taxidea taxus
Microtus ochrogaster
Birds
Western rneadowlark
Horned lark
Brewer's sparrow
Sage grouse
Prairie falcon
Sturnella neglecta
Eremophila alpestris
Spizella breweri
Centrocercus urophasianus
Falco mexicanus
Reptiles and amphibians
Plains spadefoot toad
Prairie rattlesnake
Western hognose snake
Gopher snake
Short-horned lizard
Scaphiopus bombifrons
Crotalus viridis
Heterodon nasicus
Pituophis melanoleucus
Phrynosoma douglassi
Sources: Modified from U.S. Geological Survey (1974) and Radian Corporation
(1976).
The ponderosa pine biotope is characterized by broken upland mesas and
buttes where rainfall is more abundant than at the lower elevations. It is
often a dense forest of moderately large pines and junipers with interspersed
grasses and shrubs and is generally located above those areas to be mined.
The biotope is occupied predominately by mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus),
porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), and bobcat (Lynx rufus).The avian population
includes sharp-tailed grouse (Pedioecetes phasianellus). wild turkey
(Meleaqris gallopavo). and others (Table 13). This area is environmentally
affected least of all the biotopes by mining operations and human activities.
29
-------
CO
o
Sage
Sage Grouse
Brewer's Sparrow
Antelope
Jackrabbit
Badger
W. Meadowlark
Horned Lark
Sparrows
Marsh Hawk
Plains Spadefoot Toad
Lizards
Ground Squirrels
Least Chipmunk
Mule Deer
Sharptail Grouse
W. Harvest
Mouse
Prairie Mole
Coopers Hawk
Prairie
Rattlesnake
W.
Hognose
Snake
Various Small
Birds
Small Ranges
Deer Mouse
Pocket Gopher
Cottontail
Mourning Dove
Magpie
Robin
Sparrow Hawk
Hungarian
Partridge
Large Ranges
Bald Eagle
Waterfowl
' Various Small Birds
Banded Plovers
Large Sandpipers
Garter Snakes
Racer
Coyote
Striped Skunk
Red Fox
Swainsons Hawk
Golden Eagle
Snowy Owl
P
Bobcat
Porcupine
Great Horned
Owl
Longtailed Weasel
Whitefooted Mouse
Redtail Hawk
Turtles
Most Amphibians
Smaller Sandpipers
Herons
Pheasant
Various Small
Birds
Whitetail Deer
Racoon
Mink
Beaver
Figure 7. Distribution of wildlife with respect to habitat near Colstrip, Montana.
-------
TABLE 13. THE CHARACTERISTIC FAUNA OF THE PONDEROSA BIOTOPE IN THE TONGUE
AND POWDER RIVER BASINS
Common Name
Scientific Name
Mammals
Mule deer
Porcupine
Bobcat
White-footed mouse
Longtail weasel
Odocoileus hemionus
Erethizon dorsatum
Lynx rufus
Peromyscus sp.
Mustela frenata
Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Spermophillus tridecemlineatus
Birds
Great horned owl
Cooper's hawk
Red-tailed hawk
Red-shafted flicker
Black-capped chickadee
Mountain bluebird
Hairy woodpecker
Wild turkey
Sharp-tailed grouse
Bubo virginianus
Accipiter cooperii
Buteo jamaicensis
Colaptes cafer
Parus atricapillus
Sialia currucoides
Dendrocopos villosus
Meleagri s gallopavo
Pedioecetes phasianellus
Sources: Modified from U.S. Geological
Corporation (1976).
Survey (1974) and Radian
The riparian biotope is the most fragile of the four. It is comprised of
narrow thickets of trees (cottonwoods, ash, box elders, and willows) and
shrubs along small streams that broaden into a more forest-like character in
the larger flood plains. Human activities such as agriculture and water
diversion have altered many of these natural systems. The vegetation and
animals of the riparian biotope are greatly affected by changes in neighboring
areas. Increased annual rainfall in the ponderosa biotope may effect an
increase in water availability and may result in creation of more riparian
habitats. The riparian habitat, although the least extensive, is perhaps the
key element in regional ecosystem stability. The predominant mammalian
species include whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus). raccoon (Procyon
lotor), and beaver (Castor canadensis).The avian population consists of
waterfowl such as the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). Canada goose (Branta
canadensis). and great blue heron (Ardea herodias). Other characteristic
riparian avian species include the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) and
ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) (Table 14).
31
-------
TABLE 14. THE- CHARACTERISTIC FAUNA OF THE RIPARIAN BIOTOPE IN THE TONGUE
AND POWDER RIVER BASINS
Common Name
Scientific Name
Mammals
Whitetail deer
Raccoon
Little brown bat
Mink
Beaver
Red fox
Odocoileus virginianus
Procyon lotor
Myotis lucifugus
Mustela vison
Castor canadensis
Vulpes fulva
Birds
Bald eagle
Mallard
Canada goose
Greater yell owl egs
Kill deer
Great blue heron
Barn swallow
Red-winged blackbird
Loggerhead shrike
Western kingbird
Yellowthroat
Red-shafted flicker
Ring-necked pheasant
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Anas platyrhynchos
Branta canadensis
Tringa melanoleuca
Charadrius vociferus
Ardea herodias
Hirundo rustica
Agelaius phoeniceus
Lanius ludpvicianus
Tyrannus vertical is
Geothlypis trichas
Colaptes cafer
Phasianus colchicus
Reptiles and Amphibians
Eastern yellow-bellied racer
Western garter snake
Painted turtle
Leopard frog
Boreal chorus frog
Coluber constrictor
Thatnnophis elegans
Chrysemys picta
Rana pipiens
Pseudacris triseriata
Sources: Modified from U.S. Geological
Corporation (1976).
Survey (1974) and Radian
I-
The aquatic biotope, found in all perennial streams of the study area,
supports a variety of game fish such as northern pike (Esox lucius), walleye
(Stizostedion vitreum vitreum), rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri), and others
(Table 15). However, the predominant species are not the game fish but rather
32
-------
TABLE 15. FISH SPECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR
BASINS (including Sarpy and
IN THE TONGUE AND
Rosebud Creeks)
POWDER RIVER
Common Name
Scientific Name
Shovel nose sturgeon
Paddlefish
Goldeye
Mountain whitefish
Rainbow trout
Brown trout
Brook trout
Northern pike
Goldfish
Lake chub
Carp
Brassy minnow
Sil very minnow
Plains minnow
Sturgeon chub
Flathead chub
Golden shiner
Emerald shiner
Sand shiner
Fathead minnow
Longnose dace
Creek chub
River carpsucker
Longnose sucker
White sucker
Mountain sucker
Blue sucker
Shorthead redhorse
Black bullhead
Yellow bullhead
Channel catfish
Stonecat
Burbot
Rock bass
Green sunfish
Pumpkinseed
SmalImouth bass
Largemouth bass
White crappie
Black crappie
Yellow perch
Sauger
Wai leye
E^
hankinsoni
nuchalis
Scaphirh.ynchus platorynchus
Polyodon spathula
Hiodon alosoides
Prosopium williamsoni
Salmo gairdneri
Sal mo trutta
Salvelinus fontinalis
Esox lucius
Carassius auratus
Couesius plumbeus
Cyprinus carpio
H.ybognathus
Hybognathus
Hybognathus placitus
Hybopsis gelida
Hybopsis gracilis
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis stramineus
Pimephales promelas
Rhinichthys cataractae
Semotilus atromaculatus
Carpi odes carpio
Catostomus catastomus
Catostomus commersoni
Catostomus platyrhynchus
Cycleptus elongatus
Moxostoma macro!epidotum
Ictalurus me!as
Ictalurus natal is
Ictalurus punctatus
Noturus flavus
Lota Iota
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis gibbosus
Micropterus dolomieui
Micropterus salmoides
Pomoxis annularis
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Perca flavescens
Stizostedion canadense
Stizostedion vitreum vitreum
Sources: Modified from Northern Great Plains Resource Program (1974), Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (1976a), U.S. Geolo-
gical Survey (1976), U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Department of
State Lands (1977), and the Montana Department of State Lands (1977).
Common and scientific names of fishes are from Bailey et al. (1970).
33
-------
111
the rough and-forage fish such as carp (Cyprinus carpio), stonecat (Noturus
flavus). mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) /and flathead chub
(Hybopsis gracilis).
The Powder River itself supports no significant fisheries because of its
great annual fluctuations in flow. However, several tributaries to the Powder
River support rough and forage fish as well as game species. Clear Creek
downstream of Kendrick Dam contains a fair population of channel catfish and a
small number of sauger. Along with these species, good populations of rainbow
trout and brown trout occur from the 8-kilometer bridge downstream of Buffalo
to the junction of the North and Middle Forks Clear Creek. Trout are also
found in the headwaters of the Middle Fork Powder River until its junction
with Red Fork. Downstream of Outlaw Canyon, brown trout are the most abundant
game fish compared to upstream where brook trout and some rainbow trout may be
found. At the mouth of the North Fork Powder River some mountain sucker,
white sucker, flathead chub, longnosed dace, and stonecat occur with abundant
populations of brown and rainbow trout; trout populations, however, disappear
in the downstream portions of the Powder River.
The Tongue River Basin supports several fisheries with the upper portions
particularly well stocked with brown trout and mountain whitefish. Although
downstream, near Dayton, manmade additions such as roads and farms lower
stream productivity, brown trout and mountain whitefish remain the most
abundant species. As the Tongue River flows through the farming areas in
northern Wyoming, productivity is further reduced, and game fish such as trout
and mountain whitefish occur but are far outnumbered by the carp, sucker, and
other forage fish. Currently, the State of Wyoming is working on improving
the fisheries habitat of this area.
From the Tongue River Irrigation Reservoir in Montana to Birney, the
fishing is very good. State record-size black and white crappie have been
recently caught in Tongue River Reservoir (Personal communication,
L. Peterson, Montana Fish and Game Information Division, Helena, Montana,
1978). However, downstream from Birney- agricultural practices have increased
water temperatures and nongame species predominate. Above the T&Y Diversion
near Brandenburg, the waters are too warm for trout to survive. Below the T&Y
Diversion, the Tongue is characterized by species entering from the
Yellowstone River, such as the paddlefish, carp, sauger and walleye. The
mouth of the Tongue River is believed to be important as a catfish spawning
and nursery area.
MINERAL RESOURCES
Mining deposits found in Montana and Wyoming include such minerals as
silver, gold, copper, molybdenum, nickel, gypsum, manganese, uranium, and zinc
(Krohn and Weist, 1977). However, in the Tongue and Powder River Basin areas,
bentonite and coal are the only minerals actively mined. Some trace metals
associated with coal mining in the basins include cadmium, mercury,
molybdenum, lead, uranium, and beryllium; most of the coal deposits also have
limited amounts of clinker, which is used in building hauling roads and in
railroad ballasts (Glass, 1977). Sand and gravel production is present in all
the counties but is limited.
«**
34
-------
5. ENERGY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT
Oil and Gas
The total production of crude oil and condensate for Montana and Wyoming
in 1972 was 14.6 thousand pp/day and 62.3 thousand nP/day, respectively
(U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Department of State Lands, 1977).
However, only a few oil and gas fields are distributed throughout the Tongue
and Powder River Basins.
The area supports production from the Belle Creek field in Powder River
County, Montana (Missouri River Basin Commission, 1978b), and from the Ash
Creek field about 12.9 km west of the Decker Mine on the Montana-Wyoming line.
Approximately 795 million liters of oil has been obtained from the Cody Shale
of this latter field. The Salt Creek field in Natrona County, second largest
crude oil field in Wyoming, produced 1.6 billion liters of oil in 1975
(Missouri River Basin Commission, 1978b). The only other oil and gas
production is in the Crow Ceded Area and is found in the Synder field,
approximately 40 km south of Bighorn, Wyoming (U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs,
1974).
The Yellowstone-Tongue Areawide Planning Organization (1977) has expressed
concern over possible long-term effects of chemicals being used in the
tertiary recovery of petroleum in the Belle Creek field. It is expected that
the chemicals are nontoxic and should stay confined to the geologic formation
from which the oil is being extracted. However, no environmental assessment
of the project has yet been made, and the Yellowstone-Tongue Areawide Planning
Organization (1977) recommends that data be collected on the long-term effects
of these chemicals, as well as the potential for leakage to ground water,
before any additional large-scale extracting activities from the area are
authorized.
Coal
Substantial amounts of fossil fuels must be extracted in the near future
in order for the United States to both satisfy increasing energy demands and
achieve energy self-sufficiency. Coal, 1,000 kg of which is equivalent to the
heating value of 788 liters of oil, is the most likely candidate to be used to
offset shortages in domestic gas and liquid fuel production. Already coal is
gaining in importance in the generation of western electrical power, and the
decline of natural fuel supplies has also promoted research into conversion of
coal to gas and liquid fuels through gasification and hydrogenation (U.S.
35
-------
Bureau of Reclamation, 1972). It is estimated that the national projected
need for coal will rise from a 1974 level of 547 billion kg to 1.2 trillion kg
in 1980 and 1.9 trillion kg in 1985 (Atwood, 1975).
The vast majority of minable coal in the United States (72 percent of the
Nation's coal resources) is found in the Rocky Mountain and Northern Great
Plains provinces (Atwood, 1975). Western coal is particularly attractive,
since 43 percent of it is located in thick seams, is close enough to the
surface to strip mine, and is mostly of low sulfur content (Atwood, 1975).
The size of western coal fields is also well suited to establishment of large
adjacent gasification and liquefaction plants.
Approximately 75 percent of Montana's strippable coal is found in the
Tongue and Powder River Basins (Missouri River Basin Commission, 1978b). The
extensive deposits are situated primarily in the Tongue River Member of the
Fort Union Formation (Figure 8) and are comprised of alternating layers of
sandstone, shale, and coal (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1972). These flat
coal-bearing rocks are generally situated close to the surface, and localized
erosion has produced frequent areas of exposure along canyon walls. Quality
of the coal is variable, ranging from 0.2 to 2.0 percent sulfur content, with
most samples falling below 1.0 percent. Heat content ranges from 15,000 to
19,300 joules/g for the lignites in the study area, and from 19,300 to 22,100
joules/g for the subbituminous "C" coal (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1972).
It is estimated that throughout eastern Montana and Wyoming and western
North and South Dakota there exist 31 trillion kg of strippable coal reserves,
17 trillion of which are considered economically recoverable (U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, 1972). Average thickness of the coal beds ranges from 2 to 40 m,
and maximum overburden ranges from 24 to 91 m.
There are a number of major strip mines presently in operation throughout
the study area (Glass, 1976), as well as a number of proposed new mines and
expansions (Figure 8). A brief discussion of these mining operations follows.
West Decker Mine
The West Decker Mine is located in the southeastern corner of Big Horn
County, approximately 8 krn north of the Montana-Wyoming State line and 32 km
northeast of Sheridan. Wyoming. This open-pit coal mine occupies
approximately 12.5 km^ and has been operational since 1972 (U.S. Geological
Survey and Montana Department of State Lands, 1977). In 1975, the mine
produced 8 billion kg of coal from the Anderson-Dietz coal beds (Table,16),
all of which was exported to electrical generating plants in Illinois (Table
17). It is expected that production will soon be increased to 9 billion
kg/yr, a level that will be maintained until existing resources are depleted
(U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Department of State Lands, 1977).
Decker Coal Company has submitted proposals for expansion to the north of
the existing mine and development of an additional mine on the east side of
the Tongue River Reservoir. The new East Decker Mine would cover 15.0 knr
and would provide coal to the Lower Colorado River Authority in Austin, Texas,
and Commonwealth Edison of Chicago, Illinois (U.S. Geological Survey and
Montana Department of State Lands, 1977). This proposed minej^ould intercept
36
-------
Figure 8.
Location of coal mines
in the Tongue and Powder
River Basins.
37
-------
TABLE 16. LIST OF STRIPPABLE SUBBITUMIOUS AND LIGNITE COAL FIELDS IN THE POWDER, TONGUE,
ROSEBUD, SARPY, AND ARMELLS CREEKS WATERSHEDS IN MONTANA
CO
oo
Name of
Field
Decker
Deer .Creek
Roland
Squirrel
K1rby
Canyon
B1 rney
Poker Jim Lookout
Hanging Woman Creek
West Hoorhead
^
Poker Jim 0' Dell
Otter Creek
Ashl and
Col strip
Pumpkin Creek
Foster Creek
Broadus
Coal Bed
Anderson-Die tz 1&2
Anderson-Dietz 1&2
Roland
Roland
Anderson
Hall
Oletz
Canyon
Wall
Brewster-Arnol d
Brewster- Arnold
Anderson-Dietz
Anderson
Dletz
Anderson
Dletz
Canyon
Knobloch
Knobloch
Knobloch
Knobl och
Sawyer A&C
Rosebud
Sawyer
Knobl och
Terret
Flowers-Goodale
Broadus
Est. Reserves
(millions of kg)
2,031,671
449,554
197,762
121 ,003
196,384
429,637
756,755
143,787
1,709,015
59,735
163,759
791,494
1,436,044
1,016,710
801,552
360,523
626,002
338,574
512,255
1,882,524
2,445,453
324,243
1,305,409
2,200,836
642,274
418,009
234,822
671,017
Kn.2
103.29
57.52
48.87
25.12
22.89
24.09
70.89
16.45
96.56
8.37
28.20
79.36
123.62
176.67
79.56
82.62
91.25
31.93
29.09
104.37
110.08
82.00
135.08
184.93
112.51
111.14
58.45
74.58
Average
(million kg/km*)
19,670
7,816
4,047
4,817
8,579
17,835
10,675
8,741
17,699
7,137
5,807
9,973
11,617
5,755
10,075
4,364
6,860
10,604
17,609
18,037
22,215
3,954
9,664
11,901
5,709
3,761
4,017
8,997
Ash
4.0
4.0
9.2
5.5
4.2
5.8
5.8
4.6
7.5
5.1
5.2
4.9
5.5
5.3
4.1
5.6
5.1
4.7
4.8
4.9
9.5
7.5
7.8
5.8
7.8
7.2
Sulfur
0.40
0.50
0.74
O.Z9
0.32
0.59
0.24
0.30
0.40
0.41
0.37
0.29
0.33
0.36
0.41
0.45
0.22
3.60
0.15
0.49
0.12
0.34
0.76
0.21
0.51
0.27
Btu
9,652
9,282
8,164
7,723
8,328
8,509
8,789
9,088
8,444
9,055
7,925
8,496
8,078
8,296
7,990
8,055
8,846
8,468
8,421
7,883
8,836
7,438
7,573
7,770
7,553
7,437
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 16. (Continued)
CO
VO
Name of
field
East Moorhead
Diamond Butte
Goodspeed Butte
Fire Gulch
Sweeney-Snyder
Yager Butte
Threemlle Buttes
Sonnette
Home Creek Butte
Little Pumpkin Creek
Sand Creek
Beaver-L1 scorn
Greenleaf -Miller
Creek
Pine Hills
Knowlton
Sarpy Creek
Cheyenne Meadows
Little Wolf
Jeans Fork
Wolf Mountains
Coal Bed
T
Canyon
Cook
Pawnee & Cook
Terret
Elk & Dunning
Cook
Canyon & Ferry
Pawnee
Cook
Canyon & Ferry
Sawyer A&C, D, X, 8, E
Knobloch
Flowers-Goodale & Terret
Knobloch
Rosebud, Knobloch, and
Sawyer
Doml ny
Domlny (M&L)
Oomlny (U)
Rosebud-McKay
Knobloch
Rosebud-McKay
Est. Reserves
(millions of kg)
476,365
379,144
570,458
305,378
296,981
1,066,505
283,002
204,438
290,467
329,223
197,009
195,758
242,477
123,234
445,899
411,515
175,840
677,992
109,121
1,360,500
1,088,400
284,798
81,630
1,743,254
Km2
62.97
86.45
54.42
34.34
44.20
108.96
58.71
55.99
33.28
42.37
19.63
34.54
24.09
35.82
69.10
60.37
24.37
79.37
18.00
171.48
54.88
29.99
15.38
125.46
Average
(million kg/km?)
7,565
4,386
10,482
8,893
6,719
9,788
4,820
3,651
8,728
7,770
10,036
5,668
10,065
3,440
6,453
6,816
7,215
8,542
6,062
7,934
19.832
9,496
5,308
13,895
Ash
6.2
4.8
10.6
3.8
9.1
4.8
6.7
5.5
9.8
8.1
6.6
8.1
7.7
7.5
7.2
7.1
5.6
6.5
4.1
Sulfur
0.57
0.43
1.63
0.33
0.11
0.33
0.63
0.94
0.88
1.23
0.30
0.96
0.50
0.71
0.53
0.41
0.38
0.50
0.40
Btu
7,120
7,330
6,771
7,739
8,175
7,646
7,254
6,867
6,964
6,891
7,340
8,102
8,027
8,422
7,293
6,710
6,645
8,600
8,400
Source: Modified from Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (1977).
-------
TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF EXISTING MINES WITHIN 160KM OF THE CECKER MINE, TONGUE RIVER BASIN,
MONTANA
Name of
Mine
West Decker
B1g Horn
ColstHp
(Rosebud)
B1g Sky
Sarpy Creek
(Absolaka)
Ash Creek
Operator Coal Ownership
Decker Coal Federal and State
Company
Big Horn Coal Private
Company
Western Energy Federal and private
Company
Peabody Coal Federal and private
Company
Westmoreland Indian
Resources
Ash Creek Private
Mining Company
Start of
Production
(year)
1972
1944
1968
1969
1974
1978*
1976 Annual
Production
(million kg)
9,251
1,633
8,435
2,177
3,719
454**
Utilization of
Coal
Electrical power
generation
Electric power
generation,
Industrial and
domestic heating
Electric power
generation,
Industrial
heating
Electric power
generation
Electric power
generation
Electric power
generation
Market
Areas
Illinois
Wyoml ng
Minnesota,
Illinois,
North Dakota,
Montana
Minnesota
Iowa,
Wisconsin,
Minnesota
Oklahoma
*No Coal Production to date.
**Estimated production rate after 1978.
Source: Modified from U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Department of State Lands (1977)
-------
three major river drainages: Deer Creek, Coal Creek, and Middle Creek. In
order to prevent runoff from these watersheds from entering the mining area, a
number of impoundments and diversion channels would be built. The largest of
these structures would divert all flow out of the present Deer Creek channel
into a sediment settling pond 3,000 m away to the north of the mine area (U.S.
Geological Survey and Montana Department of State Lands, 1977). Water from
this pond would then be discharged into an ancient channel of the Tongue River
where it would flow northwestward into a bay of the Tongue River Reservoir.
Smaller structures would be built to intercept and divert any runoff from
Middle and Coal Creek valleys out of the mining area.
The North Expansion area would cover 9.4 km^ and would provide coal to
be shipped to Detroit, Michigan, for use in electrical power generation (U.S.
Geological Survey and Montana Department of State Lands, 1977). This
expansion would cross both Spring Creek and Pearson Creek valleys; diversion
channels for these drainages would be built. Decker Coal Company estimates
189 nr/day of ground water would also enter the mining pits from exposed
aquifers (U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Department of State Lands, 1977).
This ground water would be pumped into two mine water treatment ponds, where
water would be treated before being released into natural drainages. Water
for dust control would be obtained from these ponds.
Existing treatment ponds are not adequately preventing chemical effluents
from the mine from entering the Tongue River Reservoir. Discharges associated
with the Decker Mine are characteristically high in sodium bicarbonate, with
concentrations of dissolved constitutents ranging from about 675 to 3,400 mg/1
with common values between 1,500 and 2,500 mg/1 (U.S. Geological Survey and
Montana Department of State Lands, 1977). As much as 70 to 80 percent of this
effluent enters the reservoir from the highly permeable clinker that lines the
reservoir shores (U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Department of State
Lands, 1977). This problem may be solved with the opening of a box cut along
the west and north margins of the proposed mine area, which would create a new
sink, or low point, in the ground-water flow system. Installation of holding
tanks or settling ponds where discharge waters could be lost to evaporation or
properly treated would also be valuable if these tanks or ponds prevented high
salinity waters from entering the river -
The existing West Decker facilities consume an estimated 442,088 m3/yr
of ground water (Personal communication, Bob Jerere, Decker Coal Company,
Decker, Montana, 1978). The East Decker Mine will consume 82,892 m3/yr of
water; 88 percent of this total will be for dust control, washing equipment,
and fire control with the remaining 12 percent being used for human
consumption and sanitation purposes (U.S. Geological Survey and Montana
Department of State Lands, 1977). Of the 82,892 m3/yr, 73,000 m3 of water
will be obtained from mine effluent and the remainder from existing wells.
The North Decker Expansion, it is estimated, will consume 41,464 nwyr of
water for dust control; all other water needs will be met with the existing
West Decker Mine facilities (U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Department of
State Lands, 1977).
41
-------
Rosebud-Tongue- River Mine--
The Rosebud-Tongue River Mine was a small surface coal mine covering parts
of two 0.16 km2 tracts within the presently proposed North Expansion Decker
Mine area (U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Department of State Lands,
1977). The mine, owned by Peter Kiewit Sons, Company, in Sheridan, Wyoming,
operated intermittently from 1954 to 1970, and provided coal that was used by
residents in the vicinity for heating and cooling purposes. Total production
from the now inactive mine was about 31.7 million kg coal (U.S. Geological
Survey and Montana Department of State Lands, 1977); both tracts of the small
mine would be included in the North Decker Expansion facility.
Col strip (Rosebud) Mine--
The Col strip (Rosebud) Mine is located at Col strip, Montana, between
Rosebud Creek and the Tongue River. Col strip opened in 1924 and was operated
by the Northwestern Improvement Company until 1958. The relatively wide
southeastern end of the mine has been developed by Western Energy Company
since 1968. By 1974 about 8.09 km2 of land had been disturbed, and as much
as 40.5 km2 may ultimately be affected.
In 1976, approximately 8,435 million kg/yr of subbituminous coal was
produced. This coal is used for electrical power generation and industrial
heating throughout Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota (Van Voast et al.,
1975).
Col strip now imports 52,480 nrVday of water from the Yellowstone River
48 km away, but additional water totalling 13.7 million m^/yr will be
required for future mine activities (dust control, handling, crushing, and
service water), reclamation, and expansion of municipal facilities (University
of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation, 1977b; Van Voast, 1974). Of the
additional 6.07 million m3/yr used for municipal purposes, 0.5 million nr
will be drawn from ground-water sources. Most of the imported water will be
utilized by two coal-fired steam generation plants recently constructed at
Colstrip (Van Voast and McDermott, 1977). Discharges from the facilities at
Col strip will be put into holding tanks and settling ponds where the water
will be lost to evaporation or be reused (University of Oklahoma and Radian
Corporation, 1977b).
Ash Creek Mine--
Ash Creek Coal Mine is located near Ash Creek in Sheridan County, Wyoming,
near the Montana-Wyoming border. The Ash Creek Coal Company owns and operates
the mine but is currently not producing. Estimated production after 1978 will
be 453.5 million kg/yr for 28 years (U.S. Geological Survey and Montana
Department of State Lands, 1977). The coal will then be trucked 13 to 16 km
south and loaded on rail to be shipped to Tulsa, Oklahoma.
By 1979 the total area disturbed will increase from 0.16 to 0.20 km2 and
by 1983 should reach a total of 0.40 to 0.61 km2 (Personal communication, S.
Rogers, Ash Creek Coal Company, Sheridan, Wyoming, 1978). The Ash Creek Coal
Company will use three wells for pumping ground-water, suppl ies for mining
needs. Discharges from the facilities will be released into several settling
ponds.
42
-------
Welch Mine--
The Welch Mine opened in 1949 and closed in April of 1976. It is located
in the Tongue Kiver valley west of Bighorn Mine in Sheridan County, Wyoming.
The mine is owned and operated by the Welch Coal Company, a subsidiary of
Montana-Dakota Utilities.
While in operation, the mine was producing 8.8 x 10^ kg/day at an annual
production of 27 million kg/yr (Krohn and Weist, 1977). The coal was
transported 18 km via a truck line to a small electrical generating station at
Acme that has since closed down (August 1976). The Welch Mine was a small
operation that disturbed only 0.06 km2 during the years of production. The
demand for water at the mine was such that annual snowfall or runoff from
precipitation met the limited needs.
Sarpy Creek (Absaloka) Mine--
The Sarpy Creek Mine, owned by Westmoreland Resources, has been extracting
from the Rosebud-McKay seam of coal near the confluence of Sarpy and the East
Fork Sarpy Creek since 1974 (U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1974). The mine
is located just north of the Crow Indian Reservation, approximately 105 km
east of Billings, Montana. It removes approximately 3.7 billion kg of coal
annually (U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1974), which is transported to the
Midwest for use in power generation (Table 17). The mine is expected to
ultimately produce 69.8 billion kg of coal over the next 20 years and to
disturb a total of 5.2 km^ of land, 0.8 km2 of which will be as the result
of secondary construction and road development associated with the mining
activities.
The existing Absaloka Mine consumes an annual average of 103,614 m^ of
ground water; the bulk of this depletion is for dust control purposes (U.S.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1974). Any surface runoff passing through the mined
property is detained behind a combined railroad embankment-sediment detention
dam, which stores 95 thousand nP water. This detained water, which tends to
be high in alkalinity and suspended colloids, is checked for adherence to
water quality standards before being released 3.7 km downstream to a tributary
to Sarpy Creek (U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1974).
Westmoreland has applied for expansion of the existing Absaloka Mine onto
0.93 km2 of State land and coal (U.S. Geological Survey, 1976). The
expansion, which is considered necessary for Westmoreland to satisfy existing
contracts for coal, would add three water control facilities and would consume
a total of 341 to 946 m^ of ground water per day (U.S. Geological Survey,
1976). The expansion would affect the upstream portions of several small
tributaries that flow into Sarpy, the East Fork Sarpy, and the Middle Fork
Sarpy Creeks, as well as destroy the ground-water reservoir above the coal
beds in the area mined. It is estimated that 146 million m^/yr of water
from Sarpy Creek would be irretrievably lost as a result of the expansion
(U.S. Geological Survey, 1976).
43
-------
Big Sky Mine'
The Big Sky Mine, part of the Rosebud coal bed (Table 16), is located in
the southern portion of Rosebud County about 8 km south of Colstrip, Montana,
This open-pit coal mine has been operational since 1969 and by November 1973
had produced 5.6 billion kg of subbituminous, low sulfur coal to be sent to
Minnesota Power and Light (Table 18) (U.S. Geological Survey, 1974). The
mine, operated by Peabody Coal Company, disturbs about 0.40 km2/yr of land
for mining activities and will eventually affect 4.04 km2. By the end of
1973, approximately 40 percent of the disrupted land had been graded and
replanted.
An estimated 45,420 nrVyr of ground water are depleted during mining
operations, primarily for dust control purposes (U.S. Geological Survey,
1974). This water is temporarily detained in settling ponds created by cuts
in the land and ultimately is discharged back into East Fork Armells Creek
(Van Voast, 1974).
TABLE 18. YEARLY PRODUCTION OF COAL, BIG SKY MINE, MONTANA
Year
Production
(kg)
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973 (to November 1)
1976
148 million
1.304 billion
1.356 billion
1.452 billion
1.500 billion
2.177 billion
Sources: Modified from U.S. Geological Survey (1974), and U.S. Geological
Survey and Montana Department of State Lands (1977).
44
-------
Bighorn Mine--
The Bighorn Mine is located in Sheridan County, Wyoming, approximately
16 km north of Sheridan in the foothills of the Big Horn Mountains. It is
owned and operated by the Bighorn Coal Company, a subsidiary of Peter Kiewit
Sons, Company. The company holds two leases: a Federal lease of 0.32 km2
and a State lease of 2.59 km2.
The mine was opened in 1944 and has grown to a 1975 production rate of
713.8 million kg/yr with production levels expected to reach 1,360 million
kg/yr by 1980 (Krohn and Weist, 1977).
Coal mined at Bighorn is distributed to several power and public service
companies throughout the country, including the Illinois Power Company in
Chicago, Kansas City Power and Light Company in Missouri, and the Northern
States Power Company and the Northwestern Public Service Company, both in
South Dakota (Krohn and Weist, 1977).
The mine is traversed by two perennial streams, Goose Creek and Tongue
River, which have been diverted through final cuts of old stripping operations
and spoil areas (Dettman et al., 1976). Diversion of the streams through old
strip mine pits creates numerous small ponds; the confluence point of Tongue
and Goose Creeks downstream is located near the point of pumped mine effluent,
which contributes a discharge of approximately 0.14 nr/sec to the downstream
Tongue River flow. Discharges from the mine are high in salt levels,
particularly sodium and sulfates; however, water quality impact from operation
of the Bighorn Mine is small compared to other land use effects, such as
agricultural runoff, in the watershed.
Rawhide Mine
The Rawhide Mine, owned and operated by the Carter Mining Company, is
located north of Gillette, Wyoming, at the edge of the Powder River Basin.
The mine opened in August 1977 and produces subbituminous to lignitic coal
below an overburden varying from 7 to 73 m in depth (Glass, 1976). Peak
production is estimated to reach 1.1 x 10^0 kg by 1980, and mining
operations will consume 757 m^/day of water. Necessary water for mining is
obtained from a number of ground-water sources. Effluents released from the
mine are discharged into sedimentation ponds and ultimately used for dust
control and road maintenance.
Reclamation
Successful rehabilitation of the existing and proposed mining areas rests
not only on the physical potential of the land but on an effective
administrative policy. Such efforts as the Packer system of classification
rate the rehabilitation potential based upon the elements of soil
(productivity and stability), vegetation (suitability and availability),
precipitation (amount and seasonal distribution), and potential moisture-
holding capacity (Missouri River Basin Commission, 1978a). These elements are
combined to arrive at a numerical rating from +9 to -9 (very good to very
poor) with zero equaling fair. The Tongue and Powder Basins lie in the fair
45
-------
to good range (Table 19); however, with increasing energy development, which
will affect moisture-holding capacity and soil stability in these arid basins,
the rehabilitation potential of the Tongue and Powder River drainages is
expected to get increasingly worse.
TABLE 19. REHABILITATION POTENTIAL RATINGS FOR COAL PRODUCING AREAS IN THE
TONGUE AND POWDER RIVER BASINS USING THE PACKER SYSTEM OF
CLASSIFICATION
Location Size of Rehabilitation Area Rating
(Km2)
Tongue and Powder River 2,161 +1.09
Basins, Montana
Northeast Wyoming
Overal 1
Source: Modified from Missouri River Basin Commission (1978a).
Reclamation of stripped areas is difficult in regions of low precipitation
where sufficiently large quantities of water are not available to allow
reestablishment of plant cover. Most of the Tongue-Powder study area receives
between 30 and 40 cm of rainfall annually. However, 75 percent of this
rainfall occurs between April and September when prevailing summer westerly
winds deplete the available soil moisture. This semi arid environment places
limitations on the availability of water for rehabilitation.
Montana's Water Resources Act of 1967 and the Wyoming Environmental
Quality Act of 1973 created powers to control and oversee most of the problems
associated with the development and reclamation of mined or industrial land
(Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 1976c). Terms of
the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act require rehabilitation of surface-mined
land to equal or better conditions. Revegetation of disturbed lands, topsoil j
stockpiling and reuse, and the prevention of erosion and water pollution are /
also included under the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act (Missouri River
Basin Commission, 1978a).
46
-------
Powerplants
As the expansion of coal mining continues in the study area, the
development of coal-burning powerplants is expected to increase. Existing
powerplants in this region are currently meeting present demands. However, at
present (1977) there is virtually no capacity in the existing plants that is
not committed to some use, either within or outside the study area. Any
substantial new load that may develop will have to be met by either additional
capacity in the area or importation of energy (Missouri River Basin
Commission, 1978a).
There are no major hydroelectric power facilities in the area and the
opportunity for such is very limited. However, there are two coal-fired
powerplants at Colstrip and one gas turbine at Miles City (Table 20).
Although there are presently not many powerplants in the area, a good number
have been proposed for the Tongue and Powder River study area (Table 21). By
the year 2000 water consumption from power facilities is projected at 102.3
million m^/yr, which is equivalent to about 1.1 percent of the average
annual flow and about 12 percent of the extreme low flow recorded in the
Tongue River at Miles City (University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation,
1977a).
TABLE 20. EXISTING POWERPLANTS IN THE TONGUE-POWDER RIVER STUDY AREA
Location Operating Co. MW Water Consumption Diversion Source
(m3/day)
Colstrip Montana Power 680 15,000 - 18,000 Yellowstone
Company
Miles City Montana Dakota 23 Air cooled
Utilities
Source: Personal communication, Bob Anderson, Montana Department of
Natural Resources, Helena, Montana, 1978.
Presently at Colstrip there are operational two 350 MW units, which each
divert 19 thousand m^/day of water for use (Montana Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation, 1977). Most of this diversion, which includes
municipal water from the town of Colstrip, is lost to evaporation from the
cooling towers. Colstrip Units 3 and 4, if made operational, will have a
generation capacity-of 700 MW each and will each divert 13 million nP/yr of
47
-------
TABLE 21. PROPOSED POWERPLANTS IN THE TONGUE-POWDER RIVER STUDY AREA
oo
Plant
Location
Col strip
NW of Brandenburg
SE of Ashland
Birney
Birney-PJ
S of Birney
Kirby Alt. 1
Kirby Alt. 2
Decker
Volborg
Camps Pass
Sonnette
Broadus
Moorhead
Sheridan
Spotted Horse
Lalke De Smet
Coal
Deposit
Col strip
Sweeney Creek
Otter Creek
Birney
Poker Jim Lookout
Hanging Woman Creek
Kirby
Kirby
Decker
Foster Creek
Pumpkin Creek
Sonnette
Broadus
Moorhead
Spotted Horse
Lake De Smet
Plant
Size
(MW)
5,000
1,000
5,000
1,000
1,000
10,000
1,000
1,000
5,000
5,000
10,000
1,000
3,000
5,000
2,000
3,000
10,000
No. of
Pumping
Plants
4
3
2
2
5
3
5
7
5
Annual
Energy at
Load Center
(million kWh)
78.0
10.0
19.0
53.0
21.0
10.0
76.0
228.0
20.0
Annual
Water
Delivery
(m3 x 106)
67.8
13.5
67.8
13.5
13.5
135.6
13.5
13.5
67.8
67.8
135.6
13.5
40.7
67.8
40.7
135.6
Source: Modified from North Central Power Study (1971).
-------
water, most of which will also be lost to the atmosphere during the cooling
process (Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 1977). If
anticipated expansion of development at Colstrip continues, this total
generating capacity of 2,100 MW may be reached by 1979. The Colstrip Mine
would then have the capacity to produce up to 7.2 billion kg of coal per year-
Future powerplants may implement several different means of generating
electricity. They may directly burn coal using a magnetohydrodynamic process
or may implement the resources derived from the gasification-liquefaction of
coal (U.S. Department of Interior, 1975). The power generated by either
Colstrip or the other proposed plants may be distributed to centers of
population in Oregon, California, and Illinois.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Coal Gasification and Liquefaction Plants
There are currently no gasification plants in the area; however, future
developments are in the planning stages and should be in operation in the
1990's (University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation, 1977b).
The Missouri River Basin Commission (1978a) indicates that the cost of
producing gas and liquid fuels via gasification and liquefaction will exceed
the cost of energy from other sources through the years 1990 to 2000. After
1990, Federal funds coupled with exhausted or dwindling domestic reserves of
natural gas and oil may result in expansion of coal gasification-liquefaction
activity. A total of 14 coal gasification plants are proposed for the
Yellowstone area, four of them in the Tongue and Powder River Basins
(Table 22). Water requirements will depend on the type of system implemented.
The Lurgi Pressure Gasification Process, the Synthane high Btu, IGT
(Institute of Gas Technology) HYGAS gasification process, or the Synthoil coal
liquefaction and Fisher-Tropsch synthesis are the most likely major processes
to be used (University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation, 1977b). The Lurgi
Pressure Gasification, HYGAS, and the Synthane gasification processes produce
high Btu synthetic gases and differ from the Synthoil liquefaction process,
which produces fuel oils or gasoline (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1977a). Underground in situ gasification processes are also being examined
and tested for feasibility at the Colstrip area.
Water is the primary resource required for synthetic gas production. It
is used for both the processing and cooling associated with each of the
different methods. In processing, the water is used to generate steam and
supply hydrogen for reactions (Table 23) in the gasification/liquefaction
processes (Northern Great Plains Resource Program, 1974). Water is also
utilized for ash quenching, sluicing, and dust control. The amount of water
consumed by each plant will depend upon the plant characteristics and the
water conservation practices that are implemented. Whether ground water or
surface water is used for future development will depend on its quality and
availability. However, most of the proposed liquefaction-gasification plants
49
-------
TABLE 22. FUTURE COAL LIQUEFACTION-GASIFICATION PLANTS IN THE TONGUE AND
POWDER RIVER BASINS
Company
Location
CapacityMMCMD
Remarks
Gasification
Texaco, Inc. Story, WY
Northern-
Natural Gas
Co.
Colorado
Interstate
Gas Co.
Liguefaction
Exxon
Carter Oil
Northern
Cheyenne
Indian
Reservation,
Big Horn or
Rosebud
Counties
SE Montana
N. Wyoming
0.8
7.5 - 15.0
7.5 - 15.0
3.6
Will be supplied with
coal from Texaco, Lake
De Smet Coal Mine.
Initial operation date
1981 (2 units); in 1984,
2 more units added. Each
unit will produce a
minimum of 7.5 nr/day.
The Peabody Coal Company
will supply an estimated
rate of 24 million kg/day
for each of the 4 units.
Will implement 2 units
by early 1990's.
Only 1 unit planned.
MMCMD = Million cubic meters crude oil or gas per day.
Source: Modified from Corsentino (1976) and Harza Engineering Company (1976).
plan to utilize ground water, which will deplete the shallower aquifers. The
quality of these sources is poor and depletion will demand the use of new
aquifers at greater depths.
Whatever process is implemented, the water consumed per unit of energy
produced through gasification is less than is consumed for continual power
generation. Through gasification, 7.08 x 10^ Btu is produced for each cubic
meter of water consumed, as compared with conventional steam electrical
generation of approximately 1.4 x 10^ Btu per cubic meter of water consumed.
50
-------
TABLE 23. ANTICIPATED WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE
COLSTRIP, MONTANA, AREA IN THE YEAR 2000
Facility
Size
Anticipated Water Requirement
(m3 x 106)
Power generation
Coal gasification
(Lurgi)
Coal gasification
(Synthane)
Coal gasification
(Synthoil)
Coal mining
3,000 MW (electricity)
7.08 million m3/day
7.08 million nrVday
15.9 million liters
51,517 million kg/yr
46.1-51.8
5.9-8.7
10.3-12.4
13.4-23.9
1.5
Source: Modified from University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation (1977b).
Coal Slurry Line
There are currently no coal slurry lines in the Tongue-Powder River Basin
study area. In fact, in the State of Montana there presently exists a ban on
interstate slurry pipeline operations, which the Missouri River Basin
Commission (1978b) has recommended be reconsidered in a recent study of the
region. It is expected that with the expansion of in situ gasification,
liquefaction, and electrical generation plants, slurry lines may prove to be
the most efficient and desirable means of supplying coal to these regional
facilities and a number of pipelines have been proposed for the basins
(Table 24).
There are a number of potential water quality impacts that may result from
development of slurry pipelines, however. Pipeline breaks or deliberate
dumps, which would result if the slurry flow becomes plugged and stopped for
more than a few hours, could discharge thousands of tons of slurry onto the
ground (University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation, 1977b). If this
disposal site is not impermeably lined, contaminated water from the discharged
slurry could percolate into the soil, and wind dispersal of the dried coal and
evaporites is likely. Large quantities of water would then be required to
flush the pipeline before slurry flow could commence; disposal of this
flushing water, now contaminated with suspensoids of coal, poses an additional
environmental hazard.
51
-------
in
ro
TABLE 24. COAL SLURRY PIPELINES PROPOSED IN THE TONGUE-POWDER RIVER BASIN STUDY AREA
Operating
Company
Brown & Root,
Inc., Houston,
TX, and Texas
Eastern Trans-
missions Corp.,
Houston, TX
Energy Trans-
portation
Systems, Inc.,
Casper, MY
Proposed
Origin
Southeastern
Montana (Big
Horn or Rose-
bud Counties)
South of
Gillette,
Campbel 1
County
Initial
Route Operating Capacity
Destination Date (kg x lO^/yr)
Houston, Unknown 1.9 - 2.6
Texas
White Bluff, 1980 2.2
Arkansas
Length
(km)
2,032
1,671
Water Source and
Requirements
p
18.5 million m3/yr
from underground
wells In the Madison
Formation
Remarks
Proposed line will trans-
verse southeastern Montana,
Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma,
and Texas. Planning 1s In
progress .
Delayed In obtaining Hghts-
of-way across railroad
line.
The project 1s suspended
until the required legis-
lation authorizes the right
of eminent domain. Proposed
route will cross Wyoming,
Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma,
and Arkansas.
Gulf Interstate
Engineering Co.,
Houston, TX,
and Northwest
Pipeline Co.,
Salt Lake
City, UT
Near Boardman, 1980 0.9 1,774
Gillette, Oregon
Campbel 1
County
Proposed route will cross
Wyoming, Idaho, and Oregon.
Source: Modified from Corsentino (1976).
-------
Uranium
Production of uranium from the study basins continuously declined
throughout the early and middle 1960's, dwindling to virtual extinction in
1968. There is, however, currently one functioning uranium mine bordering on
the Powder and Belle Fourche River Basins. As of 1976, Exxon (Humble Oil
Company) near Douglas, Wyoming, has been operating a nominal facility with
processing capacity of 2.7 million kg of ore daily (Missouri River Basin
Commission, 1978a). Future developments in this region will depend on the
interest in prospecting and cost of developing ore-producing plants.
Water pollution from the uranium industry is primarily related to milling
activities rather than to conventional mining. In addition to radioactive
components that leach or erode from the tailings piles, milling wastes are
frequently high in total dissolved solids and either strongly acidic or
alkaline (Upper Colorado Region State-Federal Inter-Agency Group, 1971).
Other potential sources of exposure from tailings piles include inhalation of
wind-blown particulates or gases diffusing from the piles, and external whole
body gamma exposure from the piles (Douglas and Hans, 1975).
Extensive exploration by the uranium industry, particularly in
southeastern Montana, indicates a potential exists there for solution mining
(i.e., in situ leach mining) of uranium in the Fox Hills Formation
(Yellowstone-Tongue Areawide Planning Organization, 1977). This process,
which is still in the testing stages, takes ore material that has not been
transported from its geologic setting and preferentially leaches (dissolves)
the ore from its surrounding rock with specific leach solutions (Larson,
1978). This in situ method for recovery of ore minerals is desirable since
the relative cost is small compared with traditional underground or open-pit
mining. The method does, however, pose the potential environmental hazard of
cross contamination between ground-water aquifers. Those leach solutions
injected during mineral recovery normally are confined to the geologic zone
containing uranium ore. If, however, geologic discontinuities, unplugged
drill holes, or corroded well casings are present, a portion of the injected
fluids may escape and contaminate surrounding aquifers used for domestic
purposes. The Yellowstone-Tongue Areawide Planning Organization (1977) has
made a number of recommendations to assure that all precautions are taken
against aquifer contamination if the process is implemented. These include:
plugging of all exploratory holes to prevent movement of mining fluid;
reclamation of the mining zone via flushing or neutralization; monitoring
during the mining process, including development of emergency procedures in
case escape of injection solutions to overlying or underlying aquifers does
occur; and development of a permit program for operators. Such a permit would
specify pilot testing, a mandatory bond to cover cost of reclamation and
plugging of any drilled well, and examination of the area around each well
site for geologic porosity, direction and rate of ground-water migration, and
relationship of affected aquifers to nearby water supply wells and surface
f1ows.
53
-------
TRANSPORTATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES
Transportation of energy resources from the Tongue and Powder River Basins
constitutes a significant part of the total environmental impact associated
with energy development. Montana and Wyoming are major exporters of coal,
gas, oil, and uranium, the transportation of which pose a unique problem. The
shipments of coal , gas, or oil are quite different from those originating in
the Appalachian and Illinois mines; the distances covered from those fields on
the average is less than 186 km, with an occasional line of 310 km. If
development occurs as planned in the Montana-Wyoming area, routes as long as
930 km may be common (Campbell and Katell, 1975).
Coal is planned for export to midwestern and other markets via unit trains
or coal slurry lines. Coal conversion plants will export gas and oil via
pipelines, while powerplants distribute electricity over transmission lines
(Figures 9 through 11).
The unit trains transporting the majority of coal mined in the area to
terminals in Austin, Texas, Omaha, Nebraska, Chicago, Illinois, and by boat
from Superior, Wisconsin, to the Detroit area may account for one-third to
one-half of the delivered coal price (Campbell and Katell, 1975). The Pigs
Eye Terminal, to be constructed on the Mississippi River at St. Paul,
Minnesota, will provide a major rail-waterway transfer and loading facility
for distribution to midwestern power utilities (U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs,
1974).
Local hazards in transportation activities are exemplified by the
problems occurring at the East Decker and North Expansion Mines, where some
9.07 million kg of coal is transported on unit trains of 100 cars. These
trains obstruct traffic, presenting an increasing hazard of spillage and
chance of collision. Each of the mines will require, by the year 2000, the
addition of 17 to 18 unit trains per week to the existing 19 to 20 unit trains
per week (U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Department of State Lands, 1977).
Statistics associated with problems of delivery of coal for 1956-66 show that
mine transportation accidents accounted for 19 percent of the fatalities in
bituminous coal mines and are second only to roof deficiencies as a cause of
death (Curth, 1971).
Coal transport via slurry pipeline can offer lower costs than rail or
waterway movement under the proper conditions. However, for all slurry r
pipelines under consideration, water is needed at the rate of 1 liter
water/1 kg coal (Missouri River Basin Commission, 1978a). The prospect of
extensive coal slurry development in the arid Tongue and Powder River Basins
is not likely because of the lack of both physical and legal availability of
surface water supplies. Ground-water resources may be adequate for slurry
line development. However, the quantity reliably available for use is at
present uncertain, and potential depletion of existing ground-water aquifers
is a factor limiting such development.
54
-------
en
en
Resource Basin
Gas Lines
----- Liquid Lines
Figure 9. High Btu gas liquid (crude oil, shale oil, coal syncrude) pipelines proposed by the year 2000
for the Western United States (capacity of each pipeline is 28 million m^/day). Source:
Modified from University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation (1977b).
-------
CJ1
Resource Basin
Figure 10. Unit coal energy to be transported from the Western United States by the year 2000,
Modified from University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation (1977b).
Source:
-------
on
Resource Basin
Figure 11. Electricity expected to be transported from the Western United States by the year 2000.
Source: Modified from University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation (1977b).
-------
Gas and liquid fuels (crude oil, shale oil, and coal syncrude) from the
western region will be transported via pipeline to major refinery regions
(University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation, 1977b). Existing trunkline
capacity for gas and liquid fuels from the Northern Great Plains has been
estimated at 28 million m^/day and 98,000 m^/day, respectively.
Electrical transmission lines will distribute the necessary power both locally
and nationally. Proposed powerplants at Col strip, Gillette, and Sheridan will
supply the needs of the local area and will increasingly supplement those
needs of the Midwest, South and East. Presently, Colstrip is the major
supplier of electrical power with lines going to Broadview, Montana, with
relay to centers in the Northwest.
Whether coal, gasification, liquefaction, or electrical transmission are
implemented, the right-of-way development will disturb several thousand square
kilometers of land. By the year 2000 electrical transmission lines, which
generally have 30 m right-of-way per side, will by themselves require
1,275 km2 of land in the Tongue-Powder River study area (University of
Oklahoma and Radian Corporation, 1977b).
58
-------
6. OTHER SOURCES OF POLLUTION
EROSION
Erosion in the Tongue and Powder River Basins is dependent on several
environmental factors, some of which vary through the year- Weather changes,
topography of the area, types of soil, land use and management practices, and
seasonal availability of a canopy protection of crops and pastureland all
influence the degree of erosive action present (Northern Great Plains Resource
Program, 1974). In the lower, more arid elevations of the basins, droughts
are common and high temperatures result in desiccation of young seedlings.
The sparse vegetative ground cover that results helps produce poor soils that
contain little organic matter and are highly susceptible to wind erosion. At
these lower elevations the effect of wind or water on the detachment and
relocation of soil particles results in problem levels of suspended sediments
in the Tongue and Powder Rivers.
Summer storms subject localized areas to intense precipitation. This
rapidly exceeds the land's capacity to absorb the water and results in surface
runoff, often in the form of flash floods. These events often cause major
erosion and subject receiving waters to very high suspended sediment
concentrations. .In addition, these events may cause both major and minor
"spills" of commercial chemical products.
Mining has increased erosion in the basins through such activities as
removal of overburden material, stockpiling, and relocation of soil. Blasting
increases the amount of dust suspended in the air, which, together with
windblown coal dust and ash from transportation, storage, and disposal areas,
might later settle in a waterway or reservoir (U.S. Geological Survey and
Montana Department of State Lands, 1977). Other erosive mechanisms associated
with mining include the continual traffic of large machinery and destruction
of natural vegetative cover. Although agricultural activities pose a lesser
erosive problem in the Tongue and Powder River Basins than mining,
agricultural runoff is a source of nutrients, fertilizers, pesticides, and
herbicides. Several cattle ranches in the basins have feedlot operations that
impose an additional major runoff problem through the release of high
concentrations of organic material to the drainage areas.
MINE DRAINAGE
Acid mine drainage, the biggest hazard of mining in the Eastern
United States, is not expected to be a problem in the Tongue and Powder River
Basins. The sulfur content of coal in this area is generally less than 1
percent, and there is little likelihood of significant acid formation when
59
-------
exposed deposits are brought into contact with air and water (Northern Great
Plains Resource Program, 1974). The high alkalinity of ground water in the
coal beds further helps to neutralize any acids that should flow through them
(U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1974). However, runoff through natural and
manmade waterways will carry essentially all the waste products of the mine
into surrounding drainages. Interception of ground-water aquifers during the
mining operations may also result in a net inflow and accumulation of water in
the active pit; this water, when discharged, may become a water quality
problem if it was in contact with low-grade coal adjacent to a coal seam that
is high in sulfates or other uncommon leachates (Northern Great Plains
Resource Program, 1974). Surface runoff, or shallow ground water such as that
from irrigation return flows, may percolate through mine spoil areas resulting
in increased salts, especially sul fates or heavy metals.
Potential sources of water quality contamination associated with mining
activities include loading, crushing, and screening facilities, access and
hauling roads, equipment maintenance and building areas, overburden removal
and deposition, construction of water control facilities, and stream
diversions. Total dissolved solids and suspended solids from erosion of the
disturbed areas are the most obvious potential pollutants; however, a number
of water quality parameters could be affected by coal mining activities, and
contamination from oils and greases, antifreeze, detergents, and residuals
from blasting agents are not uncommon (Northern Great Plains Resource Program,
1974).
URBAN RUNOFF
Rapid population growth can be expected in the Tongue and Powder River
Basins as a consequence of increased energy development (University of
Oklahoma and Radian Corporation, 1977c). The resultant buildup of communities
will increase the contributions of nonpoint urban runoff to the basins in
addition to augmenting the consumptive water demands and burden on existing
sewage facilities. The communities of Miles City, Colstrip, Sheridan, and
Gillette are among those expected to be particularly influenced by the growing
mining industry throughout the study area.
Nonpoint urban runoff is produced by precipitation that washes a
population center, flushing a great variety of city wastes into the nearest
water system. The quality of this runoff is variable and unpredictable;
however, it is typically high in nutrients and suspended sediments. Combined
storm and domestic sewer overflow is a common urban source of organic
pollution to the aquatic ecosystem. Animal wastes, fertilizers, pesticides,
and general street debris are other common urban pollutants.
60
-------
7. WATER REQUIREMENTS
WATER RIGHTS
The Northern Great Plains area, during the 19th century, adopted a
laissez-faire philosophy toward water allocation and development (University
of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation, 1977c). A traditional "senior take all"
appropriation doctrine evolved in which the first individual to divert water
to a beneficial use established a dated and quantified right to first use of
the water. All stream users thus establish dated rights, and as water
supplies decrease those bearing later priority dates are shut off until senior
rights are met (Lord et al., 1975). In light of increasing population growth
and water demands, however, Federal and State regulations to control use have
been established; it is probable that legal rights to utilize water will
become a major factor in regional decisions regarding future energy
development in these areas.
The Yellowstone River Compact of 1950, which provides the basis for
dividing water of the Yellowstone River between the States of Montana,
Wyoming, and North Dakota, is the primary Federal law governing distribution
of surface waters for the Tongue and Powder River Basins. In this law, those
water rights and supplies established prior to 1950 are recognized as first
priority (Missouri River Basin Commission, 1978a). The remaining unused and
unappropriated waters are divided so that Wyoming is allotted 40 percent of
the Tongue River flow and 42 percent of the Powder River, with the remainder
going to Montana. Other major provisions of the act specify that the compact
may not adversely impact any rights to the use of Yellowstone River Basin
waters that are Indian owned nor may water be diverted outside of the
Yellowstone Basin without unanimous permission of those States signing the
compact (Missouri River Basin Commission, 1978a). The latter article has
become highly controversial in recent years because industrial interests and
the State of Wyoming would like to divert water out of the Yellowstone Basin
for energy conversion purposes, while Montana's present position is to
withhold approval of such diversions until agreement is reached as to the
total quantity of water available for consumption by each State (Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 1976a). The compact
contains no water quality provisions but rather relates strictly to diversion
of Yellowstone River Basin waters.
In 1974, the Yellowstone Moratorium was enacted, which suspended for three
years all large applications for water rights permitsi.e., those diversions
greater than 0.57 m^/sec or storage requests greater than 17 million m3
in the Yellowstone River Basin (Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation, 1976a). Furthermore, the moratorium suspended any Federal
61
-------
reservations of water rights during that time and suspended six existing
permit applications for industrial water use (Missouri River Basin Commission,
1978b). Over 30 permit applications were suspended during the period, many of
which are in the Tongue-Powder River Basins examined in this report
(Table 25). The purpose of the moratorium was to allow time to evaluate needs
in the Yellowstone Basins for protection of existing and future beneficial
water uses, including maintenance of minimum instream flow and reservation of
water for agricultural and municipal demands (Montana Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation, 1976a).
The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (1976a)
states: "There is not enough water physically in the Yellowstone basin to
satisfy all reservation requests that have been filed. In addition, due to
legal difficulties, it is not presently known exactly how much unappropriated
water is available." Disputes over water rights on Indian lands and Federal
reservation land (such as National forests), as well as numerous claims by
private individuals or agencies, are presently under litigation. The Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (1976a) has proposed a number
of options for distribution of the suspended water rights based upon the four
major uses to which water would be put in this area: irrigation, municipal,
energy conversion, and instream flows. Which of these options are finally
decided upon will have a major impact on all future development in the Tongue
and Powder River Basins.
WATER AVAILABILITY
Under the terms of the Yellowstone River Compact, continued diversion of
water from the Tongue and Powder Rivers for consumptive use may continue in
Wyoming and Montana so long as flow exists in the tributaries. The Wyoming
State Engineer's Office has estimated that Wyoming's 40 percent allocation of
the Tongue River, after subtracting supplemental irrigation rights and
pre-1950 users, is approximately 119 million nr/yr out of a total river
average of 297 million m3/yr (Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation, 1976a). The average annual quantity available for diversion in
the Powder River Basin is estimated to be 354 million m3/yr, of which
Wyoming is entitled to 149 million m3 (Missouri River Basin Commission,
1978a). Anticipated changes in surface water consumption of the Tongue and
Powder River Basins by the State of Wyoming are shown in Table 26. In both
Montana and Wyoming, additional storage facilities must be developed if any
compact water for these two basins is to be actually available during drought
years, assuming those pre-1950 rights are actually claimed. l
The average annual discharge from the Tongue River, adjusted to 1975
level of development, is 387 million m3; the maximum recorded runoff was
825 million m3 in 1975, and the minimum recorded annual discharge was only
51 thousand m3 in 1961 (Missouri River Basin Commission, 1978b). The
average annual discharge of the Powder River, adjusted according to 1975 level
of depletion, is 522 million m3; maximum recorded runoff reached 1,453
million m3 in 1944, and the minimum recorded annual discharge was 71
thousand m3 in 1961 (Missouri River Basin Commission, 1978b). Table 27
shows the expected increases in water depletion for consumptive use by the
year 2000, projected by the State of Montana at three possible levels of
62
-------
TABLE 25. APPLICATIONS FOR RESERVATIONS OF UATER IN THE TONGUE, POWDER, ROSEBUD,
SARPY, AND ARMELLS CREEK BASINS SUSPENDED BY THE YELLOWSTONE MORATORIUM
IN MONTANA
Applicant
Source
Amount Requested
Use
cr>
Big Horn Conserva-
tion District
Treasure Conserva-
tion District
Rosebud Conserva
tion District
North Custer
Conservation Dis-
trict
Powder River
Conservation Dis-
trict
Department of
Natural Resources
and Conservation
Department of
Natural Resources
and Conservation
Bighorn River,
Tongue River
Yellowstone and Big-
horn Rivers, Sarpy
and Tullock Creeks
Yellowstone,
Tongue Rivers,
Armells, Rosebud
Creeks
Yellowstone River,
Tongue and Powder
Rivers
Powder River,
Tongue River, and
various tributaries
Tongue River
Powder River
and tributaries
4.28 m3/sec:26.2 million m3/yr
3.65 m3/sec:24.6 million m3/yr
16.57 m3/sec:116.1 million m3/yr
20.74 m3/sec:128.7 million m3/yr
16.52 m3/sec:102.4 million m3/yr
555.1 million m3
1,418.5 million m3
Irrigation
(39.03 km2)
Irrigation
(30.94 km2)
Irrigation
(151.19 km2)
Irrigation
(148.50 km2)
Irrigation
(122.36 km2)
Irrigation,
industrial, and
fish and wildlife
Irrigation,
industrial, and
fish and wildlife
Source: Modified from Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (1976a).
-------
TABLE 26. ANTICIPATED CHANGES IN SURFACE WATER DEPLETION LEVELS IN THE TONGUE
AND POWDER RIVER BASINS, NORTHEAST WYOMING
Depletion
River Basin and Use 1985 2000
(m3 x 106)
Tongue River Basin
Irrigation
Municipal and domestic
Livestock
Energy
Total
Powder River Basin
Irrigation
Municipal and domestic
Livestock
Energy
Total
14.8
0.4
1.0
9.2
25.4
18.5
0.2
1.0
16.6
36.3
14.8
0.5
2.0
37.0
54.3
18.5
0.4
2.0
62.9
83.8
Source: Modified from Missouri River Basin Commission (1978a).
development. It can be seen that at the high level of development, the total
expected consumption of the Tongue River would be 201 million m3/yr, and 222
million m-Vyr depletion in the Powder River. Within the region there is
extreme variation in streamflow from year to year and from place to place.
Although the maximum consumptive use values are well under the average annual
flows for both rivers, they far exceed the minimum recorded discharges for
G4
-------
TABLE 27. ANTICIPATED LEVELS OF WATER DEPLETION FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE BY YEAR
2000 IN THE TONGUE AND POWDER RIVER BASINS
Increase in Depletion (m3 yr x 106)
River Basin and Use
Tongue River Basin
Irrigation
Energy
Municipal
Total
Powder River Basin
Irrigation
Energy
Municipal
Total
Low Level
of
Development
18.0
14.1
negligible
32.1
61.8
1.1
0.4
63.3
Intermediate
Level of
Development
36.1
57.8
0.4
94.3
123.7
23.3
0.7
147.7
High Level
of
Development
54.2
145.6
1.0
200.8
185.5
34.7
1.4
221.6
Source: Modified from Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation (1977).
the basins. Flows in the basin areas may also fluctuate throughout a given
year, and it is not unusual for perennial streams to contribute over 80
percent of their annual flow in the months of May, June, and July (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1974). Certainly there will be times when
adequate water supplies will exist to satisfy all consumptive demands.
However, in planning for future development in the basins, it will be
necessary to determine how much water can be reliably counted on as available
throughout the year and from year to year.
65
-------
TONGUE AND POWDER RIVER WITHDRAWALS
Energy Resource Development
Increased energy development in the Tongue and Powder River Basins will
have a significant environmental impact, particularly on water resources of
the region. Surface mining of the enormous coal reserves requires
approximately 0.07 to 0.08 liters of water per kg of coal mined (Adams, 1975).
Conversion of coal into electricity or into natural gas and crude oil requires
large quantities of water. Transport of coal to powerplants, if done by coal
slurry line, can require an additional 2.5 to 3.7 million m3/yr of water to
provide slurry to a 1,000 MW electric generating plant (Adams, 1975). These
water demands are immense since many streams in the resource area are dry much
of the year and ground-water supplies must be carefully mined to avoid
depletion of usable aquifers at a rate in excess of recharge capacity. The
total water consumption demands in the Tongue and Powder River Basins in
Montana expected by the year 2000 (at maximum projected development levels)
are shown in Table 28 (Missouri River Basin Commission, 1978b).
TABLE 28. WATER CONSUMPTION DEMANDS FROM ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
EXPECTED IN THE TONGUE AND POWDER RIVER BASINS BY THE YEAR
2000 AT MAXIMUM PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT LEVELS
Development Water Consumption
(m3 x 106)
Mining 10.6
Reclamation or dust control 31.0
Coal gasification 74.0
Electric generation 17.5
Slurry pipeline 136.8
Total 269.9
Source: Modified from Missouri River Basin Commission (1978b).
66
-------
For purposes of full-scale industrial development in the study basins, it
is likely that transport of water via aqueducts will be more economical than
transport of coal to the water sources, since coal beds subject to development
lie from 32 to 322 km from major water supplies (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
1972). Coal beds along Sarpy and Rosebud Creeks are 32 to 64 km from the
Yellowstone River, the most likely source of water. Beds in the Tongue River
drainage are from 48 to 203 km, and those in the Powder River Basin in Montana
are from 96 to 129 km from the Yellowstone River. The surface reserves
imported from the Yellowstone are enough to adequately and inexpensively
supply the Sarpy and Rosebud Creek area (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1972);
construction of large-capacity aqueducts from the Yellowstone and Bighorn
Rivers to meet industrial demands would be more economical than construction
of several smaller lines from lesser tributaries nearby.
It is predicted that diversion of up to 3.2 billion m3/yr of water will
be necessary to meet future mining industry demands throughout the Tongue and
Powder River Basin study area (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1972). An
estimated 3.9 billion m3 could be obtained from the Yellowstone River and
its tributaries; such withdrawals would leave 2.1 billion m3 in the
Yellowstone during extreme low water years. During an average water year, the
Yellowstone flow would equal 6.9 billion m3 after meeting all existing water
uses and after satisfying projected industrial water needs. Although it
appears, then, that sufficient water will be available to meet all future
municipal, industrial, and agricultural demands in the area, construction of a
number of mainstem or offstream storage facilities would be necessary to
assure an adequate, continuous water supply for anticipated energy developers
(U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1972).
Irrigation
In the Upper Missouri Basin, agriculture, primarily irrigation, accounts
for two-thirds of the surface water withdrawals and over 90 percent of the
consumptive water use (Lord et al., 1975). In the Tongue and Powder River
study areas, irrigation accounts for nearly all water diverted and consumed.
Since 1971, irrigated agriculture in the Yellowstone Basin has been
increasing, mainly as a result of the introduction of sprinkler irrigation
systems (Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 1977).
In the State of Montana, approximately 7.32 km2 of land in the Rosebud
Creek Basin are irrigated, with 13.4 million m3/yr of water diverted from
the creek and 6.3 million m3/yr consumed for these agricultural needs
(Table 29). Over 230.8 million m3/yr of water are diverted from the Tongue
River to irrigate 126.18 km2 of Montana land annually, with 108.5 million
m3/yr, or 47 percent, of that amount consumed (Montana Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation, 1976a). The Powder River and Little Powder River
provide 252.0 million m3 and 50.2 million m3/yr, respectively, for
diversion to irrigate a total of 165.28 km2 of land. Of these diversion
figures, 118.4 million m3 and 23.6 million m3, respectively, are consumed
(Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 1976a). The
irrigation season typically extends from April through October, but over half
of the required water is used in July and August.
67
-------
TABLE 29. TONGUE AND POWDER RIVER BASIN WATERS USED FOR IRRIGATION IN MONTANA (1976)
cr>
CO
Sub basin
Little Powder River
Powder River
Tongue River
Rosebud Creek
Surface Area
(kn»2)
27.46
137.82
126.18
7.32
Total
Annual Diversion
(million m^)
50.2
252.0
230.8
13.4
Total
Annual Depl
(million
23.6
118.4
108.5
6.3
etion
m3)
Source: Modified from Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (1976a).
-------
Throughout the study area there exist numerous private irrigation
diversions built on small storage facilities. In the Montana portion, over
100 smaller users have been issued water rights for irrigation (Montana State
Engineers Office, 1978). Particularly in the Wyoming upstream reaches of the
Tongue and Powder Rivers, there are abundant diversion ditches and livestock
impoundments that somewhat regulate the tributary flows. These direct water
into concrete drainage ditches, small coulees, and ponds for use. Irrigative
systems such as flooding and center- and side-roll sprinklers are thus
supplied with the water needed to irrigate (Toole, 1976).
The Tongue River Reservoir, built in the 1940's, has the largest storage
capacity (85.6 million m3) of any water body used for irrigation in the
study basins. In Wyoming, upstream of the reservoir, 96 smaller users have
been issued water rights for irrigation projects ranging from 0.02 to
2.67 km2, with authorized diversions of from 0.06 to 14.3 million nr/yr
(Wyoming State Board of Control, 1972).
The Powder River currently has no irrigation projects of great size. In
Wyoming, water rights have been issued to 75 appropriators for irrigation of
land in the Powder River Basin, and to 17 individuals for irrigation in the
Little Powder River Basin. These project requests range in size from 0.02 to
2.08 km2 with authorized river diversions ranging from 0.06 to 6.6 million
m3/yr (Wyoming State Board of Control, 1972). In 1949, the Bureau of
Reclamation initiated a project to create Moorhead Dam for expansion of
irrigated lands in the Powder River Basin. However, the project was opposed
by regional cattle owners since the flood waters of the dam would represent a
reduction of approximately 60 km2 of grazing lands (Personal communication,
Glen Smith, Montana Department of Natural Resources, Helena, Montana, 1978)
and, thus, was never completed.
It is expected that irrigation will continue to be the major water use in
this study area even if future energy development should reach maximum
projected levels. The Missouri River Basin Commission (1978a) reports that
late-season water shortages as great as 89.4 million m3 annually are already
occurring in northeastern Wyoming. The problem is aggravated by high
evaporation losses from the many irrigation reservoirs in the basins (Missouri
River Basin Commission, 1978a) and could be expected to become more severe
with increasing energy development activities that would rely on surface water
supplies for support. Nevertheless, with the construction of additional large
storage facilities, sufficient water should be available to support projected
mining and coal conversion facilities without seriously jeopardizing
agricultural water uses (Missouri River Basin Commission, 1978a). It should
be pointed out that this approach considers only water quantity available for
diversion, which is impacted by energy development activities. Industrial
impact on water quality in the basins is discussed later in this report;
nevertheless, it is notable that the Yellowstone-Tongue Areawide Planning
Organization (1977) cites "even at the low projected level of development, the
quality of the water Powder River would be unacceptable for irrigation at
least one year out of two" as a result of industrial water withdrawals that
aggravate the already excessive salinity levels.
69
-------
Municipal and Industrial
There are a variety of additional requirements for water in the Tongue and
Powder River Basins. These include domestic, manufacturing, governmental, and
commercial needs. Although there are many municipal and industrial users in
the study area (Tables 30 and 31), surface water consumption related to these
systems is relatively minor (Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation, 1976a). The Missouri Basin Inter-Agency Committee (1971)
reports that the entire Yellowstone River Basin, with approximately 291,000
public or private water systems, annually withdraws an average of only
50.6 million nP of water for municipal and rural domestic water use. An
additional 129.5 million nr/yr of Yellowstone River Basin water is consumed
for industrial purposes (Missouri Basin Inter-Agency Committee, 1971). Water
consumption for the Tongue and Powder River Basins alone is not known at this
time.
In addition to the consumptive impact on usable water, pollutants
associated with municipal and industrial return flow can substantially impact
downstream users. Municipal areas in the Tongue and Powder Rivers utilize
several waste water facilities to reduce this impact. The large towns
generally are served by trickling filters, activated sludge, and oxidation
ponds and ditches; smaller communities are usually served by private septic
tanks for sewage disposal. Industrial dischargers within the basin areas are
predominately associated with the food producing industry; packing plants,
dairies, and sugar beet and potato processing are among the major industrial
processors in the Northern Great Plains region (Northern Great Plains Resource
Program, 1974). Although surface water withdrawal requirements are presently
low in the study basins, future water requirements can be expected to increase
as a result of population growth, especially in those areas with rapidly
expanding energy development and mining activities. Most of the communities
in the region have plans for larger replacement facilities to accommodate this
anticipated growth (Yellowstone-Tongue Areawide Planning Organization, 1977).
The Missouri River Basin Commission (1978a) reports that between the years
1975 and 2000, municipal and rural domestic water consumption in northeast
Wyoming could increase 11.7 million m^/yr, and industrial-related water
consumption could increase 126.4 million nrVyr. These increases would
result in a total consumptive use of 24.0 million m^/yr for municipal and
domestic uses and 337.3 million m^ for industrial use.
Fish and Wildlife
The allocation of water to fish and wildlife facilities in the study area
will have to follow a coordinated comprehensive plan for the conservation,
development, and management of the waters and related land resources in the
Yellowstone, Tongue, and Powder River Basins if environmental objectives are
to be met. Maintenance of minimum flows in the Tongue River is especially
desirable because of the highly diverse and productive fishery found there.
However, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (1976a)
reports that at present there exists no legal obligation to meet this need.
Therefore, from the standpoint of fish and wildlife objectives, the foremost
need is for environmental legislation at the State level (Missouri River Basin
Commission, 1978a). »
70
-------
TABLE 30. DOMESTIC WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES IN THE TONGUE AND POWDER RIVER BASINS
Source and Location
Midwest (AMOCO)
Ranchcster
Sheridan
Wyoming Soldiers and
Sailors Home, Buffalo
Buffalo
Dayton
Edgerton
Kaycee
Bear Lodge
Resort, Sheridan County
V.A. Hospital,
Sheridan
L1nch
Clearmont
Skelly Truck Stop, Sheridan
Broadus
Forsyth
Lame Deer
Existing Treatment
A. Gas plant camp septic tank/leach
field
B. Town-0.02 km2 lagoon
2-cell lagoon
High-rate trickling filter
Imhoff tank/trickling filter
0.07 km2 lagoon
2 0.01 km2 lagoons
2 0.01 km2 lagoons
A. 0.02 km2 lagoon
B. 3-unlt trailer court septic tank
Extended aeration
2 polishing ponds
Trickling filter
A. 2 lagoons, 0.01 km2
B. Septic tank system-100
people serviced
2 lagoons
Septic tank
Secondary stabilization pond
Secondary stabilization pond
Secondary stabilization pond
Receiving Haters
A. Castle Creek
B. Salt Creek
Tongue River
Goose Creek
Clear Creek
Clear Creek
N/A
N/A
A. Middle Fork
Powder River
B. Unnamed Draw
Little Willow
Creek
Goose Creek
N/A
N/A
N/A
Goose Creek
Powder River
Yellowstone River
Deer Creek
Source: Modified from Missouri River Basin Commission (1978a).
-------
TABLE 31. INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS IN THE TONGUE AND POWDER RIVER BASINS,
NORTHEASTERN WYOMING
User
Receiving Stream
Waste Discharge
Characteristics
Continental Oil Company
Sussex Gasoline Plant,
Li nch
Mullinax Concrete Company,
Sheridan
Buffalo Sand and Gravel
Bighorn Coal Company,
Sheridan
Carter Oil Company,
Gillette
Meadow Creek
Goose Creek
Unnamed draw to
Goose Creek
Goose Creek
Cooling water
Gravel wash water
Occasional wash water
discharged into
natural drainage
Strictly pit water
discharged into
natural drainage
Little Powder River Pit water
Source: Modified from Missouri River Basin Commission (1978a).
Water allocations for fish and wildlife go to refuges, wetlands,
management areas, fish hatcheries, fish impoundments, and maintenance of
instream flows. The Missouri Basin Inter-Agency Committee (1971) has
projected that in the entire Missouri River Basin, from 1980 to 2000, surface
water depletions associated with wetlands and fish and wildlife will increase
from 218.3 million nr to 578.5 million n^ above present levels of
consumption. It is not known at this time what present levels of consumption
related to fish and wildlife are in the Missouri River Basin, nor is that c
information available for the individual basins under study in this report.
At any rate, fish and wildlife are relatively small water "consumers," and
most water depletions can be attributed to hatchery facilities.
Bovee et al. (1977) have demonstrated that consideration of a single
instream use as the basis for a flow recommendation is inadequate.
Methodologies have been developed for measurement of a variety of instream
parameters in the Tongue River. These parameters include sediment transport,
mitigation of adverse impacts of ice, evapotranspiration loss, and fisheries
maintenance including spawning, rearing, and food production. Bovee's field
tests indicate that flow requirements for any particular fishery use vary in
importance throughout the year. In the Tongue River, it was recommended^that
72
-------
during the month of June a base flow of at least 23.6 m3/sec must be
maintained to initiate sediment scour from pools, to provide spawning habitat
for the shovel nose sturgeon, and to accommodate evaporative and transpiration
losses from the river (Bovee et al., 1977). In early February, a base flow of
3.85 nr/sec would be sufficient to provide habitat for fish-rearing
activities and insect fauna, as well as to prevent loss of habitat as a result
of ice formation. The EPA suggests that in late February, the Tongue River
flow should be increased to 12 m3/sec to facilitate ice breakup; following
breakup a return to the 3.85 m3/sec level would be adequate until summer
spawning season begins (Bovee et al., 1977).
Minimum annual runoff levels requested by the Fish and Game Commission in
Montana for a number of tributaries in the study area are shown in Table 32.
These recommended values are considered to be barely sufficient to satisfy
instream flow requirements during the low water months of July through
September- The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
(1976a) notes, however, that if all Fish and Game instream recommendations
were implemented in Otter, Pumpkin, and Hanging Woman Creeks there would be
little surplus water left for other uses. This suggestion was also made by
Shupe (1978), who conducted a study of proposed instream flow requirements and
potential reservoirs in the Powder River. He suggested that instream flow
requirements for continuous discharge of a portion of the storage capacity of
reservoirs reduced water availability for industrial use from 53 to 86
percent. An assessment of the planned Middle Fork (of the Powder River)
Reservoir revealed that, with all instream flow requirements active, the
reservoir would operate at near empty levels much of the time and would
provide less than half the water annually for diversion that would be
available without instream flow criteria (Shupe, 1978). Thus, the recognition
of valid instream flow water rights may play a large role in limiting growth
of energy resource development in the Tongue and Powder River Basins.
Livestock
Livestock account for a substantial portion of the agricultural-related
water use in the Tongue and Powder River Basins. Table 33 shows the 1965
level of consumptive and evaporative losses associated with livestock
facilities in the Yellowstone Basin, as well as projected consumption levels
to the year 2020. Surface water supplies can be expected to continue to
satisfy most livestock demands in this area; the Missouri Basin Inter-Agency
Committee (1971) reports that 58 percent of the 1965 livestock water demands
were met by surface water and projects that by the year 2000 surface water
resources will supply 64 percent of the area! livestock needs.
WATER AVAILABILITY VERSUS DEMAND
The State of Montana has been authorized 60 percent of the annual runoff
of the Tongue River Basin and 58 percent of surface water discharges from the
Powder River as part of the Yellowstone River Compact. At present,
disagreement still exists as to the actual amount of water reliably available
for depletion in either basin by the States of Montana and Wyoming;
nevertheless, water demands in the study area are currently being met with
existing surface and ground-water supplies.
73
-------
TABLE 32. MINIMUM ANNUAL INSTREAM FLOW REQUIREMENTS REQUESTED BY THE MONTANA
FISH AND GAME COMMISSION FOR A NUMBER OF TRIBUTARIES IN THE POWDER
RIVER STUDY AREA
Annual Stream Runoff
Tributary Requirement
(m3 x 106)
Rosebud Creek 14.1
Tongue River 299.8
Hanging Woman Creek 2.3
Otter Creek 2.4
Pumpkin Creek 9.0
Source: Modified from Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservati on (1976a).
The expansion of industry will put increasing stress on the existing water
resources in the basins, and State planning is underway to assure that minimum
stream flows are maintained during low water years. All water rights
applications that have been suspended since 1974 by the Yellowstone Moratorium
are now being considered, and a number of possible alternatives for
distributions of future water rights have been proposed (Montana Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation, 1976b). Whatever final decisions
regarding future developments are reached, however, additional water storage
to regulate the highly unpredictable river flows in the study area will be
necessary to provide reliable year-round water resources.
r
74
r
-------
TABLE 33. PROJECTED AVERAGE ANNUAL LIVESTOCK WATER USE IN THE YELLOWSTONE RIVER BASIN
en
Year
1965
1980
2000
2020
Source
Surface Water Ground Water
(percent)
58
61
64
63
42
38
36
37
Number of
Stock ponds
14,000
19,000
24,000
25,000
Evaporati
85
104
119
104
Water Depletion
on Livestock Consumption
(million nr)
24
38
54
75
Source: Modified from Missouri Basin Inter-Agency Committee (1971).
-------
8. WATER QUALITY
SOURCES OF DATA
Available water quality information was used to assess the impact of
existing energy developments and irrigation projects in the Tongue and Powder
River Basins and to provide baseline data for determining the impact of
proposed developments. Most of the water quality data contained in this
report were obtained through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
computer-oriented system for STOrage and RETrieval of water quality data
(STORET). Other sources of information include government documents and
environmental impact statements. Physical and chemical data evaluated were
primarily from U.S. Geological Survey stations (Tables 34 through 36, Figure
12). Some data collected by the U.S. Forest Service (Tables 35 through 36)
were considered; however, these data were largely incomplete and provided
little supplemental information to the USGS generated STORET data.
SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA
Summarized data for selected parameters are included in Appendix B. These
data are organized by parameter, station number, and year for the period of
1970-77. Station number assignments in the Appendix tables, as well as on
figures in this report, are based upon the last five numerals of the station
STORET codes (Tables 34 through 36).
In Appendix B, data from 43 USGS stations in the Sarpy, Armells, Rosebud,
Tongue, and Powder River Basins are presented. In general, for any given
parameter, the annual arithmetic mean for that parameter at each station is
presented, along with the annual minimum and maximum values and number of
samples collected. It should be noted that no attempt was made to verify data
retrieved from STORET; all parameter measurements were accepted at face value
with the exception of those data that were obviously impossible and were thus
deleted. No summary tables were prepared from the limited USFS data available
in STORET for this area.
IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON SURFACE WATER
Salinity
The Salinity Problem--
Salinity, the total concentration of ionic constituents, is the major
water quality parameter of concern in the Tongue and Powder River Basins.
processes contribute to increases in salinitysalt loading and salt
concentrating. Salt loading, the addition of salts to the water system,
Two
76
-------
TABLE 34. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS IN SARPY, ARMELLS, AND ROSEBUD CREEKS
STORET
Number
Station Name
Latitude/Longitude
06294940
06294980
06294995
06295250
06295350
06295400
06295500
06296003
Sarpy Creek near Hysham, MT
East Fork Armells Creek near Col strip, MT
Armells Creek near Forsyth, MT
Rosebud Creek near Colstrip, MT
Greenleaf Creek near Colstrip, MT
Rosebud Creek above Pony Creek, MT
Rosebud Creek near Rosebud, MT
Rosebud Creek at mouth, near Rosebud, MT
46°14'12"/107008103"
45°58'42lyi06°38'38"
46°14I59I7106°48'22"
45°46I03"/106°34'10"
45°48I57"/106°25I08"
45053'33"/106024'03"
46°06'46"/106027I08"
46015'53"/106°28I30"
-------
TABLE 35. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND U.S. FOREST SERVICE SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE TONGUE RIVER
oo
Station
Number
USGS Stations
06298000
0629998*0
06305500
06306100
06306300
06306800
06307500
06307600
06307610
06307615
06307670
06307740
06307810
06307830
06307840
06308160
06308170
06308190
06308400
06308500
USFS Stations
026301
026302
, 026303
026305
026501
026503
Station Name
Tongue River near Dayton, WY
Tongue River at Monarch, WY
Goose Creek below Sheridan, WY
Squirrel Creek near Decker, MT
Tongue River at State line near Decker, MT
Deer Creek near Decker, MT
Tongue River at Tongue River Dam, MT
Hanging Woman Creek near Birney, MT
Tongue River below Hanging Woman Creek, MT
Cook Creek near Birney, MT
Bear Creek at Otter, MT
Otter Creek at Ashland, MT
Beaver Creek near Ashland, MT
Tongue River below Brandenberg Bridge, MT
Li scorn Creek near Ashland, MT
Pumpkin Creek near Loesch, MT
Little Pumpkin Creek near Volberg, MT
Pumpkin Creek near Volberg, MT
Pumpkin Creek near Miles City, MT
Tongue River at Miles City, MT
>
South Tongue River at USGS 2970
Sibley Lake at SW boat ramp
Prune Creek above Sibley Lake
North Tongue River near Burgess Ranger Station
Big Goose Creek at USGS gage 3020
Little Goose Creek at USGS 3035
Latitude/ Longitude
44050'58"/107018'14"
44°54I08"/107°01I49"
44049I25"/106°57'40"
45003'05"/106055I36"
45000'32"/106050'08"
45003'19"/106°42'09"
45008I29"/106°46'15"
45°17I57"/106030'28"
45020'19"/106°31128"
45°22'39"/106029'45"
45°12'20"/106012'20"
45°35'18"/106°15117"
45047152"/106014'17"
45052'18"/1060iri7"
45°54I09"/106009'51"
45042 '4o"/io5°43' 50"
46°46I00"/105046'42"
45°51I50"/105°40'10"
46°13'42"/105041'24"
46°21I30"/105048'24"
44047'02"/107°28I10"
44°45I00II/107°26I00"
44°45I00"/107026'00"
44047'00"/107032'00"
44°42'08"/107010'51"
44°35I46"/107002'22"
-------
TABLE 36. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND U.S. FOKEST SERVICE SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE POWDER RIVER
Station
Number
USGS Stations
06312500
06313000
06313400
06313500
06316400
06317000
06320200
06320400
06323500
06324000
06324500
06324925
06324970
06326050
06326200
06326300
06326500
USFS Stations
026901
027301
Station Name
Powder River near Kaycee, WY
South Fork Powder River near Kaycee, WY
Salt Creek near Sussex, WY
Powder River at Sussex, WY
Crazy Woman Creek at Upper Station, WY
Powder River at Arvada, WY
Clear Creek below Rock near Buffalo, WY
Clear Creek at Ucross, WY
Piney Creek at Ucross, WY
Clear Creek near Arvada, WY
Powder River at Moorhead, MT
Little Powder River near Weston, WY
Little Powder River above Dry Creek near Weston, WY
Mizpah Creek at Olive, MT
Mizpah Creek near Volborg, MT
Mizpah Creek near Mizpah, MT
Powder River near Locate, MT
Rock Creek at USGS gage 3200 near Buffalo
Clear Creek at USGS gage 3185
Latitude/Longitude
43041'35I7106031'48"
43°37110"/106034'36"
43037122"/106022100"
43°41I53"/106°17I51"
44°29'15I'/106010I25"
44038'45"/106°08I00"
44°21I44"/106°39I13"
44°33'09"/106°32'06"
44°33I45"/106°32I25"
44052I18'7106°04156"
45°04104I7105°52'10"
44°38l511yi05°18l37"
44055145"/105°21'06"
45032'30"/105°31'40"
45°56'00iyi05023'40"
46°15I39II/105°17I34"
46°26'56"/105018'44"
44034'50"/106055'55"
44020I00"/106°46'10"
-------
Figure 12.
Locations of U.S.
Geological Survey sampling
stations in the Sarpy,
Armells, Rosebud, Tongue,
and Powder River Basins.
80
-------
occurs through irrigation return flows, natural sources, and municipal and
industrial wastes. Salt concentrating, reduction of the amount of water
available for dilution of the salts already present in the river system,
results from consumptive uses of the water and from evaporation and
transpiration losses. Of particular significance are salinity levels in the
Powder River, which are among the highest in the entire Northern Great Plains
region (Northern Great Plains Resource Program, 1974).
Ambient Levels--
Total dissolved solids (IDS) concentrations and conductivity levels
provide an indication of the dissolved constituents present in water. Values
for these two parameters (Appendix B), as well as concentrations of each of
the major cations (calcium, sodium, magnesium, potassium) and anions
(bicarbonate, sulfate, chloride) generally increased from upstream to
downstream in the Tongue, Powder, and Rosebud Rivers (Table 37, Figure 13).
In the Tongue River, surface water sample data obtained in 1976 revealed
an increase in average TDS concentration from 138 mg/1 near Dayton, Wyoming,
to 559 mg/1 at Miles City, Montana. In the same stretch of river there was an
average conductivity increase from 270 ymho/cm to 815 ymho/cm during 1976. In
the Powder River, surface water samples showed an increase in average TDS
concentration from 795 mg/1 near Kaycee, Wyoming, to 1330 mg/1 at Locate,
Montana, in 1976. Rosebud Creek stations from near Colstrip, Montana, and at
the mouth near Rosebud demonstrated increases in surface water conductivity
levels from 1249 ymho/cm to 1463 ymho/cm, respectively, and increases in TDS
levels from 807 mg/1 to 991 mg/1 for the same year.
In the upper reaches of the Tongue River, calcium is the major cation
followed by magnesium, sodium, and potassium. In the lower basin, calcium and
sodium codominate, followed by magnesium and potassium. The most abundant
anion in the basin is the bicarbonate ion; however, in the lower basin, mean
sulfate concentrations very nearly achieve levels equivalent to bicarbonate
(Figure 13).
In the upper reaches of the Powder River, calcium is the major cation
followed by sodium, magnesium, and potassium. In the lower basin near Locate,
the sodium ion predominates. Sulfate is the major anion throughout the Powder
River Basin, followed by bicarbonate and chloride; chloride concentrations are
substantially higher in this basin than in any of the other drainage areas
examined in this paper-
In Rosebud Creek, bicarbonate is the major anion in the basin followed by
sulfate and chloride. The most abundant cation in the upper basin is the
magnesium ion; in the lower basin the sodium ion predominates. Carbonate
levels throughout the study area are quite low.
Basin geology is primarily responsible for upper to lower basin shifts in
anion/cation dominances, as well as the distinct differences between ion
81
-------
TABLE 37. DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR CATIONS AND ANIONS AT SELECTED STATIONS IN THE TONGUE, POWDER,
AND ROSEBUD RIVERS, 1974 AND 1976
Tongue River Tongue River Powder River Powder River
near Dayton at Miles City near Kaycee at Locate
Parameter
1974 1976 1974 1976 1974 1976 1974 1976
Conductivity 223
(ymho/cm)
TDS (mg/1) 133
Calcium 31
(mg/1)
Sodium 2
(mg/1)
Magnesium 12
(mg/1)
Potassium 1
(mg/1)
Bicarbonate 146
(mg/1)
Sulfate 6
Chloride 2
(mg/1)
270 878
138 549
33 63
2 58
12 44
1 5
154 284
6 228
1 4
815 1334
559 941
61 125
65 109
43 49
4 3
280 237
237 461
4 61
2273 1879
795 1420 1330
107 130 118
94 263 246
39 59 51
387
208 323 278
394 647 665
43 143 96
Rosebud Creek Rosebud Creek
near Colstrip at mouth
1974 1976 1974 1976
1457
821
78
70
94
11
524
283
5
1249 1477
807 933
77 79
69 106
90 93
9 10
476 501
300 377
5 6
1463
991
78
114
99
10
495
422
6
-------
Tongue River Near Dayton
138
Tongue River at Miles City
I
559
I
I
I
I
200 100 0 100 200 300
(mg/l - cations) (mg/l - anions)
Powder River Near Kaycee
795
Powder River at Locate
I
I
I
1330
I I
I
I
I
I
I
_L
300 200 1,00
(mg/l - cations)
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
(mg/t - anions)
Rosebud Creek Near Colstrip
807
Rosebud Creek at Mouth
I
c
Mg
Legend
\
:?
^k f*f\
Ntl TDS ""«
(mg/l)
200 100
(mg/l - cations)
100 200 300 400 500 600
(mg/l - anions)
Figure 13. Distribution of major cations and anions at selected
stations in the Tongue, Powder, and Rosebud River Basins,
1976.
83
-------
composition among the river basins (Figure 13) in this study area. Knapton
and McKinley (1977) state:
"The variations described above in streamflow, water types, and
dissolved solids concentrations in Rosebud Creek are primarily a
function of the basin geology and in part seem to be associated with
geologic formations. Changes in water type seem to be more prevalent
where the channel intersects the Hell Creek Formation between the two
downstream stations. The abnormal consistency in dissolved solids
concentration between the middle stations occurred where the stream has
eroded through the Lebo and Tullock Members of the Fort Union Formation."
In all of the study basins except for Rosebud Creek, the ionic composition
of the base flow waters (ground water) is a sodium sulfate type (Knapton and
McKinley, 1977). Sodium sulfate dominance is characteristic of waters flowing
through clay materials and shale, both of which are prevalent in drainages of
the Fort Union Formation. An increase in ground-water contribution to the
surface flow of this area is reflected by the increasing levels of sodium
sulfate in downstream waters of the basins (Knapton and McKinley, 1977).
In the upstream reaches of the tributaries, surface runoff from snowmelt
or rain make up a greater percentage of the flow, and ionic composition is
generally dominated by calcium bicarbonate or magnesium bicarbonate with low
concentrations of total dissolved solids (Knapton and McKinley, 1977). Sodium
and sulfate ions leach out of surface soils to the deep soil zones and are
more readily available to subsurface waters than surface flows. Calcium and
magnesium are thus left as the most soluble cations in the surface soils. The
shift to anion dominance by bicarbonate is probably the result of biochemical
activity within surface soils reacting with carbon dioxide provided by the
atmosphere (Knapton and McKinley, 1977).
Both the concentrations and composition of dissolved solids in the study
tributaries vary with flow. Ion concentrations tend to increase as flow
decreases; chemical composition generally shifts from calcium bicarbonate
dominance, during high flow periods when surface water is the main contributor
to flow, to sodium sulfate dominance during medium and low flows (Knapton and
McKinley, 1977). Fluctuations in flow play a major role in the large seasonal
variations of dissolved solids concentrations observed in the basins, tending
generally to be high during low runoff times and low during periods of high
flow. In the Tongue River, changes in water types below the Tongue River
Reservoir are also the result of water releases from the dam. If water stored
in the reservoir before release has been primarily from base flow, or ground
water, then water below the dam tends to be of the magnesium sulfate or
magnesium bicarbonate type (Knapton and McKinley, 1977). If the base flow
component in storage has been mixed with a large percentage of spring runoff,
water releases tend to be of a calcium bicarbonate type. It is interesting
to note that in the Tongue River at Miles City water type is highly variable
and does not seem to be clearly correlated with either total dissolved solids
levels or flow (Knapton and McKinley, 1977).
84
-------
Sources--
Man's industrial activities increase IDS levels primarily through salt
loading processes. Oil field operations substantially increase salinity
levels in the Powder River Basin. Segments of the Powder River below its
confluence with Salt Creek, a stream that consists mainly of wastewater from
oil field operations, are classified as problem areas because of high salt
concentrations (Missouri River Basin Commission, 1978a)- In 1978, Salt Creek
added 47 percent of the salinity recorded in the Powder River at Sussex; the
Missouri River Basin Commission (1978a) reports that most oil treaters on Salt
Creek are in compliance with permit discharge requirements, and thus salinity
levels in the Powder River are not likely to decrease in the near future
unless permit requirements were to be reevaluated and modified to maintain
higher water quality in the Powder River Basin.
Mining also increases IDS levels through salt loading. Uangsness (1977)
showed that ponds formed in abandoned open mining pits near Sheridan contained
salt levels as much as an order of magnitude higher than control ponds outside
of the old mining area. Studies done in the vicinity of Bighorn Mine, Wyoming
(Dettman et al., 1976), indicate that concentrations in Goose Creek are 50
percent higher than those in the Tongue River upstream from the mine, although
they are qualitatively similar. In particular, samples from mine discharges
showed large increases in sodium and sulfate concentrations over ambient river
levels. However, the impact of mining discharges in this area is highly
dependent upon surface discharge levels. During periods of high flow, pumped
mine effluents to the Tongue River are greatly diluted, and less severely
affect the river water quality than in times of low river discharge during
late summer and fall. Dettman et al. (1976) report "While present water
quality impacts of the Bighorn Mine are probably small and variable,
substantial expansion activities along the river could result in significant
water quality impacts." The same could be said of all mining activities in
the study basins.
Irrigation activities increase salinity levels in the basins. It is
estimated (Northern Great Plains Resource Program, 1974) that as much as 60
percent of the total water applied for irrigation may be lost to
evapotranspiration. Since this lost water is salt free, the net effect of
this concentration can be over twofold increases in salt levels in the
irrigation return flows. Irrigation contributions to salinity through the
salt loading process vary with areal soil type, subsurface geology, and use of
fertilizers or other agricultural chemicals (Northern Great Plains Resource
Program, 1974). In the vicinity of Hysham on Sarpy Creek and in the Tongue
River Basin near Miles City, improper irrigation practices also contribute to
problem ground-water salinity levels (Yellowstone-Tongue Areawide Planning
Organization, 1977). Discharge of this saline water to surface drainages,
particularly during seasonal low flow, is another irrigation-related source of
water quality degradation in the basins. The Yellowstone-Tongue Areawide
Planning Organization (1977) anticipates that eventually irrigation return
flow permits will be required by agricultural users in the region in an
attempt to reduce return flow salinity impacts.
85
-------
Finally, the construction of supplemental reservoirs on the Tongue and
Powder Rivers may have some impact on water quality. Alterations of instream
flow regimes will be the greatest impact; dams will change the Powder and
upper Tongue Rivers from free-flowing to regulated discharges. Overall water
quality, however, is not anticipated to be greatly affected by additional
impoundments if they are properly constructed. Deep reservoirs with low
surface-area-to-volume ratios, such as the present Tongue River Reservoir,
typically exhibit little influence on water quality other than to reduce the
variability of parameters downstream. For example, the annual average
increase in conductivity from USGS stations in the Tongue River at the
Montana-Wyoming State line to just below the reservoir was only 1 ymho, and
dissolved solids levels actually fell from a mean value of 453.8 mg/1 to
434.8 mg/1 (based on STORET data from 1975 to present). On the other hand,
shallow reservoirs with low surface-to-volume ratios may have large relative
evaporation rates and result in substantial increases in salinity and
temperature in downstream waters. Careful consideration of reservoir sites,
resultant reservoir hydrography, and projected impact on water quality should
be made prior to approval of construction.
Impact--
The EPA water quality criterion for both chlorides and sulfates (Table 38)
in domestic water supplies is 250 mg/1 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1976b). The sulfate criterion was imposed because of the anion's cathartic
effect especially when associated with magnesium and sodium. Chloride levels
in excess of the 250 mg/1 criterion, particularly in association with calcium
and magnesium, tend to produce problems in corrosiveness. Both cations affect
water taste when present in concentrations in excess of 300 to 500 mg/1 (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976b).
The sulfate criterion has been exceeded between 1974 and 1977 at every
USGS station in the study area except for Greenleaf Creek near Colstrip, the
Tongue River stations near Dayton, and at Monarch, Fourmile Creek near Birney,
and Li scorn Creek near Ashland. At all these stations water flows only
intermittently in response to snowmelt and rainfall; fast runoff over frozen
ground allows limited dissolution to occur, so water is characteristically
calcium bicarbonate type with low sulfate concentrations. Chloride levels in
excess of the EPA criterion were reported at only six USGS stations, all of
which are in the Powder River Basin: Armells Creek near Forsyth, Clear Creek
at Arvada, South Fork Powder River near Kaycee, Salt Creek near Sussex, and
Powder River stations at Moorhead, Sussex, and Arvada. The highest chloride
levels were reported at the Salt Creek site, with concentrations in excess of
1,000 mg/1 commonly observed.
The State of Montana has initiated a salinity standard of 500 mg/1 in
the Tongue River at the Wyoming-Montana State line (Personal communication, C.
Murray, U.S. EPA, Denver, Colorado, 1978). Data collected by the USGS
(Appendix B) show mean annual TDS concentrations ranging from 416 mg/1 to
520 mg/1 during the years 1970-77. If the standard of 500 mg/1 is to be met,
significant impact to the agricultural industry in Wyoming, and perhaps to
mining activities in the vicinity of Sheridan, can be expected.
86
-------
00
TABLE 38. WATER
(1973)*
QUALITY CRITERIA RECOMMENDED BY THE
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
SCIENCE
Criteria For
Parameter
(total form)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl 1 1 urn
Boron
Cadmium
Chlorides
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Dissolved Oxygen
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrate nitrogen
Nitrite nitrogen
pH
Selenium
Silver
Sul fates
Vanadium
Zinc
Drinking Water
(mg/1)
0.05t
l.Ot
.-
o.oit
250tt
O.OBt
l.Ott
0.2
1.4-2.4t
0.3tt
O.OBt
o.ostt
0.002t
__
io.ot
1.0
5.0-9.0
o.oit
o.ost
250H
..
5.0tt
Livestock
(mg/1)
5.0
0.2
__
--
5.0
0.05
--
1.0
0.5
2.0
__
0.05-0.1
0.01
--
100.0
10.0
--
0.05
--
0.1
25.0
Aquatic Life
(mg/1)
.-
_
0. 011-1. lOOtt
0. 0004-0. 012tt
.-
o.itt
AFttt
o.oostt
5.0
_.
l.Ott
0.03
0.05 iig/ltt
AF
--
6.5-9.0
..
AF
Irrigation
(mg/1)
5.0
O.ltt
__
0.1-0.5tt
0.75tt
0.01
--
0.1
0.2
1.0
5.0
5.0
2.5
0.2
0.01
0.2
0.02
--
0.1
2.0
*Those parameters for which drinking water regulations (1975) or quality criteria
(1976b) have been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are
specially indicated, and in this table replace the older NAS recommended levels.
tu.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1975).
ttu.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1976b).
tttAF = Application factor. Indicates criterion for this parameter must be
separately established for each water body.
-------
Tables of water hardness in the study basins are presented in Appendix B,
Sawyer's classification of water according to hardness content (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 197Gb) is given in Table 39.
TABLE 39. SAWYER'S CLASSIFICATION OF WATER ACCORDING TO HARDNESS CONTENT
Concentration
of CaC03 (mg/1) Description
0-75 Soft
75 - 150 Moderately hard
150 - 300 Hard
300 and up Very Hard
Source: Modified from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1976b).
By this classification, Greenleaf Creek in the Rosebud River Basin and
Li scorn Creek in the Tongue River Basin are the only soft-water streams in the
study area. The Tongue and Powder Rivers progress from moderately hard at
their headwaters to very hard near Miles City and Locate, respectively.
Stations in Sarpy, Armells, and Rosebud Creek Basins, except for Greenleaf
Creek, are classified as very hard. It should be noted that these hardness
classifications are based on mean annual values, but within a given stream
there is frequently large variation in hardness content across time. This
variability is largely associated with changes in ion dominance resulting from
periods of high runoff. For example, stations such as the Tongue River at
Miles City, which are basically hard water and sodium sulfate in composition,
become soft during high flow periods when calcium replaces sodium as the
dominant cation.
High salinity concentrations and hard water have several adverse effects
on municipal needs aside from lowering drinking water quality. If water
softening is not practiced, soap and detergent consumption increases,
resulting in increased nutrients and other environmental pollution, and
treatment costs rise with the degree of hardness. Dissolved solids and
hardness also play a role in corrosion, scaling of metal water pipes and
heaters, and acceleration of fabric wear (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1976b).
88
-------
Descriptions of the impact of total dissolved solid concentrations on
irrigation waters in arid and semiarid areas are presented in Table 40 (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976b). Mean annual IDS values for Greenleaf
Creek, the Tongue River stations at Dayton, Monarch, and below Hanging Woman
Creek, Goose Creek, Li scorn Creek, Fourmile Creek, and the North Fork Powder
River stations below Johnson City and above Gardner (Appendix B) have not been
in excess of the 500 mg/1 limit for the time period 1970-77. Mean annual TDS
levels in excess of 2,000 mg/1 (i.e., water that can be used only for tolerant
plants on permeable soils) have been reported at many stations including
Armells and Pumpkin Creeks, Mizpah Creek at Olive and Volborg, Deer, Otter,
Beaver, and Salt Creeks, the Powder River at Sussex, and the South Fork Powder
River at Kaycee. However, information on some of the tributaries, such as
Greenleaf, Fourmile, and Liscom Creeks, is based on very limited data.
TABLE 40. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS HAZARD FOR IRRIGATION WATER (mg/1)
Description TDS
Water from which no detrimental effects will 500
usually be noticed
Water that can have detrimental effects on 500-1,000
sensitive crops
Water that may have adverse effects on many crops 1,000-2,000
and requires careful management practices
Water that can be used for tolerant plants on 2,000-5,000
permeable soils with careful management practices
Source: Modified from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1976b).
Variability about the mean TDS levels is primarily influenced in the study
basins by the degree of surface runoff. During spring and early summer
periods of high flow, surface flows are dominated by water from rainfall and
snowmelt and TDS levels are typically low. Later in the year, flows are
reduced, ground water flowing to the surface comprises a larger percentage of
the available surface flow, and TDS levels are increased. Those reaches of
the tributaries subject to ponding also increase total dissolved solid levels
through evaporation and transpiration. Knapton and McKinley (1977) report
that the lowest reported TDS level in Otter Creek (228 mg/1) actually resulted
89
-------
in the highest loading (160,539 kg/day) because of the high discharge of the
period. In the Tongue River, some variability in total dissolved solid
concentrations can also be attributed to periodic dam closures (Knapton and
McKinley, 1977).
Excessive salinity in irrigation water reduces crop yields, limits the
types of crops grown in an area, and can affect soil structure, permeability,
and aeration (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1975). Salt adversely impacts
plants primarily by decreasing osmotic action and thereby reducing water
uptake. Most of the land in the study area is used for agricultural purposes,
with abundant cattle and sheep grazing and alfalfa, hay, and sugar beets the
major irrigated crops (Knapton and McKinley, 1977). However, high salinity
levels restrict the variety of crops that can be suitably grown in the basins,
and in a number of the smaller tributaries flood irrigation is able to be
practiced only along stream channels during high runoff periods when total
dissolved solids and sulfate levels are substantially reduced.
The effects of salinity on irrigation are determined, not only by the
total amount of dissolved solids present, but also by the individual ionic
composition of the water (Utah State University, 1975). Certain plants are
sensitive to high concentrations of sulfates and chlorides. Large amounts of
calcium can inhibit potassium uptake. Sodium causes plant damage at high
concentrations because it increases osmotic pressure and is toxic to some
metabolic processes. It can also affect soils adversely by breaking down
granular structure, decreasing permeability, and increasing pH values to those
of alkaline soils. In 1954 the U.S. Salinity Laboratory proposed that the
sodium hazard in irrigation water be expressed as the sodium absorption ratio
(SAR), SAR = Na//K(Ca + Mg) where Na, Ca, and Mg are expressed as
concentrations in milliequivalents per liter of water (McKee and Wolf, 1963).
Sodium levels are high throughout much of this report's study area. The
National Academy of Sciences (1973) suggested 270 mg/1 as the maximum
recommended sodium level in drinking water supplies. Mean sodium levels
(Appendix B) in many of the intermittently flowing tributaries in both the
Tongue and Powder River Basins, such as Deer, Pumpkin, and Mizpah Creeks,
generally exceed this recommended level, as do sodium concentrations in the
Powder River mainstem below Sussex. Sodium absorption,ratios are highly
variable throughout the basin and range from low to very high: the maximum
value reported in STORET was SAR = 50 at Salt Creek near Sussex. The sodium
hazards for most of the tributaries examined in this area were low to
moderate.
Throughout much of the study area, such as in Arrnells Creek, water is used
almost exclusively for stock-watering purposes. Total dissolved solid
concentrations in the basins are not generally restrictive to livestock
(Table 41) although sulfate levels are near restrictive in some cases. Almost
all the tributaries studied have numerous small stock pond dams in their upper
drainages that are factors in flow regulation and sporadic release of ions
during high runoff (Knapton and McKinley, 1977).
90
-------
TABLE 41. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS HAZARD FOR WATER USED BY LIVESTOCK (mg/1)
TDS Content
in Water
(mg/1)
Comment
<1,000
1,000-2,999
3,000-4,999
5,000-6,999
7,000-10,000
>10,000
Relatively low level of salinity. Excellent for all
classes of livestock and poultry.
Very satisfactory for all classes of livestock and
poultry. May cause watery droppings in poultry or
temporary and mild diarrhea in livestock not
accustomed to such TDS levels.
Satisfactory for livestock but may cause temporary
diarrhea or be refused at first by animals not
accustomed to them. Poor waters for poultry, often
causing water feces, increased mortality, and
decreased growth, especially in turkeys.
Can be used with reasonable safety for dairy and beef
cattle, for sheep, swine, and horses. Avoid use for
pregnant or lactating animals. Not acceptable for
poultry.
Unfit for poultry and probably for swine.
Considerable risk in using for pregnant or lactating
cows, horses, or sheep, or for the young of these
species. In general, use should be avoided although
older ruminants, horses, poultry, and swine may
subsist on them under certain conditions.
Risks with these highly saline waters are so great
that they cannot be recommended for use under any
conditions.
Source: Modified from National Academy of Sciences (1973).
Industrial users may be severely affected through use of water for cooling
or washing purposes that is high in total dissolved solids. Such water may
result in corrosion and encrustation of the metallic surfaces of pipes,
condensers, or other machinery parts. However, industrial requirements for
purity of water vary considerably (Table 42). Examination of TDS levels in
Rosebud Creek, the Wyoming portions of the Tongue River Basin, and a few of
the uppermost stations in the Powder River Basin (Appendix B) indicate that
91
-------
most industrial needs could be met in those areas without any water treatment
efforts. However, at the remaining stations, mean annual IDS levels tend to
be in excess of 1,500 mg/1 and some form of deionization would be required for
some industrial uses. This could be a primary factor limiting future
industrial advancement in the study area.
The impact of salinity on fish and wildlife is highly variable. Many
fish, for example, tolerate a wide range of total dissolved solid
concentrations; the whitefish can reportedly survive in waters containing TDS
levels as high as 15,000 mg/1, and the stickleback can survive in
concentrations up to 20,000 mg/1 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1976b). However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1976b) reports
that generally water systems with TDS levels in excess of 15,000 mg/1 are
unsuitable for most freshwater fish. In the Tongue and Powder River Basin
areas, TDS levels are well below this recommended maximum figure.
TABLE 42. MAXIMUM TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS OF SURFACE WATERS
RECOMMENDED FOR USE AS SOURCES FOR INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLIES
Industry/Use Maximum Concentration
(mg/1)
Textile 150
Pulp and paper 1,080
Chemical 2,500
Petroleum 3,500
Primary metals 1,500
Copper mining 2,100
Boiler makeup 35,000
Source: Modified from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1976b).
92
-------
Toxic Substances
Trace Elements--
The primary source of trace elements in the Tongue and Powder River
watersheds is surface runoff following thunderstorms. The Missouri River
Basin Commission (1978a) reported the following observation from a water
quality assessment of the 1976 water year:
"Segments of tne Powder River are affected primarily by high levels
of sediment, salinity, and trace metals due to natural runoff and erosion.
This is particularly evident at Arvada, where excesses of Cd, Cr, Hg, and
Fe criteria occur during periods of high runoff."
Knapton and McKinley (1977) also cite numerous instances in the Rosebud and
Tongue Rivers to demonstrate that high trace element concentrations in those
drainages are associated with periods of highest flow and suspended sediment
concentrations.
Energy development may influence trace element levels in several ways.
Additional trace elements, particularly iron, aluminum, manganese, cobalt,
nickel, and zinc, may be added to the river through runoff from strip mine
tailings and coal storage (Wewerka et al., 1976) or through erosion of soils
in disrupted areas. Table 43 presents the elemental composition of coal from
a number of fields throughout the western energy development region, including
coal from the Rosebud seam and the Powder River Basin.
Although none of the energy developers in the study basins are discharging
untreated waste waters directly to surface or ground water systems, indirect
runoff of effluents released from evaporative ponds to ground water or through
overflow during storms pose a significant potential water quality threat
(University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation, 1977a). Reduction of water
quantity from the developments and irrigation projects may also result in
increased trace element concentrations in basin waters. Furthermore, trace
elements in stack emissions from future coal fired powerplants, particularly
copper, mercury, cadmium, zinc, lead, arsenic, and selenium, may be deposited
in the drainage basins and can then reach the river through runoff (Northern
Great Plains Resource Program, 1974).
Mercury concentrations in surface water samples from 1974 to 1977 exceeded
the EPA's recommended criterion for aquatic life (Table 38) at all five of the
Rosebud Creek stations and at most of the USGS stations in the Tongue and
Powder Rivers. Maximum concentrations were highest in the Rosebud Creek
stations below Rosebud and at the mouth (1.2 yg/1), at Clear Creek near Arvada
(2.0 yg/1), at Little Powder River above Dry Creek (1.4 ug/1), and at the
South Fork Powder River near Kaycee (2.1 yg/l). The Environmental Protection
Agency (1976b) aquatic life criterion of 0.05 yg/1 for mercury in water was
established to insure safe levels in edible fish; the Clear Creek and South
Fork Powder River stations were also in excess of recommended EPA criteria for
mercury levels in drinking water. Those beneficial uses impacted by mercury
and other trace element levels in excess of recommended criteria throughout
the Tongue and Powder River study area are presented in Table 44.
93
-------
TABLE 43. ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION OF COAL \mg/kg) FROM A NUMBER OF COAL FIELDS
THROUGHOUT THE WESTERN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AREAS
10
Navajo Navajo
Coal, Overburden, 3 - NGP
Arizona Arizona Coals
Ag
Al
As
Au
B
Ba
Be
Bi
Br
Ca
Cd
Ce
C1
Co
Cr
Cs
Cu
oy
Er
Eu
F
Fe
Ga
Gd
Ge
Hf
Hg
Ho
t
Ir
In
K
La
Li
Lu
<5
1.2 2.0
<0.1
75. 41
140. 717
3.4 <1
<0.1 <30
1.7
0.7 <10
15.0
1.6 23
4.6 16
0.2
44.0 40
0.7
0.2
0.5
210.0 417
12 27
<0.3
0.9 <10
0.4
0.01 0.06
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
10.0
85.0 83
0.03-0.05
7,000-25,000
0.8-8.0
31-150
130-460
0.3-0.8
1,000-2,000
<0.1-0.2
9.4-55
0.8-2
9-21
10-34
3
57-140
2,000-8,000
0.07-0.14
Black
Mesa
Field,
Arizona
.
7,300
1.3
17
_
0.20
4.0
24,700
<0.2
«
100
7.0
5.0
22
-
-
39
5,500
1.6
2.0
_
0.06
.
_
200
-
-
Rosebud
Seam,
Montana
17,000
1.2
92
V
1.0
20
16,500
<0.4
_
200
2.0
5.0
18
-
-
42
6,000
3.5
3.0
«
0.09
-
.
1,100
.
-
Powder
River
Basin
Composite,
Montana
0.01
5,100
1.0
32
600
<0.10
0.90
13,000
<0.10
2.8
100
0.71
7.0
0.14
10
0.39
0.10
50
5,000
1.1
<0.10
0.34
0.13
<0.50
<0.02
100
2.5
0.05
Powder
River
Basin
Composite,
Wyoml ng
0.03
4,900
0.82
28
360
0.15
1.7
18,000
<0.10
14
100
1.8
11
0.05
12
0.66
0.22
46
3,000
1.6
<0.10
0.77
0.63
0.47
0.07
100
4.3
0.07
Green
River
Basin,
Uyomi ng
0.03
16,000
1.7
74
160
0.34
2.5
34,000
<0.20
19
200
2.0
15
0.80
16
1.0
0.33
85
4,000
6.5
1.0
0.87
0.12
<0.3
0.12
1,000
9.3
0.10
Hanna
Basin,
Wyoml ng
0.04
15,000
3.9
49
430
0.30
1.2
9,900
<0.10
30
100
2.8
20
0.20
23
1.3
0.42
120
7,000
2.9
0.30
1.1
0.10
<0.3
0.14
1,000
11
<0.03
Madge,
Colorado
^
18,200
0.50
140
,
0.80
19
6,200
<0.4
-
200
2.0
5.0
_
10
-
-
110
3,400
3.7
3.0
_
0.02
-
_
1,200
-
-
Hasatch
Plateau,
Utah
7,200
0.50
-
_
0.40
23
9,300
<0.2
-
300
2.0
7.0
«
11
-
-
50
4,800
1.6
1.0
.
0.04
-
..
200
-
-
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 43. (Continued)
10
en
Black
Navajo Navajo Mesa
Coal, Overburden, 3 - NGP Field,
Arizona Arizona Coals Arizona
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Nb
Nd
Ni
Os
P
Pb
Pd
Pr
Pt
Rb
S
Sb
Sc
Se
Si
Sm
Sn
Sr
Ta
Tb
Te
Th
Ti
Tl
U
V
H
Y
Yb
Zn
Zr
130 455
4.9 <10
5.6 <20
19
<0.1
5.5 36
<0.1
3i4
<0.1
4.6
0.4 0.5
4.0 10
0.7 <0.5
0.7
1.4 <5
53 133
0.4
0.2
3.6
0.7
21.0 35
6.9
13.0
12 38
140 142
2,000-4,000 700
24-170 6.0
0.6-4 2.0
890
2-9 5.0
130
0.9-4.2 4.0
..
4,400-7,200 4,200
0.01-0.5 0.3
.
1.3-2.2 1.2
12,500
-
_
-
-
-
_
350-1,100 500
-
0.9-1.5
15-51 17
.
.
4-24 15
Rosebud
Seam,
Montana
2,300
100
30
200
4.0
48
7.0
.
11,100
0.90
.
0.80
30,900
-
_
-
-
-
_
600
-
-
14
_
-
12
170
Powder
River
Basin
Composite,
Montana
400
14
2.0
2,700
3.1
92
0.95
0.30
7,200
0.44
1.0
0.87
5,300
0.39
<0.10
390
0.04
0.08
0.62
500
-
<1.0
11
0.76
0.13
2.0
14
Powder
River
Basin
Composite,
Wyomi ng
1,200
41
0.40
6,000
4.8
150
1.3
<1.0
6.400
0.20
2.1
2.3
5,500
0.70
<0.20
200
0.11
0.36
1.9
500
0.76
14
0.13
0.43
3.0
22
Green
River
Basin,
Wyomi ng
1,700
150
0.30
100
6.4
150
5.0
9.0
6,900
0.76
3.9
2.4
31,000
1.4
<0.4
160
0.33
0.20
4.4
700
2.5
4.0
0.66
0.67
5.0
24
Hanna
Basin,
Wyomi ng
1,300
48
1.0
100
6.8
510
5.0
13
12,400
0.39
4.5
2.1
23,000
0.36
<0.3
280
0.26
0.58
5.4
1,000
-
2.4
43
0.73
0.52
17
30
Wadge ,
Colorado
900
12
2.0
280
3.0
400
5.0
.
5,500
0.2
.
1.0
33,200
-
5.0
-
-
-
,
600
-
-
14
_
-
7.0
25
Wasatch
Plateau,
Utah
300
<8.0
1.0
2,000
4.0
80
4.0
-
6,900
0.2
-
1.2
19,900
-
_
-
-
-
_
600
-
-
11
-
-
1.3
74
Note: Blanks indicate no analysis, - indicates analysis attempted, element was below
detection limits.
-------
TABLE 44. PARAMETERS EXCEEDING EPA (1976b) OR NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (1973)
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA, 1974-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY STATIONS IN
SARPY, ARMELLS, ROSEBUD, TONGUE, AND POWDER RIVER BASINS
10
Station
Number*
Sarpy Creek
9494
Armells Creek
9498
9499
Rosebud Creek
9525
9535
9540
9550
9600
Tongue River
9800
9998
0550
0610
0630
0680
0750
0760
0761
0761-5
0767
0774
0781
0783
0784
0816
0817
0819
0840
0850
Cadmium**
AL.DW.I
AL.DW.I
AL.DW.I
ALt.DW.I
ALt.DW.I
AL.DW.I
ALt.DW.I
AL.DW.I
ALt.DW.I
ALt.DW.I
ALt.DW.I
ALt.DW.I
ALt.DW.I
AL.DW.I
ALT.DW.I
AL.DW.I
ALt.DW.I
AL.DW.I
ALT.DW.I
ALt.DW.I
AL.DW.I
ALt.DW.I
ALt.DW.I
ALt.DW.I
ALt.DW.I
AL.DW.I
AL.DW.I
Iron
AL.DW.I
AL.DW
AL.DW.I
AL.DW.I
AL.DW
AL.DW.I
AL.DW.I
AL.DW.l
DW
AL.DW
AL.DW
AL.DW.I
AL.DW
AL.DW.I
DW
AL.DW.I
AL.DW
AL.DW
AL.DW
AL.DW
AL.DW
AL.DW.I
AL.DW
AL.DW
DW
AL.DW
AL.nw.i
Lead**
Manganese
AL.DW.Lt DW.I
AL.DW.Lt DW.I
AL.DW.Lt DW.I
AL.DW.Lt DW.I
AL.DW.Lt DW
AL.DW.Lt DW.I
AL.DW.Lt DW,!
AL.DW.Lt DW.I
AL.DW.Lt DW
Mercury
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
Sulfates Aluminum Chromium Fluoride Dissolved Copper Beryllium
Oxygen
DW AL
DW
DW I.L DW I ALt
DW I.L
DW
DW I.L
DW
AL.DW.Lt DW
AL.DW.Lt DW
AL.DW.LT DW
AL.DW.Lt DW.I
AL.DW.I.
DW.I
AL.DW.Lt DW
AL.DW.L
AL.DW.L
AL.DW.L
AL.DW.L
AL.DW.L
AL.DW.L
AL.DW.L
DW.I
DW
DW
DW
DW.I
DW
DW.I
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL.DW.Lt
AL.DW.Lt DW.I
AL.DW.Lt DW
AL.DW.L
DW
AL.OW.Lt DW.I
AL
AL
DW I.L
DW DW
DW
DW DW
DW
DW
DW I
DW
DW
DW DW AL
DW
DW I.L
DW AL
DW
DW
DW
DW DW
*For full description of stations, see Tables 34-36. Beneficial use codes are designated
as follows: AL=aquatic life, DW=drinking water, L=livestock, I=irrigation.
e*Most observed concentrations are below detection range; minimum detection value, however,
exceeds indicated criteria.
tValues reported greater than the criterion range lowest value.
-------
TABLE 44. (Continued)
10
Station
Number*
Powder River
1250
1300
1340
1350
1640
1700
2020
2040
2350
2400
2450
2492
2497
2605
2620
2630
2650
Cadmium** Iron
AL.DW.I.L AL.DW.I
AL.DH.I AL.DW.I
AL.DW.I
ALT.DW,
ALt.DW,
ALt.DW,
ALt.DW,
ALt.DW,
ALt.DW,
AL.DW.I
ALt.DW,
ALt.DH,
ALt.DW,
AL.DW.I
AL.DW.I
AL.DW.I
AL.DH
AL.DW
DW
AL.DW.I
AL.DW.I
AL.DW.I
AL.DW.I
DW
AL.OH.I DW
AL.DW.I AL.DW.I
AL.DW.I AL.DW.I
Lead**
AL.DW.L
AL.DW.L
AL.DW.Lt
AL.DW.LT
AL.DW.L
AL.DW.Lt
AL.DW.Lt
AL.DW.Lt
AL.DW.L
AL.DW.L
AL.DW.Lt
AL.DW.L
AL.DW.Lt
AL.DW.Lt
AL.DW.L
AL.DW.L
Manganese
DW.I
DU.I
DH
DW
DW.I
DW
DW
DW
DW.I
DH.I
DW,
DW,
DH,
DW,
OW,
DH,
Mercury
AL.DU
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL.DU
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
Sul fates
DW
DH
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DH
DW
DU
DH
DH
DH
DH
DW
Aluminum Chromium FlouHde Dissolved
Oxygen
I.L
I.L
I.L
I.L
I.L
I.L
I.L
I.L
AL.DH,
AL.DW.
AL.DW,
AL.DW,
AL.DH,
AL.DH,
AL.DH,
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
Copper Beryllium
I,L ALt
I ALt
I ALt
I.L ALt
ALt
ALt
ALt
I
1300
1340
1350
1700
2400
2450
2492
2497
2650
Chloride
DH
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
Nickel Selenium Z1nc
DW.I
DW
Boron
Molybdenum Arsenic
DW.I
DH.I.L
DH
DW
-------
Concentrations of iron in the study area are highly variable.
Nevertheless, from 1974 to 1977 iron levels were reported in excess of the EPA
criterion for drinking water at every USGS station examined except for Little
Pumpkin Creek at Volberg and the Powder River at Kaycee. The criterion was
established to prevent objectionable taste and laundry staining (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976b). Iron levels throughout the basins
quite frequently exceeded the recommended criteria for aquatic life and
irrigation waters as well. High concentrations of iron can be fatal to
aquatic organisms. Mine drainage, ground water, and industrial wastes are
major sources of iron pollution.
Manganese concentrations were also highly variable. However, similar to
iron, manganese levels frequently exceeded the EPA standard for domestic water
supplies at all but the stations at Li scorn Creek near Ashland, Little Pumpkin
Creek near Volborg, and the Powder River near Kaycee. The 50.0-yg/l criterion
was established to minimize staining of laundry and objectionable taste
effects. The objectionable qualities of manganese may increase in combination
with low concentrations of iron (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976b).
Barium, silver, and fluoride were only rarely sampled; the latter was,
however, once reported in the Tongue River below Hanging Woman Creek at a
value in excess of the irrigation water criterion (Table 44) and has also been
reported in high concentrations in ground water samples in the area
(Yellowstone-Tongue Areawide Planning Organization, 1977). Lead was reported
throughout the basins at levels in excess of recommended drinking water,
aquatic life, and livestock criteria. Cadmium values equal to or in excess of
criteria for aquatic life, drinking water, and irrigation were frequently
reported. Maximum concentrations of several trace elements in the Powder
River Basin, including arsenic, beryllium, copper, nickel, selenium, zinc,
boron, and molybdenum, were occasionally equal to or in excess of recommended
criteria (Table 44). Aluminum levels periodically exceeded livestock and
irrigation water criteria at 13 USGS stations throughout the study basins.
Chromium (valence 6) concentrations were in excess of drinking water criteria
at four stations throughout the Tongue River Basin, once in Armells Creek, and
in excess of aquatic life and irrigation standards as well as drinking water
criteria at seven stations in the Powder River Basin. A complete listing
showing the number of times parameters exceeded recommended criteria at USGS
stations throughout the study area, as well as the maximum value observed for
these parameters, is included in Appendix C.
Pesticides--
Data on pesticides in the study area covered by this report are very
limited. Samples have been collected by the USGS in the Powder River at
Moorhead, but no data are available for the Tongue River Basin or other
tributaries in the region. More information is needed before an accurate
evaluation of conditions can be made; however, it might be expected that
additional pesticides will be contributed to the river system as a result of
proposed irrigation projects.
98
-------
Radioactive substances--
Radioactive elements are not a problem in the surface waters of the study
area at this time; recent concentrations of radioactive substances are
generally below the Environmental Protection Agency (1976a) Drinking Water
Regulations for radionuclides (Table 45).
TABLE 45. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
FOR SELECTED RADIONUCLIDES
Radionuclide Allowable Level*
(pCi/1)
Tritium (H3) 20,000
Strontium-90 8
Radium-226,228 (combined) 5
Gross alpha (excluding radon and uranium) 15
*No specific limits for allowable concentrations have been set for
radionuclides not shown on this table. For these, it is merely specified
that their combined dose should not exceed 4 rnrem per year to the whole body
or to any internal organ.
Source: Modified from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1976a).
Suspended Sediments
Suspended sediments are those organic and mineral materials that are
released to a watershed from a combination of channel erosion and overland
runoff and that are maintained in suspension by turbulent currents or through
colloidal suspension. During periods of high flow, bank erosion is escalated
and the greater water velocities provide increased energy for scouring and
transport of sediments. Many inorganic elements such as trace metals are
adsorbed onto moving sediment particles making suspended sediments an
important transport mechanism (Knapton and McKinley, 1977). Sediment levels
are also important because of their potential impact on light penetration,
water temperature and chemical solubility, and aquatic biota (such as abrasive
action on aquatic life or the elimination of benthic habitats and spawning
areas by settleable solids that blanket the streambeds). In the Tongue and
Powder River Basin areas, suspended sediment concentrations vary greatly from
drainage to drainage (Appendix B).
99
-------
Suspended sediments in Armells Creek are lower than in most tributaries of
the study area. This can be attributed to 1) dense aquatic vegetation lining
the river channel, which reduces bank erosion; 2) numerous upstream stock
ponds and natural pools that trap sediments except during very high runoff
times; and 3) seasonal frozen ground conditions (Knapton and McKinley, 1977).
Maximum suspended sediment concentrations in Sarpy Creek are also much lower
than sediment data from streams further east in the study area because of
frozen ground conditions, stock pond impoundments, and irrigation practices;
in both tributaries, suspended sediment levels correlate directly with flow.
In Rosebud Creek, sediment movement is more variable. There can be seen,
however, a striking increase between sediment levels in Rosebud Creek above
Pony Creek and those at the two stations at Rosebud and the stream mouth
(Knapton and McKinley, 1977).
The Missouri River Basin Commission (1978a) reports that substantial water
quality degradation occurs in the Tongue River between Dayton and Monarch,
largely as a result of naturally high turbidity and sediment levels that are
somewhat increased by agricultural and livestock grazing activities. Mining
operations near Sheridan, Wyoming, and in Montana near Decker have also
resulted in some localized sediment problems to the Tongue River (Northern
Great Plains Resource Program, 1974). Further downstream, suspended sediment
concentrations in the Tongue River are largely regulated by the Tongue River
Reservoir. The impoundment acts as a sediment sink, and those constituents
carried in suspension are settled out and at least temporarily lost to the
stream (Knapton and McKinley, 1977). Water released from the dam is
essentially sediment free and so has a high carrying capacity that keeps the
upstream channel flushed; the Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation (1977) reports that because of the Tongue River Reservoir the
Tongue River now contributes only a very small part of the sediment load to
the mainstem Yellowstone River. During periods of high rainfall, suspended
sediment concentrations are elevated. Sediment levels are also augmented by
overland runoff in the basin, particularly after thunderstorm activity
following long dry periods (Knapton and McKinley, 1977).
Runoff from surrounding plains that are underlain by easily erodable
sedimentary rock is the source of most sediment transported by the Powder
River and its tributaries (Knapton and McKinley, 1977). Like the other
watersheds in this area, sediment discharge to the drainage is erratic and a
factor of intermittent periods of rainfall or seasonal high runoff. The
Powder River and Mizpah Creek had the highest trace element concentrations to
be found in the study area and these concentrations were largely associated
with levels of suspended sediments that were also higher than those found in
other streams (Knapton and McKinley, 1977). The Montana Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation (1977) reports that the Powder River contributes
only 5 percent of the mainstem Yellowstone's water but nearly one-half of its
sediment load.
100
-------
Nutrients
Nutrient levels in the study basins are generally low except during
periods of high runoff from snowmelt and storms. Nitrogen levels tend to
demonstrate a cyclic pattern in the basins, with wintertime increases and low
summer concentrations (Knapton and McKinley, 1977). Ammonia levels are
especially elevated at some stations; a possible explanation is winter
decomposition of organic materials under ice cover. In the summer months
stream aquatic vegetation is dense, and nutrients tend to be removed from
water by the plants during the time of peak productivity. Highest total
phosphorus levels are apparently correlated with highest suspended sediment
concentrations during periods of surface runoff (Knapton and McKinley, 1977).
Nitrogen levels, particularly ammonia, in Armells Creek are higher than in
any of the other study streams; those elevated ammonia levels may indicate the
influence of upstream contributions of waste effluent (Knapton and McKinley,
1977). High nutrient levels in this stream contribute to heavy aquatic
vegetation growth, particularly in the upper reaches of the tributaries where
ponding is common.
Tongue River Reservoir has been classified'as eutrophic by the
Environmental Protection Agency (1977c). During the 1975 sampling, the median
total phosphorus value in the reservoir was 0.051 mg/1; the median inorganic
nitrogen level was 0.050 mg/1 and the median dissolved orthophosphorus was
0.008 mg/1. Of the 15 Montana lakes and reservoirs sampled by the National
Eutrophication Survey in 1975, all had lower median total phosphorus and eight
had lower median orthophosphorus than Tongue River Reservoir. Of the
estimated annual total phosphorus loading of 133,530 kg/yr, 75 percent was
contributed by nonpoint loading from the Tongue River and 11.1 percent was
contributed by the municipal sewage treatment plant at Sheridan. If the
current loading continues, problem algal and macrophyte growths may result.
Agricultural runoff and sewage are major sources of nutrient loadings.
Any future irrigation projects could contribute additional nutrients to basin
waters. The Powder River Areawide Planning Organization (1977) has reported
that several streams in Wyoming, including Goose Creek below Sheridan, Tongue
River below Goose Creek, Little Powder River, South Fork of the Powder River,
mainstem Powder River near Montana, Little Goose Creek from Bighorn to the
confluence with Big Goose Creek, and Big Goose Creek from above Sheridan to
the confluence with Little Goose Creek, are unable to meet fishable-swimmable
water quality criteria because of excess ammonia or fecal coliform
concentrations. Increased sewage and urban runoff, a result of the expected
population expansion from proposed irrigation projects and energy
developments, could further increase nutrient concentrations in the river if
not carefully controlled. High ammonium and nitrate nitrogen levels are being
released to the Tongue River from the Bighorn Mine, probably as a result of
the use of ammonium nitrate explosives during coal extractions (Dettman et
al., 1976). Coal gasification may also produce nitrogen in the form of
ammonia as a commercial byproduct.
101
-------
Temperature
Temperature is a parameter of significance to the stability of aquatic
systems. It controls the geographical dispersal of biotic communities, is
related to ambient concentrations of dissolved gases, and affects the
distribution of chemical solutes in lentic water bodies through the phenomenon
of stratification. Of particular interest in the Tongue and Powder River
Basins are variations in temperature as they relate to fisheries of the area.
Changes from a cold-water to a warm-water fishery occurs if temperatures are
directly lethal to adults or fry, cause a reduction in activity, or limit
reproduction (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976b).
Mean temperature values generally increase from upstream to downstream in
the Tongue and Powder Rivers and their tributaries (Appendix B). Raw data
trends for temperature in the study basins indicate that water temperature is
generally highest in July, August, and September and lowest during December,
January, and February. The Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation (1976a) reports that increased depletion of water in the Tongue
River for irrigation needs, even at low projected levels, will result in water
temperature increases likely to negatively impact the trout fisheries of that
basin.
Dissolved Oxygen
Waters in the Tongue and Powder River Basins study region are generally
well aerated (Appendix B). The dissolved oxygen minimum established by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1976b) for maintaining healthy fish
populations is 5.0 mg/1. Dissolved oxygen levels from 1974 to 1977 at the
USGS stations dropped below this level in several creeks of the study area
including: Sarpy Creek, (1.8 mg/1 minimum value), Salt Creek (0.7 mg/1
minimum), Powder River at Arvada (minimum 2.9 mg/1), Mizpah Creek at Olive
(0.0 minimum), Powder River near Locate (2.7 minimum), Otter Creek at Ashland
(3.0 mg/1 minimum), and Pumpkin Creek near Loesch (0.0 minimum). For all of
these sampling sites, dissolved oxygen concentrations below the water quality
standard were reported in winter months from December to March or April and
most likely reflect times of ice cover. The only exceptions to this were a
single point in Sarpy Creek (1.8 mg/1 in October, also perhaps because of
early freezing), and lowered dissolved oxygen concentrations during August in
Salt Creek (2.9 mg/1) and Otter Creek (3.0 mg/1). Values below 5.0 mg/1 have
also been noted at the lower depths of Tongue River Reservoir (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1977c).
pH and Alkalinity
The ionic composition of water and, therefore, biological systems are
affected by pH. Waters in the study area are basically alkaline with pH
values usually between 7 and 9 (Appendix B). The only exceptions to this
range were a few stations in the Rosebud and Tongue River Basins where minimum
pH levels occasionally reached 6.7 to 6.9, and in Tongue River Reservoir where
maximum pH values collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(1977c) in August 1975 reached 9.1 at one station and 9.8 at a second sampling
site; both of the latter elevated data points were surface water samples.
102
-------
Alkalinity plays a major role in moderating pH fluctuations. Alkalinity
values in the Tongue and Powder River Basin area tend to increase from
upstream to downstream (Appendix B) with annual means generally much higher in
the Powder Basin than in the Tongue. Alkalinity values were as low as 39 in
Greenleaf Creek (Rosebud Creek drainage) and in the 50 to 80 range for a
number of smaller tributaries in the study area. Generally, however, waters
in this region are well buffered and alkalinity is greater than 100 mg/1 for
all the basins.
IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON GROUND WATER
Ambient Levels
Ground water in the shallow sandstone and alluvial aquifers along major
streams in the Northern Great Plains area is of fair to poor quality because
of high concentrations of dissolved solids. The Missouri River Basin
Commission (1978a) indicates that mean TDS concentrations of 1,000 to 5,000
mg/1 are typical for water from the shallow aquifers and about 1,000 to 2,000
mg/1 for water from the Madison arid associated aquifers in some parts of the
area.
Local ground water variations result from differences in water sources and
soil permeability (Northern Great Plains Resource Program, 1974). Water in
the more shallow alluvial aquifers responds more rapidly to contamination of
surface and near-surface waters than do the deeper bedrock (consolidated
materials) aquifers. Water in the deeper aquifers, however, deteriorates with
increasing depth as a result of gradual leaching of ions through the formation
(Northern Great Plains Resource Program, 1974). Although only limited data
are available from wells in the study area and a reliable water quality
appraisal of the area is not possible at this time, Tables 46 and 47 show the
variability in quality of principal ground-water aquifers in the study area.
It appears that the range of TDS values for the shallow aquifers is
characteristic of shallow bedrock and alluvial aquifers (Missouri River Basin
Commission, 1978a). The chemical quality of water in the deeper Madison
aquifer is variable, with TDS levels ranging from about 1,000 mg/1 in the
Black Hills area in Wyoming and then deteriorating to concentrations as high
as 200,000 mg/1 towards the center of some geologic basins (Missouri River
Basin Commission, 1978a).
Man's Impact
Water quality problems associated with mining include acidity, increased
salt content, higher heavy metal concentrations, and greater sediment loads
(Warner, 1974). Mines remain pollution sources even after closure, further
complicating pollution control.
The current and proposed mining developments in the Powder and Tongue
River Basin areas could impact ground water in several ways. The removal of
overburden during mining and its replacement for land reclamation expose
additional minerals to oxidation and solution with resultant deterioration of
ground-water quality (Missouri River Basin Commission, 1978a). One problem is
103
-------
TABLE 4G. RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF GROUND WATER COLLECTED FROM PRINCIPAL AQUIFERS IN THE
NORTHERN POWDER RIVER VALLEY OF MONTANA
o
Parameter
(mg/1)
Aquifer Sampled
Terrace (al luvial )
deposits
Fort Union
Formation
Upper Hill Creek
Formation
Fox Nil Is Sandstone
and basal Hell
Creek Formation
*
*
AVE
*
MAX
AVE
MIN
MAX
AVE
MIN
TDS Si02
934 -
1710 -
1322 -
754 -
1290 -
887 -
762 -
1170 -
796 -
674 -
Fe
6.0
-
6.0
25.4
17.4
2.1
0.0
2.1
0.2
0.0
Ca
98
89
94
92
88
10
0
9
2
0
Mg
55
103
79
127
31
4
0
3
0.2
0
Na
and K
152
336
244
210
408
353
305
442
326
275
HC03
576
578
577
918
965
772
613
810
628
506
so4
302
825
564
413
485
108
16
356
108
15
Cl
13
41
27
8
40
19
11
43
23
9
N03
1.7
11
6
9.3**
3.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
Hardness
as CaC03
470
646
558
754
347
41
0
33
6.3
0
F
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.5
5.5
3.1
1.1
2.5
1.5
0.6
Individual analysis
*,*Probably contaminated by nearby barnyard
Source: Modified from Northern Great Plains Resource Program (1974).
-------
TABLE 47. RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF GROUND WATER COLLECTED FROM PRINCIPAL AQUIFERS IN
ROSEBUD COUNTY, MONTANA
o
tn
Parameter
(rag/1)
Aquifer Sampled
Alluvium
Fort Union
Formation
Judith River
Formation
MAX
AVE
MIN
MAX
AVE
MIN
MAX
AVE
MIN
TDS
10260
2230
555
3736
1251
294
4542
1881
328
Si02
39
25
15
31
19
9.6
16
13
6.4
Fe
8
1.7
-
19
1.9
0.1
15
2.6
0.2
Ca
452
115
2.7
336
62
4
322
122
27
Mg
317
81
2.1
215
52
1.2
281
76
7
Na
and K
2369
508
40
571
302
16
1220
374
14
HC02
1247
558
122
1427
618
173
878
416
154
so4
3628
1112
87
2440
458
2.6
2658
1015
88
Cl
492
38
2
88
21
2
28
16
3
N03
343
21
-
6
2.1
0.0
20
6.9
Hardness
as CaC03
2157
606
21
1722
368
15
1650
615
96
F
-
-
-
-
_
-
"
Source: Modified from Northern Great Plains Resource Program (1974).
-------
contamination of ground water by infiltration from mining operations. This
effect could ultimately impact nearby intermittent streams since water that
infiltrates through the spoils materials into shallow aquifers as ground water
eventually discharges into streams. The chemical composition of the coal bed,
overlying rock strata and surrounding soil types all greatly influence the
nature and extent of ground-water contamination (Harza Engineering Company,
1976). The Northern Great Plains Resource Program (1974) reports increases in
total dissolved solids, lead, nickel, and zinc concentrations in both ground
and surface water samples in the vicinity of Col strip, Montana, from mining of
the Rosebud coal seam. A second problem involves disturbance of saline- and
sodium-rich soils in the study area to a sufficient degree that leaching of
salts to the ground-water aquifers is substantially increased. Road
construction is a secondary impact related to mining activities that has
particularly contributed to surface disturbance and resultant salinity
problems in the mine-sensitive soils of eastern Montana and Wyoming (Northern
Great Plains Resource Program, 1974). Table 48 shows the water quality of two
wells from mined and unmined areas in the Rosebud coal bed.
Recently, in situ gasification and liquefaction processes have been tested
in the area. Since many of the coal beds are themselves major aquifers, this
subsurface disruption could have major impact on ground water. Creation of
new fractures will expose unleached areas to ground water (Jones et al.,
1977). Introduction of air from above ground will change the water chemistry
and solubilities. Finally, the process itself may introduce or release both
trace metals and organic contaminants into the ground water (Jones et al.,
1977). The nature and extent of this pollution is presently unknown and the
subject of intense study.
106
-------
TABLE 48. WATER QUALITY OF TWO WELLS IN MINED AND UNMINED AREAS
Parameter
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Iron
Manganese
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Chloride
Sulfate
Nitrate
Fluoride
Total dissolved solids
Water From Old Spoils
and the Rosebud Coal Bed
(mg/D
467
351
114
9.0
1.82
1.25
483
0
15.9
2,418
15.5
0.1
3,892
Water From an
Unmined Coal Bed
(mg/1)
53
51
190
8.1
0.26
0.07
553
0
4.1
284
1.1
0.1
1,159
Source: Modified from Harza Engineering Company (1976).
107
-------
9. ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT ON WATER QUANTITY
The State of Montana has been authorized 60 percent of the annual runoff
of the Tongue River Basin and 58 percent of surface water discharges from the
Powder River as part of the Yellowstone River Compact. Almost all of the
water diverted and consumed in this region is for irrigational use, and
although some late season shortages have been reported in Wyoming, generally
sufficient surface water is available to meet existing consumptive demands.
There is disagreement between the States of Wyoming and Montana as to the
actual quantity of water available for diversion by each State. Surface water
supplies in the Tongue and Powder River Basins are highly erratic from season
to season and from year to year. The Powder River becomes essentially a dry
bed in the late summer months during some years of low rainfall (Northern
Great Plains Resource Program, 1974). The Tongue River Dam has tended to
normalize the effect of this irregularity in the Tongue River; however, it is
presently the only large control structure in the study area, and it cannot
completely eliminate the impact of a drought year on regional surface water
resources. Energy development, particularly surface mining and the subsequent
conversion of coal into electricity, requires enormous amounts of water.
Large quantities of water are also needed for reclamation projects to restore
mined areas and for planned transportation of coal out of the vicinity in a
coal slurry line, the most efficient means of transport. This fact is
significant since many of the streams in the coal-rich area of the Tongue and
Powder Rivers are dry much of the year. In these basins, ground-water
supplies play an important role in supplementing surface flow during the
season of low precipitation. However, increased mining activities (which are
heavy users of ground water in the Tongue and Powder River drainages) will
prevent this source from providing any large-scale cushion to surface water
diversions for an extended period of time.
It is sometimes assumed that all water not otherwise consumed is available
for diversion and energy utilization. This attitude overlooks the many
ecological needs for the "unused" water: instream flow maintenance for the
preservation of critical wetlands and riparian habitats, conservation of the
native environment of endangered species, etc. The Yellowstone River Compact
made no provisions for instream flow maintenance, and theoretically users
could continue to divert flow from the Tongue and Powder River Basins until
the rivers were dry for many miles. To prevent this possibility, the
Yellowstone Moratorium, which suspended all large applications for water right
permits in the Yellowstone Basin, was enacted in 1974. The moratorium was
108
-------
designed to allow time for evaluation of all user needs for surface waters in
the basin, including agricultural, industrial, and recreational. Until a
final decision is made as to which permit applications are to be authorized
and how much water can be reliably counted on by each State from year to year
for diversion, a firm evaluation of the impact of energy resource development
on water quantity in the Powder and Tongue River Basins is not possible. It
is clear, however, that the development of additional storage facilit '<:':,, and
perhaps diversion of water from the Yellowstone and Bighorn Rivers through
aqueducts, will be necessary in the future to assure that sufficient water
will be available to meet anticipated energy development, irrigation, and
other demands in the area.
IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY
Surface water quality throughout the Sarpy, Armells, Rosebud, Tongue, and
Powder River Basins is highly variable. In intermittent streams of the area,
water quality is dependent on seasonal variations in the primary source of
flow (whether ground water or precipitation) and the quantity of discharge.
In the larger, perennial waters of the Tongue and Powder River Basins, surface
quality is somewhat more constant. In the upper portions of the Tongue and
Powder Rivers, excellent water can be found, especially at their sources near
the Wyoming mountain divides. As the streams progress downstream, however,
degradation resulting from hydrologic, geologic, and manmade influences
becomes evident. Outstanding cold-water fisheries are replaced by warm-water
species or eliminated altogether (Northern Great Plains Resource Program,
1974). In general, water quality is adequate for most irrigation, livestock
watering, municipal, and industrial needs of the region. There exist,
however, geographically localized problem areas, as well as some specific
parameters that are of concern throughout the entire study basin.
At present, salinity levels are the major concern to the basins,
particularly in the Powder River where salt concentrations are among the
highest in the Northern Great Plains Region. Future energy developments in
the basins are expected to impact salt levels primarily through salt-
concentrating effects resulting from flow reductions. However, some salt
loading to surface and ground waters occurs, and it is currently estimated
that wastewater from oil field operations on Salt Creek are responsible for 47
percent of the salinity recorded in the Powder River at Sussex (Missouri River
Basin Commission, 1978a).
It is during low flow periods that salt increases can be expected to most
severely impact beneficial water uses downstream. Adverse effects of higher
salinity include increased costs for municipal and industrial users, lower
crop yields, and deterioration of natural habitats. This problem is
especially acute in the intermittently flowing river basins where expanded
mining activities are expected, such as Rosebud Creek around Colstrip or in
the Powder River where severe water quality degradation is already evident.
Sulfate levels, which exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(1976b) recommended criteria for drinking water at nearly every station
throughout the area, are of particular concern. Although most of the sulfate
109
-------
problem is naturally related to the geologic formations through which the
regional water flows, discharges from mining activities are substantially
higher in sulfates than the ambient river levels.
Sediment loading is a problem in some parts of the study area, especially
in the Powder River, which contributes only 5 percent of the flow of the
mainstem Yellowstone River but nearly half of its sediment load (Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 1977). Increases in
sediment problems can be expected as a result of expanding resource
development in the area. Mining operations near Sheridan, Wyoming, and in
Montana near Decker have already resulted in some localized sediment problems
to the Tongue River (Northern Great Plains Resource Program, 1974). Any
future industrial and agricultural projects will intensify problems with
erosion through construction activities, transport roads, and removal of
overburden for mining. As with salinity, the problem of sediment loading to
the Tongue and Powder Rivers will be intensified by reduced flows.
Some increases in nutrient and trace element concentrations can also be
expected as a result of flow reductions. Population expansion and
accompanying construction could further increase nutrient loading to the
rivers if not carefully controlled. The effect of the planned energy and
irrigation projects on temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and alkalinity are
not expected to be substantial and will, in all probability, be a result of
reduced flows or hydrological modifications produced by supplemental reservoir
construction.
The quality of ground water in the basins is fair to poor because of high
concentrations of dissolved solids. Much of the low-quality water is natural
to the basin, with dissolved solids and the major ions leaching into the
ground-water systems from the overlying shale. However, energy developments
can intensify the problem. In addition to reducing the ground-water levels to
supplement variable surface water flows, contamination of the aquifers is
possible. For example, increases in calcium, magnesium, sulfates, and
nitrates in ground-water samples in the vicinity of Colstrip, Montana, from
mining of the Rosebud coal seam have already been reported (Harza Engineering
Company, 1976).
110
-------
10. RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY MONITORING PARAMETERS
An objective of water quality monitoring in the Tongue and Powder River
Basins should be to assess the impact of energy resource development,
irrigation projects, and associated developments. Toward this end a
determination of those parameters that would provide meaningful data is
needed. The nature and type of possible pollutants from the major activities
in the basins were inventoried. The possible effects of these, as well as
those parameters that are already being monitored, were reviewed, and a
proposed priority list of parameters of interest in the Tongue and Powder
River Basins were prepared.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
The selection of which water quality parameters should be routinely
monitored in the Tongue-Powder study area is not obvious. Physical data
provide information on temperature, amount (flow), osmotic pressures
(salinity, conductivity), and other factors that affect both the biota and the
chemistry. The utility of these data must then be considered when selecting
which parameters to measure. Similarly, the ambient level of a chemical and
its effect upon the biota and interactions with other chemicals present must
be known if a cost-effective monitoring network is to be implemented.
In addition to assessing the quality throughout the water column, the
monitoring of substrate composition is also necessary. Many organic and
inorganic pollutants are adsorbed onto sediment particles or organic debris.
Other pollutants, such as iron, may form flocculants or precipitates or may
sink of their own accord. These materials may be deposited in areas of slower
moving water or left as evaporites in the dry washes of the area. They may,
however, be resuspended during periods of erosion or be released as dissolved
parameters following a change in environmental conditions. The deposited
sediments therefore represent both a pollutant sink and a potential source.
It is necessary to monitor bottom sediment composition in order to obtain a
full picture of environmental pollution.
As a means of identifying and setting priorities for those parameters most
appropriate for monitoring energy development, each potential pollutant
previously addressed is evaluated in terms of the projected impact on ambient
water quality with respect to beneficial water use criteria. Also evaluated
are those "indicator parameters" that, although not in themselves pollutants,
either provide a direct or indirect measurement of environmental disturbances
or are required for the interpretation of water quality data. The following
111
-------
symbols are used-for identifying those beneficial water uses affected by
existing or projected increases in parameter ambient levels:
Symbol Beneficial Water Uses
I = Irrigation
D = Drinking water (public water supplies)
A = Aquatic life and wildlife
W = Industrial uses
L = Livestock drinking
Three priority classifications were developed based on criteria given
below. These are:
Priority I (Must Monitor Parameters), which should be collected
regularly at energy development assessment monitoring stations.
Priority II. (Major Interest Parameters), which would be desirable to
monitor in addition to Priority I parameters if resources permit.
Priority III (Minor Interest Parameters), which are presently being
monitored by the existing network but which will provide little
useful data for monitoring energy development impacts on water
quality in the Tongue and Powder River Basins.
This classification represents an attempt to (1) identify those parameters
that will be effective in monitoring the impact of energy development in the
Tongue and Powder River Basins, and (2) permit the detection of increases in
parameter levels that may be deleterious to designated beneficial water uses.*
This classification scheme is not intended to preclude monitoring of
low priority or unmentioned parameters for special studies or for purposes
other than assessment of energy development impact. Neither does it require
the elimination of those parameters already being collected for baseline data
that are very inexpensive to monitor. The priorities do not attempt to
address sampling frequency.
Parameters for use in the rapid detection of short duration events such as
spills, monitoring for permit discharge purposes, and intensive survey or
research projects are not considered in this report. These concerns are
important and should not be neglected, but tfrey require considerations that
are beyond the scope of this report.
The reasons for monitoring each parameter listed on Tables 49 through 51
are categorized by the following classification scheme:
*A11 assessments relative to beneficial water uses are based on U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (1976b) criteria or drinking water regulations
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975). In those cases where
EPA-established criteria have not presently been defined, National Academy of
Sciences (1973) recommended criteria are used. -*
112
-------
TABLE 49. PRIORITY I, MUST MONITOR PARAMETERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY IN SARPY, ARMELLS, ROSEBUD, TONGUE, AND POWDER RIVER
BASINS
Parameter*
Primary Reason For Monitoring
Category and
Beneficial
Hater Use Code**
CO
Alkalinity, total (as CaC03)
AJuminum, total
Ammonia, total as N
Arsenic, total*
Beryllium, total
Bicarbonate Ion
Biological oxygen demand of sediments,
5 day*
Boron, total
Cadmium, total
Carbon, total organic In sediments*
Calcium, dissolved
Chloride
Chromium, total*
Specific conductance, at 25°C
Needed for Interpretation of water quality data 1
Periodically exceeded recommended criteria for Irrigation and livestock 21,L
Periodically exceeded recommended levels for aquatic life, expected to increase 2A;3A
Periodically exceeded recommended criteria for drinking water, Irrigation, and 2D,I,L;3D,I,L
livestock In the Powder River; may Increase near gasification sites
Values occasionally reported In excess of aquatic life criterion 1n Armells 2A
Creek and Powder River
Major anlon In the Rosebud and Tongue Rivers; may be affected by energy development 4
Measure of pollution Increases In the basins; sediment serves as an integratlve 4
accumulator
Exceeded Irrigation criterion in lower Powder River Basin 21
Reported In excess of criteria for drinking water, Irrigation, and aquatic 2A,D,I;3A,D,I
life throughout study area; levels may be increased at gasification sites
Provides Indication of organic contamination; many elements and compounds are 4
preferentially absorbed into organic debris
Major cation In upper Tongue and Powder Rivers; may be affected by energy 4
development
Periodically exceeded EPA criterion for drinking water in Powder River Basin; 2D;3D,I
Increased levels anticipated from mine spoil drainage
Levels reported in excess of drinking water criterion in Armells Creek and 2A,D,I
Tongue River, and in excess of irrigation and aquatic life criteria as well
in the Powder River
Useful Indicator of TDS; affects overall water chemistry 4
*Unmarked parameters are determined in water samples only; marked parameters include both
water samples and bottom sediments, unless specified for bottom sediments only.
**For full explanation of category codes, see Section 10.
-------
TABLE 49. (Continued)
Parameter*
Copper, total
Cyanide, total*
Dissolved oxygen
Flow
Fluoride
Primary Reason For Monitoring
Exceeded Irrigation water criterion 1n Armells Creek, and Irrigation and
livestock criteria 1n Powder River
Reported levels 1n the early 1970's at Moorhead have exceeded criterion for
aquatic life; can be expected to Increase as a byproduct of gasification
Necessary for maintenance of aquatic life and affects water chemistry;
at some stations 1n the study area levels have been less than EPA
recommended criterion for aquatic life
Needed for Interpretation of water quality data
Reported In excess of Irrigation criterion in the Tongue River below
Category and
Beneficial
Water Use Code
21,1
2A;3A
1;ZA;4
1
21
Iron, total*
Lead, total*
Magnesium, dissolved
Manganese, total*
Mercury, total*
Molybdenum, total
Nickel, total
Pesticides
Petroleum hydrocarbons
(Includes benzene, toluene,
oil and grease, napthalene,
phenols, olefins, thiophenes,
and cresols)
Hanging Woman Creek
Levels have frequently exceeded recommended criteria for aquatic life, 2A,D,I;3A,D,I
drinking water, and Irrigation throughout the study basins; may Increase
with expanded mining activities
Exceeded drinking water, livestock, and aquatic life standards throughout 2A,D,L;3A,D,L
the study basins, may be increased by gasification plants
Major cation In upper Rosebud Creek; may be affected by energy development 4
Frequently exceeded EPA criteria for drinking water and Irrigation; may 2D,I;3D,I
be Increased by gasification
Frequently exceeded EPA criterion for aquatic life and periodically criterion 2A,D;3A,D
for drinking water; possible contribution from powerplants and gasification plants
Exceeded Irrigation water criterion in lower Powder River Basin 21
Periodically exceeded Irrigation water criterion 1n Powder River Basin; 21;31
could be increased near gasification sites
From available data, no pesticides were reported at levels exceeding criteria for 3A,D
aquatic life. However with increasing agricultural activity, levels of pesticides/
herbicides may be expected to increase
Can be expected to increase throughout the basin 3A,D
*Unmarked parameters are determined in water samples only; marked parameters include
both water samples and bottom sediments.
-------
TABLE 49. (Continued)
Parameter*
Primary Reason For Monitoring
Category and
Beneficial
Hater Use Code
CJl
PH
Phosphorus, total*
Potassium, dissolved
Selenium, total*
Sodium, dissolved
Sulfate, dissolved
Suspended sediments
Temperature
Total dissolved sol Ids
Zinc, total
Needed for Interpretation of water quality data 1;4
Primary nutrient contributing to algal and macrophyte growth; expected to Increase 4
Important cation in study area; may be affected by energy development 4
Reported levels exceeded drinking water criterion in Powder River at Arvada, 2D,I;3D,I
and exceeded Irrigation criterion levels as well at South Fork Powder near
Kaycee; levels may increase because of stack emissions
Dominant cation in lower Rosebud and Powder Rivers; Increased levels 3D,I;4
anticipated from mine spoil drainage and increased use of water conditioners
Dominant anlon throughout Powder River and in most other basins during periods 2D;4
of low flow; commonly exceeded EPA criterion for drinking water throughout
study area; may be affected by energy development
Major transport mechanism, Indicator parameter, expected to Increase with 1;3A,I;4
energy development
Needed for Interpretation of water quality data; could increase with development 1;3A;4
Indicator parameter; downstream salinity problems anticipated with Increasing 2D,I;3D,I,L,W;4
Irrigation and energy development, already a problem throughout Powder
River Basin
Occasionally exceeded irrigation water criterion in Powder River 21
*Unmarked parameters are determined in water samples only; marked parameters include
both water samples and bottom sediments.
-------
TABLE 50. PRIORITY II, PARAMETERS OF MAJOR INTEREST FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
ON WATER QUALITY IN SARPY, ARMELLS, ROSEBUD, TONGUE, AND POWDER RIVER BASINS
Parameter*
Primary Reason for Monitoring
Category and
Beneficial
Water Use Code**
01
BOD, 5 day
COD, low level
Total hardness, CaCOs
Kjeldahl - N, total
Sediment size distribution
Turbidity
May provide basic information on increased pollution 7
May provide an indication of pollution by oxygen consuming 7
substances
Of interest to both industry and public; not a problem at 6D,I,W;7
present, but may become so as water consumption and
irrigation runoff increase
Primary nutrient; expected to increase with development 7
limits in the future
Provides data on stream velocity, stream habitat, sediment 7
sources
Easy to measure; provides quick data about suspended sediment, 7
etc.
/Parameters are determined in water samples only (with the exception of sediment size).
**For full explanation of category codes see Section 10.
-------
TABLE 51. PRIORITY III, PARAMETERS OF MINOR INTEREST THAT WILL PROVIDE LITTLE USEFUL
DATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY IN
Parameter*
Antimony, total
Barium, dissolved
Bismuth, dissolved
Parbonate
Primary Reason For Monitoring
Recorded values are very low (maximum 2 pg/1)
Difficult to measure; does not approach critical limits
(maximum 110 pg/1)
Recorded values are low (maximum 40 tig/1 )
Generally low levels in basin; usually of little significance
Category and
Beneficial
Water Use Code**
8
6
8
8
Cobalt, dissolved
Gallium, dissolved
Germanium, dissolved
Lithium, total
N1trate-N
Nitrate-N
Nitrogen, total
Phosphorus, dissolved ortho
Sediment minerology
Silica
Silver, total
Strontium, dissolved
Tin, dissolved
Titanium, dissolved
Vanadium, dissolved
Zirconium, dissolved
In alkaline waters
Levels low in basins (maximum 30 u9/l); has few adverse effects
at high levels
Values low (maximum 30 pg/1)
Values low (maximum 50 pg/1)
Values range from low to moderately high (max1mums 540 ug/1 in
Powder River at Arvada, and 1200 u9/l In South Fork Powder
River near Kaycee), but do not exceed recommended criteria
and are not anticipated to increase with development
Monitored simultaneously by NOo-NOj. If NO^-NC^-N levels begin to
approach 10,000 ug/1 then the NO? form would become a
"must monitor" priority for health reasons
Provides little practical information
Total phosphorus considered best measure of potential phosphorus
available for biological utilization
May provide sediment source data
Generally low throughout basins
Levels very low (maximum 3 ug/1)
Maximum levels very high 1n the Armells and Sarpy Creek drainage
areas, but has little biological effect
Very low levels (maximum 20 ug/1), little adverse effects
Reported values low (maximum 40 pg/1)
Reported values very low (maximum 17 ug/1)
Reported values low (maximum 50 ug/1)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
*Parameters (except for sediment minerology) are determined in water samples only.
**For full explanation of category codes, see Section 10.
-------
Priority I - Must Monitor Parameters
4.
Parameters essential for the interpretation of other water
quality data. This consideration includes parameters such as
temperature, pH, and flow that are necessary to determine
loadings, chemical equilibria, biological response, or other
factors affecting other parameters.
Parameters presently commonly exceeding existing water quality
criteria. Consideration is of EPA water quality criteria for
beneficial water uses (see codes presented earlier). In cases
where EPA-established criteria have not presently been defined,
criteria recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (1973)
are used.
Parameters expected to increase to levels exceeding water
quality criteria, unless extreme care is taken. This category
includes organic chemical compounds that are expected to be
present in future discharges from energy developments and
that could reach lethal, mutagenic, or carcinogenic levels
unless extreme care is taken. The beneficial use symbols for
water quality criteria expected to be exceeded are used here.
Parameters that are useful "trace" or "indicator" parameters.
These include parameters that, although not causing substantial
impact to the aquatic environment themselves, are-used to define
pollution sources, estimate other parameters of concern, or
provide general data on the overall quality of the water. An
example would be conductivity; which reflects highly saline
springs.
Parameters expected to be altered by energy development
activities so as to present a threat to a rare or endangered
species. This includes a parameter that does not normally
affect aquatic life at encountered levels but that, as a result
of unique circumstances, may affect a threatened or endangered
species. In the Tongue and Powder River Basins, this category
situation is not known to exist at present.
Priority II - Major Interest Parameters
6. Potential pollutants of concern. These include parameters whose
reported levels in the Tongue and Powder River Basins are
presently within acceptable limits for beneficial water uses,
but whose ambient levels could be altered by planned regional
developments to levels that impair those uses. This differs
from category 3 in that, while category 3 parameters are
expected to produce problems (either environmental or abatement/
disposal), category 6 are those that might be a problem if
unrestricted development were permitted.
5.
118
-------
7- Marginal "trace" or "indicator" parameters. These include
parameters that may be used to provide general data on overall
quality of the water, to locate pollutant source areas, or to
estimate other parameters. Such parameters are not presently
routinely monitored or provide little advantage over other
measurements being made.
Priority III - Minor Interest Parameters
8. Parameters that are present at very low levels and are unlikely
to be significantly changed by planned regional development; are
fairly easily monitored but have little effect on beneficial
water uses at encountered levels; or provide little useful
data for monitoring energy or other development. Many of these
parameters are currently being monitored on a regular basis in
the Tongue-Powder River study area; however, for purposes of
monitoring energy impact development these parameters are not
necessary.
Priorities are arranged alphabetically within Tables 49 to 51. The order
of their appearance is not intended to suggest a ranking of relative import-
ance.
Although frequency of measurement is not addressed by the priority
listings, whenever possible at least monthly collection is recommended for
most water quality parameters. Standard analytical techniques should be
utilized and the data should be processed and entered into data bases as soon
as possible after collection. It should also be stressed that changing con-
ditions within the study area may cause some changes in the priority listings,
especially addition of currently unmonitored compounds for which little data
are available.
Analysis of bottom sediment samples on an annual or semiannual basis
should be performed. Total organic carbon, BOD, grain size, and elemental
data should be determined. Sediments from the Tongue River Reservoir should
also be sampled and analyzed on a regular basis. Because extensive organic
extractions and analyses from sediment samples are expensive, it is not recom-
mended that analysis for specific toxic organic compounds be performed on a
routine basis. These analyses should be performed as special studies rather
than on a routine monitoring basis at the present time. Bottom sediment para-
meters of interest are included on Table 49; priority listing of parameters
for sediment samples followed the same considerations used in establishing
priorities for the water column.
BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
The collection of biological data in the Tongue and Powder River Basins
would be an effective complementary tool for assessing the impact of energy or
irrigation development. Biological investigations are of special significance
in water quality monitoring programs because they offer a means of identifying
areas affected by pollution and for assessing the degrees of stress from re-
latively small changes in physical-chemical parameters. Aquatic organisms act
119
-------
as natural monitors of water quality because the composition and structure of
plant and animal communities are the result of the biological, chemical, and
physical interactions within the system. When only periodic physical-chemical
data are collected, an episodic event such as a flash flood or spill may go
undetected. The biota affected by an occasional event may require weeks or
months to recover. In addition, many biological forms, which accumulate
various chemicals preferentially, serve as both an integrative and
concentration mechanism that may permit detection of pollutants not detected
in the water itself. Finally, because biota are affected by all materials and
conditions present in the system, they could be the first indication of a
major hazard posed by some unsuspected, unmonitored compound.
Biological monitoring should be initiated in a regular fashion within the
Tongue and Powder River system. It should not be viewed as an alternative to
other monitoring but as a complementary tool for improving the efficacy of
monitoring programs. A comprehensive biological monitoring program is
recommended to gather baseline data and permit the eventual refinement of
techniques. Such a monitoring effort should be designed to obtain
standardized, reproducible data that may be compared from station to station
across time. Sampling methods and sites will obviously differ for the
different biological communities or parameters. However, for a given
community and parameter, sites should be selected that have similar
characteristics and the same sampling device and technique used for collection
efforts. Replicate samples should be routinely collected and analyzed
separately for quality assurance purposes. Of primary interest in biological
monitoring is the assessment of changes in community structure over time and
space; for such comparisons a minimum of a single year of baseline data is
necessary, and the accumulation of several years data is generally required to
demonstrate natural temporal variations in the basin's communities.
Taxonomic groups considered appropriate for biological monitoring in the
Tongue and Powder River Basins are discussed below:
Macroi nvertebrates
These larger forms are relatively easy to collect, quantify, and identify
to a meaningful taxonomic level. Being relatively stationary they are unable
to escape oncoming waste materials, and their life cycles are sufficiently
long to prevent an apparent recovery to periodic relief from pollution.
Seasonal sampling (based on stream temperature and flows) should be conducted
although annual or semiannual records could be beneficial. Care must be taken
to allow sufficient time between sampling of identical areas to permit
disturbed populations to reestablish themselves. Macroinvertebrate sampling
in lakes should be investigated to determine if sufficient macrobenthos exist
to make monitoring them worthwhile.
Periphyton
The periphyton, like the macrobenthos, are unable to escape pollution
events. Widespread, rapid-growing, and easy to sample, they are the primary
producers in flowing systems and provide basic data on the overall quality of
streams and lakes.
120
-------
Fish
These represent the top of the aquatic food chain and respond to the
cumulative effects of stresses on lower forms. In addition, they represent an
element of intense public concern. Unlike the previous communities, fish have
considerable mobility and may be able to escape localized pollution events.
Fish are readily sampled, and taxonomic identification is not difficult in
most cases.
Zooplankton
Zooplankton include organisms that graze upon phytoplankton and in turn
provide a major food supply for higher forms. The Zooplankton can be
responsible for unusually low phytoplankton levels as a result of their
grazing activities. These forms may provide basic information on
environmental regimes and, because of their relatively short life spans and
fecundity, may be the first indication of subacute pollution hazards.
Phytoplankton
Present in nearly all natural waters, these plants are easily sampled and
can provide basic data on productivity, water quality, potential or occurring
problems, etc. Phytoplankton sampling is recommended in lakes and ponds but
is not recommended for stream monitoring in these basins.
Microorganisms
Coliform bacteria are generally considered to be indicative of fecal
contamination and are one of the most frequently applied indicators of water
quality. Criteria exist for bathing and shellfish harvesting waters (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976b). Other microbiological forms may be
useful in the study basins, but these have not been identified and are not
discussed.
An annotated list of parameters (Tables 52 through 53) is recommended for
monitoring the impact of energy resource development in the Tongue and Powder
River Basins. The Priority I category includes those parameters that
generally demonstrate an observable response to the type of stress conditions
anticipated as a result of increased energy development activities and for
which effective monitoring techniques have been developed. It is recommended
that Priority I parameters be incorporated into any aquatic biological
monitoring program in the basin. The Priority II parameters are those that
may be of value to the basins but that are not generally considered to be as
likely to provide useful data as those in the Priority I category and should
be collected in addition to Priority I parameters only if time and money are
available.
It should be noted that the count and biomass determinations in the
following discussion are^not productivity measurements. Rather they are
expressions of standi-ng crops, and although indicative of general
productivity, the measurements are really quite different. Productivity data
are expressed in units of mass/volume (or area)/unit time.
121
-------
TABLE 52. PRIORITY I BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS RECOMMENDED FOR MONITORING WATER QUALITY
IN THE TONGUE AND POWDER RIVER BASINS
Taxononrlc Group
Parameters
Expressed As
Reason for Sampling
Macroinvertebrates Counts and identification
Total number/taxon/unit sampling
area or unit effort
Provides data on species present,
community composition, etc., which
may be related to water quality
or other environmental considerations.
Blomass
Height/unit sampling area or unit effort Provides data on productivity.
ro
PO
PeHphyton
Blomass
Growth rate
Weight/unit substrate
Weight/unit substrate/time
Provides data on productivity.
Provides data on productivity.
Identification and
estimation of relative
abundances*
Taxon present
Indicative of community composition
that may be related to water quality
rate of recovery from a biological
catastrophe, etc.
*Gross estimates of the quantity or percent of each taxon should be made rather than
specific count data/unit area
-------
TABLE 52. (Continued)
Taxonomic Group
Parameters
F1sh
Identification and
enumeration
Expressed As
Reason for Sampling
Species present*
Provides data on water quality, environmental
conditions, and possibly on water uses.
Different species respond to different stresses.
Toxic substances in tissue Weight/substance/unit tissue weight
(by species)
Indication of biological response to toxic
pollutants, may provide an "early warning"
of pollutants not detected in the water, may
pose a health hazard in itself.
ro
CO
Zooplankton
Identification and
count
Species present
Provides basic data on environmental
conditions.
Total unit volume or blomass
Number/species/unit volume
Provides data on community composition,
environmental conditions, and available food
size ranges.
*Count data should be provided for each species
-------
TABLE 52. (Continued)
Taxonomlc Group
Parameters
Expressed As
Reason for Sampling
Macrophytes
Species Identification Areal coverage and community
and community association
Indication of stream stability, sedimentation,
and other factors. Spread of phreatophytes
could be a problem 1n the basin because of their
effect on water quality. Initial survey and
thereafter occasional examination and stream
(lake) side plants. 1s recommended.
Phytoplankton
PO
Chlorophyll a
ug/1
Indication of overall lake productivity -
excessive levels often Indicate enrichment
problems.
Identification and
enumeration
Number/taxon/un1t volume
Total number/sample (unit volume)
or blomass
The presence of specific taxon 1n abundance
1s often Indicative of water quality and may
In themselves pose biological problems.
Microorganisms
Total fecal coll form
Number/unit volume
Indicative of fecal contamination of water
supplies and probable presence of other
pathogenic organisms.
-------
TABLE 53. PRIORITY II BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS RECOMMENDED FOR MONITORING WATER QUALITY
IN THE TONGUE AND POWDER RIVER BASINS
Taxonomic Group
Parameters
Expressed As
Reason for Sampling
Macrolnvertebrates Toxic substances in tissue Height substance/unit tissue weight
Indicative of biological response to
toxic pollutants, may provide an "early
warning" of pollutants not detected in
the water itself.
Periphyton
ro
en
Chlorophyll a
Taxonomic Counts
Unit substrate area
Nuniber/taxon/un1t substrate area
Indicative of productivity of area and
general health of the periphyton community.
Provides additional data on periphyton
community composition.
Fish
Blomass
Total weight/sampling effort
or unit volume
Indicative of secondary productivity of the
water body.
Flesh tainting
Rating scale (by species)
Indicative of high levels of organic compounds.
Likely to be noticed by public. Could Indicate
pollution from several sources to be due to other
causes.
-------
TABLE 53. (Continued)
Taxonomlc Group Parameters
Expressed As
Reason for Sampling
F1sh
Size
Length, weight/Individual, or range
and average size/species
Provides an Indication of the age of the
community, breeding potential and secondary
productivity rates.
Condition factor
Weight/length (by species)
Indicative of general health of fish community
and availability of food.
cn
Growth rate
Age/length (by species)
Provide data on overall health of the fish
community and environmental conditions. Could
Indicate the presence of subacute pollutants.
Zooplankton
Biomass
Weight/unit volume
Basic data on abundance and overall productivity.
Eggs, Instars, etc.
Species present
Provides basic data on age distribution,
presence of seasonal forms, or the existence
of cyclic pollution events.
Toxic substances in tissue Weight/unit tissue (by species)
May serve as bloconcentrator for specific compounds.
-------
11. ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING MONITORING NETWORK
Estimations can be made regarding the possible impact of proposed
developments on water quality, but only after operation can the actual impact
be assessed. A well-developed sampling network for the monitoring of
environmental parameters is helpful, not only in controlling and assessing
pollution from existing projects, but also in providing valuable information
for evaluating future projects.
Fifty-three sampling stations in the Sarpy, Armells, Rosebud, Tongue, and
Powder River Basins were analyzed to evaluate trends in surface water quality;
45 of these are U.S. Geological Surrey sites (Tables 34 through 36) and 8 are
operated by the U.S. Forest Service (Tables 35-36). The sampling sites
examined were primarily those that had abundant data on which to base analyses
of water quality trends. There are a good number of additional USGS and USFS
stations located on streams in the study area, but it is felt that the major
USGS stations examined in this report are in themselves well situated for
future monitoring of surface waters impacted by energy developments. It
should be noted that there is no known regional ground-water monitoring
network in the study basins. The USGS has for the past several years been
conducting periodic sampling of several hundred wells in the region for areal
appraisals of the ground-water aquifers but is not monitoring for trends or
energy-related changes in the ground-water system (Personal communication, J.
Moreland, USGS, Helena, Montana, 1978). The Montana Bureau of Mines and
Geology has been handling some site-specific studies at various mines
throughout the basins. Although preliminary USGS studies suggest there may be
no significant areal impact or change to the ground water from anticipated
conventional developments in the study area (Personal communication, J.
Moreland, USGS, Helena, Montana, 1978), it is felt that the establishment of a
regular ground-water monitoring network, especially one that could measure for
potential trace element and organic contamination related to mining
activities, would be of great value. Such a program is most needed around
underground mine and in situ project sites. At present, prototype in situ
conversion procedures are being conducted with which extensive monitoring
activities are associated. Time is needed to determine the extent of local
contamination resulting from these procedures and those parameters to monitor
that would best reflect this contamination.
Good baseline data are available from the USGS stations at Moorhead in the
Powder River Basin and at Miles City in the Tongue River Basin, and these
locations should continue to be studied for changes in water quality
parameters. More intensive sampling of the stations on Sarpy Creek near
Hysham, Armells Creek near Forsyth, and Rosebud Creek at the mouth should be
attempted since these locations are well situated for observation of water
127
-------
quality degradation because of mining and coal conversion facilities in the
study area. Stations in the Yellowstone River at Forsyth, Miles City, and
Terry should also be regularly monitored to assess impact of the Tongue and
Powder River study region on that river.
Physical and chemical parameters monitored by the sampling network in the
Tongue and Powder River Basins and their average annual frequency of
measurement are shown in Table 54. This table was constructed from data
inventories present in STORET. The average number of times a parameter was
sampled each year over the period of record is indicated for each station.
Although the completed sampling network in the basins should be adequately
located for monitoring the impact of energy development and other activities,
there are a few data collection problems with the sampling net that reduce the
interpretive utility of the accumulated data. In the past there has been some
inconsistency of sampling frequency for many of the parameters. A good number
of the parameters recorded in Table 49 as Priority I for monitoring of energy
development impact,-particularly the trace elements and nutrients, are sampled
only intermittently or infrequently. Data for these key parameters are rarely
sampled on similar dates across the stations even when they are collected,
making spatial or temporal comparisons of t'he data difficult. A few other
Priority I parameters, such as phenols, oils, greases, and pesticides are
completely lacking from the existing network or are sampled only rarely. Very
little biological data have been gathered by the existing monitoring network
in the basins. The problems are aggravated by the unavoidable periodic nature
of many of the tributaries flowing through the study area. Nevertheless,
available data for salinity-related parameters are generally good, and more
complete incorporation of other key parameters into the regular sampling
program when streamflow is available would be desirable.
If program restrictions on funding or personnel necessitate, the number of
stations regularly sampled in the basins for purposes of monitoring the impact
of energy resource development could be substantially reduced. Those USGS
stations indicated in Table 55 are recommended as having the highest sampling
priority in the Rosebud, Tongue, and Powder River Basins for monitoring the
impact of energy development there. Continued sampling of both stations on
Armells Creek and the one station at the mouth of the Powder River, to
supplement those data available at Moorhead and Locate, is recommended. Of
the 21 priority stations throughout the study area, sites in the Tongue River
at Miles City, in the Powder River at Moorhead, and in Rosebud Creek at the
mouth are the best located for the maintenance of any continuous monitoring
activities and should be sampled weekly to allow meaningful trend analyses.
Presently, these three important stations are among the most frequently
sampled in the USGS network for each of those three basins, particularly for
collection of basic monitoring parameters, such as temperature, flow, and
salts. However, almost all the elemental parameters considered as having a
high monitoring priority (Table 49) are largely neglected, and very few data
are available for them at any location throughout the basins.
128
-------
ro
TABLE 54. PARAMETERS MONITORED BY THE EXISTING SAMPLING NETWORK AT SELECTED STATIONS
IN THE TONGUE AND POWDER RIVER BASINS AND THEIR AVERAGE FREQUENCY OF
MEASUREMENT
Parametert
00010
nnni 1
UvUl 1
00041
00061
00070
nnn?fi
UUU/ O
nnnoA
UUU:I*T
00095
00300
00310
00400
nndm
UVIHUO
00410
00440
00445
00515
00530
00600
00610
00625
00630
nnfiii
V/UOOL
nnfifin
t/uuuu
00665
00666
nnfipn
UUUOts
00900
00902
00915
00925
WATER
UATf D
pfni tn
HEATHER
STREAM
TURB
TIIPR
I unD
runiipTi/v
\*nuuv, i v i
CNDUCTVY
00
BOD
PH
1 AR
LnD
T ALK
HC03 ION
COS ION
RESIDUE
RESIDUE
TOTAL N
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
N02&N03
unoiuni
nucQuiuo
flRTHnpni
UA 1 rt\JrVt
PHOS-TOT
PHns-nts
r nuo~u jo
T ORfi r
t UrttJ Is
TOT HARD
NC HARD
CALCIUM
MGNSIUM
TEMP
TFMD
i tnr
WHO
INST. FLOW
JKSN
TDRIRMTD
i no i un 1 1\
crpi n
r ItLU
AT 25C
5 DAY
nil
rtl
CAC03
HC03
C03
DISS-105
TOT NFLT
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
Nnjcc
~U I JO
p
£
CAC03
CAC03
DISS
DISS
CENT
PAIIM
rf\nn
CODE
CFS
JTU
MirpnMun
nii»i\unnu
MICROMHO
MG/L
MG/L
SU
Cll
OU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Mfi/l
nu/ L
Mr /i
no/ L
MG/L
Mfi/i
nu/ L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
06295000
13
9
13
14
13
13
13
--
13
13
10
-_
10
13
13
10
13
13
13
13
13
06296120
14
19
22
27
26
27
13
25
24
21
19
__
..
27
27
27
27
OC
CO
7K
CO
27
yi
CJ
21
21
21
21
06299980
12
9
12
12
12
10
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
06295250
11
9
11
11
n
n
n
11
n
n
n
0
0
n
-.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
USGS Station Numbers
§000
en oi en
ro ro CAJ LJ
to to o o
%
t
c
J
6
4
<;
V
c
-------
TABLE 54. (Continued)
CO
o
06295000
06296120
1 06299980
06295250
in
g 06296003
Station Numbers
01 o> o^
ro u u
ID O O
CO -J -J
O Ul -4
O O b>
o o o
06307740
06307830
06308190
06308400
USFS Stations
o o o
ro ro ro
O^ Ol O\
CJ (Jl Ul
o o o
I-" »-* to
Parameter
00930
00931
nnoiK
uuyjb
00940
00945
nnocn
uuybu
00955
01000
01002
01005
01010
01012
01015
01020
01025
01027
01030
01034
01035
01040
01042
01045
01046
01049
01051
01055
01056
01062
01065
01067
SODIUM
SODIUM
DTCCfllM
r 1 oolUn
CHLORIDE
SULFATE
ci no Tnir
rLUKlUL
SILICA
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLIUM
BERYLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
COPPER
IRON
IRON
LEAD
LEAD
MANGNESE
MANGNESE
MOLY
NICKEL
NICKEL
DISS
ADSBTION
Km cc
,Ulb5
CL
S04-TOT
Fn t cc
,DI5o
D I SOLVED
AS, DISS
AS, TOT
BA.DISS
BE, DISS
BE, TOT
BI.DISS
B.DISS
CD.DISS
CD, TOT
CR.DISS
CR.TOT
CO, TOTAL
CU.DISS
CU.TOT
FE.TOT
FE.DISS
PB.DISS
PB.TOT
MN
MN.DISS
TOTAL
NI.DISS '
NI.TOT
MG/L
RATIO
MP /i
Hu/L
MG/L
MG/L
Up /I
nu/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
13
13
1 -J
la
13
13
1 0
1J
13
4
5
3
4
5
10
4
5
4
5
0
4
5
5
10
4
5
5
6
5
4
5
21
21
91
Ci
21
21
01
e.\
21
4
3
4
4
11
4
4
4
4
-_
4
3
1
15
4
3
3
18
4
4
4
12
12
1 9
1C
12
12
1 9
1C.
12
7
10
1
7
10
I
12
3
5
3
5
I
3
5
5
12
3
5
5
3
5
3
5
11
11
11
11
11
2
4
2
2
4
2
11
2
4
2
2
4
4
11
2
4
4
2
4
2
4
11
11
11
11
11
2
4
2
2
4
2
11
2
4
2
4
2
2
4
4
11
2
4
4
2
4
2
4
12
12
1 9
1£
12
12
1 O
Id
12
4
4
4
4
10
4
4
4
4
4
6
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
I
__
4
11
4
4
4
4
I
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
6
2
10
3
6
3
6
2
3
6
6
10
2
6
6
2
6
3
6
11
11
11
11
11
2
6
2
2
5
2
11
2
6
2
6
2
2
6
11
6
11
6
6
2
6
2
6
11
11
11
11
11
2
4
2
2
3
11
2
4
2
4
2
2
4
4
11
2
4
3
2
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
I
I
I
4
I
I
*
I
I
I
I
4
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
7
7
7
7
7
1
5
I
I
5
I
7
1
5
1
5
I
I
5
5
7
1
5
5
1
5
1
5
444
444
433
542
464
^Sampling initiated during the past year; I=intennittently sampled.
-------
TABLE 54. (Continued)
Parameter
01075
01080
01085
01090
01092
01100
01105
01106
01120
01125
01130
01132
01145
01147
01150
01160
31616
cnncn
OUU9U
70301
70302
70303
71851
/ 1 O Jl
71887
71890
71900
80154
80155
SILVER
STRONTUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
ZINC
TIN
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
GALLIUM
GERMANUM
LITHIUM
LITHIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
TITANIUM
ZIRCONUM
TOT rni i
Ivl lULJ
FEC COL I
A| fiAp
nLUnt
ppcinilP
rtcoi UUL
DISS SOL
DISS SOL
DISS SOL
NTTRATF
111 1 nn 1 1
TOTAL N
MERCURY
MERCURY
SUSP SED
SUSP SED
AG.DISS
SR.DISS
V.DISS
ZN.DISS
ZN.TOT
SN.DISS
AL.TOT
AL.DISS
GA.DISS
GE.DISS
LI.DISS*
LI, TOT
SE.DISS
SE.TOT
TI.DISS
ZR.DISS
MFiMFwnn
nr iriLriLJU
MFM-FCBR
TflTAI
IU InL
SUM
nice uni
N03
HG.DISS
HG, TOTAL
CONC
DISCHARGE
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
/inn Ml
/ iuu ru.
/100 ML
MR/I
no/ L
MG/L
TONS/DAY
PERACRE-FT
MR /I
nu/ L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
TONS/DAY
!
06295000
0
3
4
4
5
5
4
--
5
5
4
2
_
__
13
13
13
13
4
5
18
18
! 06296120
1
..
--
4
4
3
--
4
4
--
4
4
4
3
^_
31
19
1C.
21
25
25
27
4
3
19
19
06299980
I
I
3
3
4
I
4
3
I
I
3
5
3
5
I
I
--
12
12
12
12
3
5
16
16
06295250
2
2
2
4
4
ir
*
*
_.
11
11
11
11
*
--
3
3
C0096290 |
2
2
2
2
4
2
4
2
2
2
2
4
3
4
2
2
--
11
11
11
11
2
4
12
12
Station Numbers
0 O O
O) Ot O>
ro u co
10 0 0
03 **i ^j
§
-------
TABLE 55. U.S.. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY STATIONS RECOMMENDED TO HAVE THE HIGHEST
SAMPLING PRIORITY IN THE TONGUE-POWDER RIVER STUDY AREA FOR
MONITORING ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Station
STORET
Number
Station Name
06294940
06294980
06294995
06295400
06296003
06299980
06305500
06306300
06307610
06308400
06308500
06312500
06313400
06313500
06324000
06324500
06326300
06326500
06295000
06326530
not established
Sarpy Creek near Hysham, MT
East Fork Armells Creek near Col strip, MT
Armells Creek near Forsyth, MT
Rosebud Creek above Pony Creek, MT
Rosebud Creek at mouth, near Rosebud, MT
Tongue River at Monarch, WY
Goose Creek below Sheridan, WY
Tongue River at State line near Decker
Tongue River below Hanging Woman Creek, MT
Pumpkin Creek near Miles City, MT
Tongue River at Miles City, MT
Powder River near Kaycee, WY
Salt Creek near Sussex, WY
Powder River at Sussex, WY
Clear Creek near Arvada, WY
Powder River at Moorhead, MT
Mizpah Creek near Mizpah, MT
Powder River near Locate, MT
Yellowstone River at Forsyth, MT
Yellowstone River at Terry, MT
Powder River at mouth, MT
132
-------
REFERENCES
Adams, W. 1975. Western Environmental Monitoring Accomplishment Plan draft
report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EMSL-Las Vegas, Las Vegas,
Nevada. 48 pp.
Atwood G. 1975. The Strip-mining of Western Coal. Scientific American
223(6): 23-29.
Bailey, R. M., J. E. Fitch, E. S. Herald, E. A. Lachner, C. C. Lindsey, C. R.
Robins, and W. B. Scott. 1970. A List of Common and Scientific Names of
Fishes From the United States and Canada. Third Edition, Amer. Fish. Soc-
Special Publication #6. 150 pp.
Bovee, K., J. Gore, and A. Silverman. 1977. Field Testing and Adaptation of
a Methodology to Measure "In-Stream" Values in the Tongue River, Northern
Great Plains (NGP) Region. (Draft report). Office of Energy Activities,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, CO. 27 pp.
Bryson, R. P., and N. W. Bass. 1973. Geology of Moorhead Coal Field, Powder
River, Big Horn, and Rosebud Counties, Montana. U.S. Geological Survey
Bulletin 1338. Washington, D.C. 116 pp.
Campbell, T. C., and S. Katell. 1975. Long Distance Coal Transport: Unit
Trains or Slurry Pipelines. U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular
8690. Process Evaluation Group, Morgantown, WV. 31 pp.
Corsentino, J. S. 1976. Projects to Expand Fuel Sources in the
United States: Survey of Planned or Proposed Coal, Oil Shale, Tar Sand,
Uranium, and Geothermal Supply Expansion Projects and Related Infrastructure
in States West of the Mississippi River. U.S. Bureau of Mines Information
Circular #8719. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 208 pp.
Curth, E. A. 1971. Causes and Prevention of Transportation Accidents in
Bituminous Coal Mines. U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular #8506.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
107 pp.
Dettman, E. H., R. D. 01 sen, and W. S. Vinikour- 1976. Effects of Coal Strip
Mining on Stream Water Quality: Preliminary Results. Presented at the Coal
Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, October 1976. Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, II. 18 pp.
133
-------
Douglas, R. L.,. and J. f1. Hans, Jr. 1975. Gamma Radiation Surveys at
Inactive Uranium Mill Sites. #ORD/LV - 75-5. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EMSL-Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV. 87 pp.
Ebens, R. J., and J. M. McNeal. 1976. Geology of the Fort Union Formation.
In: USGS 1976 Geochemical Survey of Western Energy Area, pp 94-100. U.S.
Geological Survey.
Feder, G. L., and L. G. Saindon. 1976. Geochemistry of Ground Waters in The
Fort Union Coal Region. In: USGS 1976 Geochemical Survey of Western Energy
Areas, pp 8G-92. U.S. Geological Survey.
Federal Energy Administration. 1974. Project Independence Blueprint Final
Task Report. Coal. 175 pp.
Glass, G. B. 1976. Wyoming Coal Directory. Wyoming Geological Survey.
21 pp.
Glass, G. B. 1977. Wyoming Coal and Coal Mining. Contributions to Geology
15(2): 79-91.
Harza Engineering Company. 1976. Analysis of Energy Projections and
Implications for Resource Requirements. Chicago, IL. 130 pp.
Hinkley, T. K., and R. J. Ebens. 1976. Minerology of Fine Grained Rocks in
the Fort Union Formation. In: USGS 1976«Geochemical Survey of Western
Energy Regions, pp. 10-13. U.S. Geological Survey.
Hughes, E. E., E. M. Dickson, and K. A. Schmidt. 1974. Control of
Environmental Impacts from Advanced Energy Sources #EPA-600/2-74-002.
Stanford Research Institute for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 326 pp.
Jones, D. C., W. S. Clark, J. C. Lacy, W. F. Holland, and E. D. Sethness.
1977. Monitoring Environmental Impacts of the Coal and Oil Shale
Industries - Research and Development Needs. #EPA-600/7-77-015. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV. 191 pp.
Knapton, J. R., and P. W. McKinley. 1977. Water Quality of Selected Streams
in the Coal Area of Southeastern Montana. #USGS/WRD/WRI-77 062. U.S.
Geological Survey, Helena, MT. 156 pp.
Krohn, D. H., and M. M. Weist. 1977. Principal Information on Montana Mines.
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 75. Butte, MT.
150 pp.
Larson, W.C. 1978. Uranium In Situ Leach Mining in the United States. U.S.
Bureau of Mines Information Circular #8777. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 68 pp.
134
-------
Lord, U. B., S. K. Tubbesing, and C. Althen. 1975. Fish and Wildlife
Implications of Upper Missouri Basin Water Allocation. Program on
Technology, Environment and Man Monograph #22. University of Colorado,
Boulder, CO. 114 pp.
McGuinness, C. L. 1963. The Role of Ground Water in the National Water
Situation. U.S. Geological Survey Water - Supply Paper #1800. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1121 pp.
McKee, J. E., and H. W. Wolf. 1963. Water Quality Criteria. Resources
Agency of California State Water Quality Control Board, Publication #3-A,
Second Edition. Sacramento, CA. 548 pp.
Missouri Basin Inter-Agency Committee. 1971. The Missouri River Basin
Comprehensive Framework Study. #5233-0007. Vol. I. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 273 pp.
Missouri River Basin Commission. 1978a. Level B Study - Report on the
Yellowstone Basin and Adjacent Coal Area, Northeast Wyoming. Omaha, NE.
369 pp.
Missouri River Basin Commission. 1978b. Level B Study - Report on the
Yellowstone Basin and Adjacent Coal Area, Tongue and Powder. Omaha, NE.
212 pp.
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. 1977. Directory of Mining Enterprises
for 1976. Bulletin #103. Montana College of Mineral Science and
Technology, Butte, MT. 62 pp.
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 1976a. Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for Water Reservation Applications in the
Yellowstone River Basin, Vol. I. Water Resources Division, Helena, MT.
215 pp.
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 1976b. Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for Water Reservation Applications in the
Yellowstone River Basin, Vol. II. Water Resources Division, Helena, MT.
198 pp.
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 1976c. The
Framework Report, Volume I: A Comprehensive Water and Related Land
Resources Plan for the State of Montana. Water Resources Division, Helena,
MT. 101 pp.
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 1977. The
Future of the Yellowstone River ? Water Resources Division, Helena, MT,
107 pp.
Montana Department of State Lands. 1977. Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Proposed Expansion of Western Energy Company's Rosebud
Mine into Areas A and C. Vol. I. Helena, MT. 236 pp.
135
-------
Montana State Engineers Office. 1978. Basin Listing of Water Rights for
Tongue, Powder, and Yellowstone Area. 229 pp.
National Academy of Sciences. 1973. Water Quality Criteria, 1972.
#EPA-R3-73-033. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
594 pp.
North Central Power Study. 1971. Report of Phase 1, Volume 2: Study of
Mine-Mouth Thermal Powerplants with Extra High Voltage Transmission for
Delivery of Power to Load Centers. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Billings,
MT. 456 pp.
Northern Great Plains Resource Program. 1974. Water Quality Subgroup Report
(Draft). 530 pp.
Northern Great Plains Resource Program. 1975. Effects of Coal Development in
the Northern Great Plains, Denver, CO. 105 pp.
Powder River Areawide Planning Organization. 1977. Water Quality Management
Plan for Campbell County, Johnson County, and Sheridan County. 295 pp.
Radian Corporation. 1976. Existing Ecosystem, Colstrip, Montana, and
Vicinity. Austin, TX. 42 pp.
Shupe, S. J. 1978. Instream Flow Requirements in the Powder River Coal
Basin. Water Resources Bulletin 14(2):349-358.
Toole, K. R. 1976. The Rape of the Great Plains Northwest. America Cattle
and Coal Atlantic Monthly Press, Little Brown and Co., Boston, MA, and
Toronto. 271 pp.
Toy, T. 1976. A Climate Appraisal of the Rehabilitation Potential of
Strippable Coal Lands in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana.
Interim Report to the U.S. Geological Survey. 38 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1974. Crow Ceded Area Coal Lease -
Westmoreland Resources Mining Proposal, Final Environmental Statement
#EIS-MS-74-0178-F. Billings, MT. 353pp.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1972. Appraisal Report on Montana-Wyoming
Aqueducts. Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. 47 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1975. Western Gasification Company (UESCO) Coal
Gasification Project and Expansion of Navajo Mines by Utah International,
Inc., New Mexico. Final Environmental Statanent INTFES 76-2, Vol. 1. U.S.
Department of Interior. 683 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1977. El Paso Coal Gasification Project, San
Juan County, New Mexico. Final Environmental Statement INTFES 77-03,
Vol. 1, U.S. Department of Interior- 550 pp.
136
-------
U.S. Department of Interior. 1975. Shaping Coal's Future Through Technology,
1974-1975. Office of Coal Research. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 243 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Northern Great Plains Resource
Program, Accomplishment Plan Region VIII. Denver, CO. 189 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Water Programs: National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Federal Register 40(248):
59566-59574.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976a. National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations #EPA-570/9-76-003. Office of Water Supply,
Washington, D.C. 159 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976b. Quality Criteria for Water.
#EPA-440/9-76-023. Washington, D.C. 501 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977a. Advanced Fossil Fuels and the
Environment. #EPA-600/9-77-013. U.S. EPA Decision Series. Research and
Development Technical Information Staff, Cincinnati, OH. 23 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977b. Report on Lake De Smet, Johnson
County, Wyoming. Working Paper No. 884. CERL-Corvallis, OR, and EMSL-Las
Vegas, NV. 23 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977c. Report on Tongue River
Reservoir, Big Horn County, Montana. Working Paper No. 803.
CERL-Corvallis, OR, and EMSL-Las Vegas, NV. 27 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1974. Proposed Plan of Mining and Reclamation, Big
Sky Mine, Peabody Coal Company, Coal Lease M-15965, Col strip, Montana.
Final Environmental Statement FES 74-12. Volume I. 438 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1976. Proposed 20-Year Plan of Mining and
Reclamation, Westmoreland Resources Tract III, Crow Indian Ceded Area,
Montana. Draft Environmental Statement DES-76-45. 729 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Department of State Lands. 1977. East
Decker and North Extension Mines Decker Coal Company, Big Horn County,
Montana. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I. 871 pp.
University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation. 1977a. Energy From the West:
A Progress Report of a Technology Assessment of Western Energy Resource
Development. #EPA-600/7-77-072a. Volume I: Summary Report. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, D.C. 153 pp.
University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation. 1977b. Energy From the West:
A Progress Report of a Technology Assessment of Western Energy Resource
Development. Volume II: Detailed Analyses and Supporting Materials.
#EPA-600/7-77-072b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D.C. 805 pp.
137
-------
University of Oklahoma and Radian Corporation. 1977c. Energy From the West:
A Progress Report of a Technology Assessment of Western Energy Resource
Development. Volume III: Preliminary Policy Analysis. #EPA-600/7-77-072c.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, D.C. 176 pp.
Upper Colorado Region State-Federal Inter-Agency Group. 1971. Upper Colorado
Region Comprehensive Framework Study Appendix XV: Water Quality, Pollution
Control, and Health Factors. Water Quality, Pollution Control, and Health
Factors Work Group. 219 pp.
Utah State University. 1975. Colorado River Regional Assessment Study. Part
II: Detailed Analyses: Narrative Description Data, Methodology, and
Documentation. Contract #WQ5AC054. Logan, UT. 479 pp.
Van Voast, W. A. 1974. Hydrologic Effects of Strip Coal Mining in
Southeastern Montana - Emphasis: One Year of Mining Near Decker- Montana
Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin #93. Butte, MT. 24 pp.
Van Voast, W. H., R. B. Hedges, and G. K. Pagenkopf. 1975. Hydrologic
Research in Strip Mine Areas of Southeastern Montana. Report of the Polish
U.S. Symposium, May 27-29, 1975, University of Denver Research Institute.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., and Central Research
for Open Cast Mining, Wroclaw, Poland. 10 pp.
Van Voast, W. H., and J. J. McDermott. 1977. Hydrogeologic Conditions and
Projections Related to Mining near Colstrip, Southeastern Montana. Montana
Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin #102. 41 pp.
Wangsness, D. J. 1977. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Relations of Four
Ponds in the Hidden Water Creek Strip Mine Area, Powder River Basin,
Wyoming, #USGS/WRD/WRI-77 072. U.S. Geological Survey, Cheyenne, WY.
48 pp.
Warner, D. L. 1974. Rationale and Methodology for Monitoring Ground Water
Polluted by Mining Activities. #EPA-680/4-74-003. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV. 76 pp.
Wewerka, E. M., J. M. Williams, P- L. Wanek, and J. D. Olsen. 1976.
Environmental Contamination From Trace Elements in Coal Preparation Wastes:
A Literature Review and Assessment. #EPA-GOO/7-76-007. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. 69 pp.
Wyoming Geological Association Technical Studies Committee. 1965. Geologic
History of the Powder River Basin. Bulletin of the American Association of
Petroleum Geology 49(11): 1893-1907.
Wyoming State Board of Control. 1972. Tabulations of Adjucated Water Rights
of the State of Wyoming, Water Division Number Two. Cheyenne, WY. 300 pp.
Yellowstone-Tongue Areawide Planning Organization. 1977. Yellowstone-Tongue
APO - A Water Quality,Management Report, YTAPO, Broadus, MT. 193 pp.
138
-------
APPENDIX A
CONVERSION FACTORS
139
-------
In this report, metric units are frequently abbreviated using the
notations shown below. The metric units can be converted to English units by
multiplying the factors given in the following list:
Metric Unit
to Convert
Centimeters (cm)
Cubic meters (m3)
Cubic meters/sec (cms)
Hectares (ha)
Joules/gram
Kilograms (kg)
Kilograms
Kilometers (km)
Liters (1)
Li ters
Liters/kilogram
Meters (m)
Square kilometers (km2)
Square kilometers
Multiply by
0.3937
8.107 x lO-4
35.315
2.471
0.430
2.205
1.102 x ID'3
0.6214
6.294 x ID'3
0.2642
239.64
3.281
247.1
0.3861
English Unit
to Obtain
Inches
Acre-feet
Cubic feet/sec
Acres
Btu/pound
Pounds
Tons (short)
Miles
Barrels (crude oil)
Gallons
Gallons/ton
Feet
Acres
Square miles
140
-------
APPENDIX B
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL DATA
141
-------
TABLE Bl. DATA SELECTED FROM SELECTED PARAMETERS, 1974-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE ROSEBUD CREEK BASIN
£»
ro
Station*
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/1)
9525
9535
9540
9550
9600
Conductivity (at 25°C, umho)
9525
9535
9540
9550
9600
Dissolved Magnesium (mg/1)
9525
9535
9540
9550
9600
Dissolved Sodium (mg/1)
9525
9535
9540
9550
9600
1974
x(m1n-max)nt
821(708-974)3
885(794-1030)3
889(782-1030)3
933(832-1040)3
1457(1120-1750)3
1460(1280-1600)3
1413(1240-1550)3
1477(1320-1560)3
94(80-110)3
103(91-120)3
99(86-110)3
93(85-110)3
78(72-87)3
80(68-98)3
87(74-110)3
106(88-120)3
1975
x(min-max)n
737(198-1000)12
77(60-94)2
789(214-1150)12
791(215-1100)12
759(220-1210)13
1048(310-1700)12
108(85-130)2
1245(400-1900)12
1150(350-1870)12
1117(330-2060)13
81(19-110)12
4(3-5)2
84(19-110)12
79(18-110)12
74(12-120)13
74(29-93)12
2(1-2)2
71(15-120)12
78(21-130)12
86(24-140)13
1976
x(m1n-max)n
807(659-943)12
~
886(627-1040)12
938(749-1190)12
991(754-1270)12
1249(900-1580)12
1338(970-1650)12
1384(1080-1750)12
1463(1130-1900)12
90(76-110)12
96(78-110)12
100(81-120)12
99(65-130)12
77(53-90)12
82(47-120)12
95(68-130)12
114(87-190)12
1977
x(m1n-max)n
775(555-895)11
793(588-981)9
721(353-1030)5
853(437-1250)10
1193(850-1530)11
1187(900-1550)9
1116(540-1720)5
1351(1050-1870)10
89(60-110)11
88(64-110)9
75(26-110)5
82(34-120)10
71(53-89)11
72(41-98)9
66(42-97)5
105(60-170)10
*For full description of station locations, see Table 34.
x represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
tthe total number os samples collected.
-------
TABLE Bl. (Continued)
CO
Station*
Dissolved Calcium (mg/1)
9525
. 9535
9540
9550
9600
Total Hardness (CaCOt.mg/1)
9525
9535
9540
9550
9600
Total Iron (pg/1)
9525
9535
9540
9550
9600
Total Manganese (ug/1)
9525
9535
9540
9550
9600
1974
x(m1n-max)nt
78(72-87)3
80(72-93)3
76(67-89)3
79(67-87)3
580(510-670)3
623(550-730)3
597(520-680)3
583(520-670)3
700(520-880)2
--
645(510-780)2
3745(790-6700)2
16,950(1900-32,000)2
40(30-50)2
30(30-30)2
75(40-110)2
330(90-570)2
1975
x(min-max)n
75(29-93)12
15(13-17)2
75(28-94)12
71(26-98)12
66(25-110)13
522(150-670)12
53(44-62)2
532(150-690)12
503(140-700)12
469(110-770)13
3334(310-7800)5
2300(-)1
2484(610-5600)5
4138(890-9700)5
5700(1200-15,000)6
200(20-340)5
70(-)1
124(20-260)5
134(40-260)5
157(60-260)6
1976
x(m1n-max)n
77(53-90)12
78(60-92)12
78(61-94)12
78(65-96)12
561(480-670)12
592(470-680)12
605(490-730)12
603(440-780)12
4835(380-16,000)4
2815(420-8200)4
3820(680-11,000)4
2150(1000-3400)4
200(30-600)4
130(20-310)4
155(40-420)4
90(60-130)4
1977
x(m1n-max)n
71(53-89)11
71(56-93)9
70(32-96)5
70(44-97)10
547(410-630)11
540(430-650)9
486(190-690)5
511(250-700)10
760(-)1
1700(-)1
11,000(-)1
4700(-)1
70(-)1
60 ( - ) 1
210(-)1
80 ( - ) 1
-------
TABLE Bl. (Continued)
Station*
Temperature (°C)
55Z5
9535
9540
9550
9600
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
9525
9535
9540
9550
9600
Dissolved Potassium (mg/1)
5525
9535
9540
9550
9600
Bicarbonate (mg/1)
5525
9535
9540
9550
9600
1974
x(m1n-max)nt
3.5(0.5-8».0)3
4.2(0.5-9.0)3
4.3(0.5-9.0)3
4.3(0.5-9.0)3
11.3(9.6-12.4)3
--
11.2(9.4-12.3)3
11.2(9.0-12.7)3
11.3(9.2-13.0)3
10.8(9.4-12.0)3
11.3(11.0-12.0)3
10.9(9.7-12.0)3
10.2(9.6-11.0)3
524(482-606)3
--
501(422-603)3
512(460-580)3
501(469-563)3
1975
x(m1n-max)n
8.1(0-23.0)12
0.2(0-0.5)2
8.0(0-23.0)12
7.8(0-23.0)12
8.0(0-25.0)13
9.5(6.2-12.6)12
10.7(10.6-10.8)2
9.4(6.5-12.2)12
9.7(5.9-12.2)12
10.2(6.2-12.8)13
9.2(7.4-11.0)12
6.6(5.6-7.5)2
9.1(1.1-12.0)12
9.5(7.3-12.0)12
9.3(5.0-12.0)13
462(132-594)12
58(48-67)2
454(140-617)12
424(139-616)12
398(133-636)13
1976
x(m1n-max)n
8.6(0-22.5)12
8.5(0-22.0)12
8.4(0-21.5)12
9.1(0-25.0)12
10.2(6.6-12.4)11
10.3(6.8-13.8)11
10.2(7.0-12.6)12
10.8(8.3-13.2)12
9.5(8.2-11.0)12
9.8(7.8-12.0)12
9.9(8.3-12.0)12
10.3(8.3-13.0)12
476(281-576)12
492(392-587)12
472(427-611)12
495(399-624)12
1977
x(m1n-max)n
11.0(0-23.0)11
12.0(0-23.5)9
6.1(0-18.0)5
10.6(0-25.0)10
9.7(7.3-13.8)11
9.0(7.3-11.5)9
9.6(7.5-11.5)5
10.0(7.5-13.0)10
9.3(7.1-12.0)11
9.4(7.2-13.0)9
8.6(7.7-10.0)5
9.5(7.4-12.0)10
471(370-560)11
446(390-564)9
409(150-586)5
432(209-610)10
-------
TABLE Bl. (Continued)
Station*
Total Sulfate (mg/1)
9525
9535
9540
9550
9600
Chloride (mg/1)
9525
9535
9540
9550
9660
Dissolved Silica (mg/1)
9525
9535
9540
9550
9600
PH (StO
9525
9535
9540
9550
9600
1974
x(m1n-max)nt
283(230-350)3
330(290-390)3
343(300-400)3
377(330-410)3
5.1(4.8-5.2)3
5.3(4.9-5.5)3
5.0(4.3-5.5)3
5.8(5.1-6.3)3
18(17-19)3
17(16-19)3
15(14-18)3
14(10-17)3
8.2(8.0-8.6)3
8.4(8.0-8.8)3
8.2(8.0-8.3)3
8.3(8.0-8.5)3
1975
x(m1n-max)n
260(54-420)12
12.6(6.3-19.0)2
302(62-560)12
318(139-616)12
304(68-530)13
4.9(1.1-7.0)12
1.6(1.3-2.0)2
5.0(3.1-6.4)12
5.4(2.7-7.3)12
5.0(2.8-7.6)13
15(7-21)12
7(6-8)2
15(8-22)12
15(8-21)12
13(8-21)13
8.2(7.5-8.9)12
7.7(7.4-8.0)2
8.2(7.5-8.5)12
8.1(7.5-8.5)12
8.1(7.5-8.5)13
1976
x(m1n-max)n
300(220-380)12
352(220-430)12
472(427-611)12
422(310-620)12
5.0(3.4-6.5)12
6.0(4.0-13.0)12
5.6(3.9-7.5)12
5.7(2.2-7.1)12
15(11-20)12
15(10-19)12
14(9-20)12
14(8-19)12
8.3(7.9-8.5)12
8.2(7.4-8.7)12
8.2(7.8-8.6)12
8.1(6.9-8.8)12
1977
x(m1n-max)n
285(190-350)11
312(200-420)9
409(150-586)5
352(140-600)10
5.0(3.0-6.9)11
4.8(3.3-6.2)9
4.7(3.5-6.4)5
5.6(3.3-9.2)10
15(9-22)11
14(7-22)9
14(7-22)5
12(7-22)10
8.3(8.0-8.6)11
8.3(7.9-8.6)9
8.3(7.9-8.5)5
8.3(7.4-8.7)10
-------
TABLE Bl. (Continued)
Station*
Total Alkalinity (CaC(h. mg/1)
9525
9535
9540
9550
9600
1974
x(m1n-max)nt
436(395-497)3
432(391-495)3
420(377-476)3
411(385-462)3
1975
x(m1n-max)n
381(108-487)12
47(39-55)2
378(115-506)12
354(114-505)12
335(109-522)13
1976
x(m1n-max)n
400(287-472)12
408(322-481)12
396(350-501)12
411(327-512)12
1977
x(m1n-max)n
389(310-460)11
~
367(320-463)9
336(123-481)5
358(170-500)10
CD
-------
TABLE 82. FLOW (m3/sec), 1973-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS
IN THE TONGUE RIVER BASIN
Station
Number*
9800
9998
0550.
0610
0630
0680
0750
0760
0761
0767
0774
0781
0783
0784
0816
0817
0819
0840
0850
1973 1974
~x (min-max)nt >< (min-max)n
2.2(1.8-2.5)4 4.9(1.4-31.7)14
9.0(2.5-42.8)9
3.8(1.7-5.7)6 3.6(0.9-13.9)17
10.7(10.0-11.4)4 11.8(3.4-48*4)13
0.03(0.02-0.03)3
14.3(6.3-43.3)9
0.1(0.01-0.1)3
13.3(5.7-41.3)9
11.1(5.3-15.3)3 11.8(4.0-37.1)13
1975
~x (min-max)n
9.5(1.2-41.3)12
12.5(1.9-50.9)12
9.1(1.3-41.9)21
0.04(0.03-0.05)3
26.9(5.1-96.3)12
0.01(0.002-0.3)7
4.0(0.7-6.1)3
0.9(0.05-3.5)15
22.3(1.3-99.1)12
0.5(0.01-1.5)4
1.0(0.02-8.1)13
0.6(0.03-1.2)5
25.3(2.4-99.1)14
0.4(0.3-0.5)2
0.01(-)1
0.003(-)1
0.01(0.001-0.02)3
23.2(2.5-117.2)13
1976
~x (mln-max)n
4.1(1.4-15.9)12
5. 4(1.8-29. 7;13
5.0(1.3-23.9)27
0.1(0.01-0.3)12
10.2(3.4-33.7)13
0.01(0.1-0.01)2
12.9(3.8-42.8)12
0.1(0.02-0.4)12
12.8(3.8-43.0)12
0(-)1
0.1(0-0.3)12
0.02(0.02-0.03)4
11.9(4.7-32.0)12
0.01(-)1
0.01(0-0.01)7
0.01(0.001-0.01)3
0.1(0-0.1)5
1.2(0.01-7.2)7
12.8(4.2-43.3)12
1977
7 (mln-max)n
4.9(1.4-21.4)12
6.0(1.4-26.6)12
3.7(1.4-13.2)15
0.2(0.01-1.4)11
11.1(2.0-41.9)13
0.01(-)1
12.1(0.1-66.3)12
0.05(0.02-0.3)11
12.3(2.7-66.6)12
0.4(0-1.5)5
0.1(0.002-0.2)11
0.4(0.02-1.2)9
15.2(4.7-60.9)11
0.001(0-0.03)5
0.01(0-0.03)3
0.04(0.01-0.1)3
0.6(0-1.4)5
9.5(2.8-38.2)13
1978
~x (mln-max)n
1.6(1.4-1.7)3
2.2(1.5-2.5)3
1.9(-)1
0.1(0.01-1.4)26
14.5(2.0-96.3)55
0.1(0.002-0.3)10
11.4(0.1-66.3)27
0.4(0.02-3.5)41
4-2(-)2
0.4(0.002-8.1)39
17.1(2.4-99.1)46
0.3(0.01-0.5)4
0.01(0-0.03)13
0.01(0-0.03)6
0.05(0-0.1)9
0.7(0-7.2)15
4.2(3.9-4.6)2
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B3. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (mg/1), 1970-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE TONGUE RIVER BASIN
00
Station 1970
Number* _
x (mln-max) n+
9800 138(94-164)14
9998
0550 440(101-626)10
0610
0630 448(145-657)28
0680
0750
0760
0761
07615
0767
0774
0781
0783
0784
0816
0817
0819
0840
0850 555(322-789)12
1971 1972 1973 1974
x (mln-max) n x (mln-max) n x (min-mux) n x (mln-max) n
134(86-154)13 131(72-168)12 130(81-150)13 133(66-153)11
272(93-524)9
399(111-620)12 371(94-481)12 423(113-564)14 401(149-622)12
__
498(153-732)12 459(193-623)12 439(160-624)11 520(157-710)11
__
__
1670(1620-1740)3
402(193-581)8
1380(1310-1470)3
~
2223(2080-2320)3
-_
540(473-620)3
__
560(295-756)11 568(291-792)12 549(262-761)12 550(215-843)13
1975
x (mln-max ) n
134(83-170)12
285(106-376)12
412(95-600)12
844(826-866)3
416(130-570)12
2765(268-4950)7
534(523-540)3
1634(176-2630)14
468(176-896)11
1070(152-1410)10
798(140-2330)4
1840(228-2690)13
1373(230-2970)5
520(203-868)12
94(84-103)2
3720(-)1
~
5950 (-)l
2473(2220-2840)3
578(290-912)13
1976
x (mln-max) n
138(95-182)12
269(149-395)13
409(124-600)13
727(605-938)12
453(152-626)13
4050(3560-4540)2
432(195-617)12
1535(896-2020)11
461(202-687)11
1223(1150-1310)11
646(-)l
2069(1610-2590)12
3122(2920-3400)4
506(217-657)12
~
4200(3290-5160)7
2887(2700-3090)3
3754(2980-4580)5
1319(120-3190)7
559(281-717)12
1977
x (mln-max) n
137(83-167)8
263(128-347)10
411(132-575)10
721(377-956)10
438(174-571)9
4680(-)1
429(247-522)9
1763(1200-2090)10
449(245-564)11
1241(1140-1320)9
~
2150(1620-2460)10
473(267-661)9
193(-)1
4714(3340-6430)5
2507(1360-3760)3
3510(2750-4710)3
810(303-1580)4
495(234-665)9
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B4. CONDUCTIVITY (ymho/cm at 25°C), 1970-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE TONGUE RIVER BASIN
«£>
Station
Number*
9800
9998
0530
0610
0630
0680
0750
0760
0761
07615
0767
0774
0781
0783
0784
0816
0817
0819
0840
0850
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
jt (min-max) n''' x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
245(166-289)14 235(149-271)13 237(129-297)12 237(145-272)13 233(121-294)13
405(170-550)9
690(174-962)10 620(163-933)12 598(163-768)12 678(182-869)14 623(228-980)13
690(247-987)28 747(252-1070)12 711(322-914)12 673(262-939)12 735(282-989)12
__
2472(2325-2630)3
660(330-890)9
2140(2070-2250)3
3370(2980-3900)3
808(360-li20)9
-
838(503-1150)12 844(467-1140)12 854(463-1120)12 849(445-1170)12 878(365-1230)13
1975
x (min-max) n
242(130-340)12
420(200-540)12
677(195-1010)12
1280(1240-1340)3
650(230-970)12
3599(450-6250)7
830(800-850)3
2258(240-3700)14
734(280-1310)12
1536(270-2030)10
1095(225-3000)4
2482(370-3500)13
1844(400-3800)5
802(350-1300)13
128(120-135)2
4830(-)1
~
7000 (-)l
3620(3160-3850)3
848(440-1320)13
1976
x (min-max) n
770(165-360)12
448(225-640)13
660(215-900)13
1148(915-1550)12
698(260-910)13
4700(4200-5200)2
698(330-945)12
2198(1220-2800)12
747(343-1040)12
1813(1590-2170)12
970(-)1
2772(2300-3260)12
3960(3730-4080)4
786(361-1040)12
5041(4100-5900)7
3587(3410-3720)3
4706(3880-5400)5
1821(195-4120)7
815(440-1040)12
1977
x (min-max) n
220(50-280)9
428(190-570)13
678(210-860)13
1120(630-1710)JO
731(300-930)13
5810(-)1
685(421-928)11
2484(1720-2810)10
723(428-990)11
1818(1710-2060)9
2903(2320-3180)10
723(434-1050)10
170(-)1
6630(4200-10,000)5
4293(1830-7850)3
4907(4200-5900)3
1392(460-2400)4
786(390-975)11
*For full description of station locations,
tx represents the mean for all samples, the
the total number of samples collected.
see Table 35.
range is given in
parentheses, and n indicates
-------
TABLE B5. DISSOLVED CALCIUM (mg/1), 1970-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE TONGUE RIVER BASIN
cn
o
Station 1970 1971
Number* _ _
x (min-max) n' x (mln-mnx) n
9800 36(25-44)14 33(22-38)13
9998
0550 60(18-82)10 58(17-84)12
0610
0630 58(27-78)28 68(26-91)12
0680
0750
0760
0761
07615
0767
0774
0781
0783
0784
0816
0817
0819
0840
0850 64(45-85)12 63(35-91)11
1972 1973 1974
x (mln-max) n x (roln-max) n x (mln-max) n
33(18-39)12 33(23-40)13 31(12-37)11
47(21-57)9
54(14-66)12 62(22-78)14 58(33-85)12
~
65(31-79)12 66(30-83)11 72(30-110)11
__
100(100-100)3
56(31-83)8
92(89-97)3
~ -- 85(67-110)3
68(57-80)3
~
63(31-86)12 62(36-85)12 63(33-95)13
1975
x (mln-max) n
35(21-56)12
45(25-58)12
60(16-79)12
93(89-100)3
60(24-79)12
192(32-320)7
73(67-78)3
98(27-150)14
58(30-81)11
73(19-94)10
60(21-160)4
77(23-120)13
83(20-170)5
60(27-88)12
18(17-19)2
230(-)1
230(-)1
71(59-90)3
61(27-83)13
1976
x (mtn-max) n
33(22-45)12
49(28-67)13
58(18-87)13
82(67-99)12
66(26-84)13
275(260-290)2
60(29-81)12
94(54-120)11
59(30-86)11
80(71-88)11
39(-)l
82(45-120)12
152(140-160)4
61(32-77)12
210(170-260)7
133(130-140)3
142(90-170)5
52(9-100)7
61(40-80)12
1977
x (mln-max) n
33(18-44)8
47(25-57)10
56(23-69)10
80(59-100)10
61(27-75)9
300 (-)l
58(39-74)11
102(88-120)10
57(38-74)11
78(72-82)9
77(52-120)10
56(38-75)10
13(-)1
236(180-310)5
121(74-180)3
147(130-180)3
31(12-65)4
58(35-77)10
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35.
ix represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B6. DISSOLVED SODIUM (mg/1), 1970-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE TONGUE RIVER BASIN
Station 1970
Number* _
x (min-max) nt
98QO 2(1-2)14
9998
0550 29(5-47)10
0610
0630 33(8-63)28
0680
0750
0760
0761
07615
0767
0774
0781
0783
0784
0816
0817
0819
0840
0850 61(25-87)12
1971 1972 1973 1974
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
2(1-8)13 2(1-5)12 1(1-2)13 2(1-3)11
17(3-46)9
25(6-43)12 23(6-33)12 26(6-42)14 26(10-41)12
__
37(9-61)12 31(13-46)12 30(8-49)11 36(8-53)11
__ ^
__
300(290-310)3
32(13-48)8
197(190-200)3
417(390-440)3
50(44-56)3
66(33-94)12 66(30-110)12 62(26-100)12 58(17-92)13
1975
x (min-max) n
1(1-2)12
16(3-31)12
26(5-41)12
45(44-46)3
28(6-40)12
437(30-720)7
39(37-40)3
283(17-490)14
42(14-110)11
150(16-200)10
125(14-390)4
314(26-460)13
226(30-490)5
53(19-110)12
4(4-5)2
630(-)1
1300(-)1
670(610-790)3
72(29-130)13
1976
x (min-max) r.
2(2-4)12
16(6-25)13
27(7-39)13
38(22-65)12
32(8-45)13
630(540-720)2
30(13-46)12
267(150-360)11
39(14-60)11
177(140-210)11
120(-)1
317(290-470)12
492(390-560)4
48(17-68)12
727(550-960)7
447(400-500)3
732(540-880)5
319(26-830)7
65(37-110)12
1977
x (min-max) n
2(1-4)7
15(5-27)10
29(6-49)10
39(13-59)10
32(9-48)9
800(-)1
31(16-44)11
317(210-380)10
37(16-52)11
187(170-210)9
401(310-460)10
--
42(18-76)10
37(-)l
806(570-1100)5
373(190-560)3
677(520-900)3
206(70-400)4
54(18-82)10
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B7. DISSOLVED MAGNESIUM (mg/1), 1970-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE TONGUE RIVER BASIN
on
ro
Station 1970
Number* _
x (min-max) nt
9800 10(6-16)14
9998
0550 43(8-62)10
0610
0630 40(10-60)28
0680
0750
0760
0761
07615
0767
0774
0781
0783
0784
0816
0817
0819
0840
0850 43(23-70)12
1971 1972 1973 1974
x (min-max) n x (mln-max) n x (mln-max) n x (mln-max) n
10(6-13)13 10(4-14)12 10(4-13)13 12(1-29)11
24(6-48)9
38(8-57)12 35(7-46)12 40(6-53)14 38(4-65)12
_
43(12-68)12 41(13-57)12 37(11-52)11 48(1-77)11
__
__
117(110-130)3
37(16-50)9
130(130-130)3
170(150-180)3
47(41-55)3
__
_
~
41(20-57)11 43(17-64)12 43(20-62)12 44(16-69)13
1975
x (mln-max) n
10(3-16)12
21(8-31)12
38(7-59)12
99(98-100)3
36(10-52)12
175(14-340)7
48(47-50)3
106(11-170)14
41(13-73)12
92(11-120)10
52(9-150)4
137(15-190)13
100(15-220)5
41(15-62)12
5(4-6)2
250(-)1
280(-)1
59(50-68)3
44(14-61)13
1976
x (mln-max) n
12(7-16)12
22(12-32)13
39(11-56)13
87(66-110)12
40(12-56)13
260(230-290)2
39(16-58)12
105(52-130)12
42(17-61)12
108(100-120)12
38(-)l
157(130-200)12
235(220-260)4
43(17-57)12
271(210-340)7
230(220-250)3
210(170-250)5
42(4-89)7
43(17-58)12
1977
x (mln-max) n
11(6-14)8
22(10-28)10
40(10-58)10
89(41-120)10
40(17-51)9
310(-)1
39(21-49)11
117(72-130)10
40(21-51)11
111(100-120)9
~
161(120-190)10
39(20-55)10
7(-)l
298(200-380)5
197(110-290)3
187(140-260)3
21(4-47)4
42(20-55)10
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
in
CO
TABLE B8. DISSOLVED POTASSIUM (mg/1), 1970-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE TONGUE RIVER BASIN
Station 1970 1971
Number* _
x (mln-max) nT x (mln-max) n
980C 0.9(0.4-1.7)14 0.8(0-1.6)13
9998
0550 3.2(0.9-5.5)10 3.0(0.7-4.7)12
0610
0630 3.4(1.3-6.5)28 4.1(1.8-7.4)12
0680
0750
0760
0761
07615
0767
0774
0781
0783
0784
0816
1972 1973 1974
1975
x (mln-nax) n x (mln-max) n x (mln-nax) n
0.8(0.2-2.2)12 0.7(0.5-0.9)13 0.8(0.5-1.
2.0(0.9-4.
2.7(0.9-5.1)12 2.8(0.9-4.7)14 2.9(1.2-4.
__
3.1(1.9-4.2)12 3.2(1.4-4.9)11 3.5(1.4-4.
__
_
4)11
4)9
9)12
4)11
13.7(13.0-15.0)3
3.6(1.8-4.
6)8
13.7(13.0-15.0)3
__
23.0(18.0-27.0)3
__
4.5(4.3-4.
__
__
6)3
x
0
2
3
8
3
11
4
13
4
12
11
16
14
5
5
22
(mln-max) n
.9(0.
.5(0.
.5(1.
.4(7.
.6(1.
.8(7.
.3(3.
.7(7.
.9(1.
.4(6.
.0(5.
.6(8.
.0(9.
5-1.4)12
9-7.4)12
4-9.1)12
1-10)3
4-6.3)12
9-17.0)7
9-4.7)3
6-16.0)14
7-7.3)11
6-15.0)10
8-18.0)4
1-24.0)13
4-20.0)5
.2(2.1-8.3)12
x
0
1
2
7
3
16
3
13
3
13
11
19
22
4
1976
(mln-max) n
.9(0.2-1.6)12
.9(1.2-2.7)13
.6(1.4-4.0)13
.1(5.1-11.0)12
.2(1.6-4.9)13
.0(15
.5(1.
.7(12
.8(1.
.5(12
.O(-)
.7(16
.0(19
.2(2.
.0-17.0)2
7-4.9)12
.0-16.0)11
8-5.1)11
.0-16.0)11
1
.0-22.0)12
.0-25.0)4
0-5.2)12
x
0,
1
3
6
3
3
13
3
12
20
4
1977
(mln-max) n
.8(0.
.8(1.
.0(0.
.6(4.
.1(1.
15(-)
.6(2.
.8(7.
.8(2.
5-1.4)8
0-2.5)10
7-4.5)10
6-8.5)10
4-4.9)9
1
3-5.3)11
5-17.0)10
6-4.7)11
.8(11.0-14.0)9
.8(15.0-37.0)10
-
.0(2.
8-5.2)10
.6(5.4-5.9)2 -- 8.2(-)l
0(-)1
21
.4(17
.0-26.0)7
20
.6(17.0-24.0)5
0817
0819
0840
0850 5.2(3.3-6.6)12 5.3(3.0-8.2)11
12.0(11.0-13.0)3
5.2(3.2-8.4)12 5.0(2.8-8.7)12 4.6(1.9-6.1)13 5.1(3.2-6.7)13
25.7(22.0-30.0)3 16.7(2.1-29.0)3
17.2(15.0-20.0)5 17.7(13.0-21.0)3
9.1(4.6-15.0)7 6.5(3.2-12.0)4
4.6(2.9-5.3)12 4.6(2.8-5.6)10
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B9. BICARBONATE ION (mg/1), 1970-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE TONGUE RIVER BASIN
tn
Station 1970 1971 1972
Number* _ _ _
x (mln-tnax) n'1' x (mln-max) n x (mln-max) n
9800 149(98-177)14 144(92-171)13 141(75-170)12
9998
0550 264(74-326)10 240(90-319)12 230(65-293)12
0610
0630 213(110-316)28 253(102-331)12 253(114-304)12
0680
0750
0760
0761
07615
0767
0774
0781
0783
0784
0816
0817
0819
0840
0850 285(196-389)12 269(152-369)11 272(139-388)12
1973 1974
x (mln-max) n x (mln-max) n
139(85-164)13 146(70-167)11
198(85-258)9
265(73-322)14 260(92-330)12
__
244(107-306)11 286(113-330)11
__
_-
644(631-669)3
227(131-285)9
650(636-660)3
--
690(657-749)3
282(256-334)4
__
__
__
285(157-396)12 284(139-448)13
1975
x (mln-max) n
149(90-200)12
199(101-250)12
266(65-360)12
541(527-557)3
246(100-320)12
406(86-638)7
286(274-300)3
480(89-669)14
246(122-376)11
522(92-670)10
225(69-584)4
532(110-810)13
374(94-747)5
258(124-397)12
64(60-69)2
716(-)1
961 (-)l
539(411-672)3
275(142-373)13
1976
x (mln-max) n
154(100-210)12
218(125-298)13
264(85-360)13
445(371-585)12
263(110-340)13
600(577-623)2
245(131-332)12
558(251-648)12
256(124-357)12
649(542-709)12
233(-)l
621(454-754)12
704(650-755)4
265(135-338)12
720(597-959)7
668(624-732)3
586(464-702)5
362(67-876)7
280(174-360)12
1977
x (mln-max) n
151(86-180)8
214(110-260)10
270(79-340)10
444(240-608)10
266(130-340)9
660(-)1
239(150-314)10
602(340-660)10
244(150-316)11
661(614-720)9
660(350-789)10
252(150-340)10
55(-)l
759(510-1110)5
468(239-746)3
528(433-670)3
238(140-390)4
252(150-343)9
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE BIO. SULFATE (mg/1), 1970-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS
IN THE TONGUE RIVER BASIN
Station 1970 1971 1972 1973
Number* _ . _ _ _
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
9800 5(2-11)14 6(2-15)13 7(2-18)12 6(2-9)13
9998
0550 155(25-250)10 142(22-260)12 124(25-190)12 143(27-240)14
0610
0630 188(35-323)28 208(47-340)12 179(67-280)12 166(44-270)11
0680
0750
0760
>_, 0761
cn
tn 07615
0767
0774
0781
0783
0784
0816
0817
0819
0840
0850 229(114-337)12 241(110-360)11 244(120-370)12 225(89-340)12
1974
x (min-max) n
6(2-8)11
75(11-240)9
132(40-260)12
204(39-300)11
~
790(760-820)3
155(59-260)8
593(520-670)3
1167(1100-1200)3
217(190-250)
--
~
--
228(6.8-350)13
1975
x (mln-max) n
4(1-8)12
66(12-120)12
138(22-230)12
313(300-320)3
154(30-240)12
1728(130-3200)7
220(220-220)3
872(57-1500)14
190(47-420)11
460(46-660)10
424(47-1300)4
1006(80-1500)13
748(100-1700)5
220(63-390)12
21(15-27)2
2200(-)1
3600(-)1
1367(1200-1500)3
249(98-440)13
1976
x (min-max) n
6(0-19)12
64(24-110)13
134(35-210)13
275(220-350)12
169(40-250)13
2550(2200-2900)2
169(61-260)12
753(420-1100)12
190(71-280)12
490(430-520)12
310(-)1
1100(850-1400)12
1850(1700-2000)4
211(74-280)12
2586(2000-3100)7
1700(1600-1800)3
2340(1800-3100)5
704(38-1700)7
237(89-310)12
1977
x (mln-max) n
5(1-9)8
63(22-110)10
133(40-220)10
270(130-350)10
156(45-240)9
2900 (-)l
169(84-210)10
888(630-1100)10
181(86-230)11
491(460-520)9
1134(740-1300)10
191(97-290)9
59(-)l
2940(2100-4000)5
1543(830-2300)3
2200(1700-3000)3
412(120-830)4
209(76-290)10
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE Bll. CHLORIDE (mg/1), 1970-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS
IN THE TONGUE RIVER BASIN
CJI
Station 1970 1971
Number* _
x (mln-max) n* x (mln-max) n
9800 3(0-9)14 1(0-3)13
9998
0550 7(1-16)10 4(1-7)12
0610
0630 5(1-11)28 4(1-7)12
0680
0750
0760
0761
07615 " " ^
0767
0774
0781
0783
0784 ~~
0816
0817 ~
0819
0840
0850 4(1-6)12 4(2-5)12
1972 1973 1974
x (mln-max) n x (mln-max) n x (mln-max) n
2(0-4)12 2(0-3)13 2(0-7)11
2(1-4)9
5(1-12)12 5(2-9)14 4(2-7)12
4(2-6)12 4(2-8)11 8(0-57)11
~
__
11(11-12)3
3(1-4)8
7(7-8)3
__
14(12-16)3
4(3-5)3
__
__
4(2-6)12 4(3-8)12 4(1-6)13
1975
x (mln-max) n
2(0-5)12
2(1-5)12
6(2-11)12
4(3-6)3
4(2-11)12
13(4-27)7
4(3-4)3
11(4-14)14
4(2-6)11
6(2-10)10
6(3-13)4
11(3-16)13
6(3-11)5
4(1-6)12
2(2-2)2
17(-)1
26(-)l
10(10-11)3
4(2-7)13
1976
x (mln-max) n
1(0-2)12
2(1-4)13
4(2-11)13
4(2-7)12
4(2-6)13
16(16-17)2
3(1-5)12
10(2-13)12
4(1-7)12
7(3-11)12
4(-)l
11(1-16)12
8(1-11)4
4(2-6)12
~
14(12-18)7
11(10-12)3
16(12-23)5
6(2-13)7
4(2-9)12
1977
x (mln-max) n
3(0-10)8
2(1-3)10
7(2-18)10
3(2-8)10
6(2-18)9
19(-)1
3(1-4)10
12(3-17)10
3(1-4)11
6(4-7)9
~
15(2-29)10
4(2-5)9
37(-)l
19(14-26)5
10(8-13)3
15(13-17)3
5(2-8)4
4(2-5)10
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B12. DISSOLVED SILICA (mg/1), 1970-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE TONGUE RIVER BASIN
cn
Station 1970
Number* _
x (mln-max) n^
9800 6(4-9)14
9998
0550 9(7-11)10
0610
0630 8(4-12)28
0680
0750
0760
0761
07615
0767
0774
0781
0783
0784
OB16
0817
0819
0840
0850 7(3-11)12
1971 1972 1973 1974
x (ratn-roax) n x (mln-max) n x (mln-max) n x (mln-max) n
7(5-9)13 7(6-8)12 7(6-9)13 7(5-8)11
6(1-8)9
9(4-12)12 10(6-14)12 10(5-13)14 9(6-13)12
__
7(3-12)12 8(6-12)12 8(5-11)11 8(6-12)11
__
_.
15(7-20)3
4(1-6)8
23(23-24)3
~
7(3-11)3
6(5-8)3
7(4-10)12 7(5-9)12 6(3-8)12 6(1-11)13
1975
x (mln-max) n
6(4-7)12
6(1-9)12
8(5-11)12
13(13-14)3
7(4-10)12
7(4-10)7
3(1-5)3
14(7-22)14
6(3-8)11
18(6-28)10
9(6-14)4
9(2-17)13
10(6-15)5
6(2-9)12
6(5-7)2
22(-)l
21(-)1
12(11-13)3
6(4-9)13
1976
x (mln-max) n
6(6-7)12
7(5-8)13
9(5-12)13
11(5-15)12
7(4-10)13
8(4-11)2
5(1-10)12
16(8-22)11
4(1-6)11
23(15-53)11
8(-)l
9(5-17)12
12(10-15)4
4(1-6)12
~.
21(17-26)7
26(22-30)3
17(15-20)5
9(5-15)7
5(1-7)12
1977
x (mln-max) n
6(5-7)8
6(5-8)10
8(4-12)10
12(8-16)10
6(2-10)9
7(-)l
6(4-12)11
17(11-23)10
4(1-9)11
22(16-27)9
9(1-20)10
~
5(3-6)10
4(-)l
13(8-19)5
10(8-14)3
8(5-11)3
5(4-6)4
6(3-7)10
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B13. TOTAL HARDNESS (mg/1). 1970-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS
IN THE TONGUE AND POWDER RIVER BASIN
en
oo
Station
Number*
9800
9998
0550
0610
0630
0680
0750
0760
0761
07615
0767
0774
0781
0783
0784
0816
0817
0819
0840
0850
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
^(min-max)nt Ic(m1n-inax)n 7(m1n-max)n °x(m1n-max)n ;x(m1n-max)n
136(85-172)14 123(77-150)13 123(60-160)12 123(73-146)13 127(60-150)11
215(77-340)9
327(76-456)10 298(83-440)12 279(65-360)12 317(82-410)14 301(100-450)12
..
309(108-422)28 349(120-490)12 331(130-430)12 317(120-420)11 376(115-510)11
.-
--
730(700-790)3
288(140-410)8
767(760-780)3
{,
903(780-1000)13
._
363(310-430)3
--
338(216-498)12 324(170-450)11 337(150-480)12 332(170-470)12 339(150-520)13
1975
I<(m1n-max)n
128(73-160)12
198(94-270)12
309(70-440)12
640(630-660)3
302(100-390)12
1189(140-2200)7
380(360-390)3
678(110-1000)14
310(130-500)11
560(93-730)10
356(90-1000)4
757(120-1000)13
620(110-1300)5
323(140-480)12
64(59-70)2
1600(-)1
1700(-)1
420(350-500)3
333(130-450)13
1976
7(m1n-niax)n
128(83-180)12
214(120-300)13
307(89-450)13
566(470-690)12
330(120-440)13
1750(1600-1900)2
310(140-440)12
664(350-840)11
316(150-470)11
646(590-700)11
250(-)1
852(650-1100)12
1375(1300-1500)4
330(150-420)12
1643(1300-1900)7
1300(1200-1400)3
1220(1100-1400)5
302(36-620)7
330(170-440)12
1977
x(m1n-max)n
128(73-160)8
209(100-250)10
305(99-410)10
570(320-740)10
319(140-390)9
2000(-)1
304(180-380)11
739(520-840)10
305(180-390)11
654(590-690)9
--
861(650-1100)10
303(180-410)10
61(-)1
1820(1300-2300)5
1113(640-1600)3
1127(900-1500)3
164(47-360)4
317(170-420)10
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B14. TOTAL IRON, 1970-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE
TONGUE RIVER BASIN
Ul
Station 1970
Number* _
x (mln-max) n t
9800 90(0-190)14
9998 '
0550 130(60-200)10
0610
0630 138(100-180)4
0680
0750
0760
0761
07615
0767
0774
0781
0783
0884
0850
1971 1974 1975
x(mln-max)n x (mln-max )n x (mln-max) n
182(30-730)10 380(10-750)2
975(150-1800)2
154(0-280)9 950(300-1600)2
645(580-710)2
246(50-900)10 2470(140-4800)2
1708(220-5000)4
290(270-310)2
705(540-870)2 1375(580-3600)6
840(280-1400)2
270(200-340)2 968(230-2500)6
1600(-)1
670(620-720)2 1213(280-2900)6
1185(770-1600)2
400(280-520)2 3038(110-13000)5
1700(-)1
250(-)1 24776(680-74000)5
1976
x (mln-max) n
102(0-220)4
242(140-400)5
285(190-440)4
912(330-2500)4
538(300-710)5
245(60-450)4
610(350-1100)4
390(20-980)4
315(170-530)4
740(310-1300)4
280 (-)l
362(90-650)4
8430(220-31000)4
1977
x(mln-max)n
93(10-140)3
217(120-350)3
290(250-330)3
6900 (-)l
440(230-650)3
550(-)1
5700 (-)l
295(100-560)4
6800(-)1
1150(190-2900)4
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B15. TOTAL MANGANESE (yg/1), 1974-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE TONGUE RIVER BASIN
o
Station 1974
Number* _
x(mtn-max)n'l'
9800
9998
0550
0610
0630
0680
0750
0760 60(40-80)2
0761
07615 75(30-120)2
0767
0774 70(50-90)2
0781
0783 15(10-20)2
0784
0850 30(-)1
1975
x(tnin-roax)n
45(10-80)2 *
45(30-60)2
60(60-60)2
125(120-130)2
125(40-210)2
350(140-850)4
75(60-90)2
155(40-390)6
30(20-40)2
72(30-120)6
110(-)1
125(50-360)6
110(80-140)2
42(10-70)4
30(-)1
237(40-680)4
1976
x(min-max)n
10(0-20)4
24(10-40)5
48(30-70)4
92(60-120)4
72(50-110)5
65(50-80)4
100(40-150)4
42(10-80)4
90(60-140)4
102(40-160)6
50(-)1
32(10-60)4
165(10-570)4
1977
x(mln-max)n
3(0-10)3
17(10-30)3
53(30-70)3
190 (-)l
47(40-60)3
~
30(-)1
300 (-)l
42(20-70)4
~
300 (-)l
50(20-120)4
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35.
fx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B16. TEMPERATURE (°C), 1970-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS
IN THE TONGUE RIVER BASIN
en
Station 1970 1971 1972
Number* _ _ _
x (min-max) n^ x (mtn-max) n x (min-max) n
9800 7.5(0.5-16.5)13 6.4(0-16.5)13 5.3(0-14.5)12
9998
0550 9.6(1.0-27.0)8 10.3(1.0-21.5)11 10.1(0-22.5)13
0610
0630 7.0(0-16.0)3 13.0(0-26.0)12 7.4(0-19.5)11
0680
0750
0760
0761
07615
0767
0774
0781
0783
0784
0816
0817
0819
0840
0850 9.4(0-28.0)9 10.4(0-24.0)12- 10.2(0-24.0)12
1973 1974
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
5.5(1.0-14.0)11 5.4(0-14.5)14
10.5(0-20.5)9
7.8(0-22.0)14 9.4(0-26.0)17
7.9(0-24.0)13 i.'.(0 ri.Mi .
4.8(0-10.5)3
12.6(0-23.0)9
3.7(0-7.0)3
__
2.3(0-5.0)3
14.1(0-26.0)9
__
__
10.0(0-27.0)12 10.6(0-25.0)13
1975
x (inln-mnx) n
6.3(1.0-16.0)12
7.0(0-17.0)1?
0.8(0-24.0)21
1 /III '».") 1
/.7(0-1<>.0)I2
7 1(0-14.0)7
6.0(3.0-12.0)3
6.3(0-22.0)15
8.0(0-22.0)12
5.2(0-19.0)10
4.0(0-14.0)4
7.8(0-24.0)13
4.8(0-12.5)5
8.1(0-23.0)14
0(0-0)2
0.5(-)1
0(-)1
3.2(0.5-6.0)3
8.6(0-23.5)13
1976
x (min-max) n
7.8(0.5-18.0)12
9.9(0-22.0)13
10.6(0-24.Q)27
8.8(0-19.0)12
10.8(0-Ji.O)13
5.5(0-11.0)2
9.7(2.0-22.0)12
9.6(0-21.5)12
9.8(0-22.0)12
8.0(0-18.0)12
0(-)1
9.4(0-24.5)12
10.4(2.0-15.5)4
10.7(0-22.5)12
10.9(0-26.0)7
9.2(0.5-26.0)3
11.4(0-27.0)5
12.3(0-29.5)7
9.7(0-27.0)12
1977
x (min-max) n
5.9(0-14.5)12
8.0(0-20.0)13
7.8(0-24.0)17
9.9(0-21.0)10
8.4(0-23.0)13
11.0(-)1
12.3(2.5-22.5)11
13.0(0.25.0)10
11.5(0-22.5)11
11.7(0-21.0)9
13.2(0-26.5)10
~
13.2(0-25.0)10
0.5(-)1
6.7(0-20.5)5
2.3(0.5-5.5)3
9.8(0-17.0)3
7.8(0-25.0)4
11.5(0-25.0)11
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B17. DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/1), 1970-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE TONGUE RIVER BASIN
Station 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
Number* . * _ _ _ _ _ - -
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (uln-max) n x (min-max) n x (rain-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
98UO -- " 12.1(11.8-12.4)3 10.2(7.3-12.3)14 10.8(8.4-13.0)12 9.7(7.6-12.0)12 10.1(8.4-11.4)8
9998 -- 10.2(8.5-13.6)8 10.5(7.9-12.2)12 10.0(8.0-11.9)13 9.8(8.0-11.8)12
0350 12.4(10.4-13.5)3 10,5(8.6-14.4)13 11.2(6.7-13.6)12 9.4(7.0-12.3)13 9.3(6.1-11.6)12
0610 10.0(8.0-11.0)3 9.9(7.4-11.7)12 9.4(7.8-11.6)10
0630 " " 11.6(11.0-12.0)3 9.9(7.8-12.8)13 9.7(6.0-12.2)12 9.4(7.0-11.8)13 9.9(6.6-12.4)12
0680 " 10.5(8.6-12.0)7 7.2(6.3-8.0)2 9.6(-)l
0750 " " " 10.9(8.8-12.0)3 10.4(8.0-12.5)12 10.5(6.8-13.2)11
0760 " " 10.9(9.6-12.0)3 9.8(5.8-13.2)14 8.8(5.1-11.6)12 8.9(6.2-12.8)10
,_, 0761 " " 9.8(7.6-12.2)9 10.1(7.2-12.4)12 10.1(7.3-12.8)12 9.6(7.0-12.2)11
O>
(\i 07615 12.6(12.0-13.8)3 10.9(6.8-13.4)10 9.7(5.1-12.0)12 9.1(6.0-12.2)9
0767 10.0(6.3-11.8)4 6.8(-)l
0774 " -- 10,4(7.4-12.0)3 10.0(5.0-12.4)13 8.9(3.0-12.7)12 8.6(5.2-13.4)9
0781 " 9.8(7.2-11.6)5 8.0(6.0-10.2)4
0783 " -- - 9.5(7.4-12.3)9 9.6(6.8-12.8)13 9.9(7.4-12.5)12 9.6(7.6-12.1)10
0784 " -7 -- 11.9(11.8-12.0)2 -- 10.6(-)1
0816 6.8(-)l 5.7(3.7-8.2)7 5.7(0-12.4)5
0817 7.5(5.1-9.3)3 8.2(6.4-9.8)3
0819 " ~ 8.3(-)l 8.8(7.4-12.4)5 8.6(7.2-10.2)3
0840 -- -- 11.2(9.6-J2.4)3 9.3(7.3-12.0)7 10.2(8.4-11.8)4
0850 " -- -- 9.8(7.4-13.0)10 10.5(6.5-13.2)13 11.2(7.9-15.6)12 10.2(7.6-12.4)11
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
CO
TABLE B18. pH, 1970-77, AT U.S.
TONGUE RIVER BASIN
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE
Station 1970 1971 1972
Number* _ _
x (min-max) nt x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
9800 8.0(7.3-8.5)14 8.2(8.0-8.4)13 8.2(7.9-8.4)12
9998
0550 7.9(6.7-8.4)10 7.8(7.4-8.3)12 7.9(7.4-8.4)12
0610
0630 8.2(7.0-8.6)28 8.2(7.5-8.4)11 8.1(7.7-8.4)12
0680
0750
0760
0761
07615
0767
0774
0781
0783
0784
0816
0817
0819
0840
0850 7.9(7.0-8.2)12 8.0(7.8-8.6)12 7.9(7.2-8.3)12
1973 1974
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
8.3(8.0-8.6)13 8.1(7.4-8.4)13
7.9(7.5-8.5)9
8.1(7.5-8.5)14 8.1(7.7-8.5)13
__
8.2(7.9-8.5)12 8.0(7.6-8.4)12
8.2(8.0-8.4)3
8.3(8.0-8.6)9
8.4(8.3-8.6)3
__
8.4(8.2-8.6)3
8.2(7.8-8.6)9
__
_-
8.0(7.5-8.4)12 8.2(7.9-8.6)13
1975
x (min-max) i
7.6(6.8-8.1)12
7.8(6.9-8.8)12
7.8(6.8-8.4)12
8.2(8.0-8.5)3
7.8(7.0-8.2)12
8.0(7.4-8.3)7
8.3(8.1-8.5)3
8.0(7.4-8.3)14
8.1(7.7-8.5)12
7.9(7.7-8.2)10
7.7(7.0-8.3)4
8.0(7.2-8.6)13
8.0(7.7-8.3)5
8.0(7.3-8.4)13
8.0(7.7-8.2)2
8.0(-) 1
8. 0(-)1
8.4(8.1-8.6)3
8.3(8.0-8.5)13
1976
x (min-max) n
8.0(7.7-8.2)12
8.0(7.8-8.2)13
8.1(7.7-8.6)13
8.2(7.9-8.5)12
8.0(7.7-8.5)13
8.1(7.9-8.4)2
8.2(7.9-8.6)12
8.2(8.0-8.3)12
8.4(8.0-8.7)12
8.1(7.7-8.3)12
8.4(-)l
8.3(8.0-8.4)12
8.1(8.0-8.1)4
8.1(7.9-8.4)12
7.8(7.5-8.1)7
8.0(7.8-8.1)3
8.1(8.0-8.4)5
8.2(7.8-8.5)7
8.2(7.7-8.5)12
1977
x (min-max) n
7.9(7.5-8.1)9
7.9(7.6-8.2)13
8.0(7.5-8.3)13
8.3(7.7-8.6)10
8.0(7.6-8.3)13
8.2(-)l
8.2(7.8-8.8)11
8.2(8.0-6.5)10
8.4(8.0-8.7)11
8.3(8.0-8.6)9
8.3(7.9-8.6)9
8.3(7.9-8.6)9
8.4(-)l
7.7(7.2-8.3)5
7.7(7.3-8.1)3
7.9(7.1-8.3)3
8.3(8.0-8.7)4
8.3(7.8-8.6)11
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B19. TOTAL ALKALINITY (mg/1), 1970-77, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE TONGUE RIVER BASIN
Station
Number*
9800
9998
0550
0610
0630
0680
0750
0760
0761
07615
0767
0774
0781
0783
0784
0850
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
l<(min-max)nt "x(min-max)n x(m1n~max)n It(m1n-max)n x(m1n-max)n
125(80-145)14 120(75-140)13 117(62-139)12 117(70-135)13 122(57-138)11
163(70-213)9
219(61-272)10 197(74-262)12 190(53-240)12 219(60-264)14 215(75-271)12
444(432-457)3
185(90-259)27 210(84-271)12 208(94-249)12 204(88-251)11 236(93-271)11
..
529(518-549)3
187(107-234)9
533(522-541)3
-.
568(539-614)3
234(211-274)4
234(161-319)12 220(125-303)11 223(114-318)12 234(129-325)12 234(114-367)13
1975
x(m1n-max)n
124(74-164)12
164(83-205)12
218(53-295)12
368(304-480)12
202(82-262)12
333(71-523)7
238(225-246)3
393(73-549)14
203(100-325)11
428(75-550)10
184(57-479)4
443(90-664)13
307(77-613)5
214(102-326)13
53(49-57)2
227(116-306)13
1976
I<(iti1n-max)n
127(82-172)12
178(103-244)13
219(70-295)13
366(200-499)10
219(90-281)13
492(473-511)2
202(107-272)12
458(206-531)12
211(102-304)12
536(483-582)12
--
528(372-618)12
578(533-619)4
217(111-277)12
4S(-)1
230(143-295)12
1977
x(m1n-max)n
125(71-148)8
176(90-210)10
221(65-279)10
377(200-499)25
221(107-279)9
540(-)1
187(110-258)11
495(280-540)10
203(120-260)11
548(504-600)9
555(452-650)10
--
209(120-279)10
214(120-281)10
1., , - -
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B20. FLOW (m3/sec), 1972-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS
IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
CTl
cn
Station 1972
Number* _
x (min-max) nt
1250
1300
1340
1350
1640 2.5(0.2-21.8)12
1700
2020
2040
2350
2400
2450
2492
2497
2605
2620
2630
2650
1973
"x (min-max) n
3.1(2.8-3.3)3
0.2(0.01-0.6)4
0.4(0.2-0.7)2
0.5(0.3-0.7)12
6.7(2.3-10.1)4
2.9(2.1-3.5)12
10.3(2.3-44.2)11
--
1974
"x (min-max) n
1.8(0.02-4.0)12
0.3(0-0.8)11
0.7(0.3-1.3)12
--
0.7(0.01-2.8)11
9.9(0.3-58.1)14
4.6(1.4-10.4)11
--
7.0(4.9-8.7)4
1975
x (min-max) n
4.8(0.01-22.1)12
0.3(0-1.5)11
0.9(0.2-2.1)12
1.7(0.1-7.2)12
9.0(0.1-56.1)14
1.5(1.3-1.6)2
1.1(0.8-1.4)2
4.9(1.1-25.3)8
8.6(0.4-100.2)13
54.6(1.8-342.7)16
0.1(-)1
0.3(0-2.7)22
0.004(0.003-0.01)2
0.003(-)2
0.02(0.01-0.04)3
48.1(0.9-305.8)13
1976
x (min-max) n
3.9(0.1-18.7)12
0.3(0-1.4)12
2.1(0.3-11.3)21
1.4(-)1
1.7(0.3-5.1)12
13.8(0.5-71.9)17
2.4(0.4-6.6)17
2.9(0.3-8.5)11
3.2(0.6-11.5)13
5.4(0.3-18.5)22
13.5(0.7-52.7)13
0.3(0.01-0.8)4
0.7(0.01-10.7)54
0.01(0.001-0.01)6
0.05(0.001-0.2)10
0.5(0.02-1.9)6
16.1(0.7-68.5)12
19/7
x (min-max) n
4.9(0.1-29.7)12
0.2(0-1.0)12
1.4(0.4-6.4)12
3.9(3.5-4.2)4
0.8(0.002-1.7)10
11.0(0.4-54.9)7
1.7(0.5-7.1)12
1.6(0.3-5.1)11
1.5(0.6-7.1)13
2.8(0.5-14.6)11
16.1(0.6-132.2)13
0.1(0.002-0.2)6
0.3(0.01-1.0)13
0.005(0-0.02)4
0.001(0-0.001)5
0.3(0.001-0.6)8
12.6(0.8-56.1)12
1978
"x (min-max) n
2.4(1.7-3.1)3
9.5(0.03-28.3)3
19.0(-)1
5.1(2.8-7.5)2
0.4(0.3-0.4)2
10.8(0.1-71.9)56
2.0(0.4-7.1)31
2.2(0.3-8.5)24
3.0(0.6-25.3)34
7.6(0.3-100.2)18
4.9(4.8-5.1)2
0.02(-)1
0.6(0-10.7)89
0.005(0-0.02)12
0.03(0-0.2)17
0.005(-)1
4.1(3.4-4.7)2
*For full description of station locations, see Table 36.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B21. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (mg/1), 1970-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
Station 1970
Number * _
x (min-max) nt
1250 806(267-1240)12
1300 2629(1880-3320)10
1340 4571(2640-5580)12
1350
1640 1850(755-4060)10
1700 1976(737-4050)30
2020
2040
2350
2400 872(170-1520)10
2450
2492
2497
2605
2620
2630
2650
1971 1974
x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
808(252-1220)10 941(491-1306)12
2893(1970-3790)8 2765(2040-3180)8
4711(3160-5340)10 4700(4450-5540)12
_-
1614(416-3000)8 1350(300-2360)11
1718(1130-2070)7 2353(1580-3269)11
__
__
990(515-1600)9 668(258-826)11
1159(745-1460)12
__
_
1420(1340-1580)3
1975
x (min-max) n
748(313-1100)12
2777(1970-3679)8
4295(3849-4640)12
1026(330-1950)12
1908(609-2810)14
672(631-713)2
775(700-850)2
368(78-525)7
692(143-997)12
1296(625-1670)14
2090(-)1
2127(1330-3440)14
4760(4720-4800)2
2050(1970-2130)2
2463(2350-2550)3
1263(641-1760)12
1976
x (min-max) n
794(281-1160)12
2572(1630-3380)10
3855(1820-5470.)11
2590(-)1
982(400-1440)13
1826(1140-2320)13
499(208-806)13
612(306-992)10
284(105-586)13
732(201-1340)15
1413(973-2130)11
2466(1930-2859)3
2222(621-3100)39
3171(2390-4120)6
1989(888-2470)10
1117(191-2280)6
1330(519-2130)12
1977
x (min-max) n
738(233-1040)8
2462(1460-3440)5
3961(2860-4550)9
2670(1630-3710)2
1232(539-1890)8
1864(740-3110)9
667(133-913)14
840(175-1190)11
354(126-463)12
891(319-1150)7
1607(854-2510)12
960(620-1300)2
1700(567-3220)19
2912(2050-3640)4
2202(2100-2470)5
1162(274-2380)5
1545(905-2030)11
1978
x (min-max) n
802(233-1306)90
2604(1460-4390)73
4478(1820-5660)90
2643(1630-3710)3
1258(289-4060)85
1910(609-4050)108
602(544-711)4
743(723-800)4
364(357-376)3
775(143-1600)87
1590(1480-1700)2
1901(620-2859)6
2317(1800-2650)3
3350(2050-4800)12
2059(888-2470)17
1421(191-2550)14
1378(519-2130)38
*For full description of station locations, see Table 36.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B22. CONDUCTIVITY (ymho/cm at 25°C), 1970-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
01
-J
Station
Number*
1250
1300
1340'
1350
1640
1700
2020
2040
2350
2400
2450
2492
2605
2620
2630
2650
1970
x (mln-oax) nh
1170(447-1700)12
3181(2350-3800)10
7202(3910-8250)12
~
2218(1060-4170)10
2766(1070-5360)30
~
1170(279-1940)10
2114(1060-5000)16
~
~
1971
x (mln-max) n
1131(393-1600)10
3386(2270-4570)8
6770(4000-8160)10
1931(590-3340)8
2419(1600-2950)7
1321(733-2020)9
1794(775-2580)19
~~
1974
x (mln-max) n
1334(742-1750)9
3227(2520-3550)6
6904(6302-8100)9
1676(508-2670)8
3242(2230-4430)8
~
947(460-1200)11
1748(1170-2800)12
2273(2200-2370)3
1975
x (mln-miix) n
483(-)l
4067(3400-5000)3
8000 (-)l
2820(1000-4000)5
1025(1000-1050)2
1085(1070-1100)2
574(120-805)8
91)2(230-1350)12
18B4(945-2500)15
2600(-)1
5135(4700-5570)2
3005(2710-3300)2
3693(3400-4100)3
1742(920-2400)12
1976
x (mln-max) n
3450(2300-4500)10
6160(2600-8000)10
4100(-)1
1060(-)1
2752(1700-3500)12
721(340-1180)13
877(460-1450)10
458(190-900)13
1049(340-1850)12
1931(730-2680)12
2660(2000-3010)5
3803(3000-4960)6
2621(1370-3900)10
1580(319-3050)6
1879(760-2900)12
1977
x (min-mux) n
2930(11-5200)7
6354(2600-8000)13
4790(2580-7000)2
1910(1720-2100)2
2729(1250-4000)12
939(220-1300)14
1175(300-1600)12
563(220-805)13
1340(480-1850)12
2)12(1310-3490)12
1212(825-1600)2
4060(2680-5810)4
3310(2870-3900)5
1752(710-3400)7
21/4(1380-2650)11
1978
x (nln-max) n
1163(393-1770)56
3189(11-5460)68
6731(2600-8370)79
4560(2580-7000)3
1722(443-4170)52
2696(1000-5360)103
878(750-1000)4
938(750-1020)4
500(300-600)4
1099(230-2020)89
2375(2250-2500)2
2291(825-3010)8
4111(2680-5810)12
2986(1370-3900)17
2051(319-4100)16
1952(760-2900)38
*For full description of station locations, see Table 36.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B23. DISSOLVED CALCIUM (mg/1), 1970-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
CO
Station
Number*
1250
1300
1340
1350
1640
1700
2020
2040
2350
2400
2450
2492
2497
2605
2620
2630
2650
1970
x (inin-oax) nt
112(58-150)12
336(271-442)10
86(48-127)12
~
206(91-440)10
168(99-280)30
--
102(29-180)10
175(130-228)6
1971
x (min-max) n
104(45-140)10
356(200-550)8
111(62-170)10
199(67-340)8
150(100-180)7
125(67-180)9
f 120(65-150)11
~
1974
x (mln-max) n
125(66-155)12
312(240-390)8
57(23-110)12
175(58-300)1]
168(120-280)11
~
95(46-120)11
113(80-150)12
~
~
~
130(120-150)3
1975
x (mln-max) n
107(54-130)12
298(190-410)8
69(30-100)12
133(47-260)12
139(71-210)14
102(94-110)2
115(100-130)2
51(13-69)7
94(24-120)12
124(52-160)14
190 (-)l
158(100-260)14
345(320-370)2
145(140-150)2
62(39-82)3
110(64-160)12
1976
x (inlii-max) n
107(47-170)12
262(180-330)10
88(51-150)11
150(-)1
124(52-180)13
160(100-200)13
75(31-110)13
91(45-140)10
44(18-75)13
99(31-170)15
124(50-190)12
270(130-400)3
169(46-320)39
268(200-380)6
113(45-170)10
39(14-68)6
119(48-160)12
1977
x (inLn-max) n
94(45-120)8
262(140-320)5
88(41-140)9
96(72-120)2
156(72-230)8
139(70-180)9
98(21-130)14
120(28-170)11
55(23-72)12
116(50-140)7
132(110-220)12
68(65-72)2
134(55-260)19
242(170-320)4
138(120-150)5
32(9-64)5
133(97-180)11
1978
x (mln-max) n
108(45-170)90
298(140-550)73
86(23-170)90
114(72-150)3
156(47-440)85
156(70-280)108
92(82-110)4
112(110-120)4
57(56-58)3
102(24-180)87
155(140-170)2
190(65-400)6
183(140-210)3
272(170-380)12
124(45-170)17
42(9-82)14
121(48-180)38
*For full description of station locations, see Table 36.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B24. DISSOLVED SODIUM (mg/1), 1970-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
ID
Station 1970
Number*
x (mln-rnax) I\T
1250 87(15-170)12
1300 350(190-493)10
1340 '1555(710-1840)12
1350
1640 180(71-380)10
1700 386(96-932)30
2020
2040
2350
2400 84(12-162)10
2450 3(-)l
249?
2497
2605
2620
2630
2650
1971
x (min-max) n
95(18-180)10
416(200-600)8
1491(710-1700)10
147(32-260)8
337(230-430)7
~
--
~
94(49-190)9
176(66-250)4
1974
x (miu-mux) n
109(55-190)12
414(260-480)8
1618(1500-2000)12
125(27-240)11
505(315-788)11
__
58(20-81)11
201(88-280)12
~
--
263(250-280)3
1975
x (uiln-niax) n
80(20-140)12
451(310-660)8
1440(1200-1600)12
94(24-180)12
403(91-590)14
54(52-56)2
62(57-68)2
34(6-53)7
61(9-95)12
225(91-320)14
340(-)1
380(240-590)14
6UO(-)2
440(420-460)2
693(670-720)3
217(110-350)12
1976
x (nln-max) n
94(24-140)12
446(250-660)10
1221(420-1800)11
680(-)1
95(33-150)13
351(220-470)13
38(16-64)13
49(24-83)10
24(8-58)13
65(15-130)15
241(74-430)12
290(160-380)3
382(120-560)39
378(280-510)6
437(200-540)10
289(43-570)6
246(110-420)12
1977
x (mln-niux) Q
96(14-150)8
428(270-630)5
1278(790-1500)9
840(380-1300)2
119(52-180)8
409(140-740)9
54(10-80)14
68(13-100)11
29(
-------
TABLE B25. DISSOLVED MAGNESIUM (mg/1), 1970-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
Station
Number*
J250
1300
1340
1350
1640
1700
2020
2040
2350
2400
2450
2492
2497
2605
2620
2630
2650
1970
x (min-uiax) n t
43(13-57)12
90(14-159)10
52(10-78)12
124(45-260)10
67(30-112)30
63(10-117)10
85(56-132)6
1971
x (mln-max) n
43(13-60)10
76(45-110)8
69(39-140)10
~
105(22-220)8
57(33-74)7
65(34-94)9
52(12-100)11
'
1972
x" (mln-max) n
43(14-70)12
78(49-140)11
60(27-86)12
74(12-130)12
57(37-76)12
45(13-85)12
47(25-72)7
~
~
1973 1974
x" (mln-max) n x (mln-max) n
42(17-53)12 49(28-66)12
82(37-140)13 96(63-140)8
69(54-110)12 50(33-65)12
77(37-140)11 84(9-140)11
62(25-100)12 79(26-120)11
__
__
__
58(13-95)11 42(9-58)11
54(28-70)12
__
59(51-73)3
1975
x~ (mln-max) n
41(15-62)12
86(54-120)8
53(31-110)12
66(22-110)12
63(22-100)14
42(39-44)2
49(45-53)2
25(4-37)7
46(8-73)12
56(24-90)14
110 (-)l
97(58-160)14
360(-)2
72.5(72-73)2
52(42-65)3
50(26-71)12
1976
x (mln-max) n
39(14-62)12
72(52-90)10
50(32-84)11
59(-)l
62(25-94)13
63(38-90)13
32(13-53)13
40(20-68)10
19(6-40)13
48(13-89)15
54(16-91)12
135(75-180)3
105(23-180)39
242(180-310)6
74(31-91)10
28(6-69)6
51(14-87)12
1977
x~ (mln-max) n
37(12-51)8
68(29-99)5
48(34-79)9
53.5(53-54)2
75(32-120)8
56(32-95)9
44(8-64)14
57(11-79)11
25(8-33)12
61(21-82)7
68(31-110)12
34(20-47)2
76(18-160)19
235(150-310)4
86(82-95)5
20(4-41)5
57(32-78)11
1978
x (mln-max) n
42(12-69)90
82(14-159)73
56(10-140)90
55(53-59)3
82(9-260)85
64(22-120)108
41(35-49)4
52(50-59)4
27(27-27)3
52(8-117)87
74(69-79)2
97(20-180)6
106(79-120)3
259(150-360)12
77(31-95)17
30(4-69)14
53(14-87)38
*For full description of station locations, see Table 36.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B26. DISSOLVED POTASSIUM (mg/1), 1970-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
Station 1970
Number* _
x (min-max) nt
1250 2.6(1.5-4.4)12
1300 7.4(4.6-9.8)10
1340 19.8(10.0-24.0)12
1350
1640 5.7(2.8-12.0)10
1700 7.3(4.2-14.0)30
2020
2040
2350
2400 4.5(1.3-8.8)10
2450
2492
2497
2605
2620
2630
2650
1971 1974
x (mln-max) n x (min-max) n
2.8(1.3-4.7)10 3.2(2.3-4.4)12
8.4(4.2-13.0)8 7.9(5.4-9.8)8
24.5(11.0-50.0)10 15.5(12.0-19.0)12
4.4(2.2-7.9)8 4.6(2.8-7.2)11
6.4(4.7-8.7)7 8.0(4.9-12.0)11
__
__
~
5.3(2.4-8.2)9 4.7(2.1-7.9)11
6.1(3.4-9.2)12
-_
8.0(6.7-8.7)3
1975
x (min-raax) n
3.0(1.6-4.2)12
8.6(5.6-15.0)8
16.2(12.0-21.0)12
3.4(2.1-5.1)12
7.0(3.7-10.0)14
3.3(3.2-3.4)2
4.4(4.4-4.4)2
4.4(1.1-6.4)7
4.1(1.6-7.4)12
6.9(3.8-17.0)14
21.0(-)1
18.4(15.0-25.0)14
21.0(20.0-22.0)2
9.0(8.8-9.3)2
9.2(8.9-9.3)3
6.8(4.3-8.6)12
1976
x (min-max) n
3.3(2.3-4.9)12
7.9(5.8-12.0)10
17.3(6.7-26.0)11
13.0(-)1
3.9(2.3-6.3)13
7.2(4.7-10.0)13
3.6(1.8-12.0)13
4.2(2.6-7.3)10
3.7(2.0-7.7)13
4.4(1.9-9.0)15
6.7(3.1-11.0)12
38.0(16.0-49.0)4
22.4(11.0-43.0)39
13.8(11.0-19.0)6
10.3(9.1-12.0)10
7.6(4.7-13.0)6
7.1(4.5-12.0)12
1977
x (min-max) n
3.0(1.4-4.3)8
7.7(5.6-11.0)5
17.2(10.0-20.0)9
11.4(6.7-16.0)2
4.9(3.0-8.1)8
6.9(1.3-12.0)9
3.1(1.7-4.4)14
4.4(0.5-6.7)11
3.9(2.0-5.0)12
4.5(2.3-7.2)7
7.4(4.9-11.0)12
10.8(9.7-12.0)2
lh.0(8.7-26.0)19
13.2(8.1-20.0)4
8.8(8.0-9.5)5
5.6(2.4-9.4)5
7.9(5.5-11.0)11
1978
x (min-max) n
3.0(1.3-4.9)90
7.9(0.9-15.0)73
17.9(1.6-50.0)90
11.9(6.7-16.0)3
4.2(2.1-12.0)85
7.1(1.3-14.0)108
2.8(2.4-3.1)4
3.6(3.3-4.0)4
3.6(3.4-3.7)3
4.5(1.3-9.0)87
6.6(6.5-6.8)2
27.8(9.7-49.0)7
17.3(16.0-19.0)3
14.8(8.1-22.0)12
9.7(8.0-12.0)17
7.2(2.4-13.0)14
7.3(4.3-12.0)38
*For full description of station locations, see Table 36.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B27. BICARBONATE ION (mg/1), 1970-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
ro
Station
Number *
1250
1300
1340
1350
1640
1700
2020
2040
2350
2400
2450
2492
2497
2605
2620
2630
2650
1970
x (mln-max) nt
230(174-281)12
214(134-326)10
669(397-847)12
250(140-374)10
244(147-366)30
__
217(82-305)10
~
1971
x (mln-max) n
220(122-268)10
210(143-345)8
647(330-955)10
254(119-415)8
269(189-427)7
--
--
261 (165-307)9 £
--
~
~
1974
x (mln-max) n
237(168-281)12
200(168-250)8
1092(787-1410)12
252(120-360)11
343(150-620)11
~
~
223(110-265)11
262(134-351)12
~
323(282-386)3
1975
x (mln-max) n
220(130-270)12
202(92-340)8
915(680-1210)12
219(120-300)12
306(150-580)14
233(216-250)2
262(241-282)2
171(43-215)7
212(61-270)12
274(142-427)14
453(-)l
419(173-565)14
596(535-658)2
622(608-637)2
644(507-788)3
268(158-453)12
1976
x (mln-max) n
208(130-280)12
196(130-290)10
611(220-1000)11
422 (-)l
208(110-310)13
276(172-450)13
170(82-242)13
210(127-329)10
158(76-241)13
215(90-310)15
259(204-365)12
373(276-437)3
364(137-610)39
493(287-762)6
520(244-729)10
313(87-493)6
278(186-396)12
1977
x (mln-max) n
212(100-280)8
192(150-230)5
727(420-960)9
510(360-600)2
232(150-370)8
299(190-480)9
213(51-290)14
261(69-350)11
208(84-299)12
.'64(150-330)7
27 / (150-432)12
180(110-250)2
J16( 120-633) 19
550(310-1010)4
658(605-720)5
322(147-704)7
268(150-430)11
1978
x (mln-max) n
220(100-287)90
194(92-345)73
790(220-1410)90
481(360-660)3
230(74-415)85
278(145-620)108
222(210-250)4
255(250-270)4
223(220-230)3
226(61-330)87
395(360-430)2
322(110-453)6
520(410-580)3
529(287-1010)2
572(244-729)17
379(87-788)16
276(150-454)38
*For full description of station locations, see Table 36.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
CO
TABLE B28. SULFATE (mg/1), 1970-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS
IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
Station
Number*
1250
1300
1340
1350
1640
1/00
2020
2040
2350
2400
2450
2492
2497
2605
2620
2630
2650
1970
x (rain-max) nt
386(78-629)12
1613(1100-2050)10
1225(1080-1400)12
--
1177(444-2700)10
936(371-1940)30
-
497(69-965)10
620(195-1170)9
~~
1971
X (in in -max) n
393(92-620)10
1775(1200-2300)8
1300(1100-1600)10
1015(220-2000)8
764(490-910)7
~
558(270-990)9
613(280-1100)10
_
1974
x (niln-max) n
461(223-672)12
1675(1200-1900)8
1072(890-1400)12
~
818(130-1500)11
1056(690-1500)11
~
~
347(110-454)11
535(370-680)12
~
647(590-720)3
1975
x (mln-max) n
355(120-560)12
1662(1200-2300)8
10J7 (800-1310)12
598(160-1200)12
854(270-1400)14
«0(320-360)2
400(360-440)2
161(26-250)7
371(60-560)12
611(290-850)14
1200(-)1
1247(760-2100)14
3100(3000-3200)2
1050(1000-1100)2
1300(-)3
612(320-970)12
1976
x (mln-max) n
394(110-580)12
1590(1000-2000)10
1160(930-1900)11
900(-)1
578(210-890)13
869(530-1100)13
249(88-430)13
311(140-520)10
105(24-290)13
396(86-830)15
669(480-1100)11
1533(1100-1900)3
1344(340-2000)39
2000(1500-2500)6
1079(470-1300)10
582(73-1300)6
665(220-1200)12
1977
x (mln-max) n
349(94-520)8
1436(880-2000)5
1072(830-1700)9
760(570-950)2
736(290-1200)8
816(310-1400)9
J47(S6-490)14
447(78-670)11
127(31-190)12
476(130-640)7
798(440-1300)12
550(360-740)2
9 VI (320-1900)19
1775(1300-2200)4
1140(1100-1300)5
560(120-1200)7
793(490-1100)11
1978
x (mln-max) n
389(78-672)90
1584(880-2300)73
1199(800-1900)90
807(570-950)3
764(130-2700)85
887(270-1940)108
292(260-350)4
370(360-400)4
123(120-130)3
421(60-990)87
670(620-720)2
1150(360-1900)6
1300(1000-1500)3
2108(1300-3200)12
1094(470-1300)17
683(73-1300)16
684(220-1200)38
*For full description of station locations, see Table 36.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B29. CHLORIDE (mg/1), 1970-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
Station
Number*
1250
1300
1340
1330
1640
1700
2020
2040
2350
2400
2450
2492
2497
2605
2620
2630
2650
1970
x (min-max) n^
51(7-92)12
109(49-165)10
1459(368-4780)12
~
15(7-32)10
280(53-728)30
~
--
5(1-14)10
159(49-248)5
~
1971
x (min-max) n
50(12-87)10
123(38-230)8
1357(370-1700)10
~
13(5-25)8
261(160-360)7
~
5(4-7)9
84(10-190)10
1974
x (min-max) n
61(27-96)12
141(88-280)8
1318(1100-1600)12
11(4-16)11
343(61-543)11
~
--
4(2-7)11
110(7-180)12
143(130-150)3
1975
x (min-max) n
40(6-80)12
148(64-230)8
1201(760-1400)12
8(4-16)12
268(11-450)14
5(4-5)2
5(5-6)2
3(1-5)7
4(2-7)12
131(45-230)14
2(-)l
9(6-15)14
28.5(28-29)2
9(9-10)2
12(11-13)3
106(31-220)12
1976
x (min-max) n
43(10-78)12
96(35-200)10
975(130-1600)11
560(-)1
8(2-14)13
224(97-390)13
4(2-7)13
4(2-6)10
2(1-4)13
4(2-9)15
142(0-320)12
10(6-16)3
11(4-24)39
17(4-26)6
9(6-12)10
5(3-10)6
96(23-190)12
1977
x (min-max) n
46(8-85)8
134(37-200)5
1077(420-1300)9
640(310-970)2
13(5-46)8
289(79-540)9
5(2-7)14
5(2-8)11
2(2-4)12
7(2-16)7
154(57-270)12
6(4-7)2
9(4-15)19
32(18-61)4
9(8-9)5
7(2-15)7
122(48-190)11
1978
x (min-max) n
47(6-96)90
119(30-580)73
1238(130-1780)90
613(310-970)3
10(2-46)85
261(11-728)108
4(4-5)4
5(5-6)4
2(2-2)3
5(1-16)87
290(180-200)2
7(2-16)6
15(12-20)3
24(4-61)12
9(6-12)17
7(2-15)16
110(23-220)38
*For full description of station locations, see Table 36.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B30. DISSOLVED SILICA (mg/1), 1970-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
Station 1970 1971 1972
Number * _ _ _
x (min-max) nt x (min-max) n x (mln-max) n
1250 9(6-11)12 9(4-11)10 9(7-13)12
1300' 9(5-14)10 8(1-11)8 9(7-13)11
1340 22(10-27)12 22(10-30)10 20(10-27)12
i350
1640 6(3-11)10 9(3-12)8 10(5-15)12
1700 9(6-15)30 9(6-13)7 10(7-16)12
2020
2040
2350
2>400 8(2-11)10 8(4-12)9 8(3-14)12
2450 -- 6(-)l
2492 ~
2497
2605
2620
2630
2650
1973 1974
x (mln-max) n x (mln-max) n
10(7-11)12 8(4-12)12
9(4-11)13 9(8-10)8
18(12-24)12 22(16-26)12
_-
9(4-12)11 6(1-13)11
9(6-12)12 9(6-13)11
__
~
8(3-13)11 7(2-13)11
6(4-10)12
__
__
~
8(6-10)3
1975
x (min-max) n
8(6-11)12
8(5-9)8
20(14-26)12
10(3-14)12
9(7-13)14
11(11-11)2
9(9-10)2
5(3-8)7
7(1-11)12
7(3-12)14
7(-)l
10(6-12)14
12(8-16)2
15.5(15-16)2
4(1-7)3
9(5-12)12
1976
x (mln-max) n
9(6-10)12
7(1-11)10
20(9-32)11
15(-)1
8(0-12)13
9(7-13)13
10(8-13)13
8(6-11)10
7(3-11)13
7(1-12)15
7(5-10)12
10(6-17)3
6(4-ll)3y
11(0-22)6
10(5-15)10
5(2-8)6
8(6-11)12
1977
x (min-max) n
8(5-12)8
7(5-9)5
21(10-29)9
15(11-19)2
6(3-9)8
9(5-14)9
10(7-14)7
8(4-14)11
9(5-12)12
7(2-12)7
8(3-12)12
4(2-6)2
8(6-15)19
19(8-39)4
15(11-18)5
6(3-10)7
10(7-13)11
1978
x (mln-max) n
9(4-13)90
8(1-14)73
21(9-32)90
15(11-19)3
8(0-15)85
9(5-16)108
13(11-15)4
14(12-14)4
12(11-12)3
7(1-14)87
13(13-13)2
7(2-17)6
14(12-15)3
14(0-39)12
12(5-18)17
5(1-10)16
9(5-13)38
*For full description of station locations, see Table 36.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B31. TOTAL HARDNESS (CaC03, mg/1), 1970-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
Station
Number*
1250
1300
1340
1350
1640
1700
2020
2040
2350
2400
2450
2492
2497
2605
2620
2630
2650
1970
x (min-max) nt
457(198-611)12
1206(961-1630)10
426(250-572)12
1029(430-2200)10
696(370-1060)30
515(114-860)10
652(296-1110)12
1971
x (mln-max) n
438(170-580)10
1210(730-1600)8
561(340-970)10
93fi (260-1800)8
608(400-750)7
582(310-830)9
51^(260-790)10
__
1974
x (mln-max) n
512(280-613)12
1181(960-1400)8
348(260-510)12
~
774(180-1300)11
743(509-1200)11
~
412(160-510)11
507(320-660)12
~
~
~
569(509-679)3
1975
x (mln-max) n
434(210-580)12
1112(770-1500)8
390(200-640)12
603(210-1100)12
607(270-920)14
430(400-460)2
490(440-540)2
230(49-320)7
421(91-600)12
540(230-770)14
929(-)l
795(490-1300)14
2350(2300-2400)2
665(650-680)2
366(270-470)3
479(270-690)12
1976
x (mln-max) n
427(180-670)12
956(650-1200)10
423(300-690)11
620(-)1
561(240-820)13
659(420-830)13
320(130-490)13
393(190-630)10
189(72-350)13
443(130-760)15
531(190-850)12
1210(630-1700)3
861(210-1500)39
1650(1200-2200)6
586(240-800)10
214(59-459)6
508(180-730)12
1977
x (min-max) n
387(160-520)8
932(470-1200)5
417(240-670)9
460(400-520)2
708(310-1100)8
582(310-840)9
422(85-590)14
535(120-750)11
240(90-320)12
540(210-660)7
661(400-930)12
310(260-360)2
644(220-1300)19
1575(1100-2100)4
698(640-740)5
163(40-330)5
569(370-730)11
1978
x (mln-max) n
444(160-670)90
1083(470-1630)73
446(200-970)90
513(400-620)3
726(180-2200)85
655(270-1200)108
400(350-480)4
495(480-540)4
253(250-260)3
470(91-860)87
690(630-750)2
863(260-1700)6
890(680-1000)3
1741(1100-2400)12
628(240-800)17
228(40-470)14
521(180-730)38
*For full description of station locations, see Table 36.
TX represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B32. TOTAL IRON (ug/1), 1970-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS
IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
Station 1970
Number* _
x Iain-man) nt
1250 85(10-260)12
1300 124(40-270)10
1340 118(10-350)12
1350
1640 121(50-219)9
1700 127(20-310)9
2020
2040
2350
2400 121(40-230)10
2450
2492
2497
2605
2620
2630
2650
1971 1974 1975
x (mln-max) n X (mln-max) n x (mln-max) n
211(0-100)7
102(20-280)6 4615(30-9200)2
164(40-510)7
158(90-260)5
174(40-280)5
__
390(140-880)3
197(100-270)6
7500(2000-13000)2
3100(-)1
2398(280-4000)12
260(-)1
280 (-)l
530(380-680)2
1976
x (min-max) n
208130(620.0-810000)4
87280(5500-400,000)5
1900 (-)l
5200 (-)l
31(-)1
288(90-680)5
816(180-1900)5
256(20-500)5
604(350-1200)5
17525(2100-30000)4
1002(310-1300)4
6719(230-63000)11
560(180-940)2
612(360-990)4
1090(780-1400)2
15000(-)1 68150(1600-170000)4 44550(2200-73000)4
1977
X (mln-max) n
108167 (1500-230,000)3
62400(1700-230,000)4
8500(-)1
1100(-)1
435(130-1200)4
645(160-1200)4
485(140-940)4
5585(300-21000)4
560(-)1
8100(-)1
1S78I (370-45000)7
40500(7000-74000)2
85905(920-300000)4
1978
x (mln-max) n
69(0-260)19
3800(-)1
5200(1900-8500)2
511(50-5200)16
450(-)1
950(-)1
1227(40-21000)27
2235(310-8100)6
460(180-940)3
546(280-990)5
14040(380-74000)6
62263(920-300000)13
*For full description of station locations, see Table 36.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
00
TABLE B33. TOTAL MANGANESE (yg/1), 1975-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
Station
Number*
1300
1340
1350
1640
1700
2020
2040
23SO
2400
2450
2492
2497
2605
2620
2630
1975
x (min-max) n +
100(10-190)2
--
47(40-60)3
95(20-170)2
528(20-1400)4
150(-)1
249(160-570)12
70(-)1
280 (-)l
55(40-70)2
1976
x (min-max) n
2865(100-11000)4
1444(130-6400)5
150(-)1
190(-)1
5000 (-)l
42(30-60)5
94(50-190)5
26(10-40)5
64(30-90)5
312(50-550)4
\
122(60-230)4
212(80-620)11
3580(60-7100)2
900(150-1700)4
120(-)2
1977
x (min-max) n
2657(70-5200)3
955(50-3300)4
160(-)1
110(-)1
--
78(30-150)4
95(60-130)4
58(30-100)4
147(30-420)4
9700(-)1
100 (-)l
584(100-1400)7
530(90-970)2
1978
x (min-max) n
2181(10-11000)9
1227(50-6400)9
155(150-160)2
150(110-190)2
5000(-)1
60(-)1
90(-)1
100(20-420)11
123(60-230)6
~
2410(60-7100)3
776(150-1700)5
235(40-970)6
*For full description of station locations, see Table 36.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
10
TABLE B34. TEMPERATURE (°C), 1970-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
Station
Number*
1250
1300
1340
1350
1640
1700
2020
2040
2350
2400
2450
2492
2497
2605
2620
2630
2650
1970
x (min-max) nt
9.1(0-25.0)12
10.5(0-27.0)10
10.1(0-28.0)12
7.5(0-19.0)9
10.7(0.5-25.0)18
6.8(0-21.0)9
9.6(0-24.0)21
~
~
1971
x (min-max) n
12(0-25.5)10
8.7(0-32)8
14.4(0-27.0)10
~
13.7(0-23.0)7
12.5(0-26.0)18
13.1(0-29.0)8
10.5(0-28.5)25
--
1974
x (mln-nujx) n
11.4(0-27.5)12
8.8(0-29.0)8
10.6(0-25.5)12
10.2(0-26.5)11
9.6(0-31.5)14
~
10.3(0-26.0)11
12.2(0-24.5)12
~
~
6.6(0-16.0)4
1975
x (min-max) n
10.1(0.5-23.0)12
10.8(0-31.5)8
11.7(0-28.5)12
10.2(0-25.5)12
12.6(0-28)13
2.5(2.0-3.0)2
1.8(1.5-2.0)2
14.5(2.0-21.5)8
5.2(0-27)133
6.8(0-23.0)19
18(-)1
13.6(0-27.0)20
1.2(0.5-2.0)2
3.0(2.0-4.0)2
1.5(0-4.5)3
8.3(0-23.5)13
1976
x (min-max) n
8.3(0-19.5)12
8.8(0-22.5)10
12.3(0-25.0)21
19(-)1
12.2(0-25.5)11
13.9(0-27.0)18
9.7(0-23.0)17
14.2(0.5-24.0)11
11.2(0.5-23.0)13
12.5(0-26.0)22
10.5(0-24.5)12
15.3(5.0-24.5)5
13.1(0-26.5)32
8.9(0-22.5)6
14.2(1.0-29.5)10
16.1(0-27.5)6
8.0(0-21.0)12
1977
x (min-max) n
8.5(0-19.0)11
5.9(0-20.0)9
10.6(0-23.0)13
14.2(3.5-25.0)2
14.6(0-25.0)7
11.1(0-27.0)18
9.6(0-24.0)14
11.3(0-23.0)13
9.8(0-22.0)14
11.3(0-26.0)12
10.0(0-23.5)13
19.3(18.0-22.0)3
13.0(0-22.0)20
6.0(0-14.5)4
6.5(0-19.5)5
8.4(0-26.5)7
13.4(0-25.5)11
1978
x (min-max) n
10.0(0-28)93
0(0-0)2
11.8(0-31.0)104
15.8(3.5-25.0)3
10.5(0-27)80
11.4(0-31.5)127
0(-)4
0(-)4
0(-)4
7.4(0-29.0)218
0(-)2
16.9(5.0-24.5)9
0(-)3
6.7(0-22.5)12
10.6(0-29.5)17
10.0(0-27.5)16
9.4(0-25.5)40
*For full description of station locations,
tx represents the mean for all samples, the
the total number of samples collected.
see Table 36.
range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
-------
TABLE B35. DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/1), 1972-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
00
o
Station
Number*
1250
1300
1340
1350
1640
1700
2020
2040
2350
2400
2450
2492
2497
2605
2620
2630
2650
1972 1973 1974
1975
x (min-max) nf x (min-max) n x (min-max) n x (min-max) n
11.8(11.2-12.4)3 8.6(6.4-10.6)12 9.
9.
~ «_ O
10.8(8.8-12.8)2 7.2(4.5-.10.2)3 7.2(5.6-9.1)5 7.
11.
10.
8.
9.8(8.0-12.0)8 10.
6.8(3.0-9.2)7 ~ 9.9(7.6-12.6)11 8.
.. __ Q
m-m. «- -J ,
8.
7.
9.
12.
7(6.
9(7.
6(-)
8(2.
8(10
8(9.
8(7.
0(7.
8(4.
6(-)
,8(6.
5(1.
0(8.
9-12.0)12
6-11.6)3
1
9-11.1)5
.8-12.8)2
8-11.8)2
1-11.6)8
2-11.6)12
6-12.8)15
1
0-10.9)14
4-13.6)2
5-9.4)2
0(10.0-13.2)3
11.4(10.8-11.9)3 9.3(2.
7-12.5)12
1976
x (min-max) n
9.
9.
7.
8.
6.
7.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
8.
6.
8.
9.
10.
7(7.
8(7.
9(4.
3(-)
6(-)
5(5.
8(8.
2(8.
8(8.
4(7.
3(7.
3(9.
4(6.
5-12.5)12
5-12.8)10
2-10.2)9
1
1
6-10.4)5
5-11.4)n
2-10.1)10
3-11. ?>13
7-12.8)12
1-11.7)12
2-9.5)2
1-11.2)29
7(0-14.4)6
2(6.
0(6.
0-11.1)10
8-11.8)6
3(7.1-15.7)12
x
10.
10.
6.
9.
10.
8.
10.
10.
1977
(min-max) n
0(7.8-12.8)11
4(7.4-12.9)7
4(0.7-10.6)13
6(8.2-11.0)2
3(9.4-11.2)2
6(7.4-10.3)4
4(9.0-11.4)14
1(8.9-11.8)12
9.8(8.3-11.0)13
10.
9.
7.
B.
6.
6.
9.
8.
0(8.0-12.5)12
0(6.0-12.0)12
5(6.9-8.1)2
9(6.8-12.2)18
9(0-11.4)4
1(3.0-9.4)5
7(5.2-12.0)7
4(6.6-10.7)11
1978
x (min-max) n
9
10
7
9
9
7
10
11
11
9
8
8
12
6
7
9
9
.6(6.
.0(7.
.2(0.
.2(8.
.1(6.
.9(2.
.5(8.
.1(9.
.0(10
.8(7.
.2(7.
.7(6.
4-12.8)50
4-12.9)20
7-10.6)23
2-11.0)3
6-11.2)3
9-12.8)24
8-11.8)4
0-13.2)4
.4-12.8)4
2-12.8)44
5-8.9)2
9-9.6)5
.2(11.6-13.2)3
.9(0-14.4)12
.7(3.
.8(5.
.5(2.
0-11.1)17
2-13.2)16
7-15.7)38
*For full description of station locations, see Table 36.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B36. pH, 1970-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE POWDER
RIVER BASIN
00
Station 1970 1971 1974
Number* _ _ _
x (mln-max) nt x (rain-max) n x (mln-max) n
1250 7.9(7.3-8.3)12 7.9(7.6-8.2)10 8.1(8.0-8.3)9
1300 7.8(7.2-8.2)10 7.9(7.6-8.1)8 8.0(7.9-8.2)6
1340 8.0(7.5-8.5)12 7.9(7.5-8.1)10 8.2(8.0-8.4)9
1350
1640 7.9(7.1-8.4)10 7.8(7.3-8.1)8 8.1(7.7-8.4)8
1700 8.0(7.5-8.2)30 8.0(7.7-8.1)7 7.9(7.5-8.2)8
2020
2040
2350
2400 7.9(7.2-8.4)10 8.0(7.6-8.3)9 8.0(7.6-8.4)11
2450 8.0(7.4-8.5)12 8.0(7.5-8.5)12 8.2(7.6-8.6)12
2492
2497
2605
2620
2630
2650 8.4(8.2-8.5)3
1975
1976
x (rain-max) n
7.9(-)l
8.3(8.2-8.
8.4(-)l
8.1(8.1-8.
8.0(8.0-8.
8.2(7.6-9.
8.0(7.7-8.
8.0(7.5-8,
8.5(-)l
8.4(7.7-8
7.8(7.5-8
7.8(7.7-7
8.5(8.3-8
8.2(7.7-8
5)3
2)2
1)2
2)8
,5)12
,6)15
.7)14
.0)2
.8)2
.6)3
.5)12
x
8.
8.
8.
8.
7.
8.
8.
7,
8.
8.
8
8
7
8
8
8
(mln-nax) n
0(7.
2(7.
2(-)
2(-)
9(-]
1(7.
0(7.
9(7,
1(7,
,1(7
.4(8
.2(7
.8(7
.0(7
.0(7
.2(7
-
7-8.
9-8.
1
il
11
,6-8.
5-8.
,3-8.
,8-8,
.7-8,
.2-8
.5-8
.5-8
.6-8
.5-8
.7-8
2)10
4)10
6)13
2)10
.5)13
,4)12
,4)12
.8)4
.8)38
.1)6
.3)10
.7)6
.4)12
x
8.
8.
8.
8.
8-
8.
8.
a,
b,
H
7
7
7
7
8
8
1977
(niln-max) n
0(7.
2(7.
2(8.
4(8.
«(-)
1(7.
!(/.
,0(7.
,1(7.
.2(7.
.7(7
.9(7
.5(7
.8(7
.3(8
.3(7
-
8-8.3)6
7-8.9)13
0-8.4)2
2-8.5)2
1
5-8.9)14
5-8.7)12
,6-8.6)13
7-8.5)12
,7-8.5)11
.0-8.4)2
.5-8.2)18
.1-7.9)4
.5-8.2)5
.0-8.7)7
.8-8.5)11
1978
x (mln-inax) n
8.0(7.3-8.
8.0(7.2-8.
8.1(7.5-8.
8.2(8.0-8.
8.0(7.1-8.
8.0(7.2-8.
7.6(7.4-7.
7.6(7.4-7.
7.7(7.4-8.
8.0(7.2-8.
7.7(7.7-7.
8.2(7.0-8
7.9(7.6-8
7.7(7.1-8
7.9(7.5-8
8.2(7.5-8
8.2(7.7-8
5)56
5)67
9)79
4)3
5)52
8)76
7)4
9)4
0)4
5)89
,7)2
.8)7
.0)3
.1)12
.3)17
.7)16
.5)38
*For full description of station locations, see Table 36.
Tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B37. TOTAL ALKALINITY (CaC03, mg/1), 1970-78, AT U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
00
ro
Station
Number*
1230
1300
1340
1350
1640
1700
2020
2040
2350
2400
2450
2492
2497
2605
2620
2630
2650
1970
x (mln-max) nt
190(143-230)12
175(110-267)10
556(326-695)12
208(115-307)10
200(121-300)30
«
108(67-250)10
263(184-331)5
~
"
1971 1972
x (mln-max) n x (mln-max) n
181(100-220)10 178(98-235)12
172(117-283)8 144(85-230)11
530(271-783)10 601(358-993)12
208(98-340)8 179(61-289)12
221(155-350)7 229(143-386)12
__
__
__
214(135-252)9 175(80-260)12
116(84-149)2
_
_
__
"
1973 1974
x (min-max) n x (mln-max) n
172(103-194)12 194(138-231)12
142(101-185)13 164(138-205)8
717(491-968)12 900(646-1160)12
_
181(132-231)11 207(98-295)11
211(119-300)12 282(123-509)11
__
192(79-240)11 183(90-^17)11
216(110-288)12
__
__
__
__
266(231-317)3
1975
x (mln-max) n
180(107-221)12
165(75-279)8
756(591-943)12
180(98-246)12
251(123-476)14
191(177-205)2
214(198-231)2
141(35-180)7
175(50-221)12
225(116-350)14
372(-)l
344(142-463)14
490(439-540)2
510(499-522)2
522(462-646)3
220(130-372)12
1976
x (mln-max) n
171(107-230)12
160(107-238)10
519(180-820)11
346(-)l
171(90-254)13
227(141-369)13
143(67-215)13
172(104-270)10
129(62-198)13
178(74-254)15
212(167-299)12
306(226-358)3
293(262-M)0)»
404(235-625)6
426(200-598)10
266(71-434)6
228(153-325)12
1977
x (min-max) n
174(82-230)12
157(123-189)5
602(344-787)9
420(300-540)2
192(123-303)8
245(156-394)0
177(42-240)14
214(57-290)11
172(69-245)12
217(123-271)7
228(120-354)12
150(90-210)2
274(98-519)19
449(250-828)4
540(500-590)5
268(121-577)7
219(120-353)11
1978
x (mln-max) n
180(82-235)90
158(75-283)73
653(180-1160)90
395(300-540)3
189(61-340)85
228(119-509)108
182(170-210)4
212(210-220)4
183(180-190)3
186(50-271)87
325(300-350)2
265(90-372)6
430(340-480)3
433(235-828)12
470(200-598)17
321(71-646)16
226(120-372)38
*For full description of station locations, see Table 36.
tx represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
the total number of samples collected.
-------
TABLE B38. SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS (mg/1), 1972-78, AT SELECTED U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN
to
CO
Station
Number*
05SO
0850
1700
2650
9494
9499
9600
1972
x (mln-max)nt
47(6-244)13
-
6048(272-25399)14
-
-
-
-
1973
x (nvin-max)n
50(4-188)10
-
8918(179-39799)10
-
-
-
-
1974
x (mln-max)n
51(7-306)11
46(22-65)3
5392(292-33599)11
791(180-1550)4
5.9(-)l
129(43-296)3
506(114-1160)3
1975
x (mln-max)n
178(7-1740)13
728(9-4360)13
21400(-)1
5310(31-19000)12
97(8-280)12
220(38-1100)13
830(35-7239)13
1976
x (nrln-max)n
82(5-740)15
385(28-1960)12
15551(536-44499)5
2973(139-9349)12
56(20-133)7
82(13-161)12
158(78-316)12
1177
x (nrin-max)n
35(9-60)10
148(5-371)8
20086(179-122000)69
6583(131-34499)14
55(8-140)5
132(39-311)7
328(78-842)9
1978
x (mln-max)n
75(4-1740)75
428(5-4360)36
-
4636(31-34499)42
73(6-280)25
147(13-1100)35
464(35-7240)37
*For full description of station locations, see Table 35-36.
x represents the mean for all samples, the range is given in parentheses, and n indicates
tthe total number of samples collected.
-------
APPENDIX C
PARAMETERS EXCEEDING WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Contents of this appendix are organized by basin and station as described
in Tables 34 through 36.
Those parameters for which water quality criteria have been exceeded in
the study area during the years 1974-77 and the maximum parameter value
observed during those years are listed for each station. Also presented are
the number of violations observed for each parameter and beneficial use, and
total number of data points collected per parameter during the specified time
frame.
Those stations at which no criteria excesses were noted are not included
in the appendix. Beneficial use codes presented represent the following:
AL=aquatic life; DW=drinking water; I=irrigation; L=livestock.
184
-------
TABLE Cl. PARAMETERS EXCEEDING WATER QUALITY CRITERIA IN THE TONGUE AND POWDER RIVER
BASINS, AND THEIR TOTAL NUMBER OF OBSERVED VIOLATIONS, 1974-77
00
01
Stream, Station Number,
and Beneficial Use
Sarpy Creek
9494
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Armells Creek
9498
AL
DM
1
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
9499
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Rosebud Creek
9525
AL
DM
1
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
9535
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Cadml urn
3
10
10
11
20 ug/1
1
10
10
10
10
20 ug/1
3
13
13
13
20 ug/1
._
11
11
12
10 ug/1
1
1
1
10 ug/1
Iron
4
6
1
-.
11
11,000 ug/1
1
7
--
..
10
2,400 ug/1
6
11
2
13
9.700 ug/1
4
12
1
..
12
16,000 ug/1
1
1
__
1
2.300 ug/1
Number of
Lead
11
11
11
11
100 ug/1
10
10
10
10
100 ug/1
13
13
13
13
100 ug/1
12
12
12
12
100 ug/1
1
1
1
1
100 ug/1
Times Criteria
Manganese
8
4
11
6,000 ug/1
7
5
.-
10
760 ug/1
12
4
13
270 ug/1
_
7
4
12
600 ug/1
_..
1
_.
__
1
70 ug/1
Exceeded
Mercury
5
11
0.3 ug/1
5
_-
10
0.4 ug/1
6
._
13
0.6 ug/1
5
__
12
0.3 ug/1
1
__
_
__
1
0.2 ug/1
Sul fates
27
28
2,800 mg/1
29
__
30
3.000 mg/1
--
35
..
35
2,700 mg/1
~_
29
40
420 mg/1
__
--
_-
__
2
Al umi num
..
7
_-
..
8
__
__
1
1
8
5.400 ug/1
__
1
1
8
8,800 ug/1
__
_
__
__
Chromium Fluoride
-_
11
..
_»
10
1
__
12
64 ug/1
--
-_ -_
-- --.
_- --
12
1
-- --
-------
TABLE Cl. (Continued)
00
Stream, Station Number,
and Beneficial Use
9540
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
9550
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
9600
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Tongue River
9800
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
9998
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Cadmium
1
11
11
12
20 ug/1
9
9
12
10 ug/1
1
12
12
13
20 ug/1
8
8
9
10 ug/1
9
9
11
10 ug/1
Iron
5
12
2
..
12
8,200 ug/1
9
12
5
._
12
11,000 ug/1
13
. 13
'b 4
13
32,000 ug/1
2
2
33
750 ug/1
1
4
11
1,800 ug/1
Number of
Lead
12
12
12
12
100 ug/1
12
12
__
12
12
100 ug/1
13
13
13
13
100 ug/1
9
9
9
10
100 ug/1
11
11
11
12
100 ug/1
Times Criteria
Manganese
5
3
._
12
310 ug/1
7
4
12
420 ug/1
_.
13
4
13
570 ug/1
1
9
80 ug/1
1
11
60 ug/1
Exceeded
Mercury
5
.-
_-
12
0.4 ug/1
7
12
1.2 ug/1
7
13
1.2 ug/1
2
9
0.6 ug/1
.-
__
11
Sul fates Aluminum
30
36 8
560 mg/1
26
2
2
32 8
600 mg/1 7,300 ug/1
__
35
41 8
620 mg/1
--
101 10
.-
--
50 12
Chromium Fluoride
11
__
..
12
13
__
__
9
-.
--
11
-------
TABLE Cl. (Continued)
00
Stream, Station Number,
and Beneficial Use
0550
AL
. DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
0610
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
0630
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
0680
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
0750
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Cadmium
9
9
10
10 ug/1
6
6
__
7
10 ug/1
10
10
_.
11
10 ug/1
1
4
4
4
30 ug/1
--
6
6
7
10 ug/1
Iron
1
5
29
1,600 ug/1
2
7
1
7
6,900 ug/1
1
8
-_
11
4,800 ug/1
2
3
1
4
5,000 ug/1
4
__
7
550 ug/1
Number of
Lead
10
10
10
11
100 ug/1
7
7
--
7
7
100 ug/1
11
11
11
12
100 ug/1
4
4
_.
4
4
200 ug/1
7
7
7
7
100 ug/1
Times Criteria
Manganese
6
10
80 ug/1
7
7
190 ug/1
7
1
11
210 ug/1
4
2
4
850 ug/1
5
__
7
90 ug/1
Exceeded
Mercury
1
10
1.0 ug/1
2
..
7
0.2 ug/1
1
11
0.1 ug/1
2
4
0.2 ug/1
2
__
7
0.1 ug/1
Sul fates
2
100
260 mg/1
18
__
26
350 mg/1
3
__
52
300 mg/1
8
__
10
3,200 mg/1
1
__
_._
26
260 ug/1
Aluminum Chromium
_-
1
1
11 10
6,000 ug/1
1
7 7
66 ug/1
_.
12 11
1
__
3 4
60/ug 1
..
-_
__ __
7 7
-.
Fluoride
__
_.
__
__
__
__
-------
TABLE Cl. (Continued)
oo
oo
Stream, Station Number,
and Beneficial Use
0760
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
0761
AL
OH
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
0761-5
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
0767
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
0774
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Cadml urn
3
13
13
_.
13
20 ug/1
10
10
10
10 ug/1
1
11
11
12
30 ug/1
i
i
i
10 ug/1
12
12
--
12
10 ug/1
Iron
5
13
1
..
13
5,700 ug/1
1
5
..
10
1,400 ug/1
2
7
__
12
2,500 ug/1
1
1
_.
1
1,600 ug/1
6
10
._
12
2,900 ug/1
Number of
Lead
13
13
..
13
13
100 ug/1
15
15
15
15
100 ug/1
12
12
12
12
100 ug/1
1
1
_.
1
1
100 ug/1
12
12
12
12
100 ug/1
Times Criteria
Manganese
9
3
__
13
390 ug/1
4
10
60 ug/1
9
__
12
140 ug/1
1
_.
1
110 ug/1
9-
1
12
360 ug/1
Exceeded
Mercury
4
..
13
0.4 ug/1
5
..
15
0.6 ug/1
3
..
_
12
0.2 ug/1
__
__
1
--
5
__
__
12
0.8 ug/1
Sulfates Aluminum Chromium Fluoride
37
--
»
40 8 13
1,500 mg/1
--
7
1
_.
45 15 10 4
420 mg/1 -- 1.1 mg/1
« --
33
_- _
-- -- __ __
34 7 12
670 mg/1
-- -- --
2
__. _.. __ ^
5 1
1,300 mg/1
-- -- __ __
37 -- 1
39 7 12
1,500 mg/1 -- 90 ug/1
-------
TABLE Cl. (Continued)
00
Stream, Station Number,
and Beneficial Use
0781
AL
DW
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
0783
AL
DW
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
0784
AL
DW
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
0816
AL
DW
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
0817
AL
DW
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Cadml urn
1
3
3
3
20 ug/1
11
11
12
10 ug/1
1
1
1
10 ug/1
._
3
3
--
3
10 ug/1
--
-
Iron
1
2
_.
-.
3
1,600 ug/1
3
7
2
_.
12
13,000 ug/1
1
._
1
1,700 ug/1
1
3
--
3
1,200 ug/1
__
__
__
Number of
Lead
3
3
3
3
100 ug/1
14
14
14
14
100 ug/1
1
1
._
1
1
100 ug/1
3
3
3
3
100 ug/1
__
_
--
Times Criteria Exceeded
Manganese Mercury
2
..
3 3
140 ug/1
8
4
1
--
11 14
300 ug/1 0.5 ug/1
--
--
--
--
1 1
-- __
3
2
--
3 3
4,500 ug/1
-- _..
-- -
Sul fates
7
.-
9
2,000 mg/1
15
__
37
390 mg/1
_..
__
_-
__
3
13
__
13
4,000 mg/1
6
6
2,300 mg/1
Aluminum Chromium Fluoride
-.
23-
--
_._
__ __
1
1
11 12 1
6,000 ug/1
_.
__
1
--
II
._
33-
II II
-- __
_
-------
TABLE Cl. (Continued)
10
o
Stream, Station Number,
and Beneficial Use ,
0819
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
0840
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
0850
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Powder River
1250
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
1300
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Cadml urn
1
1
1
10 ug/1
1
4
4
5
20 ug/1
8
8
«
15
20 ug/1
__
-_
--
2
9
1
9
60 ug/1
Iron
1
_
_.
1
380 ug/1
1
4
_.
__
5
4,200 ug/1
5
5
1
-'
15
74.000 ug/1
_.
....
--
7
8
5
9
810,000 ug/1
Number of
Lead
1
1
1
1
100 ug/1
5
5
_.
5
5
200 ug/1
7
7
-,
7
17
100 ug/1
__
~
9
9
8
9
9
900 ug/1
Times Criteria Exceeded
Manganese Mercury
..
1
1 1
150 ug/1
3
4
--
_-
5 5
120 ug/1 0.2 ug/1
1
3
1.
14 16
680 ug/1 0.8 ug/1
--
-- _
4
8 1
4
9 9
11.000 ug/1 2.1 ug/1
Sul fates Aluminum
9
--
--
9 1
3,600 mg/1
10
-.
__ ...
15 5
1,700 mg/1
--
11
--
--
100 3
440 mg/1
MM __
42
49
672 mg/1
M-
36
5
5
36 9
2.300 mg/1 360,000 ug/1
Chromium
__
_..
_
1
__
__
__
5
3
._
__
15
80 ug/1
__
1
3
1
9
500 ug/1
Fluoride
.._
--
_
__
__
"
"
__
__
__
2
__
_..
__
_._
__
MM
__
-------
TABLE Cl. (Continued)
Stream, Station Number,
and Beneficial Use
1340
AL
OU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
1350
AL
OU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
1640
AL
DW
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
1700
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
2020
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Cadmi urn
1
7
7
_.
10
20 ug/1
2
2
2
10 ug/1
2
2
2
10 ug/1
1
1
1
--
1
30 ug/1
9
9
10
10 ug/1
Iron
7
7
6
10
400,000 ug/1
2
2
1
2
8,500 ug/1
2
2
1
2
5,200 ug/1
1
1
1
i.-
1
310,000 ug/1
1
3
-.
..
10
1,200 ug/1
Number of
Lead
7
7
7
10
600 ug/1
2
2
2
2
100 ug/1
2
2
2
2
100 ug/1
1
1
1
1
400 ug/1
9
9
9
10
100 ug/1
Times Criteria Exceeded
Manganese Mercury
1
7
4
10 9
6,400 ug/1 0.3 ug/1
2
2 2
160 ug/1
2
_-
2 2
190 ug/1
1
1
1
1 1
5,000 ug/1 0.7 ug/1
1
6
_,
--
10 10
150 ug/1 0.1 ug/1
Sul fates
49
49
1.900 mg/1
7
.-
7
950 mg/1
49
49
1,500 mg/1
52
52
1,500 mg/1
24
--
33
490 mg/1
Aluminum
1
1
10
170.000 ug/1
1
1
1
6,900 ug/1
__
1
1
1
1
180,000 ug/1
__
__
__
10
Chromium
2
2
2
._
10
320 ug/1
..
__
2
__
2
1
1
1
__
1
300 ug/1
-«
...
__
~t.
10
-_.
Fluoride
_
-_
--
__
--
__
--
__
-_
.._
_-
--
--
__
__
__
_
.._
__
-------
TABLE Cl. (Continued)
Stream, Station Number,
and Beneficial Use
2040
AL
DM
1
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
2350
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
2400
AL
DW
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
2450
AL
DW
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
2492
AL
DW
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Cadml urn
9
9
9
10
10 ug/1
12
12
12
10 ug/1
_-
10
10
11
10 ug/1
1
3
3
..
12
20 ug/1
7
7
7
10 ug/1
Iron
3
5
._
__
10
1,900 ug/1
.-
6
..
12
940 ug/1
3
9
1
11
21.000 ug/1
11
12
8
12
600.000 ug/1
5
6
1
-.
6
8,100 ug/1
Number of
Lead
9
9
9
10
100 ug/1
12
12
_-
12
12
100 ug/1
11
11
11
12
100 ug/1
14
14
14
14
800 ug/1
7
6
6
7
100 ug/1
Times Criteria
Manganese
9
-_
10
190 ug/1
--
2
12
100 ug/1
8
1
__
11
420 ug/1
8
8
11
9,700 ug/1
_-
7
1
7
230 ug/1
Exceeded
Mercury
._
._
10
3
_.
12
1.0 ug/1
2
1
..
11
2.0 ug/1
9
._
--
12
1.1 ug/1
2
__
6
0.1 ug/1
Sul fates
27
27
670 mg/1
1
35
290 mg/1
41
._
50
830 mg/1
77
..
77
1,300 mg/1
__
10
10
1,900 mg/1
Al umi num
..
10
--
12
1
1
13
11,000 ug/1
9
9
11
270,000 ug/1
6
Chromium Fluoride
--
.-
10
--
..
12
_-
-_
..
11
2
2
2
13
500 ug/1
..
..
7
-------
TABLE Cl. (Continued)
10
CO
Stream, Station Number,
and Beneficial Use
2497
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
2605
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
2620
AL
'DW
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
2630
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
2650
AL
DW
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Cadml urn
30
30
30
10 ug/1
..
3
3
3
10 ug/1
1
5
5
5
20 ug/1
1
6
6
6
20 ug/1
1
13
13
14
20 ug/1
Iron
26
28
1
30
63,000 ug/1
1
1
__
3
940 ug/1
__
4
..
5
990 ug/1
3
6
2
6
74.000 ug/1
13
14
10
__
14
300,000 ug/1
Number of
Lead
29
29
29
30
200 ug/1
3
3
3
3
100 ug/1
5
5
..
5
5
100 ug/1
6
6
6
6
200 ug/1
13
13
13
14
400 ug/1
Times Criteria
Manganese
30
23
30
1,400 ug/1
3
1
-_
3
7,100 ug/1
_
5
4
5
1.700 ug/1
5
1
6
970 ug/1
11
9
14
5,600 ug/1
Exceeded
Mercury
7
..
--
_.
30
1.4 ug/1
..
..
3
1
__
5
0.1 ug/1
2
_.
_
5
0.3 ug/1
11
13
0.4 ug/1
Sul fates
75
75
2,100 mg/1
12
12
3,200 mg/1
_
17
-.
--
17
1,300 mg/1
__
13
__.
--
18
1.300 mg/1
__
39
40
1 ,200 mg/1
Al uml num
5
5
30
68,000 ug/1
_-
-.-
«
__
3
--
__
__
5
--
.-
_-
i
i
6
54,000 ug/1
__
__
-,«.
Chromium
_.
..
--
30
100 ug/1
__
__
3
__
...
__
5
1
1
1
6
130 ug/1
2
3
2
14
220 ug/1
Fluoride
__
_
--
_
__
__
__
_
__
__
__
__
_.
-------
TABLE Cl. (Continued)
Stream, Station Number,
and Beneficial Use
Sarpy Creek
9494
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Armells Creek
9499
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Tongue River
0767
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
0816
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Powder River
~T300
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Dissolved
Oxygen
3
--
28
1.8 mg/1
35
1
5
3.0 mg/1
6
..
13
0.0 mg/1
--
24
Copper
--
11
1
13
300 ug/1
_.
__
1
3
..
2
1
9
790 ug/1
Number of Times Criteria Exceeded
Beryllium Chloride Nickel Selenium Zinc Boron
11 28 11 11 7
1
1
13 35 13 13 8
20 ug/1
1 511----
--
3 13 3 3 3
-- -.- -- _-. -- ._
1-7
2 3
9 36 9 9 9 18
20 ug/1 280 mg/1 450 ug/1 28 ug/1 4,500 ug/1
Molybdenum Arsenic
..
..
11 11
-.
-.
_
13 13
__
1 1
__
--
--
--
3 3
--
__
2
1
.-
9 9
180 ug/1
-------
TABLE Cl. (Continued)
10
en
Number of Times Criteria Exceeded
Stream, Station Number,
and Beneficial Use
1340
AL
DU
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Dissolved
Oxygen
3
26
0.7
Copper
2
10
390 ug/1
Beryllium Chloride
39
10 49
20 ug/1 1,600 mg/1
Nickel Selenium Zinc
2
10 10 10
500 ug/1
Boron Molybdenum Arsenic
10 10
--
1350
AL
DW
I
L
Total number of values 8 21
Maximum excess value
1700
AL 1
'DW
I 1
L
Total number of values 20 11
Maximum excess value 2.9 mg/1
300 ug/1 20 ug/1
2400
AL
DW
I
L
Total number of values 47 12 11
Maximum excess value
2450
AL 2
DW
I 2
L 2
Total number of values 82 14 12
Maximum excess value 3.0 ug/1 900 ug/1 20 ug/1
970 mg/1
30
50
11
1
1
52 1 1
543 mg/1 500 ug/1 12 ug/1
13
74 12 14
320 mg/1 650 ug/1
12
1
11
2,700 ug/1
1
29 11
930 ug/1
12
11
2
2
2
12
350 ug/1
-------
TABLE Cl. (Continued)
10
CT)
Stream, Station Number,
and Beneficial Use
2492
AL
DM
1
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
2497
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
2605
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
2620
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
Number of Times Criteria Exceeded
Dissolved Copper Beryllium Chloride Nickel Selenium Z1nc
Oxygen
10 7 7 10 7 6 6
20 ug/1
-.
64 30 30 75 30 30 30
20 ug/1
6
Q
--
12 3 3 12 3 3 3
0.0 ug/1
2
--
_.
__
17 5 5 17 5 5 5
3.0 ug/1
Boron Molybdenum
1 1
..
1 7
1,700 ug/1 53 ug/1
1
1 30
13 ug/1
--
-.
3
-_
-_
--
5
Arsenic
__
6
3
30
90 ug/1
__
_.
..
__
3
__
5
2630
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
18
5 18 6
20 ug/1
-------
TABLE Cl. (Continued)
I
m
z
o
o
-n
3
O
m
at
a>
to
,3
10
N)
0>
Stream, Station Number,
and Beneficial Use
Number of Times Criteria Exceeded
D1ssolved Copper
Oxygen
Beryllium Chloride
Nickel
Selenium Zinc
Boron Molybdenum Arsenic
2650
AL
DM
I
L
Total number of values
Maximum excess value
40
2.7 ug/1
1
14
390 ug/1
40
14
14
14
92 ug/1
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-79-249
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT ON
WATER QAULITY: The Tongue and Powder River Basins
December 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
S.M. Melancon*, B.C. Hess, and R.W. Thomas
*University of Nevada, Las Vegas. NV
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Biology
Department, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
INE625. 81AEG
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyLas Vegas, NV
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, NV 89114
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final to 1978
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/07
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The Tongue and Powder River Basins contain vast beds of low-sulfur, stripable coal
that potentially will support a large number of powerplants, gasification, and
liquefaction complexes for conversion of this c'oal into commercially usable power.
Development of local oil and gas fields, as well as some uranium exploration, is also
ongoing. However, utilization of these energy resources, especially if maximum levels
of expansion are realized, is expected to have considerable impact on water resources
in the Tongue and Powder River Basins. It appears unlikely that there are sufficient
surface or ground water supplies to meet projected needs in the area without creation
of additonal reservoir storage or diversion of surface water from other sources. Water
quality and quantity impacts from energy developments will reduce water usability for
municipal, industrial, and irrigation purposes and will have adverse impacts on the
aquatic ecosystem. Alternative proposals for maintenance of valid instream flow
requirements in the basins, however, could greatly limit annual quantities of water
available for diversion for energy users. The existing U.S. Geological Survey sampling
network is adequately situated for evaluating the impact of energy development
activities and should be carefully monitored on a regular basis in the future.
Priority listings of parameters to be measured to detect changes in water quality as a
result of energy resource development and to assess future projects are recommended.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Coal
Strip mining
Water resources
Water quality
Electric power generation
Monitoring
Tongue River
Powder River
Rosebud Creek
Sarpy Creek
Armells Creek
08H,I
13B
17B
21D
97R
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |