This is a digital document from the collections of the Wyoming Water Resources Data System (WRDS) Library.

For additional information about this document and the document conversion process, please contact WRDS at wrds@uwyo.edu and include the phrase

“Digital Documents” in your subject heading.

To view other documents please visit the WRDS Library online at: http://library.wrds.uwyo.edu

Mailing Address: Water Resources Data System

University of Wyoming, Dept 3943 1000 E University Avenue

Laramie, WY 82071

Physical Address: Wyoming Hall, Room 249 University of Wyoming

Laramie, WY 82071

Phone: (307) 766-6651 Fax: (307) 766-3785

Funding for WRDS and the creation of this electronic document was provided by the Wyoming Water Development Commission

(http://wwdc.state.wy.us)

WIND RIVER WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

Groundwater Exploration Program

Cond ucted by: Wyoming Water Development Commission

Authorization

The Wyoming Legislature authorized the Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) to conduct a groundwater exploration program in cooperation with the Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Joint Business Council (JBC). The purpose was to explore for a reliable groundwater supply to serve rural water systems on the Wind River Indian Reservation.

The WWDC signed a memorandum of agreement with the JBC wherein the WWDC agreed to provide 75% of the funds required, and the JBC would provide the remaining 25%. WWDC agreed to administer the exploration program and provide a staff registered professional geologist to supervise field activities.

Background

The rural areas surrounding Fort Washakie and Ethete, and the Boulder Flats area, are in immediate need of improved or supplemental water supplies. The Fort Washakie vicinity is currently served by a surface water diversion and water treatment plant. It is reported to provide good quality water, but the demand may soon exceed the capacity of their water treatment plant. The Ethete vicinity also utilizes a surface water diversion and water treatment plant, however, the treatment plant is inadequate. The Boulder Flats system utilizes groundwater as its source and provides adequate water quality, but the quantity is inadequate.

Groundwater Investigations

Existing information was collected from the State Engineer's Office, the United States Geological Survey, the Oil & Gas Commission, and the WWDC files to determine the aquifer(s) most suited to meeting the identified needs. These studies demonstrated that shallow groundwater in the project area is generally not capable of meeting the necessary quality and quantity criteria. Total dissolved solids are commonly greater than 1000 mg/l and yields are generally less than 20 gpm. Therefore, attention was directed to the Paleozoic aquifers near their outcrop along the flanks of the Wind River Range.

The aquifers of interest were primarily the Tensleep sandstone and the Madison limestone (Figure 1). The Bighorn dolomite is generally quite productive along the western flanks of the Bighorn Mountains, however,

PROPERTY OF VvRDS Ll8FU;F,Y LARAMIE, WY (307) 766-6661

depth limitations precluded investigation of the Bighorn formation during this study.

The first well, the Moccasin Lake #1, is located approximately 6 miles southwest of Fort Washakie in SE NE NW Section 26, T1 S, R2W (Figure 1). The construction of the well was started on October 11, 1994 and completed on October 22, 1994, at a total depth of 2125 feet in the Bighorn Formation (Figure 2). It flows approximately 210 gpm from the Tensleep formation, and up to 52 gpm from the Madison formation.

The second well, the North Fork #1, is located approximately 5 miles west of Milford in SE NW SW Section 15, T2S, R 1 W (Figure 1). It was started on July 26, 1995 and completed on August 5, 1995, at a total depth of 3252 feet in the Bighorn formation (Figure 3). It flows approximately 215 gpm from the Tensleep formation and approximately 90 gpm from the Madison formation.

The geophysical logs performed on the wells (map pocket) show considerable sections of sandstone porosity in the Tensleep formation, but little porosity in the Madison formation. This is supported by the geologist's logs (Appendix A) and the aquifer testing performed as part of this study.

Aquifer Analysis

A flowing well aquifer test was performed on the Madison formation at the Moccasin Lake #1 well. and on the Tensleep and Madison formations at the North Fork #1 well. Those data and analyses are contained in Appendix B of this report.

The shut-in-pressure in the Moccasin Lake #1 well is approximately 60 psi in the Tensleep formation, for a specific capacity of 1.52 gpm/ft. The shut .. in­pressure in the Madison formation is 130 psi, for a specific capacity of 0.17' g pm/ft. This difference demonstrates the variation in intrinsic permeability between the two aquifers.

The shut-in-pressure in the North Fork #1 well is 70 psi in the Tensleep formation, for a specific capacity of 1.33 gpm/ft. The shut-in-pressure in the Madison formation is 232 psi, for a specific capacity of 0.17 gpm/ft. The specific capacity values for the respective aquifers are very similar, and support the notion that the formations are quite uniform from the Moccasin Lake #1 site to the North Fork #1 site. The transmissivity values calculated for each aquifer are also very similar (Appendix B).

Analysis of the testing data indicates that neither well penetrated any

Figure 2

WELL SUMMARY Moccasin Lake #1

Owner: Wyoming Water Development Commission / Joint Tribal Council

State Engineer Permit Number: UW 96815

Location: SE NE NW Section 26, T1 S, R2VV of the W.R.M. Surface Elevation: 6100 feet Total Depth Drilled: 2125 feet

Formations: 0-456 feet 456-590 feet 590-847 feet 847-1300 feet 1300-1478 feet 1478-1542 feet 1542-2105 feet 2105-2125 feet

Chugwater Formation Dinwoody Formation Phosphoria Formation Tensleep Formation Amdsen Formation Darwin Formation iVladison Formation Bighorn Formation

Hole Diameter: 0-152 feet = 12.25 inch 152-1615 feet = 8.75 inch 1615-2125 feet = 6.25 inch

Casing: 0-152 = 9.625 inch 00 0-1615 = 6.25 inch 00

Drilling and Completion Dates: 10/11/94 - 10/22/94

Well Design, Construction Supervision, and Testing: Jon Wade, P.G., WWDC Drilling Contractor: Ruby Drilling, Gillette Cementing Contractor: Rocky Mountain Cementers, Casper Geophysical Contractor: Goodwell, Inc., Upton

Figure 3

WELL SUMMARY North Fork #1

Owner: Wyoming Water Development Commission / Joint Tribal Council

State Engineer Permit Number: UW 96814

Location: SE NW SW Section 15, T2S, R1Wofthe W.R.M. Surface Elevation: 5960 feet Total Depth Drilled: 3252 feet

Formations: 0-88 feet 88-256 feet 256-1590 1590-1660 feet 1660-2050 feet 2050-2520 feet 2520-2640 feet 2640-2736 feet 2736-3215 feet 3215-3252 feet

Nugget Formation Gypsum Springs Chugwater Formation Dinwoody Formation Phosphoria Formation Tensleep Formation Amdsen Formation Darwin Formation Madison Formation Bighorn Formation

Hole Diameter: 0-254 feet = 12.25 inch 254-2780 feet = 8.75 inch 2780-3252 feet = 6.25 inch

Casing: 0-254 = 9.625 inch 00 0-2780 = 7.625 inch 00

Drilling and Completion Dates: 7/26/95 - 8/5/95

Well Design, Construction Supervision, and Testing: Jon Wade, P.G., WWDC Drilling Contractor: Ruby Drilling, Gillette Cementing Contractor: Rocky Mountain Cementers, Casper Geophysical Contractor: Dyna Jet, Inc., Casper

substantial secondary permeability zones. The low Madison formation transmissivity values are typical of undeformed limestone. In spite of the high shut-in-pressures observed, the yields are relatively low. The Tensleep formation, however, yields substantially higher volumes of water, and has a much higher transmissivity. This is representative of the intrinsic permeability of the Tensleep sandstone.

Water Quality

Exploration level water quality analyses were performed on the Tensleep and Madison formations at both wells by an EPA approved laboratory, with all sampled parameters meeting applicable criteria (Appendix C). However, samples should be obtained for analyses by an EPA approved laboratory for the full suite of EPA regulated parameters prior to proceeding with development of the aquifers studied herein.

Conclusions

The Tensleep formation is a good candidate for further development to meet the potable water needs of the Fort Washakie/Ethete area, and the Boulder Flats area. It should be possible to develop Tensleep wells with a safe flowing yield of at least 150 gpm. Those wells will cost approximately $115,000 -$130,000 each in the Moccasin Lake #1 area, and $180,000 - $200,000 each in the North Fork #1 area. The water quality should be thoroughly tested, but is expected to meet applicable requirements based on preliminary analyses. The recharge to the Tensleep formation appears to be good in this region, and the aquifer is uniformly prolific. Therefore, the Tensleep formation is expected to be a reliable, low maintenance, long term water supply.

APPENDIX A

Geologist's Logs

GEOLOGISTS LOG Mocassin Lake #1

0-3 Chugwater 3-60 mottling. 60-88 88-114 114-152 152-172 172-185 185-201 201-264 264-281 281-361 361-394 394-456 Dinwoody 456-468 468-470

470-473 473-529

529-542

gravel-cobbles up to 10" diameter.

red siltstone. trace green and white siltstone. slight

aa. aa. aa. aa. aa. aa. aa. aa. aa. aa. aa.

4 minutes per foot (mpf). bit chatter. 3 mpf. 5 mpf. 3 mpf. w/some gravel size chips light green siltstone. w/some gravel size chips gray-green siltstone. w/trace gray dolomite, trace satin spar. 5 mpf. more satin spar. several drilling breaks. average = 3 mpf. no satin spar.

dark gray dolomite/limestone. some white to clear gypsum. aa. w/some buff dolomite/limestone. slightly calcareous. slight hydrocarbon odor. aa. strong hydrocarbon odor. light-dark gray dolomite/limestone. some buff-tan dolomite/limestone. strong hydrocarbon odor. 3-4 mpf. white limestone/dolomite. some dark gray-black limestone/dolomite. slightly calcareous.

542-590 aa. w/buff-tan limestone. trace chert. Phosphoria 590-662 dark gray-black platy limestone. somewhat calcareous.

662-680

680-720

720-768

768-847

Tensleep 847-1191

1191-1300

Amsden

hydrocarbon odor. some oil stained chips. medium gray, platy limestone/dolomite. strong hydrocarbon odor. somewhat calcareous. oil stain. 4 mpf. light-medium gray dolomite/limestone. very strong hydrocarbon odor. oil stain. 3 mpf. calcareous matrix. medium gray sub-angular, sub-rounded, very fine sandstone. medium clear-whi te-light green quartz grains. some pyrite. very calcareous. 3 mpf. slight water production. medium gray dolomite. somewhat calcareous matrix. some quartz grains aa.

clear-buff-white-tan fine sub-rounded quartz grains. thin layers white, platy, calcareous limestone. flowing 50 gpm in upper, increasing to 125 gpm in lower. white-buff, very fine-fine, sub-rounded quartz grains. calcareous matrix. trace pyrite. 1 mpf. flow increased to 180 gpm in lower. conductivity = 550, temperature = 13 c.

1300-1327 buff-tan-dark red-pink sandstone/limestone. somewhat calcareous. 4 mpf.

1327-1421 aa. w/medium gray limestone. vermillion-red-brown-gray­green-pink sandstone.

1421-1478 very fine, buff-light gray sand. trace light green sand. 3 mpf.

Darwin 1478-1542 very fine gray-clear-pink sand. Madison 1542-1615 white-gray limestone. very calcareous. flow increased to

210 gpm. conductivity = 468. set casing. 1615-1635 aa. 1 mpf. 1635-1692 white-gray limestone w/white, violently calcareous

layers. 2 mpf. 1692-1703 aa. w/primarily medium gray limestone. 1703-1721 aa. w/primarily buff-brown limes~one. small voids at

1715. 1721-1731 aa. w/primarily medium gray limestone. some blue/green

limestone. small voids at 1730. flowing 10 gpm. 1731-1834 aa. w/primarily buff-white limestone. 1834-1888 white limestone. voids up to 5" around 1834. flowing 15

gpm. 1888-2080 aa. w/some buff limestone. flowing 20 gpm. 2080-2105 buff-brown limestone. voids up to 4" around 2105. 1

mpf. flowing 35 gpm. Bighorn 2105-2125 buff dolomite w/trace tan-red limestone/dolomite. 2125- buff dolomite.

GEOLOGISTS LOG North Fork #1

Nugget 0-120 white-gray-pink, fine-very fine, round sand. Gypsum springs 120-256 some red-clear, fine-very fine, round sand. some white­

gray limestone. some anhydrite. Chugwater 256-410 410-418

red, fine-very fine, round sand. white-buff, very fine, crystalline limestone. anhydrite.

trace

418-425 425-1195

salmon-red, very fine sand. trace anhydrite. white-dark red, yellow, light green, very fine sand. trace anhydrite. 4 mpf.

1195-1580 Dinwoody

aa. w/considerable satin spar.

1580-1660 white-light gray limestone/dolomite. Phosphoria 1660-1789 medium-dark gray dolomite.

globules floating on pit. hydrocarbon odor. tar

1789-1808 aa. w/some white-light gray limestone/dolomite. 1808-1990 light gray limestone/dolomite. some dark gray dolomite.

hydrocarbon odor. 1990-2050 light gray limestone/dolomite. sugary texture. some

clear, cemented quartz grains. considerable oil stain. hydrocarbon odor. tar globules floating on pit.

Tensleep 2050-2520 white-tan-clear, fine, round-subround quartz grains. 1

mpf. flow steadily increased to 325 gpm through section. conductivity = 366. temperature = 17.5 c. slight hydrogen sulfide odor.

Amsden 2520-2640 dark red shale/siltstone.

white-gray limestone. Darwin

highly calcareous.

2640-2736 white-gray-pink, very fine sand. Madison

some

2736-2780 white-gray limestone. violently calcareous. set casing. 2780-3215 aa. voids up to 4" around 2800. 1 mpf. Bighorn 3215-3252 medium brown dolomite. 2 mpf.

APPENDIX B

Aquifer Testing Data and Results

· C1 ient: Joint Tribal Council Company: Wyoming Water Development Comm

Location: T1S R2W S26 NE/NW Elev = 6100

Moccasin Lake # 1 - Madison Recovery

200.

160.

.-. ~ c.....

----C ~ 120. 0

"0 ~

'" So.t Q

-'" 80. ~ "0 • .-4

rn Q)

~

40.

O. 1. 10. 100.

Dimensionless Time, tit" (min) 1000.

DATA SET: ML#1II.OAT 02/16/96

AQUIFER MODEL: Confineej

SOLUT I ON METHOD: Theis Recovery

PROJECT DA T A: test date: November 2. 1994

TEST OAT A: Q = 52. gal/min r = 0.26 ft rc= 0.26 ft rw= 0.26 ft b = 1. ft

PARAMETER ESTIMATES: T 128.6 gal/day/ft S' = 5. 104

j,(]TESOLV L-____________________________________ ---L-______________ ._.

Cllent: Joint Tribal Council

Location: T2S RIW S15 NW/SW Elev = 5960

North Fork # 1

60.

48.

..-.. +oJ c...... ---Q ~ 36. 0

-0 ~ ~ 50-4

Q -~ 24. ~

-0 -.-4

en Q)

0::

12.

o.

Company: Wyoming Water Development Comm

Tensleep Recovery DATA SET: NFK-TEN.DAT 02/16/96

AQUIFER MODEL: Confined

SOLUTION METHOD: Theis Recovery

PROJECT DA T A: test date: August 17, 1995

TEST OAT A: Q = 215. gal/min r = 0.36 ft rc= 0.32 ft rw= 0.36 ft b = 1. ft

PARAMETER ESTIMATES: T 2278.6 gal/day/ft S' = 1.416

1. 10. 100. 1000. Dimensionless Time, tit" (min)

AQTESOLV L-________________________________________________________________________ ~ ____________________ __

Cl ient: Joint Tribal Council Company: Wyoming Water Development Comm

Location: T2S RIW S15 NW/SW Elev = 5960

North Fork # 1· Madison Recovery

300.

240. ......... ~ c....

----= ~ 180. 0 "Cf ~ C(S s..

Q ~

C(S 120. =' "Cf .... en Q)

~

60.

o. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~--~~~ 1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000. I.E+05

Dimensionless Time, t/t" (min)

DATA SET: NFK-MAD.DAT 02/16/96

AQUIFER MODEL: Confined

SOLUTION METHOD: Theis Recovery

PROJECT DA T A: test date: August 17, 1995

TEST DATA: Q = 90. gal/min r = 0.26 ft rc= 0.26 ft rw= 0.26 ft b = 1. ft

PARAMETER ESTIMATES: T = 217.5 gal/day/ft S' = 1.488

AQTESOLV

««««««««««««««««««««»»»»>

AQTESOLV RESULTS Version 2.10

Developed by Glenn M. Duffield, HydroSOLVE, Inc. (c) 1988-1995 Geraghty & Miller, Inc.

02/16/96 14:26:55

================================================= TEST DESCRIPTION

Data set.. ......... M L#111. DA T Output file ........ ML-MAD.OUT Data set title ..... Moccasin Lake #1 - Madison Recovery Company ............ Wyoming Water Development Comm Client.. ........... Joint Tribal Council Location ........... T1 S R2W S26 N E/NW Elev = 6100 Test date .......... November 2, 1994

Units of Measurement Length .......... ft Time ............ min Pumping rate .... gal/min

Pumping Well Data Well No.1 X location ....................... 0 Y location ....................... 0 Casing radius .................... 0.26 \.f.Jel!bcre radius .................. 0.26 Well penetration ................. Full Number of pumping periods ........ 2 Period Pumping Rate

1 2

52 o

Observation Well/Piezometer Data X location ....................... 0.26 Y location ....................... 0 Distance from pumping well #1 .... 0.26 Well penetration ................. Full No. of observations .............. 55

=================================================

ANALYTICAL METHOD

Theis Recovery (Confined Aquifer)

================================================= RESULTS FROM STATISTICAL CURVE MATCHIN

STATISTICAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES

Estimate Std. Error T = 1.2859E+002 +/- 1.2566E+000 gal/day/ft S' = 5.1038E+000 +/- 1.2304E-001

ANALYSIS OF MODEL RESIDUALS

residual = observed - calculated weighted residual = residual * weight

Weighted Residual Statistics: Number of residuals ............... 55 Number of estimated parameters .... 2 Degrees of freedom ................ 53 Residual mean ..................... -3.23E-017 Residual standard deviation ....... 4.649 Residual variance ................. 21.61

Model Residuals:

Time Observed Calculated Residual Weight

50.1 196.59 212.57 -15.983 1 50.1 196.02 205.31 -9.2921 1 50.1 190.95 199.39 -8.4365 1 50.2 188.7 193.83 -5.1274 1 50.2 185.84 188.87 -3.0274 1 50.2 182.45 184.64 -2.1919 1 50.2 180.8 180.54 0.25941 1 50.2 177.19 176.78 0.41464 1 50.2 175.73 173.49 2.237 1 50.3 172.62 170.24 2.3751 1 50.3 170.88 167.21 3.6685 1 50.3 168.47 164.53 3.941 1 50.3 166.34 161.84 4.499 1 50.3 164.44 159.3 5.1379 1

50.3 162.22 157.03 5.1852 1 50.4 153.19 146.69 6.5033 1 50.5 145.17 138.35 6.8199 1 50.6 137.97 131.31 6.6616 1 50.7 131.47 125.15 6.323 1 50.8 125.61 119.79 5.8228 1 50.8 120.22 115 5.2216 1 50.9 115.24 110.62 4.6177 1 51.0 110.64 106.68 3.958 1 51.1 106.36 103.06 3.2981 1 51.2 102.4 99.676 2.724 1 51.3 98.66 96.567 2.0932 1 51.3 95.17 93.662 1.5078 1 51.4 91.87 90.906 0.96421 1 51.5 88.8 88.342 0.45763 1 51.6 85.88 85.921 -0.04095 1 51.7 83.09 83.6 -0.51009 1 51.8 80.46 81.423 -0.96251 1 51.8 77.96 79.349 -1.3892 1 51.9 75.61 77.348 -1.7376 1 52.0 73.36 75.457 -2.0972 1 52.5 61.79 65.559 -3.7688 1 53.0 52.78 57.548 -4.7682 1 53.5 45.59 50.839 -5.2491 1 54.0 39.69 45.082 -5.3916 1 54.5 34.77 40.05 -5.2799 1 55.0 30.62 35.59 -4.9701 1 55.5 27.04 31.592 -4.5523 1 56.0 23.93 27.975 -4.0453 1 56.5 21.24 24.678 -3.4376 1 57.0 18.8 21.651 -2.8513 1 57.5 16.61 18.859 -2.2485 1 58.0 14.67 16.269 -1.5987 1 58.5 12.87 13.857 -0.98675 1 59.0 11.25 11.602 -0.35212 1 59.5 9.73 9.4874 0.24259 1 60.0 8.37 7.498 0.872 1 61.0 5.86 3.8468 2.0132 1 62.0 3.71 0.56777 3.1422 1 63.0 1.77 -2.4004 4.1704 1 64.0 0.06 -5.1051 5.1651 1

================================================= RESUL TS FROM VISUAL CURVE MATCHING

VISUAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES

Estimate T = 1.2859E+002 gal/day/ft S' = 5.1038E+OOO

««««««««««««««««««««»»»»>

««««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»>

AQTESOLV RESULTS Version 2.10

Developed by Glenn M. Duffield, HydroSOLVE, Inc. (c) 1988-1995 Geraghty & Miller, Inc.

01/24/96 12:39:52

========================================================= TEST DESCRIPTION

Data set.. ......... NFK-TEN.DAT Output file ........ NF-TEN Data set title ..... North Fork #1 - Tensleep Recovery Company ............ Wyoming Water Development Comm Client.. ........... Joint Tribal Council Location ........... T2S R1W S15 NW/SW Elev = 5960 Test date .......... August 17, 1995

Units of Measurement Length .......... ft Time ............ min Pumping rate .... gal/min

Pumping Well Data Well No.1 X location ....................... 0 Y location ....................... 0 Casing radius .................... 0.32 Wellbore radius .................. 0.36 Well penetration ................. Full Number of pumping periods ........ 2 Period Pumping Rate

1 215 2 0

Observation Well/Piezometer Data X location ....................... 0.36 Y location ....................... 0 Distance from pumping well #1 .... 0.36 Well penetration ................. Full No. of observations .............. 112

=========================================================

ANALYTICAL METHOD

Theis Recovery (Confined Aquifer)

========================================================= RESULTS FROM STATISTICAL CURVE MATCHING

STATISTICAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES

Estimate Std. Error T = 2.4453E+003 +/- 4.0632E+001 gal/day/ft S' = 1.1875E+000 Not Estimated

ANALYSIS OF MODEL RESIDUALS

residual = observed - calculated weighted residual = residual * weight

Weighted Residual Statistics: Number of residuals ............... 112 Number of estimated parameters .... 1 Degrees of freedom ................ 111 Residual mean ..................... -0.9816 Residual standard deviation ....... 3.144 Residual variance ................. 9.884

Model Residuals:

Time Observed Calculated Residual Weight

60.5 59 60.6 56 60.7 53 60.8 48 60.9 45 61.0 44 61.1 42 61.2 40 61.3 40 61.3 38 61.4 37 61.5 37 61.6 36 61.7 35 61.8 34

46.596 44.775 43.239 41.909 40.739 39.694

38.75 37.89

37.1 37.1

36.369 35.69

35.056 34.462 33.902

12.404 11.225 9.7615 6.0905 4.2609 4.3061

3.25 2.1103 2.9005

0.90048 0.63084

1.3097 0.94368 0.53825

0.097919

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

61.9 32 33.374 '1 '1:'"":'~ - I.v i .Jv

62.0 31 32.873 -1.8729 1 62.5 28 30.705 -2.7052 1 63.0 25 28.948 -3.9483 1 63.5 24 27.475 -3.4745 1 64.0 22 26.208 -4.208 1 64.5 21 25.099 -4.0995 1 65.0 20 24.116 -4.1156 1 65.5 18 23.232 -5.2323 1 66.0 18 22.432 -4.4321 1 66.5 17 21.702 -4.7016 1 67.0 16 21.03 -5.0303 1 67.5 15 20.41 -5.41 1 68.0 14 19.834 -5.834 1 68.5 14 19.297 -5.2969 1 69.0 13 18.794 -5.7942 1 69.5 13 18.322 -5.3221 1 70.0 13 17.877 -4.8775 1 72.0 11 16.324 -5.3241 1 74.0 10 15.047 -5.0468 1 76.0 9 13.97 -4.9699 1 78.0 8 13.045 -5.0448 1 80.0 8 12.238 -4.2382 1 82.0 8 11.527 -3.5266 1 84.0 7 10.893 -3.8926 1 86.0 7 10.323 -3.3231 1 88.0 7 9.808 -2.808 1 90.0 6 9.3392 -3.3392 1 92.0 6 8.9103 -2.9103 1 94.0 6 8.5161 -2.5161 1 96.0 5 8.1523 -3.1523 1 98.0 5 7.8152 -2.8152 1

100.0 5 7.5019 -2.5019 1 102.0 5 7.2098 -2.2098 1 104.0 5 6.9367 -1.9367 1 106.0 5 6.6807 -1.6807 1 108.0 5 6.4402 -1.4402 1 110.0 5 6.2137 -1.2137 1 112.0 5 6.0001 -1.0001 1 114.0 5 5.7981 -0.79812 1 116.0 5 5.6069 -0.6069 1 118.0 5 5.4255 -0.42554 1 118.5 4 5.3817 -1.3817 1 119.5 4 5.2955 -1.2955 1 120.5 4 5.2116 -1.2116 1 121.5 4 5.1296 -1.1296 1 122.5 4 5.0497 -1.0497 1 123.5 4 4.9717 -0.97167 1

124.5 4 4.8955 -0.89548 1 125.5 4 4.8211 -0.82106 1 126.5 4 4.7484 -0.74835 1 127.5 4 4.6773 -0.67729 1 130.0 4 4.5065 -0.50649 1 132.0 4 4.3765 -0.37646 1 134.0 4 4.2519 -0.2519 1 136.0 4 4.1325 -0.13245 1 138.0 4 4.0178 -0.01781 1 140.0 3 3.9077 -0.90768 1 142.0 4 3.8018 0.19821 1 144.0 3 3.6999 -0.69989 1 146.0 3 3.6018 -0.60177 1 148.0 3 3.5072 -0.50721 1 150.0 3 3.416 -0.41602 1 152.0 3 3.328 -0.32801 1 154.0 3 3.243 -0.24301 1 156.0 3 3.1609 -0.16089 1 158.0 3 3.0815 -0.08148 1 160.0 2 3.0046 -1.0046 1 162.0 2 2.9303 -0.93028 1 164.0 2 2.8582 -0.85825 1 166.0 2 2.7884 -0.78845 1 168.0 2 2.7208 -0.72077 1 170.0 2 2.6551 -0.65512 1 172.0 2 2.5914 -0.59141 1 174.0 2 2.5295 -0.52955 1 176.0 2 2.4695 -0.46946 1 178.0 2 2.4111 -0.41106 1 180.0 2 2.3543 -0.35429 1 182.0 2 2.2991 -0.29907 1 184.0 2 2.2453 -0.24535 1 186.0 2 2.1931 -0.19305 1 188.0 2 2.1421 -0.14213 1 190.0 2 2.0925 -0.09253 1 192.0 2 2.0442 -0.0442 1 194.0 2 1.9971 0.002909 1 196.0 2 1.9512 0.048847 1 198.0 2 1.9063 0.093653 1 200.0 2 1.8626 0.13737 1 202.0 2 1.82 0.18004 1 204.0 2 1.7783 0.2217 1 206.0 2 1.7376 0.26238 1 208.0 1 1.6979 -0.69788 1 210.0 1 1.659 -0.65904 1 212.0 1 1.6211 -0.62109 1 214.0 1 1.584 -0.58398 1 216.0 1 1.5477 -0.54769 1

218.0 1.5122 -0.5122

========================================================= RESULTS FROM VISUAL CURVE MATCHING

VISUAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES

Estimate T = 2.4453E+003 gal/day/ft S' = 1.1875E+000

««««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»>

««««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»>

AQTESOLV RESULTS Version 2.10

Developed by Glenn M. Duffield, HydroSOLVE, Inc. (c) 1988-1995 Geraghty & Miller. Inc.

02/16/96 14:30:28

========================================================= TEST DESCRIPTION

Data set.. ......... NFK-MAD.DAT Output file ........ NFK-MAD.OUT Data set title ..... North Fork #1 - Madison Recovery Company ............ Wyoming Water Development Comm Client.. ........... Joint Tribal Council Location ........... T2S R1W S15 NWISW Elev = 5960 Test date .......... August 17, 1995

Units of Measurement Length .......... ft Time ............ min Pumping rate .... gal/min

Pumping Well Data Well No.1 X location ....................... 0 Y location ....................... 0 Casing radius .................... 0.26 Wellbore radius .................. 0.26 Well penetration ................. Full Number of pumping periods ........ 2 Period Pumping Rate

1 2

90 o

Observation Well/Piezometer Data X location ....................... 0.26 Y location ....................... 0 Distance from pumping well #1 .... 0.26 Well penetration ................. Full No. of observations .............. 108

=========================================================

ANALYTICAL METHOD

Theis Recovery (Confined Aquifer)

========================================================= RESULTS FROM STATISTICAL CURVE MATCHING

STATISTICAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES

Estimate Std. Error T = 2.5903E+002 +/- 4.6273E+000 gal/day/ft S' = 1.1607E+000 +/- 8.1407E-002

ANALYSIS OF MODEL RESIDUALS

residual = observed - calculated weighted residual = residual * weight

Weighted Residual Statistics: Number of residuals ............... 108 Number of estimated parameters .... 2 Degrees of freedom ................ 106 Residual mean ..................... 1.044E-01 0 Residual standard deviation ....... 18.32 Residual variance ................. 335.5

Model Residuals:

Time Observed Calculated Residual Weight

60.0 297 388.44 -91.445 1 60.0 293.93 354.7 -60.778 1 60.0 292.43 340.5 -48.078 1 60.0 290.99 330.06 -39.064 1 60.0 289.42 319.38 -29.954 1 60.0 287.99 312.91 -24.916 1 60.0 286.1 307.34 -21.246 1 60.0 284.92 300.96 -16.041 1 60.0 283.58 296.77 -13.187 1 60.0 281.85 292.97 -11.126 1 60.1 275.52 276.44 -0.9184 1 60.1 270.07 264.79 5.274 1 60.1 265.17 256.28 8.8952 1 60.1 260.76 248.87 11.893 1 60.1 256.72 242.63 14.093 1

60.1 253.03 237.53 15.49 1 60.2 249.54 232.76 16.782 1 60.2 246.4 228.49 17.905 1 60.2 243.46 224.86 18.605 1 60.2 240.55 221.33 19.221 1 60.2 237.85 218.1 19.757 1 60.2 235.4 215.27 20.131 1 60.3 233.05 212.48 20.568 1 60.3 230.76 209.87 20.891 1 60.3 228.55 207.56 20.981 1 60.3 226.42 205.25 21.168 1 60.3 224.43 203.07 21.365 1 60.3 222.54 201.12 21.422 1 60.4 213.95 192.22 21.733 1 60.5 206.67 185.04 21.632 1 60.6 200.28 178.98 21.296 1 60.7 194.6 173.68 20.92 1 60.8 189.63 169.06 20.57 1 60.8 184.97 164.93 20.03 1 60.9 180.79 161.16 19.621 1 61.0 176.84 157.77 19.069 1 61.1 173.28 154.65 18.633 1 61.2 169.89 151.73 18.159 1 61.3 166.81 149.04 17.769 1 61.3 163.88 146.54 17.342 1 61.4 161.13 144.16 16.973 1 61.5 158.52 141.95 16.576 1 61.6 156.07 139.86 16.219 61.7 153.63 137.85 15.776 1 61.8 151.41 135.97 15.44 1 61.8 149.28 134.18 15.107 1 61.9 147.16 132.45 14.712 1 62.0 145.27 130.81 14.454 1 62.5 135.08 122.25 12.835 1 63.0 126.86 115.3 11.556 1 63.5 119.75 109.48 10.267 1 64.0 113.83 104.47 9.3598 1 64.5 108.55 100.09 8.4512 1 65.0 103.88 96.206 7.6744 1 65.5 99.631 92.715 6.9152 1 66.0 95.843 89.553 6.2898 1 66.5 92.286 86.666 5.6201 1 67.0 89.053 84.013 5.0396 1 67.5 85.958 81.562 4.3963 1 68.0 83.21 79.286 3.9243 1 68.5 80.601 77.163 3.437 1 69.0 78.152 75.177 2.9755 1 69.5 75.774 73.311 2.4623 1

70.0 73.649 71.554 2.0947 1 72.0 65.681 65.416 0.26563 1 74.0 59.446 60.368 -0.92247 1 76.0 54.157 56.113 -1.9557 1 78.0 49.492 52.457 -2.9648 1 80.0 45.543 49.269 -3.7265 1 82.0 41.825 46.457 -4.6326 1 84.0 38.684 43.952 -5.2682 1 86.0 35.912 41.701 -5.7891 1 88.0 33.233 39.666 -6.4324 1 90.0 30.947 37.813 -6.8663 1 92.0 28.892 36.118 -7.2269 1 94.0 26.836 34.561 -7.7246 1 96.0 25.104 33.123 -8.0189 1 98.0 23.441 31.791 -8.3498 1

100.0 21.94 30.553 -8.6128 1 102.0 20.439 29.398 -8.9596 1 104.0 19.099 28.319 -9.2199 1 106.0 17.829 27.308 -9.4784 1 108.0 16.651 26.357 -9.7058 1 110.0 15.543 25.462 -9.9195 1 112.0 14.596 24.618 -10.022 1 114.0 13.58 23.82 -10.24 1 116.0 12.61 23.064 -10.454 1 118.0 11.686 22.347 -10.662 1 120.0 10.878 21.667 -10.789 1 122.0 10.092 21.019 -10.927 1 124.0 9.3764 20.402 -11.026 1 126.0 8.6836 19.814 -11.131 1 128.0 7.9677 19.253 -11.285 1 130.0 7.321 18.716 -11.395 1 132.0 6.6975 18.202 -11.504 1 134.0 6.1432 17.71 -11.566 1 136.0 5.5196 17.238 -11.718 1 138.0 4.9654 16.784 -11.819 1 140.0 4.4804 16.349 -11.869 1 142.0 3.9492 15.931 -11.982 1 144.0 - 3.4642 15.528 -12.064 1 146.0 2.9099 15.14 -12.23 1 148.0 2.5173 14.767 -12.249 1 150.0 2.0323 14.406 -12.374 152.0 1.6397 14.059 -12.419 154.0 1.2471 13.723 -12.476 156.0 0.78522 13.398 -12.613 158.0 0.39261 13.084 -12.692

========================================================= RESUL TS FROM VISUAL CURVE MATCHING

VISUAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES

Estimate T = 2.1598E+002 gal/day/ft S' = 1.5424E+OOO

««««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»>

APPENDIX C

Water Quality Analyses

3073327579 TWE/WREQC 697 P02 DEC 01'94 09:30

ENERGY LABORATORIES, INC. ENERgy P.O, BOX 3258 • CASPER, WY 82602 • PHONE (~071 235-0515

LABDRATORIES 254 NORTH CENT~R. SUITE 100 • CASPER. WY 82601 • FAX 13071 234'1639

LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT - WINDRIVER ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION

Sample I .D. :

Sample Date: Report Date: Sample Number:

MAJOR IONS rug/I: Calcium - (Ca) Magneseum - (Mg) Sodium - (Na) Potass.ium - (K) Sulfate - (S04) Cbloride - (el) Nitrate - (N03)-(N) Fluoride - (F) TDS @ 180 C Conductivity (umho/cm) Alkalinity-CaC03 pH (units)

TRACE METALS mg/l: Arsenic - (As) Barium - (Ba) Cadmium - (Cd) Chromium - {Cr) Copper - (eu) Iron - (Fe) Lead - (Ph) Manganese - (MIl) Mercury - (Hg) Selenium - (Se) Zinc - (Zn) Silve.r - (Ag)

PARAMETERS: mg/I Odor Color (Units) Foaming Agents Corrosivity

Q.A. DATA: Anion meg: Cation meq: WYDEQ A/e Bal.% Calc TDS mg/I: TDS Ale Bal:

Report Approved By: tld 1D44~aa3.wre

Madison Formation Well

11-01-94 11-18-94 94-49883

42.2 24.1 2.6 1.0 29.1

<1.0 0.12 0.70 213 390 177 8.15

<0.001 <0.10 <0.01 <0.05 <0.01

6.56 <0.05 0.32

<0.001 <0.001 <0.01 <0.05

ND 55

<1.0 -0.39

4.22 4.63 4.61 216 1.009

Det .. Limit

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.10 0.10 1.0 1.0 1.0

0-14

0.001 0.10 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.05

1 Unit 1.0

-5 - +5

0.90-1.10

l\'Ioccasin Lake # 1

CO M P LET E EN V I RON M ENTAL A N A L YT I CA L, E RV ICES

Tensleep forma tion - Nloccasin Lake # 1

11-10 -199 4Core Laboratories

WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

WELL #: COUNTY: STATE: FORMATION: DATE SAMPLED: 10-19-94 @ 12:30 REMARKS:

MG/L MEQ/L ------ -------

SODIUM 4 0.17 POTASSIUM 3 0.08 CALCIUM 35 1.75 MAGNESIUM 16 1.32

TOTAL CATIONS 3.31

MG/L

FIELD: LOCATION: INTERVAL: SAMPLE ORIGIN:

MG/L

tJ~ilg WESTERN

ATLAS LAB #: 942.:>53 1

MEQ/L ------ -------

SULFATE 50 1.04 CHLORIDE 4 0.11 CARBONATE 0 0.00 BICARBONATE 134 2.20 HYDROXIDE 0 0.00

TOTAL ANIONS 3.35

SPECIFIC RESISTANCE AT 68F (OHM-M): CALC. SODIUM NACL EQUIVALENT CALC TDS* @356 F API TDS* @221 F

5 148 178 246

* TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS

WATER ANALYSIS PATTERN ScaLe

MEQ per Unit

(Na vaLue in graph incLudes Na and K)

10 Na

Ca

Mg

Fe

OBSERVED 33.20

OBSERVED pH 7.93

II II

HC03

S04

C03

NOTE: MG/L = miLLigrams per Liter

MEQ/L = miLLigram equivaLent per Liter

Sodium ChLoride equivaLent by DunLap & Hawthorne -caLcuLation from components

APPROVED BY :U£CLu gIl [ The analyses, oponoons 0< Inll"p<BlatIOnS conI~ In In,s repo<t are based upon obServallOfls and malellal suppll8d by lhe chenllo< whose e.cluslVtl and CtY' ~'<I' Ih T

sent !he besllu<!gment of Co.e l.aOo<alOOll$. Co.e l.abo<alooes. howeVSf, assumes no responslb,",y and makes no warranty or reptesenlallOflS express 0<' u~ l~repot1 has been made. he ",terprmtlOnS 0< oponoons expressed r~ 0Ihe< m"""al. property. well or sand '" connectIOn W1Ih whICh SUCh repot1's used or rell8d upon lor any reason whalsoever, Th,s rAnnri shall not be' r~~' ~ .:~ as,n ~ ,productMty. ~~ operatoons. 0< prcof~abiene5s 01 M'Y, 001. gas. ~ 01

.. v,.....,. I ~V' vu~ OJ VVloI' .,5 en "erv wtthout tr_ WflnRn anornval rlI A'IIA l ahntatnt'WllC.

3073327579 TWE/WREQC 168 P02 SEP 27'95 09:35

ENERGY LABORATORIES. INC" P.o. BOX 32!58 , CASPP.:R. WY 82602 • PHON~ (30" 236·0&'8 254 N'JATH C:;::NTE~. SUITE 100 • C~$t'E.R. wv ;)2601 .p fAX (307) 2:3.4·U'39

North Fork #1

! S: .. ~., "" .~ ,..,. ......... :v ...... - .•.. :::::x •• ~~~~:rt.:.;:~~~,::-:~+.. - _v_· .. ,.... ... • I .. U'· ,', •••• 7 .... :~.:::~:,::.;.::~-;..~ .. ::'.:.~~ ~ ... ~ .... ~t .. SC ~" •. '1~:.:.~~.:.: :.".::.;,,.. ...... ~.:_..:..,..:,,.,;:a i .. f •• ;'~-~::;::'< ....... J..v.:, .. 'i/"N'f':~<N:' ._.l~ .. :.:~::;;;::~:~:~~~~~.I"\"' . .-... "..r: ..... =::::: WAmFrA."'N4lkYBIS~HEPOHt'x:~wr<f BiVe'E "r .. ,··:·,:··~'····~tilQ···T , ...... , .. -...... ~:~:"".~ .............. - ~ ............. ': ... <~" ......... --.. ~: .. .

Majt;).!J.Q.n.I Unil~ Results

!CalciUrl'!.(Ca) ~~_._,_. _~__ m __ ~ __ .36.2--4-1 __ IMaqnasju~(Mg) .______ m--"C..~--i -~-~2 .. 4.2,.!,;. r.t."-I Sodium (Na~ .... -m9l1 ~

~=t~:·I?O'1 _ "_-_-=--=--=--:-=--=-..:...:..~~ 1 ~g:-+---8icarbond~.(L..HC~O~,)____ "m It 21'5

I~~\=i,g~ -- ~g~- --~--=~! I\litd~ (NQ,J~~N:.;-,-___ - tllHIl < 0.10 Nitr~te (NO») ~,.~ ___ - . !TIm' ,gill .. ,' < 0.10 ~U,?.!jd9lt:}.J--____ ___ 0.1_9 ____ _

..

-..

--

<

"

Non-MltaiS

37.9 21.0 4.2 1.0

0 218 14.0 8.8

0.10 0.15 0.34

...

~'ectiDn Limit

'"

.. ..

_. {o _'1'.0'

'1.0 1.0

0.10 _ 0.10

r· 1.O 1'~O

--:0.10 _0.:....:,.10

0.10'

I Tar:ll Olsool\led'SOiids @ 1~UC IDS ,COlCT_---

201 18;-:::,.1+--_~_ <: 1:(;+---<- 10

1.0 1,0'

~ odo'i' .... _.9nmlng Agenis---~- ---t----=-.:.~ c::onosivity p.. .. -~----Co ~ ductfyilY. .,~_--:-----..--=-::;..­AH<.~lifllty; !."easured as CaCQ) \pH, ____ ~_

T{£.~e Metals

8.0 < --1-.0~ '~_~<...:.:-- 1.0 < 1.0..j-~---.. --+--~. - .. 0.09 ' 0.44

1.0 1.0

1.0 306 3z6 . ------1-7~6 ~----~179 ----1.0

7.82 8.14' --------- .~~------0:1-

A.·.rsenic ... (".A~s)~ ___ - ~-. m~ BariUm~) _____ A_..... ""mgi,i, '" Cadmium 9d)

~~,miL!f!l.{~C:....:..r)'--____ mg/l!...--__+_

0.001 -< , ... < 0:10

.~

'0.01 < 0.05 <

,-

< <::

< .. <

0.001_l. 0.10 -. 0.01 0.05

-. ..

0:0011 0.10 0.01 0.05 0.01 Qopper (eU) - mq~_ !

I~n (Fa) ._. mgJI . L~d b m~

..... <:: 0.01 .. < 0.05 _ ..

0.05 <- .- . Manganese (Mn) __ m~ _,j-

Mem~ry (H:p.g~) ___ fngtt -f-.

Selenium (Se) . mgJt _ ..... Silvar ~~g) . _ .. __ --~ .l- m /1 ~lflc.(~n...z.)_____ . mgt'

0.01 < < OAX>1

0.002 '. 0.05 < ... 0.9,1 -< -

lliM!!9Jnetoc::

.. -< .

. -< -.

< ft,

< _ .. <

0,01 0.07 0.05 <.(02

0.001 0.b03

0.05 Q.pl

-" .

) ..

O.OS

-'-'&g~. 0.001 0.001 O~05

'-____ 0.01

IGrossAip~-. -,-_-~-- r . pC.:;;.;_il;.;....J_~! - --r-- 1.21 -19· AIp.!1a Precision:!: ._ . __ ....L.. _____ 1 ____ ~~~. ___ ---:..1.:..=..0 .

g~~J~ Asttumnce Q4~ l\CCI!~tance Rango

----+l-···----.::~: - "I" ----. -,-~~~1---__ --'-: _ .. 9:Gc .. ~ - . 1.021 =--

Report Approvad by: PlH 51231wre.wk3

COMPL.ETE ENVIRO~!~.?ENTAL ANALYTIC;'. SERV\CES

Kf

'K~ h1 '~~ 1~- "

I '1

,-l~ .,

" -,-

1) .i _,

,.

Qsa

,-I

.' if ('r

,,-

~ , I""

. ~....., l ., ~ L ·i~

, ~l

:-'>\

I"'-

''" . ,/

" , ,.. .

Tw

Wind

~ /

,, : ... 1 '.;

-VI

~. , I,... I'

,),

.. , .. " ..

(' hI

Figure 1

• . ,'

.. ,

t:- ,.. ...... rJ~ .. . , . -, .....

~.! .. ~

'" i.

..

QS. I

~.

"

· . · · ~.

Tw

-.' . I ' . ... . I

--'-

River Water Supply u' Project

SCALE 1:1 ~s 000

lEf?SFf:2:E==J5==3C==~2i~~==========1i==============.E=============~'c:=============8~============~l~ MILES

Jurassic, Jura:ssic(?), and Triassic(?) r{)cks Sundance Formation (Jurassic): Sandstone, s.iltstone,

shah', rend limestone; green and gray. Gypsum S')J"iny FU(jIlCLti.on (Ju.ra.~ ,~ ;c): Silts.tone, shu l e, gyp­sum, limestone, and dolomit r; red, y,'een, and gray, Nugget :ittndstone (Juru.~s·i c( and Triassic.?): Sand­sto'll e ail d mlnoi' shale; red, stLllI!U n, and gnly. }V/(yg et ~;j nut jJresen£. aiung th e I/u r thern bO:/l ruiary of the urea

Triassl c rOl..!ks Popo Agie Formation: Silt stone, shale, and sandstone;

1'ed, purple, and udl reo Crow .!t[(JlI7l'tain Sandstone: Red, orange, and gra :y . Alco~'a LiJlu!l5tu /tC' : (frny tu pink. Red Peak ].'IJrmatio ll: Silt stolle. sltule . lind sandsto ne; r ed. Di llwoody F orma.tion: :iiltstone . Iland stone. shale, limestone, and dolomiffl; tan, UII11uW, g?·Ulj. g /'eeli, and ,'ed

PI '!'m :an rocks Pa?'k City Fonnation: _Uuclstone, dolom if l' , ii /1j . stU I'M,

and minor sandstone; cherty ; yellow, b?'own, gt'een, and gl·ay . Interbe ri.ded tongues of the Phosp .::.9j·i ll FO }'/Iwtion : Ph,ulSphatic shale and chert; !/f'ay, br u . 'tt,

and black

Pennsylvanian and Mississippian rocks Tensleep :itLnd::itone (Pennsyi11a nirrn ): Salldstone and

1n1.'7lUI · cit.ert and dolomite: bill!, 'w·kite, and gray. A 'II lsdeli F O/"lIw t'joll ( PtI1111sylvaniu 'YI and NHsS1:ssip­P'i.U·II,j : Dulum ite, 8h(lI~' , silt,'!t ,m,e, sandsto.il l! , lim.e.~ tonti, and c.h u,t; red, green, b?'o'li' n, gray, and buff

Mississippian and Devonian rocks Madison Limestone (Mi.~.~l.~ si ppian) : Limestone, dolo­

mite, and chert; gray . Darby Formation (Devoni­an): Dolomite, limes.tone, sandstone, siltstone, and shale; gray, green, red, brown, and tan. Darby For­mation is not present in the errs tern pa.rt of the /I·n f(,

Ordovic ian anll Cambrian r i)eks R ig /wI' ,. Dolomite (Ord u, i ,, '-(/ n) : Dolo?I' ~te, btLff.

ij"illltl!t Li fl tes.tone (' /I/I , b,. ;I/ , ) : Lime.stone, silt-8 t "ne, shale, and limestone-pel,i.ie conglo'l11,erate; gray , gt'een, brown , a lld tVI/ . G,.u .~ Ve.nt.re For?1 /H UvlI (Cam ll/'i ll n) : Siltlitone , s/Z(tif1, sandstone, lime stone, ,~ n rl Ii IIH·.'~t O ne- p('bbll' (,MIOlo /lIf' /'0. ff' : !J /'tH' 1/, 17 I'Q y, b?'o ri'1l , 'rE " , 1I1!,i P ' ,-pl-e. }'l f1tJ, ell d ,C:un ,T1.;( u !_e ~('lIl/1. b?"ian): Sandstone, quartzite, co'ltplom.P?·ate, SiltS/UIlt',

and sllult·. ilm// Ii. green, gray, pilik. I.LlLd purvie , B ig· horn Vulomite ,"8 /lot pre.".ellt ill tlu .~ outhea .c;te l'l1 P(I/·t of the area

Precambrian rocks .ij~tamorphic and igneous rocks