MONTANASTATELIBRARY 3 0864 0015 3366 3 NORTH HILLS CONTROLLED GROUND-WATER AREA PETITION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SWTP DOCUMENTS COLLECTION hAR d 2002 MONTANA STATE t,BRARY M"F^iLEcNiA,,}^M^O-NSTfAlNAAVE. 59620 Prepared by MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION January 11,2002 1 OISKe«Mortwn<oes i 1 Table ofContents Chapter 1. Purpose and Need 1 1.1 Location 2 1.2 Scope ofthe Environmental Analysis 2 1.3 Public Involvement 2 1 .4 Other Agencies With Related Responsibilities 2 1.5 Decision Process and Contested-Case Heanng Process 4 Chapter 2 -Issues and Alternatives 4 2.1 Issues 4 2.2 Alternatives 6 Chapter 3 - Existing Environment 7 3.1 Ground-Water Resources 7 3.2 Land Use 15 3.3 Demographics 18 3.4 Economics 19 Chapter 4— Potential Impacts ofthe Alternatives 20 4. Ground-Water Resources 20 4.2 Land Use 21 4.3 Demographics 22 4.4 Economics 23 Chapter 5 -Need and Evaluation Criteria 25 5.1 Need 25 5.2 Evaluation Criteria 28 6- Chapter References 31 Chapter 7 - List OfPrepares 32 Appendix A: Summary ofprevious reports that contain information on the ground-water resources ofthe North Hills area 33 Appendix B: Water levels for wells that are still monitored by the USGS in the North Hills Area 34 Appendix C: Precipitation data summaries for Helena Regional Airport 35 Appendix C: Precipitation data summaries for Helena Regional Airport 36 Appendix D: Copy ofcontrolled ground-water area petition 37 List ofAcronyms af Acre-feet ofwater CDP Census designated places CGA Controlled ground-water area DEQ Montana Department ofEnvironmental Quality DNRC Montana Department ofNatural Resources and Conservation EA Environmental assessment EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency gpm gallons per minute ofwater MCA Montana Code Annotated MCL Maximum contaminant level USGS United States Geological Survey ) Chapter 1. Purpose and Need A controlled ground-water area is an area where water supply and water quality problems have been identified, or where there could be problems in the future. Water users can petition the state for the designation ofa controlled ground-water area. The petition must be signed by one quarter or 20 ofthe ground-water users in the petition area, whichever is less. In controlled ground-water areas, the state has the authority to manage ground-water development. Outside ofcontrolled ground-water areas, wells that yield less than 35 gallons ofwater per minute are exempt from most water-permitting requirements. The Montana Department ofNatural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) has received a petition to create a temporary controlled ground-water area (CGA) in the North Hills area in Lewis and Clark Countyjust north ofHelena. The petition has been signed by 120 area residents and requests that DNRC: Perform a comprehensive hydrogeologic study ofthe area as needed to characterize and 1 quantify the current and future availabihty ofground water; 2) Assess the nature and extent ofchanges in ground-water quality as a function ofcurrent and projected beneficial uses in the proposed North Hills CGA, in cooperation with the Montana Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ); 3) Close the area to ftirther appropriation ofground water, except for replacement wells, during the term ofthe study. CGA Statute requires that petitioners for a must provide facts showing that within the proposed CGA: a) Ground-water withdrawals are in excess ofrecharge to the aquifer or aquifers; b) excessive ground-water withdrawals are very likely to occur in the near future because ofconsistent and significant increases in withdrawals; c) significant disputes regarding priority ofrights, amounts ofground water in use by appropriators, or priority or type ofuse are in progress d) ground-water levels or pressures are declining or have declined excessively; e) excessive ground-water withdrawals would cause contaminant migration; f) ground-water withdrawals adversely affecting ground-water quality are occurring or are likely to occur; or g) water quality is not suited for a specific beneficial use as defined by 85-2- i02(2)(a)MCA. The petition contains allegations to comply with these requirements and has been deemed complete by DNRC. The petition is attached in the back ofthis draft EA as Appendix D. An evaluation ofthe above criteria by DNRC as it pertains to the North Hills area is included in Chapter 5. 1.1 Location The proposed CGA would be in the North Hills area near Helena as depicted in Map 1. 1.2 Scope of the Environmental Analysis This Environmental Assessment (EA) will assess potential impacts to the human environment if CGA the petition for a in the North Hills were granted, denied, or granted in a modified form. It will analyze the designation ofa 2-year temporary CGA with a possible extension of2 additional years: for four years total. The EA will evaluate the need for a controlled ground-waterarea, study and temporaryclosure, and the ability ofthe agencies to conduct a study. It will also present alternatives to the stipulations sought in the petition, but not a preferred alternative. Nor will the EA be the decision-making document. An administrative hearingprocess will be held to compile additional facts before DNRC makes a proposal for a decision on the petition. 1.3 Public Involvement A public scoping meeting for this EA was held on Wednesday, November 7, 2001 at the Jim Darcy School, which is within the boundaries ofthe proposed CGA. The purpose ofthe meeting was to identifypotential environmental issues and alternatives, and to provide information regarding the petition and DNRC's administrative requirements. The public was also given the opportunity to submit written comments until November 15, 2001. This draft EA has been distributed forpublic review and comment. Comments will be accepted during a public meeting on Thursday, January 24, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. at the Jim Darcy School, and by mail until January 30, 2002. The draft EA will be revised into a final EA following the close ofthe public comment period. 1.4 Other Agencies With Related Responsibilities Other government entities have regulatory and review responsibilities that can have an effect on ground-water development in the area. These entities are: 1) The Montana Department ofEnvironmental Quality: subdivision review, review of community water systems and wastewater treatment systems; 2) Lewis and Clark County: subdivision review, septic permits, Water Quality Protection District. CO o w ID E o rn c o o CD < O (J (/> c o o (U 0o) Q. O «o«— -a c D o CD Q. TO .. 1.5 Decision Process and Contested-Case Hearing Process DNRC must follow the statutory process and criteria in 85-2-506 through 85-3-508 MCA when reviewing a petition for a CGA. A contested-case hearing on the North Hills CGA petition will be held to gather information and arguments supporting and opposing the petition. The contested-case hearing will be held following the publication ofthe final EA. The notice ofthe hearing will be published in the local paper, and be mailed to each area well driller, landowners and ground-water rights holder within the proposed CGA boundaries, local governments, and state and federal agencies. DNRC will receive oral and written testimony relevant to the designation or modification ofthe proposed North Hills CGA at the contested-case hearing. The procedure will be full, fair and orderly, and all relevant evidence will be received. Because ofthe technical nature ofthe statutory criteria, data and expert testimonywill be essential to making a case during the process. After the conclusion ofthe hearing, DNRC will issue a proposed order with written findings and a proposed decision on the petition. The proposed order will be distributed to parties that participated in the hearing, so that they may have the opportunity to submit exceptions. A final order will be issued following this review ofthe proposed order and exceptions to it. The final order will contain DNRC's decision on whether or not a controlled ground-water area should be designated. The final order can be appealed to district court. - Chapter 2 Issues and Alternatives 2.1 Issues Many issues were brought to DNRC's attention during the public scoping process. Some ofthe issues, although important, are best addressed during the administrative hearing process, and therefore, will not be discussed in this EA. Listed below by category are a summary ofthe issues that were raised during the scoping process that will be evaluated in this EA. Social 1 Is there a need to have a smdy to evaluate the water supply so we can plan for growth and determine what level ofdevelopment is sustainable? 2. What are the potential impacts to property rights? Economic 1 What are the potential economic impacts on existing homeowners, including well replacement costs, ofnot having a CGA? 2. What are the potential impacts ofCGA designation on property values? 3. How will fiiture homeowners be protected from potential economic losses? 4. What are the potential impacts ofa declining water table on property values ifthere is no CGA? 5. What are the potential impacts ofa CGA and temporary closure on new residential development? ... . CGA 6. Will there be compensation for potential property rights losses due to designation? 7. What are the potential costs ofcontesting permit applications? Need 1 Is there a need for a controlled ground-water area and for a moratorium on new wells? 2. Is there a need for a controlled ground-water area given the existing subdivision requirements ofLewis and Clark County and the Montana DEQ? Water Supply 1 There is a need to separate drought impacts from those due to human water use. 2. There is a need to collect more data and to evaluate the ability to do a study in 2-to-4 years. 3. Identify where aquifer recharge is coming from, and the travel times and age ofrecharge water. 4. There is a need to separate the bedrock and alluvial aquifers. 5. There is a need to quantify the thickness ofthe alluvium over the bedrock. 6. Local aquifer variability needs to be taken into account. 7. The effects ofwater supplied by the Helena Irrigation District on ground water in the area should be evaluated. 8. The possible recharge ofthe bedrock aquifer from the Helena Valley alluvial aquifer should be analyzed. 9. Will adding more wells during a studymay make the studyresults unreliable because conditions were not static? 10. The USGS study needs to be reviewed and considered. 1 1 Define the current level ofwater use in the proposed CGA. Water Qualitv 1 Potential impact to water quality, especially in regards to nitrates, need to be evaluated. 2. What is the action level for nitrates where additional treatment would be required? Other 1 A weighing and balancing ofimpacts is needed. 2 Where would DNRC get funding for a ground-water study? 3 Is the water permitting system adequate to address the petitioners concerns? 4 You need to assess the temporary nature ofa closure. 5 Where are there new subdivisions being proposed? How 6 can existing users be protected; what is a "call" for water? 7 The possibilities ofcreating public water and sewer systems should be looked at. How would such a study would mesh with ongoing studies by the Lewis and Clark County Water Quality Protection District? )) 2.2 Alternatives The purpose ofdeveloping project alternatives is to attempt to resolve issues or potential problems with a proposal. In addition to the NoAction and Petition Proposal, three other alternatives known as the ModifiedPermitAlternative, Adjusted CGA BoundariesAlternative, and Water Quality StudyAlternative have been developed after considering the major issues raised during scoping. Under all the action alternatives, the controlled ground-water area designation would be temporary: for two years with apossible extension to 4 years. Alternative —No Action Alternative 1 Under the No Action Alternative, the petition would be denied and there would be no temporary controlled ground-water area in the North Hills. Drilling ofwells and development would continue as it has under existing procedures and regulations. — Alternative 2 Petition Proposal Alternative DNRC This alternative would be the Petition Proposal which would require to: Perform a comprehensive hydrogeologic study ofthe designated area as needed to 1 characterize and quantify the current and future availability ofground water; 2) In cooperation with the Montana Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ), assess the nature and extent ofchanges in ground-water quality as a function ofcurrent and projected beneficial uses in the proposed North Hills CGA; 3) Close the area to furtherappropriation ofground water, except for replacement wells, during the term ofthe study. — Alternative 3 Study with Modified Permitting Process Alternative The ModifiedPermit ProcessAlternative was developed in an attempt to balance the concerns of the petitioners with those who oppose a temporary closure, and to consider study funding concerns. It would include a ground-water supply study as described under Alternative 2, but not a ground-water quality study. It also differs from Alternative 2 because, during the duration of the study, DNRC would not close the area to ground-water appropriation but instead would: Initiate temporary modified water right permitting procedures and require specified 1 ground-water data to be submitted for all new ground water appropriations; 2) Propose water right permitting and ground-water data collection procedures, as part ofa temporary controlled ground-water area, to support ongoing evaluation ofthe availability ofground water, and the potential for adverse impacts to current and ftiture water users. 3) Allow water right holders to object to new water rights for all wells during the two-to- four year period, including those that are less than 35 gpm; 4) Iiutiate a hydrogeologic study ofthe designated area as needed to characterize and quantify the availability ofground water for appropriation and the potential for adverse impacts to current water users. Alternative 4—Adjusted CGA Boundaries Alternative The Adjusted CGA Boundaries Alternative can be combined with either alternative 2 or 3, but with boundaries modified to only include areas where the primary water source is the pre-