The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutClass 2 Solid Waste Logan License Expansion App_Binder_Sept 2020GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Class II Solid Waste Management System License Application Logan Landfill Expansion Solid Waste License #158 Prepared by: ® September 2020 GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Logan Landfill Expansion Class II Solid Waste Management System License Application Solid Waste License #158 September 2020 Prepared for: Gallatin Solid Waste Management District TABLE OF CONTENTS License Application License Application Addendum #1 License Application Addendum #2 License Application Addendum #3 License Application Addendum #4 License Application Addendum #5 List of Attachments Attachment 1 Operation and Maintenance Plan Attachment 2 Facility Location Map Attachment 3 Landowners and Land Use of Adjacent Properties Attachment 4 Wetlands, Springs, and Natural Drainages Map Attachment 5 Public and Private Water Supplies Attachment 6 Master Plan Drawings Attachment 7 Hydrogeological and Soils Characterization Attachment 8 Groundwater Monitoring Plan Attachment 9 Methane Monitoring Plan Attachment 10 Roads, Bridges, and Transportation Attachment 11 Financial Assurance Attachment 12 Closure and Post Closure Plan Attachment 13 Montana Natural Heritage Program Data Attachment 14 Cultural Resources Attachment 15 Deed Notation Attachment 16 General Liability Insurance Policy Rev. 03/2016 Page 1 Montana Department of Environmental Quality Waste Management and Remediation Division Waste and Underground Tank Management Bureau Solid Waste Program PO Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 TO: Prospective Applicants of a Solid Waste Management System License The enclosed application is for anyone wishing to apply for a Class II Solid Waste Management System (SWMS) license. Please number or label the attachments or enclosures with your application form and note those which are included from Section IV. The licensing of an SWMS is not a quick and easy process. Be prepared for this process to take as long as a year to work through the various stages involved. The Department will review the application to insure that it is complete. Unless all the necessary attachments are included, it is unlikely that your application for a license will be considered complete. If additional information is required, the Department will notify the applicant with a “Notice of Deficiency - Request for More Information” letter that will specify the additional information required. Upon receipt of the completed application, the Department will provide written notification to the local county health officer that an application for a SWMS has been received. The Department will send an invoice for the license review fee to the applicant and the licensing process will be suspended until the license review fee has been received. Once the license application has been determined to be complete, the Department will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to ARM 17.4.607. An EA is a written analysis of a proposed action to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required and whether or not the action may have a significant impact on the human and natural environment. Once the EA is completed, a copy of the EA will be mailed to adjacent landowners, local county environmental health officials and interested persons. The Department will also submit a public notice for publication in an area newspaper notifying the public of the availability of the EA and the commencement of the 30-day comment period. The Department will accept written comments on the proposed project from the public for a period of 30-days following the public notice and the completion of the EA. A public meeting may also be held during the public comment period in order to discuss the proposed project with the public. At the close of the comment period, comments that were received are reviewed and a final licensing decision is made. The decision may be to approve the license request, deny the request, or request additional information in order to respond to comments. If the Department decides to issue a license, it will be sent to the local county Health Officer for signature. The Health Officer in the county where the proposed facility will be located must sign the license before it becomes valid. For this reason, it is important for the applicant to keep the local health authorities informed during the licensing process and to provide them copies of the application materials. Rev. 03/2016 Page 2 CLASS II SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM LICENSE APPLICATION SECTION I – APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Name: Applicant Mailing Address: Applicant Phone: Applicant Fax: Applicant E-mail Address: This application is for: New Class II Landfill Expansion of an existing facility (if so, facility license number: _____ ) Resource Recovery or Processing Facility Large Composter Operation Other (please explain) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Are you the owner of the property where the facility is located? Yes No If yes, attach a copy of the deed or other document that verifies you are the site owner. If no, provide the name and address of lessor who holds title to the property, attach a copy of the lease or rental agreement, and complete the Landowner Certification in Section V. Name: _______________________________________________________________________ Mailing Address: _______________________________________________________________ SECTION II –FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Name: Facility Mailing Address: Facility Phone: Facility Fax: Facility 9-1-1 Address: Facility Legal Location (i.e., Section, Township, Range; describe to nearest quarter-quarter section): Facility Location Geocode: General description of facility location: Total acreage of proposed site:________ Acreage useable for the solid waste system: __________ Rev. 03/2016 Page 3 SECTION III – FACILITY CAPACITY, SERVICE AREA, AND WASTE ACCEPTANCE Total Disposal Capacity: Service Area: Population to be served by the solid waste system: Describe the estimated life of the facility and attach a description of the method used to make this determination: (for facility expansions: provide the information pertinent to the additional life the expansion provides to the existing facility) Waste Type(s) Accepted: Will any special or unusual wastes* be accepted? Yes No (*wastes that require special handling or present unique environmental hazards) If yes, describe the wastes: Do you plan to accept household quantities of hazardous wastes and/or hazardous wastes from conditionally exempt generators? (Note: these types and quantities of waste may be legally accepted at state licensed "Class II" landfill facilities.) Yes No Does the facility plan to burn clean, untreated wood waste? Yes No What is the proposed opening date for this facility? _________________________________ SECTION IV – ATTACHMENTS (PLEASE NUMBER OR LABEL THE ATTACHMENTS) Attach the proposed facility Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan. The O&M Plan should include, at a minimum, a general description of the solid waste management system, the days and hours the site is open, site fencing and access controls, equipment to be used at the site, how on-site traffic will be directed and controlled, the types of waste to be accepted, the maintenance schedule regarding handling and disposal of solid wastes, management of special wastes, provisions for litter control, the proposed use of the land after fill area completed, the person(s) responsible for the operation and maintenance of solid waste management system. The O&M Plan must also indicate what measures will be taken to keep water from entering the waste disposal area. Please refer to the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) Section 17, Chapter 50, Sub-chapter 11 for the minimum O&M requirements. Attach a map that shows the location of the proposed facility, adjacent residences, and access roadways. Attach a description of adjacent use of land and provide a list of names and mailing addresses of all persons owning land adjacent to the proposed facility. Attach a map that shows the location of wetlands, springs, and natural drainages on and within one-mile of the facility boundary. Attach a map that shows the locations of public and private water supplies within one-mile of the facility boundary. Attach copies of well logs for these public and private water supplies. Rev. 03/2016 Page 4 SECTION IV (CONTINUED) If the site is located within the 100-year floodplain, attach a copy of the floodplain map. Attach a map of the proposed facility showing: a) Fencing. d) Location of building(s), scales, tanks, etc... b) Access control features. e) Location of on-site roadways. c) Surface water run-on/run-off controls. f) Location of any surface water or leachate containment structures. Attach the geologic and soil information for the proposed site that includes a site geologic map and a soil profile to a depth ten (10) to twenty (20) feet below the lowest point solid waste will be deposited. Attach a copy of the site hydrogeologic report that includes well-logs and information on groundwater availability, quality, and quantity. Attach the site groundwater monitoring plan or no-migration demonstration documents. If methane monitoring is required, attach the site methane monitoring plan including a map of the proposed methane monitoring well locations and proposed well design/construction Attach the cut and fill plan. Attach a copy of the information confirming that the existing bridges and roads will support loaded vehicles and additional traffic. Describe how the site operations affect the existing local transportation networks and traffic flows. If existing bridges and roads require modification as a result of the licensure of the proposed facility, attach a description of the modification plan and timelines. If underground tanks or lines will be located at the site, attach a copy of the completed EPA form 7530 (11/85, Rev. 2/86), Notification for Underground Storage Tanks and provide your facility ID number? ____________________________________ Attach a copy of the proposed Financial Assurance in accordance with ARM 17.50.540 Attach a closure plan for the landfill that includes: soil specifications for the final cover, final cover elevations and drainage details, site-specific revegetation requirements, other pertinent details of site closure, and proposed final use of the landfill upon completion. Attach a copy of the Montana Natural Heritage Program’s (NHP) database information on sensitive, threatened, or endangered species or habitats on and within on-mile of the facility boundary. The NHP database may be accessed at: http://mtnhp.org/ Attach a copy of the cultural resource file search completed for the site. The search is conducted by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). SHPO charges a fee for this search. A copy of the “File Search Request Form” may be accessed at http://mhs.mt.gov/Portals/11/shpo/docs/FSRF.xlsx. Attach a copy of the proposed deed notation in accordance with the requirements in ARM 17.50.1113. Attach a copy of the general liability insurance policy in accordance with the requirements in ARM 17.50.1114. Is the proposed site located in a Sage Grouse core, habitat, or connectivity area? Yes No If yes, attach a copy of the recommendation letter from DNRC’s Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Program. (To begin the evaluation process with the Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Program, visit https://sagegrouse.mt.gov/projects/.) Class II Solid Waste System License Application Gallatin Solid Waste Management District Logan Landfill License #158 Addendum #1. Facility Legal Location and Description Geocode: 06-1009-06-1-01-01-0000 Location: S06, T01 N, R03 E, ACRES 611, ABAND RR IN NE4NE4 & ALL LESS HWRW The proposed landfill expansion lies to the south and east of the existing landfill operations. The property owned by the County encompasses all of Section 6 of Township 1 North, Range 3 East. The expansion area will only utilize the property south of Interstate 90. The landfill site is located approximately 2 miles southeast of Logan, Montana. The property is bounded to the north by Interstate 90, and in all other directions by state- and privately-owned lands used for farming and grazing. Gallatin County owns the property planned for expansion, which is currently undeveloped grassland which has been intermittently used for grazing livestock. Access to and from the expansion area will utilize the same existing entrance via Two Dog Road. The 2020 license expansion application expands the total licensed acreage from 127 acres to 670.8 acres with the addition of 543.8 new acres. The expansion property is 535 acres for MSW and the 8.8 acre existing scale site. The proposed expansion will add 300 acres for solid waste landfilling to the facility. Information addressing location restrictions is in the Environmental Assessment located in Addendum #5 of this license application. Class II Solid Waste System License Application Gallatin Solid Waste Management District Logan Landfill License #158 Addendum #2. Total Disposal Capacity Class II and Class IV Waste Air Space Capacity – 55,900,470 CY Solid Waste Capacity – 45,353,200 CY Solid Waste Capacity – 29,026,050 Tons Class II Solid Waste System License Application Gallatin Solid Waste Management District Logan Landfill License #158 Addendum #3. Estimated Facility Life The life is based on the current waste acceptance of 160,000 tons/year. The existing landfill will reach final capacity in 2026. The life estimate is based on the landfill comingling Class II and Class IV wastes. The life estimate uses an effective waste to soil ratio of 4.3:1 and in-place density of 1,280 LB/CY as demonstrated in landfill disposal reports. This equates to a volume per ton ratio of 1.95 CY/Ton. The estimated facility life is 181 years. Class II Solid Waste System License Application Gallatin Solid Waste Management District Logan Landfill License #158 Addendum #4. Special Wastes Restricted and Special Waste • Waste Oil and Oil filters (must be drained prior to disposal) • Electronic waste (household quantity only) • Tires (disposal fee based on amount, size, and whether tire is whole or cut) • Mobile Structures/Units • Asbestos (friable and non-friable ACMs must be bagged; special handling fee) • The following wastes require analytical testing and pre-approval before disposal o Contaminated soils (petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, heavy metals, etc.) See Attachment #1 – Operations and Maintenance Plan for additional special waste handling procedures. Class II Solid Waste System License Application Gallatin Solid Waste Management District Logan Landfill License #158 Addendum #5. Gallatin Solid Waste Management District Logan Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Gallatin Solid Waste Management District Landfill License Expansion Solid Waste License #158 Environmental Assessment June 2020 Prepared by: Gallatin Solid Waste Management District Landfill License Expansion Solid Waste License #158 Environmental Assessment June 2020 Prepared by: GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Environmental Assessment Landfill License Expansion Solid Waste License #158 June 2020 Prepared for: Gallatin Solid Waste Management District GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment i Table of Contents DESCRIPTON OF THE PROJECT ............................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Project Study Area/Description ...................................................................................... 1 1.4 Benefits of the Proposed Project ................................................................................... 4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT ACTION ........................................... 4 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS .................................................... 4 3.1 Potential Impacts on the Environmental Receptors/Physical Environment ............... 4 Site Geology .............................................................................................................. 6 Soils Quality, Quantity, and Distribution ................................................................. 7 Water Quality, Quantity, and Distribution ............................................................... 7 Vegetative Cover, Quantity, and Quality ............................................................... 11 Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 12 Demands on Environmental Resources ............................................................... 13 Animal Species of Concern.................................................................................... 14 Plant Species of Concern ...................................................................................... 14 3.2 Potential Impacts on Human Health and Socioeconomic Factors ............................ 15 Density and Distribution of Population and Houses ............................................ 18 Land Use/Important Farmland ............................................................................. 18 Flood Potential Hazard .......................................................................................... 18 Human Health and Safety ..................................................................................... 19 Cultural Resources and Archaeological Sites ...................................................... 20 Industrial, Commercial, and Agricultural Activities and Production ................... 20 Access to and Quality of Recreational and Wilderness Activities ....................... 20 Transportation ........................................................................................................ 20 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................... 20 List of Tables Table 1 – Environmental Receptors and Physical Environment Impacts and Mitigation ......... 5 Table 2 – Human Health and Safety Impacts and Mitigation ................................................... 16 GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment ii List of Figures Figure 1 - Location Map ................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2 - Streams and Watershed Boundaries ........................................................................... 9 List of Exhibits A NRCS Soil Map of Study Area B Groundwater Well Inventory C Wetlands Delineation Maps D Animals Species of Concern E Plant Species of Concern F NRCS Farmland Classification G NRCS Irrigated Capability Classification H FEMA Flood Map I Hazardous Waste Sites J Cultural Resources Inventory Study K Letters Sent to Agencies and Agency Response Letters GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment 1 DESCRIPTON OF THE PROJECT 1.1 Introduction Great West Engineering has been hired by the District to prepare an Environmental Assessment Report to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project, which is an expansion of the existing landfill license into an adjacent property owned by the Gallatin Solid Waste Management District (hereafter the District). If the project is approved and implemented, the District will be required to comply with Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Rules and applicable federal regulations. 1.2 Background The existing and currently active solid waste permit for the Logan Landfill was originally issued by DEQ to the District in 1975 and consists of 127 acres of District-owned property (Figure 1). The District has recently acquired the property encompassing the entire project study area, which consists of 535 acres situated immediately to the east and south of the existing facility (Figure 1). The District intends to license the entire 535 acres of the newly acquired property, however, only 300 of these acres are intended for actual landfilling of MSW and Class IV waste, with the remaining property serving as a buffer zone around the new facility. The District may open a small area for asbestos disposal only outside of the 300 acres, which is shown on the map. The District will also license the 8.8 acre existing scale facility. The existing landfill has been accepting waste since approximately 1970. Depending on future utilization of the landfill with respect to waste volumes and density, the estimated remaining life of the 127-acre existing landfill is approximately 6 years before reaching capacity. In preparation of reaching the existing landfill’s capacity, the District is initiating the permitting steps needed to license and expand the landfill into the adjacent District- owned property. Construction completion of the first phase of the proposed expansion area and commencement of waste placement is anticipated to occur in winter of 2025. 1.3 Project Study Area/Description The proposed solid waste expansion site is located within Township 1 North, Range 3 East, Section 6; approximately 2 miles southeast of Logan and within Gallatin County, Montana (Figure 1). The proposed landfill expansion area boundaries encompass a total of 535 acres for waste disposal activities, which is portions of Section 6 (T1N, R3E) excluding the northwest corner and northeast corner. The northwest corner is the active and licensed landfill which has been active/operated since the early 1970’s, the northeast corner of Section 6 is located on the opposite side of I-90 from the rest of Section 6. Of the total acres designated as expansion, only 300 acres are planned for actual active landfilling of MSW and Class IV (i.e., waste disposal activities). The District plans to landfill asbestos in a 9 acre area as shown on the map. The District will also license the 8.8 acre scale facility. The GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment 2 District owns the property planned for expansion, which is currently undeveloped grassland which has been intermittently used for grazing livestock. Access to/from the expansion area would utilize the same existing entrance road via Two Dog Road just south of and paralleling I-90 (see Figure 1). Project LocationFigure 1Location MapGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONengineeringRNORTHAPPROXIMATE LICENSEEXPANSION FINAL WASTEBOUNDARY 300 ACRESLICENSE EXPANSIONPROPERTY BOUNDARYAPPROXIMATE 535 ACRES8.8 ACRE OFFICE AND SCALE SITETO BE INCLUDED IN LICENSE EXPANSIONTWO DOG ROADI-90I-90127 ACRE LICENSEDLANDFILL AREAASBESTOSDISPOSALBOUNDARYCOMPOST AREABOUNDARY GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment 4 1.4 Benefits of the Proposed Project The District accepts approximately 160,000 tons of waste per year and services Gallatin County, including the West Yellowstone/Hebgen Lake Refuse District, the Cities of Belgrade, Three Forks, Bozeman, and the Town of Manhattan. The facility also receives waste from Jefferson County, Broadwater County, Madison County, Park County, and Yellowstone National Park. The facility services approximately 120,000 persons. As stated in paragraph 1.2, the current landfill will reach capacity in 6 years, at which time the District must expand the landfill to continue to serve these communities. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT ACTION No other alternatives of the project action were considered. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS This section presents and evaluates the potential effects that may occur on the environmental receptors/physical environment (Section 3.1) or human health (Section 3.2) if the proposed facility is approved and constructed. Tables 1 and 2 identify the elements evaluated for the physical environment and human health, respectively, which may be impacted by implementation of the proposed facility. Each of the primary elements are discussed with respect to potential impacts, and if needed, mitigation measures to eliminate or minimize the impacts. 3.1 Potential Impacts on the Environmental Receptors/Physical Environment This section evaluates the potential environmental effects that may occur to either environmental receptors or the physical environment due to implementation of the proposed facility (summarized in Table 1). Generally, only those resources potentially affected by the proposed action are discussed in greater detail, and if there is no effect on a resource, or if the resource is not present, it is noted in the respective section and not analyzed further. Table 1. Environmental Receptors and Physical Environment Impacts and Mitigation Potential Impacts to Environmental Receptors/Physical Environment Major Moderate Minor None Comments or Mitigation (if needed) GEOLOGY, SOIL TYPES QUALITY AND QUANTITY, SITE SLOPES/STABILITY: Are there any unusual geologic features (i.e., fault zones, geothermal resources, slope instability)? X NA Will the surface soils/surface features be changed or permanently altered? X During construction, the uppermost soils will be excavated and placed in temporary stockpiles and if suitable, will be used as temporary and final cover. Following landfill and as part of post-closure, the native grasses and surface vegetation will be re-established to generally match the existing aesthetics. Are there fragile, compactible, unstable, or highly erodible soils present? X The landfill design will include a SWPPP in accordance with ARM 17.30.1002(31) to address potential erosion issues or concerns. Are there special reclamation efforts underway or related considerations? X NA WATER QUALITY, QUANTITY AND DISTRIBUTION: Are important surface water or streams present? X The only surface water of significance is an unnamed ephemeral stream (see Exhibit C). A buffer zone will be maintained adjacent to the stream so-as-to not impact water quality of this stream. Are important groundwater resources or public water supply wells present? X NA Is there a potential for violation of ambient surface water or groundwater quality standards? X There are not any significant perennial streams or surface water bodies other than the unnamed stream (and mitigation) described above; however, there is the potential for landfills to generate leachate which could have the potential to infiltrate vertically beneath the landfill and exceed a groundwater quality standard in uppermost groundwater. Mitigation will include a low-permeability bottom liner design to capture and manage leachate. VEGETATIVE COVER, QUANTITY, AND QUALITY: Are there any specialized or sensitive land cover present? X NA Any wetlands? X A limited portion of the area immediately near the unnamed ephemeral stream is designated as wetland (see Exhibit C). A buffer zone of undeveloped (i.e., no construction) land will be maintained so- as-to not impact these riparian-zone designated wetlands. AIR QUALITY: Will air particulates from construction or traffic be produced? X Traffic and earthwork have the potential for creating air born dust particulates. Mitigation will include establishment and following BMPs, such as routine watering to suppress the potential for dust. Will air pollution from landfill gas emissions be produced? X As refuse matures and degrades, and after is has been covered, it will generate landfill gas (such as a mixture of methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and some other volatile organic compounds). Landfill gas emissions will be monitored according to Montana DEQ regulations and when appropriate, will be mitigated via thermal destruction from a landfill gas flare station. Is the project subject to air quality regulations or zones? X The design, handling, and mitigation of landfill gases at the project site will comply with the air emissions requirements of ARM 17.50.1106. Airborne dust during construction will be mitigated using best management practices. DEMANDS ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES (such as land, water, air, or energy): Will the project utilize or consume resources that are limited in the area? X NA Are there other activities nearby that will effect the project? X NA ANIMAL SPECIES OF CONERN AND HABITATS: Any animal species of special concern? X The only specie of concern which received a global and state ranking of ‘potentially at risk’ were bats. Sensitive or important habitat for bats is commonly associated with caves, caverns, or steep terrain with rock outcrops which can serve as critical wintering or breeding habitat; there are not any caves, caverns or outcrops associated with the project study area. Is there substantial use of the area by important or sensitive wildlife, birds, or fish? X NA PLANT SPECIES OF CONCERN AND SENSITIVE LAND COVER: Are any rare plants or vegetative cover present? X NA Will trees or vegetative communities be permanently altered? X Landfill activities will be phased in specific cells; as refuse fills a cell it will be covered with native and/or appropriate soils to promote re-generation of growth of native grasses and the landscape will return to pre-landfill plant species. The construction and landfill activities will be temporary. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment 6 Site Geology The project study area lies within Gallatin County, which is in the southwestern portion of the State of Montana (see Figure 1). The study area is within the western end of the Gallatin River valley and located approximately 1 mile south of Gallatin River. The Gallatin River valley is situated within the Rocky Mountains, with the prominent physiographic features consisting of the Tobacco Root Mountain Range rising in elevation to the west, the Madison and Gallatin Mountain Ranges to the south, and the Bridger Range to the east. The surface topography of the study area is irregular but generally slopes to the north or northeast ranging from approximately 4,200 to 4,340 ft msl, which is a minimum of about 50 feet higher than the surface elevation of the Gallatin River valley to the north. To put these study area elevations into context, the highest elevations in the surrounding bounding mountain ranges extend to approximately 8,000-9,000 ft msl (examples include Hollowtop Mountain, Lone Mountain, and Sacagawea Peak respectively located to the southwest, south, and east of the study area). The geology and the stratigraphic sequence beneath the study area has been synthesized from a review of the following data sources: • Geologic Map of Montana, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Map 62 (Vuke and others, 2007). • Preliminary Geologic Map of the Bozeman 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, Southwestern Montana, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Open File Report No. 469 (Vuke and others, 2002). • Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Gallatin Valley, Gallatin County, Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1482 (Hackett and others, 1960). • Hydrogeological and Soils Investigation, Gallatin County Logan Landfill (Great West 2014). • Well logs in the vicinity of the study area as found from the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Web-Based Tool: http://data.mbmg.mtech.edu/mapper. The surface materials mapped by Vuke (2002) in the study area are Tertiary-aged sediment or sedimentary rocks. The stratigraphic sequence beneath the study area generally consists of up to a few hundred feet of unconsolidated sediment, predominantly fine sand to sandy silt, underlain by undifferentiated rocks consisting of siltstone, limestone, and/or sandstone. The uppermost unconsolidated sedimentary sequence is predominantly unconsolidated fine- grained sediment, but also contains variably weathered siltstone and/or sandstone. To the north of the study area, the surface materials associated with the Gallatin River valley floor are mapped as younger Quaternary-age alluvium, consisting mainly of coarser-grained sand and gravel. Quaternary-aged gravel zones are mapped at the surface in higher elevations located approximately 1 to 2 miles due south of the study area. Structural features, such as faults, folds, and or thrust zones are prominent within Gallatin County and in the general vicinity of the study area as demonstrated from the mapping provided by Vuke (2002 and 2007) and others. The outcrops just north of Gallatin River (about 1 or 2 miles due north of the study area) correlate with northeast to southwest trending thrust zones, most notably, outcrops of siltstone, sandstone, and dolomite (most GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment 7 notably, the Madison Group, comprised of the Jefferson and Three Forks Formations). The characteristics and nature of the older/deeper rocks beneath the uppermost Tertiary-aged unconsolidated sequence is largely unknown due to lack of deep well data; however, other noteworthy geologic features mapped in the region are associated with igneous or volcanic rocks as evidenced by Tobacco Root Batholith (to the west of the site) and/or the Yellowstone volcanic rocks (to the southeast of the site). The geology of the immediate study area does not represent any rare or unusual features of historical or present-day significance. The near-surface materials, such as fine-grained silty sand or sandy silt, are ubiquitous and found in all directions for miles surrounding the study area. Note that potential impacts water quality and soils are evaluated separately below. Soils Quality, Quantity, and Distribution Exhibit A provides a customized soil map of the study area obtained from the National Resources Conservation Service website: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Also included are maps showing the farmland designations, and irrigation classes. The majority of the study area is either fine sandy loam (0-4% slopes, representing 34% of the study area) or sandy loam (8-15% slopes, representing 30% of the study area). Respectively, these primary soil types are classified as ‘prime farmland if irrigated’ (fine sandy loam) or ‘farmland of state importance’ (sandy loam). As shown in the land classification designations, the entire study area is mapped as ‘Class IV(4)’ soils, which is described as “soils which have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both.” The property is not currently irrigated. Consistent with the geology rationale above, the site soils do not represent any rare or special soil type of present-day economic significance relative of potential farmland or agricultural development. Similar soil types can be abundantly found in the surrounding areas. Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in major earthwork activities that would affect the present-day surface topography. Following landfill activities, as part of post-closure care, topsoil will be replaced as part of reclamation activities and revegetated according to the reclamation plan. Reclamation of disturbed areas may require augmentation of the native soils with compost or mulch, to expedite the reclamation processes. See also the mitigation of earthwork activities in next section. Water Quality, Quantity, and Distribution The proposed project, which would involve major earthwork disturbances and landfilling activities, has the potential to impact either adjacent surface water quality, or the uppermost groundwater quality, or both. As such, this section provides a description of the surface water bodies/streams, and the uppermost groundwater/hydrogeology in the vicinity of the GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment 8 study area. The mitigation measures to protect the ambient (existing) surface and ground water quality are also presented. Surface Water Bodies/Streams: Figure 2 shows the major perennial surface water streams in the vicinity of the study area, which includes the Gallatin River, generally flowing to the northwest toward the confluence of the Gallatin, Madison, and Jefferson Rivers near Three Forks (Montana). The confluence of these three rivers constitutes the origin of the Missouri River generally flowing north of Three Forks. At its closest point from the proposed project, the Gallatin River is roughly 1 mile located due north of the landfill. The only other perennial surface water body is a relatively small (approximately 5.5 acres) man-made reservoir/pond, located in the southeast corner of the study area (illustrated in Figure 2). This man-made reservoir is used to irrigate farmland is the surrounding area. An ephemeral unnamed stream channel (labeled as ‘Unnamed Stream #1’ on Figure 2) is located along the eastern margin of the study area and slopes/drains to the northeast, immediately northwest of the man-made pond described above. There are not any gauging stations or formal records for this ephemeral stream, but based on personal communication with Gallatin County Solid Waste Manager, only carries noticeable flow following substantive winter/spring snowmelt runoff events and/or temporarily during extreme precipitation events, and is otherwise, dry. It is inferred that seasonally during spring runoff, the man- made reservoir catches and fills with some of the discharge from the adjacent ephemeral stream. A topographic low or pseudo drainage area exists between the old/existing landfill and the western margin of the proposed project; this potential drainage feature slopes to the northeast and generally parallels the same orientation of the unnamed ephemeral stream channel (described above). Groundwater/Hydrogeology: The study area lies within the watershed boundaries of the Gallatin Valley, as illustrated [in Figure 15] by Hackett, 1960. The Gallatin Canyon, located at the uppermost (southernmost) end of the watershed basin, is the primary inlet for surface water and groundwater entering the valley, and a gorge near Logan at the lowermost extent, is the only outlet (i.e., surface water discharge area). Groundwater is present within the coarse-grained Quaternary alluvial sediments associated with the Gallatin Valley floor, and within the older Tertiary sediments which occur near and beneath the study area (see Geology description). Hackett (1960) notes that recharge to groundwater is primarily from infiltration of streams and excess irrigation, and only a minor component from direct infiltration of excess precipitation or snowmelt runoff; discharge of groundwater occurs from wells (pumping), springs, evapotranspiration, and groundwater discharge into surface water steams (in gaining reaches). The area within the Gallatin Valley watershed is extensive, and for descriptive convenience, Hackett (1960) subdivides the groundwater characteristics into six subareas, including: Gateway, Bozeman Fan, Belgrade, Central Park, Manhattan, and Camp Creek Hills. Figure 2WetlandsGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONengineeringRNATURAL DRAINAGE (EPHEMERAL)NATURAL DRAINAGE (PERENNIAL)SPRINGSEASONAL IRRIGATION CANALWETLAND OR RIPARIAN CORRIDOR BOUNDARYLEGENDNORTH GALLATIN RIVERI-90LOGANLANDFILLLOGANEXPANSIONAREAI-90EXISTINGLICENSEDBOUNDARYIRRIGATION PONDONE MILE RADIUSUNNAMEDSTREAM #1BUFFER AREA8.8 ACRE SCALESITE TO BEINCLUDED INLICENSEBOUNDARYASBESTOSDISPOSALBOUNDARY GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment 10 The Camp Creek Hills subarea is correlated with the Tertiary-aged sediments and encompasses the project study area. The surface topography and stream features of this subarea generally drain toward the Gallatin Valley floor to the north or northeast. Hackett (1960) notes that groundwater found in the Tertiary sediments in the Camp Creek Hills subarea occurs under unconfined and confined conditions, and although the unit is generally considered relatively low yield, there are sufficient number of wells to support stock and limited domestic uses. Based on borehole data as described by Hackett (1960), the transmissivity of Tertiary-aged sediments in the Camp Creek subarea is relatively low (6,000-12,000 gpd/ft) in comparison to the adjacent Gallatin Valley alluvium in the Manhattan subarea, with transmissivity values in the range of 120,000-140,000 gpd/ft. Uppermost groundwater in the vicinity of the existing landfill (which is immediately to the northwest of the proposed project) has been characterized as part of initial permitting, and more recently as described in the Hydrogeological and Soils Investigation Report, Gallatin County Logan Landfill (Great West, 2014). Depending on location and surface topography, groundwater is found in the unconsolidated sediments at depths ranging from 40 to 100 ft bgs (which correlates to groundwater elevations in the range of 4,170 to 4,155 ft msl). Groundwater flow direction beneath the old/exiting landfill is generally to the north, with a typical gradient of 0.005 ft/ft. The seepage velocity is 1 ft/day, which is based on the typical gradient and a permeability of 68 ft/day as derived from in-situ aquifer testing. A flow direction generally to the north is consistent with groundwater discharging to the valley alluvium associated with Gallatin River, as described by Hackett (1960). Exhibit B summarizes the results from a groundwater well records search of the study area from the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG website searched January 2019: http://data.mbmg.mtech.edu/mapper). The well records search identified wells within a 1- mile distance from the perimeter of Section 6 (T1N, R3E); wells within Section 6 are not tabulated as they are all owned/installed by the Gallatin County Solid Waste Management District and are used for environmental monitoring of the landfill per ARM 17 50, Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action. The well search from within the 1-mile radius of Section 6 identified a total of 21 records; of these, 2 are located to the west of study area, 9 to the south, 6 to the northeast, and 4 to the northwest. The depth of these wells ranges from 39 to 460 ft bgs, with an average depth of 185 ft bgs. The well type/usage from the MBMG database noted their main purpose was for either private domestic or stockwater. Only 1 well record (GWID 12684) was classified as ‘public water supply’, located approximately 0.7 miles to the northwest of the project study area near the town of Logan. Mitigation: As noted above, the earthwork during construction and long-term landfill activities could have the potential to impact either surface water or groundwater quality. Mitigation measures are described below relative of potential activities and impacted media. Earthwork- Erosion/Surface Water Impacts: Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be employed and followed during construction, which will include development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with ARM 17.30.1002(31). As shown in Figure 2, a buffer zone of unimpacted GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment 11 area to the west of the ephemeral stream/drainage will be maintained during construction and during landfill activities. Landfilling- Leachate Management/Surface Water or Groundwater Impacts: The landfill will be designed and operated so-as-to route potential stormwater in drainage ditches around the perimeter of the landfill to minimize or avoid stormwater contact with refuse. Leachate (which is ambient precipitation or runoff which has come into contact with refuse) will be managed in accordance with a leachate management plan. The landfill will be designed and constructed with a bottom liner system in accordance with the Montana DEQ approved Alternative Liner Demonstration which is specific to the Logan Landfill. This liner system will mitigate against potential vertical migration of leachate into the vadose zone and/or into uppermost groundwater. Groundwater Characterization/Monitoring- Groundwater Impacts: A site-specific hydrogeological and soils investigation will be conducted to characterize groundwater conditions (and to support Engineering Design) which will facilitate the permitting and performance requirements for detection groundwater monitoring and reporting, in accordance with ARM 17.50.1306, Detection Monitoring Program. The detection monitoring program will be initiated before construction of the project to characterize background groundwater quality conditions, and will be administered annually to ensure protection of the groundwater resource is maintained at background conditions during the active life and post-closure care period of the landfill. Vegetative Cover, Quantity, and Quality The vegetative cover includes land cover and wetlands, as described below. Land Cover: According to the Montana National Heritage Program (MNHP) land cover map the study area is identified as a mixture of Foothill and Valley Grassland (Northern Rocky Mtn Lower Montane) and Shrubland (Steppe and Savanna Systems) (MNHP 2019). The lands surrounding the study area are used primarily for farming, grazing, or open pasture. In accordance with ARM 17.50.530, the landfill closure requirements, the final cover system for the proposed landfill will include a water-balance cover similar to those approved at the existing facility. That design includes a thickness of naturally occurring soils with a compost- soil surface layer. The system is designed to store a volume of water equivalent to the highest single precipitation total on record, allowing that moisture to be released to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration processes facilitated by the reestablishment of a native plant community atop the engineered cover. That cover would be subject to the alternative cover demonstration process delineated by the Montana DEQ. The closure plans would require the final cover to be revegetated with native species within one year of placement of the final cover. The DEQ may also approve alternative revegetation plans and sequencing. Post closure of the proposed landfill, revegetation and plant succession will make the area suitable once again for wildlife habitat and livestock grazing. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment 12 Wetlands: In accordance with ARM 17.50.1005, any new or expanding landfill may not be located in wetlands, unless the owner/applicant can clearly demonstrate to DEQ that a practicable alternative to the proposed action that does not involve wetlands is unavailable. If no practicable alternative exists to the proposed action, then the owner/applicant must offset remaining unavoidable wetland impacts through compensatory mitigation. Exhibit C shows wetlands maps of the study area from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (and from the National Heritage Program). Based on this USFWS map, the ephemeral stream flowing to the northeast along the eastern margin of study area (along the east margin of Section 6) is designated as ‘Riverine’, but there are no other formal wetlands identified within the study area boundaries. The online wetlands map tool from National Heritage Map Viewer (http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer) differentiates the zone immediately along the ephemeral stream into the following wetland classifications: • Riparian forested • Riparian scrub-shrub • Freshwater Emergent Wetland • Freshwater Scrub-shrub Wetland • Freshwater Pond (the same pond as described at the end of Section 3.1.2, Surface Water Bodies/Streams) As shown in Figure 2 and as described under mitigation for stormwater runoff in Section 3.1.3 above, a buffer zone will be maintained (undisturbed area) to the west of the ephemeral stream, and as such landfill construction area will not alter or in any way encroach upon the classified wetlands described above. Since there will not be any wetlands impacted or destroyed, there will not be any need for compensatory mitigation. Air Quality Air quality may be impacted due to the following types of activities and/or sources (1) increased levels of airborne dust particulates potentially generated from landfill construction, earthwork, maintenance, and traffic to/from the landfill during ongoing waste disposal activities, (2) landfill gas emissions. These two types of air quality impacts and mitigation (if needed) are described below. Airborne Dust: Air quality impacts due to airborne dust and particulate matter may occur as related to earthwork/moving activities during landfill construction/excavation, and related traffic to- from the landfill via increased traffic related to construction activities. Air quality impacts due to general operations are anticipated to be no more significant than what is currently experienced with the existing landfill. During construction activities and period of dry conditions, BMP’s such as dust suppression methods (i.e., watering) the haul roads will effectively reduce air quality impacts related to construction and routine hauling of waste. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment 13 Considering the construction of the proposed expansion would be temporary and short-term, the overall effects to air quality are anticipated to be minor. Landfill Gas Emissions: Landfill gas is generally an equal mixture of methane and carbon dioxide by volume with trace amounts of many other compounds. It is created through the microbial decomposition of degradable carbon compounds (such as municipal solid waste) under anaerobic (oxygen free) conditions, and has the potential to cause or contribute to a number of health, environmental and aesthetic problems if not captured and treated before escaping to the atmosphere. These include odors, potential explosion hazards, ground-level ozone formation and global warming. The generation of landfill gas at municipal solid waste facilities is well documented phenomenon and as-such, there are design considerations, and both federal and state regulatory requirements to mitigate against potential health-based impacts from landfill gases. The typical best available control technology (BACT) for handling of landfill gas is to install a landfill gas collection system and route the landfill gases to a centralized flare for thermal destruction with 98 percent (or better) destruction efficiency. The design, handling, and mitigation of landfill gases at the project site will comply with the air emissions requirements of ARM 17.50.1106. Demands on Environmental Resources Table 1 summarizes the environmental resources, such as wetlands, surface water, groundwater, land cover, and air quality which have been characterized and described in the preceding sections. Based on the project activities, the project location, and mitigation measures for each as described above, there are not any substantive demands on the environmental resources. A recap/summary of the primary resources and mitigation for each is provided below. • Wetlands. The area is generally native grasses and only a limited portion of the area immediately adjacent to the unnamed stream (see Figure 2) are designated as classified wetlands. A buffer zone of unimpacted area will be maintained so-as-to not impact or disturb the existing wetlands. • Water Quality. Potential impacts to surface water quality will be mitigated or avoided by following a site-specific plan (SWPPP) in accordance with ARM 17.30.1002(31). Leachate will be managed in accordance with a leachate management/discharge plan; and the design of the landfill will include a low-permeability bottom liner system in accordance with the Montana DEQ approved Alternative Liner Demonstration which is specific to the Logan Landfill. The liner system will mitigate against potential vertical migration of leachate into the vadose zone and/or into uppermost groundwater. The detection monitoring program will be initiated before construction of the project to characterize background groundwater quality conditions, and will be administered annually to ensure protection of the groundwater resource is maintained at background conditions during the active life and post-closure care period of the landfill. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment 14 • Land Cover. Post closure of the proposed landfill will include revegetation and plant succession to make the area suitable for wildlife habitat and livestock grazing after landfill activities are completed. A buffer zone of unimpacted area will be maintained on either side of the ephemeral stream which is coincident with riparian wetlands so- as-to not impact existing wetlands. • Air Quality. For airborne dust related to construction and traffic, BMP’s such as dust suppression methods (i.e., watering) the haul roads will effectively reduce air quality impacts related to construction and routine hauling of waste. For landfill gas emissions, the facility will comply with BACT, which at a minimum, will include perimeter monitoring of explosive gases (in the subsurface), and if needed, construction of a flare station with 98% or better efficiency to thermally destroy landfill gas emissions. Animal Species of Concern The Montana National Heritage Program Natural Resources Information System database was queried for ‘animal species of concern’ from within the area designated as Township 1N, and Range 3E (which is a broader area than the study area, but the most focused area to perform the online search. From this database (www.MTNHP.org – SOC Report), it identified a total of 6 animal species of concern as summarized below. Animals Species of Concern (general info shown below; refer to Exhibit D for search results): • Mammals (Bats). Global rank of G3, state rank S3, 3% of global breeding range in Montana. • Birds (Hawks/kites/eagles). Global rank G5, state rank S3, 3% of global range in Montana. • Birds (Bitterns/egrets/herons/night-herons). Global rank G5, state rank S3, 3% of global range in Montana. • Birds (Thrushes). Global G5, state rank S3B, 6% of global range in Montana. • Birds (Blackbirds). Global rank G5, state rank S3B, 9% of global range in Montana. • Reptiles (Spiny Lizards). Global rank G5, state rank S3. 19% of global breeding range in Montana. A G3/S3 ranking, which is all of the state rankings above, is characterized as “Potentially at risk because of limited and/or declining numbers, range and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas.” A G5/S5 ranking is described as “Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range). Not vulnerable in most of its range.” The only specie of concern which received both a G3 (global) and S3 (state) ranking are the bats. Sensitive areas for bats are commonly associated with caves, caverns, or steep terrain with rock outcrops which can serve as critical wintering or breeding habitat; there are not any known caves, caverns or outcrops associated with the study area. Plant Species of Concern The Montana National Heritage Program Natural Resources Information System database was queried for ‘plant species of concern’ from within the area designated as Township 1N, GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment 15 and Range 3E (which is a broader area than the study area, but the most focused area to perform the online search, etc). From this database (www.MTNHP.org – SOC Report), it identified a total of 2 plant species of concern as summarized below (see Exhibit E for search results). • Annual Indian Paintbrush. Global rank of G5T5, state rank of S2. The global rank (G5) indicates that it is “common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range); not vulnerable in most of its range.” The state rank of S2 indicates it is “at risk because of very limited and/or potentially declining population numbers, range and/or habitat, making it vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state.” • Alkali-marsh Ragwort. Global rank of G5, state rank of S3. The global rank (G5) indicates that it is “common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range); not vulnerable in most of its range.” The state rank (S3) indicates that Potentially at risk because of limited and/or declining numbers, range and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas.” Due to the abundant amount of natural lands adjacent to the study area, construction activities are not expected to harm the local ecosystem. 3.2 Potential Impacts on Human Health and Socioeconomic Factors Similar to the approach for Section 3.1, this section evaluates the potential impacts on human health, safety, and socioeconomic factors which could arise due to implementation of the proposed facility (summarized in Table 2). Generally, only those factors potentially affected by the proposed action are discussed in greater detail, and if there is no effect on a given category, then it is noted in the respective section and not analyzed further. Table 2. Human Health and Safety Impacts and Mitigation Potential Impacts to Environmental Receptors/Physical Environment Major Moderate Minor None Mitigation (if needed) DENSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION AND HOUSES: Will the proposed project add to the local population and require additional housing? X Minor increase in temporary workers during construction. Will the project impact, create, move, or eliminate jobs? X Minor anticipated increase in temporary jobs due to construction-related activities; the increase is expected to be minor and would be temporary during construction activities. Will the project create or eliminate tax revenue? X The short-term influx in local employment during construction phases of the project would result in a minor beneficial impact to the local tax base. No long-term impacts, either positive or negative, are anticipated. LAND USE/IMPORTANT FARMLAND: Will the project use, alter, degrade, or consume the current land use in the area? X During construction and landfill disposal activities, the current land use will change from generally unused grassland, to construction/landfill site. Following landfill activities, the refuse will be covered with soil and reclaimed to regrow native grasses and returned to original land use designation. Is the area classified as important farmland? X Soil types are classified as ‘prime farmland if irrigated’. However, the entire study area is mapped as ‘Class IV(4)’ soils, which is described as “soils which have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both.” There are similar soil types located in all directions outside the study area, and given that the area is not currently farmed, there are not any substantive losses to important farmland. FLOOD POTENTIAL HAZARD: Is the proposed expansion area located within a potential flood zone? X The project site is located outside formal flood zones mapped by FEMA; and the lowest topographic elevation of the expansion area is at least 50 ft higher in elevation than the nearest flood zone potential. HAZARDOUS WASTE INVENTORY: Are there any hazardous waste sites located within the project expansion area? X There were not any hazardous waste sites identified within the project study area. Will the project add to health and safety risks in the project expansion area? X NA (see item above). CULTURAL RESOURCES AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: Are there archaeological sites present within the proposed project area? X The October 2018 cultural inventory identified some potential sites of cultural significance, but were ultimately not eligible for listing on the NRHP registry, and that future expansion of the existing landfill will therefore have No Effect on resources as defined in the Montana State Antiquities Act and 36 CFR Part 800. Will the construction or activities associated with the project effect cultural resources? X NA (see item above). INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, and AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND PRODUCTION: Will the project add to or alter these activities? X There are not currently any industrial, commercial and/or agricultural activities taking place in the proposed expansion area. ACCESS TO RECREATIONAL AND WILDERNESS ACTIVITIES: Will the project impact or cross-cut access to recreation or wilderness areas? X NA TRANSPORTATION: Will the project affect local transportation networks and/or traffic flows? X Minor added traffic to/from the landfill is expected temporarily during construction activities; after construction is complete, the existing present-day traffic will resume. The effects of temporary increases on traffic is expected to be negligible or have minimal impact on traffic networks or patterns. AESTHETICS: Is the project located on a prominent topographical feature? X NA Will the project be visible from populated or scenic areas? X Similar to the existing landfill, the expansion area landfill activities will be visible from traffic heading eastbound on I-90. Landfill staff will plant trees along the north edge of the property. Will there be excessive noise, light, or odors? X The project construction activities will contribute to noise from earthwork machinery and haul traffic; odors are common at the immediate vicinity of the landfill due to refuse. The closest residential house from the project study area is over one mile away, which will limit or diffuse both noise and odor, and the existing residences nearby the landfill have become accustomed to existing noise and/or odors. Table 2. Human Health and Safety Impacts and Mitigation (continued) MISCELLANEOUS Is there sufficient amount of land available to satisfy the design, operation, and capacity of the solid waste management system? X The north of the expansion waste boundary is a 1,000 ft buffer-zone extending to I-90 and is undeveloped grassland. The area dues east of the waste boundary is another 1,000 ft buffer to agricultural fields. The area immediately south of the expansion area is undeveloped grassland and there is a 225 ft buffer from the waste to the southern property boundary. Are there adequate drainage structures installed to control surface water run-off from the waste areas and prevent run-on water into the waste management areas? X Stormwater controls are shown on the Master Plan Drawings. Run-on ditches route the water around the landfill. Run-off ditches are located between the access roads and the waste boundary which direct the water to stormwater ponds located on site. The stormwater ponds are design to handle the 25-year 24-hour storm event. A SWPPP and Stormwater Discharge Permit will be provided after the expansion is licensed. Will the facility be located to allow for closure, post-closure care? X A Closure-Post Closure Plan is attached to the license application. The Plan addresses the closure activities required to close the facility, post-closure care, and the end use of the facility. How will the facility manage solid waste, gas, and leachate? X The Operation and Maintenance Plan, Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan, and the Methane Monitoring Plans describe how the facility will manage the facility. Is the facility located within 10,000 feet of any airport runway end used by turbojet aircraft or within 5,000 feet of any airport runway end by only piston-type aircraft so that the landfill unit does not pose a bird hazard to aircraft? X The end of runway of the nearest airport in Three Forks, MT is located 41,320 feet from the landfill expansion. The Bozeman International Airport is located 63,530 feet from the landfill expansion. A private runway located north of Belgrade is 64,300 feet from the landfill expansion. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment 18 Density and Distribution of Population and Houses The project study area lies within Gallatin County, which is the 3rd most populated County in Montana, with a population of 114,434 (as of the 2019 census). The largest City within Gallatin County is Bozeman, which constitutes close to half of the entire population in Gallatin County, with a population of 49,831 (as of the 2019 census). The rural towns within a 5-mile distance of the project study area are relatively small, which include Logan and Manhattan, with populations of 58 (as of 2014 census) and 1,691 (as of 2016 census), respectively. Logan is roughly 2 miles to the northwest of the study area, while Manhattan is approximately 2.5 miles to the east of the study area. There are not any human dwellings or residences within the project study area. The proposed landfill expansion project would not be expected to result in an increase in the population or require the need for additional housing. Land Use/Important Farmland The existing and current land use of the expansion area is primarily native grasslands (described in Sections above) and is not used by humans for uses other than occasional livestock grazing (such as horses or cattle, etc). In regard to present farmland activities or farmland potential, the project study area is currently undeveloped (native grasses). Exhibit F shows results for land use with respect to farmland classification, and Exhibit G shows results for irrigation capability. These land use maps, data, and classification are from the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and specifically for the proposed project expansion area. As shown in this supporting information from NRCS, the predominant soil types are classified as ‘prime farmland if irrigated’ (fine sandy loam) or ‘farmland of state importance’ (sandy loam). However, as shown in the land classification designations for irrigation capability (Exhibit G), the entire study area is mapped as ‘Class IV(4)’ soils, which is described as “soils which have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both.” There are similar soil types located in all directions outside the project study area, and as such, there are not any adverse impacts to land use or any substantive losses to important farmland. Flood Potential Hazard Exhibit H is a flood zone map obtained online from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program for the study area. The FEMA map identifies the area around the immediate vicinity of the Gallatin River as ‘Zone A’, which is considered a formal FEMA designation for special flood hazard area. The flood zone associated with the Gallatin River is located 0.7 miles to the north of the closest point of the project study area, which is located to the south of the river. The elevation of the Gallatin River floodplain due north of the project study area is approximately 4,130 ft msl, which is at least 50 feet lower in elevation than the lowest portion of the study area along the northern margin of Section 6 GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment 19 boundary. Given the flood zone mapping by FEMA and considering the project study area is at least 50 feet higher in elevation than the nearest flood zone area, demonstrates there is minimal to no flood potential hazard for the project study area. Human Health and Safety Potential human health and safety concerns can be linked to some of the primary environmental factors described in Section 3.1, such as potential impacts to water quality, soils, and air quality, and also some of the factors presented in preceding Section 3.2 (above), such as population density (relative of study area) and flood hazard. Mitigation of these previously presented items is described in those respective sections and is not reiterated herein. In addition to environmental factors, the potential for encountering hazardous waste in the vicinity of the project study area is summarized in this section. Hazardous waste inventories are maintained for the State of Montana cooperatively by the DEQ Remediation Division, Permitting and Compliance Division (Waste and Underground Storage Tank Management Bureau), Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board (PTRCB) and the Montana State Library, and the Natural Resources Information System (NRIS). These divisions provide database information (via: http://svc.mt.gov/deq/wmadst/ ) on the following:  Active and inactive Regulated Underground Storage Tank Sites;  Abandoned/Inactive Mine Sites;  Active and Inactive Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites;  State and Federal Superfund Sites (including CERCLA, CERCA, WQA, ACGP, CALA, RCRA, and Brownfields), and;  Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board Sites. Exhibit I shows the results from an online database search performed on January 25, 2019 to investigate the presence of any known hazardous waste materials within or near the project study area. The online mapping tool can identify hazardous waste-related items at any scale within the state of Montana, and for the purpose of this study, the sites identified within adjacent 1-mile sections around the perimeter of Section 6 (a one-by-one mile study area), identified the following results:  1 Source Water Assessment. The database information notes this as a public water supply well near the City of Logan, with groundwater ID 12684, within T2N, R2E, Section 36. This well is approximately ¾-mile to the northwest of the proposed project (details for GW ID 12684 can be found in Exhibit B).  4 Opencut Mines. The database identifies a total of 4 opencut mines which are permitted sites and located to the southwest of the proposed project site, within T1N, R2E, and Section 12. From the database search, there were not any hazardous waste or related sites identified within Section 6, T1N, R3E (which encompasses the project study area). Impacts with regard GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment 20 to human health and safety for the proposed project as it relates to the potential for hazardous waste sites would not increase from existing conditions. Cultural Resources and Archaeological Sites Exhibit J provides results and findings from a cultural resources inventory performed at the project study area by Ethnoscience in October 2018. The inventory was conducted to investigate and document the presence of any significant cultural or paleontological resources and provide preliminary National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility evaluations of sites located within the study area. As summarized from this inventory, Ethnoscience visited all sites west of the ephemeral drainage along the eastern edge of Section 6, and concluded that the only sites of potential cultural interest were the new sites and isolated finds identified during the October 2018 survey were not eligible for listing on the NRHP registry, and that future expansion of the existing Logan Landfill will therefore have No Effect on these resources as defined in the Montana State Antiquities Act and 36 CFR Part 800. Industrial, Commercial, and Agricultural Activities and Production Construction of the proposed landfill expansion project would result in a minor increase to industrial activity due to the need for construction contractors, additional machinery, and associated equipment and materials. The immediate area surrounding the proposed expansion area is sparsely populated, and the local residents are accustomed to the noise, traffic, and odor associated with routine landfill operations. There are not any known noise sensitive receptors located near the study area, and the noise impacts with the proposed expansion are not any greater than the current operations. Access to and Quality of Recreational and Wilderness Activities The proposed project expansion will not effect, limit, or crosscut any access to or quality of any wilderness or recreational areas. Access to the landfill will be from the existing one-way in/one-way out (i.e., dead-end) landfill entrance off of Two Dog Frontage Road along I-90 (see Figure 1). Transportation As noted in Section 3.2.7 above, access related to construction and for future disposal- related traffic will be the existing entrance via Two Dog Frontage Road running along I-90. During construction activities, there will be additional temporary volume of traffic to and from the site to support additional workers during construction, but these additional vehicles are not expected to adversely influence current landfill activities, and would be only a relatively short duration during construction efforts. After the landfill is constructed, the volume of future traffic is anticipated to be similar to existing or present-day traffic. Aesthetics The proposed landfill expansion will have an anticipated minor impact on visual aesthetics. The expansion area landfill location is immediately adjacent to the existing landfill, which has been in operation and functional since the 1970’s. Visual impacts would likely be limited to vehicular traffic travelling eastbound on I-90 and looking to the south toward the GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Environmental Assessment 21 proposed expansion area. The current landscape and visual aesthetics of the proposed landfill expansion is not regionally or locally unique as large expanses of similar terrain and land cover exist in all directions of the proposed site. Visual impacts of landfill activities will be temporary considering that landfill filling of waste will occur in a series of phases (cells), and as the cells are filled and capped, they will be closed, revegetated, and the aesthetics will gradually improve and generally mimic the present-day range grassland appearance. After landfilling is complete, as part of post-closure reclamation, the refuse will be covered and revegetated, and the landscape cover will return to rangeland grasses, anticipated to be similar to the appearance of the current terrain. Before construction activities begin the landfill staff will plant trees along the north edge of the property. These trees will help obstruct the landfill from the public’s view. Exhibit A NRCS Soil Map of Study Area 6RLO0DS²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²1RY7KHRUWKRSKRWRRURWKHUEDVHPDSRQZKLFKWKHVRLOOLQHVZHUHFRPSLOHGDQGGLJLWL]HGSUREDEO\GLIIHUVIURPWKHEDFNJURXQGLPDJHU\GLVSOD\HGRQWKHVHPDSV$VDUHVXOWVRPHPLQRUVKLIWLQJRIPDSXQLWERXQGDULHVPD\EHHYLGHQW6RLO0DS²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²*DOODWLQ&RXQW\$UHD0RQWDQD /RJDQ([SDQVLRQ 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV &RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH :HE6RLO6XUYH\ 1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\ 3DJHRI Exhibit B Groundwater Well Inventory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«±PL3DJH RI0%0*:HE0DSSLQJ$SSOLFDWLRQKWWSGDWDPEPJPWHFKHGXPDSSHUPDSSHUDVS"YLHZ :HOOV Approximate LandfillProperty Boundary Exhibit B Water Well Records from MBMG Database in Vicinity of Project Area GWIC Record Name Location (T/R Section)Well Location Relative of Project Study Area Date Well Depth (ft bgs)Type 226792 Logan Landfill - Admin. Bldg T2N/R2E Section 36 Northwest 5/30/2006 116 Facility water supply 9354 Logan Landfill - Old Shop T1N/R3E Section 6 Northwest 9/6/1984 118 Facility water supply 248618 Logan Landfill - New Shop T1N/R3E Section 6 Northwest 12/12/2008 90 Facility water supply 254945 Montana Rail Link T2N/R2E Section 36 West 2009 258 Domestic 9289 Western, T. & D.T1N/R2E Section 1 West 1985 80 Stockwater 199350 Bosway Holstiens T1N/R3E Section 7 South 2002 204 Domestic 9356 Zimmerman, Joe T1N/R3E Section 7 South 1947 135 Domestic 177250 Worman, Clint T1N/R3E Section 35 South 1999 50 Domestic 287555 Helle, Livestock T1N/R3E Section 18 South 2016 301 Domestic 9357 Kelsey-Vallee Ranches T1N/R3E Section 7 South 1981 460 Unknown 26451 Bos Robert T1N/R3E Section 7 South 2012 280 Unused 288804 Miller, Allen T1N/R3E Section 7 South 2016 300 Domestic 299255 Chaffins, Lucas T1N/R3E Section 7 South 2018 300 Domestic 199352 Bosways Holstiens T1N/R3E Section 7 South 2002 620 Stockwater 12724 Wytana Livestock Co.T2N/R3E Section 32 Northeast 1955 165 Domestic & Stockwater 191969 Pilati, Knox T2N/R3E Section 32 Northeast 2001 100 Domestic 249386 Martin, JoAnne T2N/R3E Section 32 Northeast 2009 82 Domestic 197772 King, Brian T2N/R3E Section 32 Northeast 2001 80 Domestic 12726 Flikkema, Maynard T2N/R3E Section 32 Northeast 1976 55 Domestic 12725 Glisan, Russel T2N/R3E Section 32 Northeast 1911 39 Domestic & Stockwater 12684 Groenendal, James T2N/R2E Section 36 Northwest 1985 100 Public Water Supply 12712 Gruenendal, Jim T2N/R2E Section 36 Northwest 1988 114 Domestic 12700 Heavner, William T2N/R2E Section 36 Northwest 1885 90 Domestic 12702 Karlstrom, Delbert T2N/R2E Section 36 Northwest 1900 65 Domestic Notes: 1. Well records from Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology via http://data.mbmg.mtech.edu/mapper. 2. Wells tabulated above are within an approxmately 1 mile buffer zone from perimeter extent of Section 6 T1N/R3E Project Area. 3. Wells within Section 6 T1N/R3E Project Area are all installed by Gallatin Solid Waste District used for landfill environmental monitoring. Exhibit C Wetlands Delineation Maps National Wetlands InventoryU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team,wetlands_team@fws.govWetlandsEstuarine and Marine DeepwaterEstuarine and Marine WetlandFreshwater Emergent WetlandFreshwater Forested/Shrub WetlandFreshwater PondLakeOtherRiverineDecember 28, 20180 0.8 1.60.4 mi0 1 20.5 km1:46,344This page was produced by the NWI mapperNational Wetlands Inventory (NWI)This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Exhibit D Animals Species of Concern Expand All | Collapse All Introduction Introduction The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) serves as the state's information source for animals, plants, and plant communities with a focus on species and communities that are rare, threatened, and/or have declining trends and as a result are at risk or potentially at risk of extirpation in Montana. This report on Montana Animal Species of Concern is produced jointly by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). Montana Animal Species of Concern are native Montana animals that are considered to be "at risk" due to declining population trends, threats to their habitats, and/or restricted distribution. Also included in this report are Potential Animal Species of Concern -- animals for which current, often limited, information suggests potential vulnerability or for which additional data are needed before an accurate status assessment can be made. We also include Special Status Species which are species that have some legal protections in place, but are otherwise not Montana Species of Concern. Bald Eagle is a Special Status Species because, although it is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act and is also no longer a Montana Species of Concern, it is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c). Red Knot is not a Montana Species of Concern, having a state rank of SNA because of a lack of information on its migratory stopover use of Montana's wetlands. However it is a Special Status Species because it is listed as Threatened in Montana under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). Over the last 200 years, 5 species with historic breeding ranges in Montana have been extirpated from the state; Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido), Passenger Pigeon ( migratorius), Pilose Crayfish (Pacifastacus gambelii), and Rocky Mountain Locust (Melanoplus spretus). Designation as a Montana Animal Species of Concern or Potential Animal Species of Concern is not a statutory or regulatory classification. Instead, these designations provide a basis for resource managers and decision-makers to make proactive decisions regarding species conservation and data collection priorities in order to avoid additional extirpations. Status determinations are made by MTNHP and MFWP biologists in consultation with representatives of the Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society, the Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, and other experts. The process for evaluating and assigning status designations uses the Natural Heritage Program ranking system, described below, which forms the basis for identifying Montana Species of Concern. How to Read the Lists What Species are Included in this ReportMontana Species of Concern are defined as vertebrate animals with a state rank of S1, S2, or S3. Vertebrate species with a rank indicating uncertainty (SU), a "range rank" extending below the S3 cutoff (e.g., S3S4), or those ranked S4 for which there is limited baseline information on status are considered Potential Species of Concern. Because documentation for invertebrates is typically less complete than for vertebrates, only those ranked S1 or S2 are included as SOC. Invertebrates with a range rank extending below S2 (e.g., S2S3) are included as SOC only if their global ranks are G2G3 or G3, or if experts agree their occurrence in Montana has been adequately documented. Other invertebrates of concern with global ranks other than G1, G2, or G3 and with state ranks below S2 or range ranks extending below S2 (e.g., S3S4) are treated as Potential Species of Concern. Organization of ListBoth the list of Species of Concern and the list of Potential Species of Concern are grouped taxonomically in the following order: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and various invertebrates. Within each taxonomic group you can sort species by common name or scientific name. County DistributionThis column lists the documented county distribution for each species, including extant and historical occurrences. Any occurrences that cross county boundaries are counted for each county. Many older occurrence records and specimen collections are only known from vague location information and the area mapped as the potential area of observation may be quite large, leading to more than one county being counted. Additions and DeletionsSpecies that have been added to or deleted from the SOC list due to changes in their state rank are reported in separate sections below; changes in global ranks are not tracked in this report. Montana Natural Heritage - SOC Report Animal Species of Concern 6 Species of Concern 1 Special Status Species Filtered by the following criteria: Township = 001N003E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) Species List Last Updated 09/25/2018 A program of the Montana State Library's Natural Resource Information System operated by the University of Montana. Page 1 of 5MTNHP.org -SOC Report 1/2/2019http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a Montana Species Ranking Codes (GRank, SRank) Montana employs a standardized ranking system to denote global (range-wide) and state status (NatureServe 2006). Species are assigned numeric ranks ranging from 1 (highest risk, greatest concern) to 5 (demonstrably secure), reflecting the relative degree of risk to the species’ viability, based upon available information. A number of factors are considered in assigning ranks — the number, size and quality of known occurrences or populations, distribution, trends (if known), intrinsic vulnerability, habitat specificity, and definable threats. The process of assigning state ranks for each taxon relies heavily on the number of occurrences and Species Occurrence (OE) ranks, which is a ranking system of the quality (usually A through D) of each known occurrence based on factors such as size (# of individuals) and habitat quality. The remaining factors noted above are also incorporated into the ranking process when they are known. The “State Rank Reason” field in the Montana Field Guide information on the reasons for a particular species’ rank. Rank Definition G1 S1 At high risk because of extremely limited and/or rapidly declining population numbers, range and/or habitat, making it highly vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state. G2 S2 At risk because of very limited and/or potentially declining population numbers, range and/or habitat, making it vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state. G3 S3 Potentially at risk because of limited and/or declining numbers, range and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas. G4 S4 Apparently secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, and/or suspected to be declining. G5 S5 Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range). Not vulnerable in most of its range. GX SX Presumed Extinct or Extirpated - Species is believed to be extinct throughout its range or extirpated in Montana. Not located despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and small likelihood that it will ever be rediscovered. GH SH Historical, known only from records usually 40 or more years old; may be rediscovered. GNR SNR Not Ranked as of yet. GU SU Unrankable - Species currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. GNA SNA A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species or ecosystem is not a suitable target for conservation activities as a result of being: 1) not confidently present in the state; 2) non-native or introduced; 3) a long distance migrant with accidental or irregular stopovers; or 4) a hybrid without conservation value. Combination or Range Ranks G#G# or S#S# Indicates a range of uncertainty about the status of the species (e.g., G1G3 = Global Rank ranges between G1 and G3). S#, S#Indicates that populations in different geographic portions of the species' range in Montana have a different conservation status (e.g., S1 west of the Continental Divide and S4 east of the Continental Divide). Sub-rank T#Rank of a subspecies or variety. Appended to the global rank of the full species, e.g. G4T3 Qualifiers Q Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority-Distinctiveness of this entity as a taxon at the current level is questionable; resolution of this uncertainty may result in change from a species to a subspecies or hybrid, or inclusion of this taxon in another taxon, with the resulting taxon having a lower-priority (numerically higher) conservation status rank. Appended to the global rank, e.g. G3Q ? Inexact Numeric Rank - Denotes uncertainty; inexactness. HYB Hybrid - Entity not ranked because it represents an interspecific hybrid and not a species. C Captive or Cultivated Only - Species at present exists only in captivity or cultivation, or as a reintroduced population not yet established. A Accidental - Species is accidental or casual in Montana, in other words, infrequent and outside usual range. Includes species (usually birds or butterflies) recorded once or only a few times at a location. A few of these species may have bred on the few occasions they were recorded. SYN Synonym - Species reported as occurring in Montana, but the Montana Natural Heritage Program does not recognize the taxon; therefore the species is not assigned a rank. B Breeding - Rank refers to the breeding population of the species in Montana. Appended to the state rank, e.g. S2B,S5N = At risk during breeding season, but common in the winter N Nonbreeding - Rank refers to the non-breeding population of the species in Montana. Appended to the state rank, e.g. S5B,S2N = Common during breeding season, but at risk in the winter M Migratory - Species occurs in Montana only during migration. Page 2 of 5MTNHP.org -SOC Report 1/2/2019http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a Federal Status Designations in this column reflect the status of a species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), or as “sensitive” by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) or Bureau of Land Management (BLM). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Endangered Species Act)Status of a taxon under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.A. § 1531-1543 (Supp. 1996)) Designation Descriptions LE Listed endangered: Any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)). LT Listed threatened: Any species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). C Candidate: Those taxa for which sufficient information on biological status and threats exists to propose to list them as threatened or endangered. We encourage their consideration in environmental planning and partnerships; however, none of the substantive or procedural provisions of the Act apply to candidate species. P Proposed threatened: Any species that is proposed in the Federal Register to be listed under section 4 of the Act. DM Recovered, delisted, and being monitored - Any previously listed species that is now recovered, has been delisted, and is being monitored. NL Not listed - No designation. XE Experimental - Essential population - An experimental population whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild. XN Experimental - Nonessential population - An experimental population of a listed species reintroduced into a specific area that receives more flexible management under the Act. CH Critical Habitat - The specific areas (i) within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to conserve the species and (II) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it is listed upon determination that such areas are essential to conserve the species. PS Partial status - status in only a portion of the species' range. Typically indicated in a "full" species record where an infraspecific taxon or population, that has a record in the database has USESA status, but the entire species does not. For example, Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) is ranked PS:LT. Partial Status - Listed Threatened. Designated as Threatened in the Western U.S. Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (subspecies occidentalis) BGEPA The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (BGEPA) - (16 U.S.C. 668-668c) prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from taking bald or golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The BGEPA provides criminal and civil penalties for persons who take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof. The BGEPA defines take as pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb. "Disturb" means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from human-induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagles return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that injures an eagle or substantially interferes with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits and causes, or is likely to cause, a loss of productivity or nest abandonment. MBTA The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) - (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, July 3, 1918, as amended 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989) implements four treaties that provide for international protection of migratory birds. The statute’s language is clear that actions resulting in a "taking" or possession (permanent or temporary) of a protected species, in the absence of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) permit or regulatory authorization, are a violation of the MBTA. The MBTA states, "Unless and except as permitted by regulations ... it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means, or in any manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill ... possess, offer for sale, sell ... purchase ... ship, export, import ... transport or cause to be transported ... any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird .... [The Act] prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, import and export of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior." The word "take" is defined by regulation as "to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect." The USFWS maintains a list of species protected by the MBTA at 50 CFR 10.13. This list includes over one thousand species of migratory birds, including eagles and other raptors, waterfowl, shorebirds, seabirds, wading birds, and passerines. The USFWS also maintains a list of species not protected by the MBTA does not protect species that are not native to the United States or species groups not explicitly covered under the MBTA; these include species such as the house (English) sparrow, European starling, rock dove (pigeon), Eurasian collared-dove, and non-migratory upland game birds. BCC The 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (BCC 2008) is the most recent effort to carry out this mandate. The overall goal of this report is to accurately identify the migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent the Service's highest conservation priorities. BCC10, BCC11, and BCC17 designations represent inclusion on the Birds of Conservation Concern list for Bird Conservation Region 10, 11, and 17 in Montana, respectively. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)BLM Sensitive Species are defined by the BLM 6840 Manual as native species found on BLM-administered lands for which the BLM has the capability to significantly affect the conservation status of the species through management, and either: (1) there is information that a species has recently undergone, is undergoing, or is predicted to undergo a downward trend such that the viability of the species or a distinct population segment of the species is at risk across all or a significant portion of the species range, or; (2) the species depends on ecological refugia or specialized or unique habitats on BLM-administered lands, and there is evidence that such areas are threatened with alteration such that the continued viability of the species in that area would be at risk. Designation Descriptions Endangered Denotes species that are listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act Threatened Denotes species that are listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act Sensitive Denotes species listed as Sensitive on BLM lands U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Designation Descriptions Endangered Listed as Endangered (LE) under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Threatened Listed as Threatened (LT) under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Proposed Any species that is proposed in the Federal Register to be listed under section 4 of the Act. Candidate Those taxa for which sufficient information on biological status and threats exists to propose to list them as threatened or endangered. We encourage their consideration in environmental planning and partnerships; however, none of the substantive or procedural provisions of the Act apply to candidate species. Sensitive U.S. Forest Service Manual (2670.22) defines Sensitive Species on Forest Service lands as those for which population viability is a concern as evidenced by a significant downward trend in population or a significant downward trend in habitat capacity. These designations were last updated in 2011 and they apply only on USFS-administered lands with land management plans finalized prior to 2017. Sensitive Species designations are being replaced by Species of Conservation Concern designations on individual National Forest as revised land management plans are finalized under the 2012 planning rule. Species of Conservation Concern A species, other than federally recognized Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area (36 CFR 219.9). Species of Conservation Concern replace regional forester Sensitive Species on individual National Forests as revised land management plans are finalized under the 2012 planning rule. Acknowledgements MTNHP and MFWP staff work together on a daily basis to manage information used to evaluate the status of Montana's animal species. We extend our thanks to these individuals and professional biologists that study and work to conserve species across Montana. We also thank a number of private citizens that spend a great deal of their free time contributing valuable information to statewide databases so that species can be better understood and managed. Selected References Abbott, J.C. 2006. Odonata Central: An online resource for the Odonata of North America. Austin, TX. (Accessed: July 28, 2009). http://www.odonatacentral.com Acorn, J. 2004. Damselflies of Alberta: flying neon toothpicks in grass. Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta Press. 156 p. Brown, C.J.D. 1971. Fishes of Montana. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 207 p. Flath, D.L. 1984. Vertebrate species of special interest or concern. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 76 p. Flath, D.L. 1998. Species of special interest or concern. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 7 p. Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 1995. Interior Columbia Basin mollusk species of special concern. Final report to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WA. 274 p. plus appendices. Foresman, K.R. 2001. The wild mammals of Montana. Special Publication No. 12. Lawrence, KS: The American Society of Mammalogists. 278 p. Hand, R.L. 1969. A distributional checklist of the birds of western Montana. Unpublished manuscript available from the Montana State Library, Helena, MT. 55 p. Page 3 of 5MTNHP.org -SOC Report 1/2/2019http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a Bryce A. Maxell Senior Zoologist bmaxell@mt.gov (406) 444-3655 Montana Natural Heritage Program P.O. Box 201800 1515 E. 6th Ave. Helena, MT 59620-1800 Phone: (406) 444-3290 Fax: (406) 444-0581 E-mail: mtnhp@mt.gov MAMMALS (MAMMALIA) TOWNSHIP = 001N003E (based on mapped Hendricks, P., B.A. Maxell, S. Lenard, C. Currier, and J. Johnson. 2006. Riparian bat surveys in eastern Montana. Report to the USDI Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 13 p. + appendices. Hendricks, P., B.A. Maxell, S. Lenard, and C. Currier. 2007. Land mollusk surveys on USFS Northern Region Lands: 2006. Report to the USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 11 pp. + appendices. Hendricks, P., B.A. Maxell, S. Lenard, and C. Currier. 2008. Surveys and predicted distribution models for land mollusks on USFS Northern Region Lands: 2007. Report to the USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 12 pp. + appendices. Hoffman, R.L. 1999. Checklist of the millipeds of North and Middle America. Special Publication No. 8. Martinsville, VA: Virginia Museum of Natural History. 584 p. Hoffmann, R.S. and D.L. Pattie. 1968. A guide to Montana mammals. Missoula, MT: University of Montana Printing Services. 133 p. Holton, G.D. and H.E. Johnson. 2003. A field guide to Montana fishes. Third Edition. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 95 p. Kohler, S. 1980. Checklist of Montana butterflies (Rhopalocera). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 34(1):1-19. Lenard, S., J. Carlson, J. Ellis, C. Jones, and C. Tilly. 2003. P.D. Skaar's Montana bird distribution. Sixth edition. Helena, MT: Montana Audubon. 144 p. Lenard, S., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and C. Currier. 2007. Bat Surveys on USFS Northern Region 1 Lands in Montana: 2006. Report to the USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana 23 pp. plus appendices. Lewis, J.J. 2001. Three new species of subterranean assellids from western North America, with a synopsis of the species of the region (Crustacea: Isopoda: Asellidae). Texas Memorial Museum, Speleological Monographs 5:1-15. Maxell, B.A., J.K. Werner, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath. 2003. Herpetology in Montana: a history, status summary, checklists, dichotomous keys, accounts for native, potentially native, and exotic species, and indexed bibliography. Olympia, WA: Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology. Northwest Fauna 5: 1-138. Miller, K.B. and D.L. Gustafson. 1996. Distribution records of the Odonata of Montana. Bulletin of American Odonatology 3(4):75-88. [Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks]. 2005. Montana's comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation strategy. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 658 p. Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. 2009. Montana animal Species of Concern. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks. 17 p. NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An on-line encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. Arlington, VA. (Accessed: July 28, 2009). http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Opler, P.A., H. Pavulaan, R.E. Stanford, and M. Pogue (coordinators). 2006. Butterflies and moths of North America. Bozeman, MT: NBII Mountain Prairie Information Node. (Accessed: July 28, 2009). http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ Paulson, D.R. 2009. Dragonflies and damselflies of the West. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 535 p. Pearson, D.L., C.B. Knisley, and C.J. Kazilek. 2006. A field guide to the tiger beetles of the United States and Canada: identification, natural history, and distribution of the Cicindelidae. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 227 p. Regan, T.J., L.L. Master, and G.A. Hammerson. 2004. Capturing expert knowledge for threatened species assessments: a case study using NatureServe conservation status ranks. Acta Oecologica 26:95-107. Roemhild, G. 1975. The damselflies (Zygoptera) of Montana. Montana Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 87. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 53 p. Saunders, A.A. 1921. A distributional list of the birds of Montana with notes on the migration and nesting of the better known species. Pacific Coast Avifauna Number 14. Berkeley, CA: Cooper Ornithological Club. 194 p. Stagliano, D.M. 2008. Freshwater mussels of Montana. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 20 p. Stagliano, D.M., G.M. Stephens, and W.R. Bosworth. 2007. Aquatic invertebrate Species of Concern on USFS Northern Region Lands. Report to USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 95 pp. + appendices. Thompson, L.S. 1982. Distribution of Montana amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Helena, MT: Montana Audubon Council. 24 p. Wang, D. and J.R. Holsinger. 2001. Systematics of the subterranean amphipod genus Stygobromus (Crangonyctidae) in western North America, with emphasis on the hubbsi group. Amphipacifica 3:39-147. Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p. Westfall, M.J., Jr. and M.L. May. 1996. Damselflies of North America. Gainesville, FL: Scientific Publishers. 650 p. Westfall, M.J. Jr. and M.L. May. 2000. Dragonflies of North America. Revised Edition Gainesville, FL: Scientific Publishers. 940 p. Wright, P.L. 1996. Status of rare birds in Montana with comments on known hybrids. Northwest Naturalist 77(3):57-85. Contact Information For questions or comments specific to this publication or for specific zoology related questions, please contact: For general questions and zoology-related data requests please use the Information Request function on our website (www.mtnhp.org) or the general MTNHP contact info below. Species of Concern SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME TAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) FAMILY (COMMON) GLOBAL RANK STATE RANK USFWS USFS BLM FWP SWAP % OF GLOBAL BREEDING RANGE IN MT % OF MT THAT IS BREEDING RANGE Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Myotis Vespertilionidae Bats G3 S3 SGCN3 3% 100% Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Daniels, Dawson, Deer Lodge, Fallon, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Garfield, Glacier, Golden Valley, Granite, Hill, Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Madison, Mccone, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Musselshell, Park, Petroleum, Phillips, Pondera, Powder River, Powell, Prairie, Ravalli, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sanders, Sheridan, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Toole, Treasure, Valley, Wheatland, Wibaux, Yellowstone State Rank Reason: Species is common and widespread, but under significant threat of catastrophic declines due to White-Nose Syndrome, a fungal disease responsible for the collapse of populations of this species in the eastern US. Species of Concern 6 Species Filtered by the following criteria: Township = 001N003E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) Page 4 of 5MTNHP.org -SOC Report 1/2/2019http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a BIRDS (AVES) TOWNSHIP = 001N003E (based on mapped REPTILES (REPTILIA) TOWNSHIP = 001N003E (based on mapped SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME TAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) FAMILY (COMMON) GLOBAL RANK STATE RANK USFWS USFS BLM FWP SWAP % OF GLOBAL BREEDING RANGE IN MT % OF MT THAT IS BREEDING RANGE Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle Accipitridae Hawks / Kites / Eagles G5 S3 BGEPA; MBTA; BCC17 SENSITIVE SGCN3 3% 100% Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Dawson, Deer Lodge, Fallon, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Garfield, Glacier, Golden Valley, Granite, Hill, Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Lincoln, Madison, Mccone, Meagher, Missoula, Musselshell, Park, Petroleum, Phillips, Pondera, Powder River, Powell, Prairie, Ravalli, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sanders, Sheridan, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Toole, Treasure, Valley, Wheatland, Wibaux, Yellowstone Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron Ardeidae Bitterns / Egrets / Herons / Night-Herons G5 S3 MBTA SGCN3 3% 100% Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Dawson, Deer Lodge, Fallon, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Garfield, Glacier, Golden Valley, Granite, Hill, Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Lincoln, Madison, Mccone, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Musselshell, Park, Petroleum, Phillips, Pondera, Powder River, Powell, Prairie, Ravalli, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sanders, Sheridan, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Treasure, Valley, Wheatland, Wibaux, Yellowstone State Rank Reason: Small breeding population size, evidence of recent declines, and declining regeneration of riparian cottonwood forests due to altered hydrology and grazing. Catharus fuscescens Veery Turdidae Thrushes G5 S3B MBTA SENSITIVE SGCN3 6% 100% Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Deer Lodge, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Glacier, Granite, Jefferson, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Lincoln, Madison, Mccone, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Musselshell, Park, Petroleum, Phillips, Pondera, Powder River, Powell, Ravalli, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sanders, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Wheatland, Yellowstone Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Icteridae Blackbirds G5 S3B MBTA SGCN3 9% 100% Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Daniels, Dawson, Fallon, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Garfield, Glacier, Granite, Hill, Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Madison, Mccone, Meagher, Missoula, Musselshell, Park, Petroleum, Phillips, Powder River, Powell, Prairie, Ravalli, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sanders, Sheridan, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Valley, Wheatland, Wibaux, Yellowstone State Rank Reason: Species has undergone recent large population declines in Montana and a patchwork of declines and increases have been documented in surrounding states and provinces. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME TAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) FAMILY (COMMON) GLOBAL RANK STATE RANK USFWS USFS BLM FWP SWAP % OF GLOBAL BREEDING RANGE IN MT % OF MT THAT IS BREEDING RANGE Phrynosoma hernandesi Greater Short-horned Lizard Phrynosomatidae Sagebush / Spiny Lizards G5 S3 Sensitive - Known on Forests (CG) Sensitive - Suspected on Forests (HLC) SENSITIVE SGCN3, SGIN 19% 66% Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Dawson, Fergus, Gallatin, Garfield, Glacier, Golden Valley, Hill, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Mccone, Musselshell, Petroleum, Phillips, Pondera, Powder River, Prairie, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Toole, Treasure, Valley, Wheatland, Wibaux, Yellowstone Potential Species of Concern Special Status Species Additions To Statewide List Species Removed From Statewide List Species of Greatest Inventory Need Citation for data on this website: Montana Animal Species of Concern Report. Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Retrieved on 1/2/2019, from http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a Page 5 of 5MTNHP.org -SOC Report 1/2/2019http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a Exhibit E Plants Species of Concern Expand All | Collapse All Introduction Introduction The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) serves as the state's information source for Species of Concern (SOC) -- plants and animals that are rare, threatened, and/or have declining populations and as a result are at risk or potentially at risk of extirpation in Montana. This report is based on information gathered from field inventories, publications, reports, herbaria specimens, and the knowledge of botanists and other taxonomic experts. Taxa in the SOC category generally include all vascular plant taxa ranked S1, S2, S3 or SH. Nonvascular taxa (bryophytes and lichens) which are not as well documented or studied as vascular plant taxa in the state, are listed as SOC using similar criteria as vascular taxa but are more strictly limited to those taxa which are believed to be the rarest or most vulnerable to extirpation based on current information. Designation as a Species of Concern is not a statutory or regulatory classification. Instead, these designations provide a basis for resource managers and decision-makers to make proactive decisions regarding species conservation and data collection priorities in order to maintain viable populations and avoid extirpation of species from the state. MTNHP may designate additional taxa as Potential Species of Concern (PSOC). Taxa in this designation include species or subspecies which may be rare, have a restricted range in the state or are otherwise vulnerable to extirpation in at least part of their range but otherwise do not meet the criteria for inclusion as a SOC. An additional designation of Status Under Review is used for those taxa for which additional information is needed to accurately assign a status rank or for which conflicting information exists. Taxa designated as Status Under Review are not included in this document but can be found in the on-line Fieldguide (http://fieldguide.mt.gov/). This web-based report, which replaces the 2006 Plant Species of Concern publication, identifies vascular plant Species of Concern (SOC), bryophyte SOC and lichen SOC in Montana. The MTNHP continuously reviews and updates status ranks as new information and data become available through field surveys, research, and submitted observations. Status ranks and information supporting them are reviewed by botanists and resource specialists. If you wish to comment or contribute information to this process please contact the MTNHP Botanist. The information we receive from botanists and others throughout the state is essential in this process, and contributes to more accurate assessments of species' status. We continue to ask that all observations for SOC, PSOC and Review Status plants be reported to the Heritage Program. A copy of the field survey form specifying the information that should be submitted is available on our website (http://mtnhp.org/). Information concerning plant species contained on the SOC, PSOC or Review lists may be viewed on the MTNHP's on-line Montana Plant Field Guide. The Field Guide provides information for vascular and non-vascular plants, including species' characteristics, identification, habitat, distribution, state rank reasons and references, as well as technical illustrations and photographs of the plants and their habitats. For each species, a link to the NatureServe website (http://www.natureserve.org/) provides access to information on the status of the species throughout North America, assembled from state and provincial Natural Heritage databases. Information in the Montana Field Guide is continuously updated and expanded, so please check it often for current species' information. If you have questions concerning the field guide or find errors or omissions please contact the MTNHP. Status lists of SOC plants may be queried on-line by county and/or township; taxonomic group or one of several rank/status criteria. More detailed information or additional assistance can be requested from MTNHP using the Information Request function on our website, or by phone, e-mail or mail. How to Read the Lists The SOC list is organized alphabetically by scientific name (Genus and specific epithet followed by subspecific epithet if any) within the major groups of Vascular Plants, Bryophytes (Mosses and Liverworts) and Lichens. Vascular plants are further sorted by the subgroups: Ferns and Fern Allies, Gymnosperms (if any), Flowering Plants-Dicots and Flowering Plants-Monocots. The list can also be sorted alphabetically by the common name. Additional scientific names as well as the Family name are included in adjacent columns for each species. The nomenclature and taxonomy for many groups of plants continues to change as new research is conducted and published, and as a result no one nomenclatural reference is followed. Publications and web resources which are most relevant to Montana plants include Vascular Plants of Montana (Dorn 1984), NatureServe Explorer, The USDA PLANTS database, Flora of North America (1993-), Grasses of Montana (Lavin and Seibert 2011) and Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973). Additionally, an abundance of scientific literature pertinent to Montana plants is available and indispensable in the process of determining the nomenclature and taxonomic concepts used in this report. Species that have been added to or deleted from the SOC list due to changes in their global or state rank are reported in separate sections below. These changes are also reflected in the date displayed at the top of the report which shows when an addition or deletion to the list last occurred. County Distribution Montana counties of record are listed alphabetically with each species. County records of occurrence are determined directly from mapped species occurrences (SO's) in MTNHP databases. A record of occurrence for a particular county may be based on a historical observation which may no longer be extant. Additionally, some plant observations with vague locality information are not mapped in MTNHP databases and as result would not be included in the county distribution for that particular species. Montana Natural Heritage - SOC Report Plant Species of Concern 2 Species of Concern Filtered by the following criteria: Township = 001N003E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) Species List Last Updated 09/25/2018 A program of the Montana State Library's Natural Resource Information System operated by the University of Montana. Page 1 of 4MTNHP.org -SOC Report 1/2/2019http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p Montana Species Ranking Codes (GRank, SRank) Montana employs a standardized ranking system to denote global (range-wide) and state status (NatureServe 2006). Species are assigned numeric ranks ranging from 1 (highest risk, greatest concern) to 5 (demonstrably secure), reflecting the relative degree of risk to the species’ viability, based upon available information. A number of factors are considered in assigning ranks — the number, size and quality of known occurrences or populations, distribution, trends (if known), intrinsic vulnerability, habitat specificity, and definable threats. The process of assigning state ranks for each taxon relies heavily on the number of occurrences and Species Occurrence (OE) ranks, which is a ranking system of the quality (usually A through D) of each known occurrence based on factors such as size (# of individuals) and habitat quality. The remaining factors noted above are also incorporated into the ranking process when they are known. The “State Rank Reason” field in the Montana Field Guide information on the reasons for a particular species’ rank. Rank Definition G1 S1 At high risk because of extremely limited and/or rapidly declining population numbers, range and/or habitat, making it highly vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state. G2 S2 At risk because of very limited and/or potentially declining population numbers, range and/or habitat, making it vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state. G3 S3 Potentially at risk because of limited and/or declining numbers, range and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas. G4 S4 Apparently secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, and/or suspected to be declining. G5 S5 Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range). Not vulnerable in most of its range. GX SX Presumed Extinct or Extirpated - Species is believed to be extinct throughout its range or extirpated in Montana. Not located despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and small likelihood that it will ever be rediscovered. GH SH Historical, known only from records usually 40 or more years old; may be rediscovered. GNR SNR Not Ranked as of yet. GU SU Unrankable - Species currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. GNA SNA A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species or ecosystem is not a suitable target for conservation activities as a result of being: 1) not confidently present in the state; 2) non-native or introduced; 3) a long distance migrant with accidental or irregular stopovers; or 4) a hybrid without conservation value. Combination or Range Ranks G#G# or S#S# Indicates a range of uncertainty about the status of the species (e.g., G1G3 = Global Rank ranges between G1 and G3). S#, S#Indicates that populations in different geographic portions of the species' range in Montana have a different conservation status (e.g., S1 west of the Continental Divide and S4 east of the Continental Divide). Sub-rank T#Rank of a subspecies or variety. Appended to the global rank of the full species, e.g. G4T3 Qualifiers Q Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority-Distinctiveness of this entity as a taxon at the current level is questionable; resolution of this uncertainty may result in change from a species to a subspecies or hybrid, or inclusion of this taxon in another taxon, with the resulting taxon having a lower-priority (numerically higher) conservation status rank. Appended to the global rank, e.g. G3Q ? Inexact Numeric Rank - Denotes uncertainty; inexactness. HYB Hybrid - Entity not ranked because it represents an interspecific hybrid and not a species. C Captive or Cultivated Only - Species at present exists only in captivity or cultivation, or as a reintroduced population not yet established. A Accidental - Species is accidental or casual in Montana, in other words, infrequent and outside usual range. Includes species (usually birds or butterflies) recorded once or only a few times at a location. A few of these species may have bred on the few occasions they were recorded. SYN Synonym - Species reported as occurring in Montana, but the Montana Natural Heritage Program does not recognize the taxon; therefore the species is not assigned a rank. B Breeding - Rank refers to the breeding population of the species in Montana. Appended to the state rank, e.g. S2B,S5N = At risk during breeding season, but common in the winter N Nonbreeding - Rank refers to the non-breeding population of the species in Montana. Appended to the state rank, e.g. S5B,S2N = Common during breeding season, but at risk in the winter M Migratory - Species occurs in Montana only during migration. Page 2 of 4MTNHP.org -SOC Report 1/2/2019http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p Federal Status Designations in this column reflect the status of a species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), or as “sensitive” by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) or Bureau of Land Management (BLM). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Endangered Species Act)Status of a taxon under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.A. § 1531-1543 (Supp. 1996)) Designation Descriptions LE Listed endangered: Any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)). LT Listed threatened: Any species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). C Candidate: Those taxa for which sufficient information on biological status and threats exists to propose to list them as threatened or endangered. We encourage their consideration in environmental planning and partnerships; however, none of the substantive or procedural provisions of the Act apply to candidate species. P Proposed threatened: Any species that is proposed in the Federal Register to be listed under section 4 of the Act. DM Recovered, delisted, and being monitored - Any previously listed species that is now recovered, has been delisted, and is being monitored. NL Not listed - No designation. XE Experimental - Essential population - An experimental population whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild. XN Experimental - Nonessential population - An experimental population of a listed species reintroduced into a specific area that receives more flexible management under the Act. CH Critical Habitat - The specific areas (i) within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to conserve the species and (II) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it is listed upon determination that such areas are essential to conserve the species. PS Partial status - status in only a portion of the species' range. Typically indicated in a "full" species record where an infraspecific taxon or population, that has a record in the database has USESA status, but the entire species does not. For example, Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) is ranked PS:LT. Partial Status - Listed Threatened. Designated as Threatened in the Western U.S. Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (subspecies occidentalis) BGEPA The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (BGEPA) - (16 U.S.C. 668-668c) prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from taking bald or golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The BGEPA provides criminal and civil penalties for persons who take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof. The BGEPA defines take as pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb. "Disturb" means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from human-induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagles return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that injures an eagle or substantially interferes with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits and causes, or is likely to cause, a loss of productivity or nest abandonment. MBTA The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) - (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, July 3, 1918, as amended 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989) implements four treaties that provide for international protection of migratory birds. The statute’s language is clear that actions resulting in a "taking" or possession (permanent or temporary) of a protected species, in the absence of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) permit or regulatory authorization, are a violation of the MBTA. The MBTA states, "Unless and except as permitted by regulations ... it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means, or in any manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill ... possess, offer for sale, sell ... purchase ... ship, export, import ... transport or cause to be transported ... any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird .... [The Act] prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, import and export of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior." The word "take" is defined by regulation as "to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect." The USFWS maintains a list of species protected by the MBTA at 50 CFR 10.13. This list includes over one thousand species of migratory birds, including eagles and other raptors, waterfowl, shorebirds, seabirds, wading birds, and passerines. The USFWS also maintains a list of species not protected by the MBTA does not protect species that are not native to the United States or species groups not explicitly covered under the MBTA; these include species such as the house (English) sparrow, European starling, rock dove (pigeon), Eurasian collared-dove, and non-migratory upland game birds. BCC The 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (BCC 2008) is the most recent effort to carry out this mandate. The overall goal of this report is to accurately identify the migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent the Service's highest conservation priorities. BCC10, BCC11, and BCC17 designations represent inclusion on the Birds of Conservation Concern list for Bird Conservation Region 10, 11, and 17 in Montana, respectively. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)BLM Sensitive Species are defined by the BLM 6840 Manual as native species found on BLM-administered lands for which the BLM has the capability to significantly affect the conservation status of the species through management, and either: (1) there is information that a species has recently undergone, is undergoing, or is predicted to undergo a downward trend such that the viability of the species or a distinct population segment of the species is at risk across all or a significant portion of the species range, or; (2) the species depends on ecological refugia or specialized or unique habitats on BLM-administered lands, and there is evidence that such areas are threatened with alteration such that the continued viability of the species in that area would be at risk. Designation Descriptions Endangered Denotes species that are listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act Threatened Denotes species that are listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act Sensitive Denotes species listed as Sensitive on BLM lands U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Designation Descriptions Endangered Listed as Endangered (LE) under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Threatened Listed as Threatened (LT) under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Proposed Any species that is proposed in the Federal Register to be listed under section 4 of the Act. Candidate Those taxa for which sufficient information on biological status and threats exists to propose to list them as threatened or endangered. We encourage their consideration in environmental planning and partnerships; however, none of the substantive or procedural provisions of the Act apply to candidate species. Sensitive U.S. Forest Service Manual (2670.22) defines Sensitive Species on Forest Service lands as those for which population viability is a concern as evidenced by a significant downward trend in population or a significant downward trend in habitat capacity. These designations were last updated in 2011 and they apply only on USFS-administered lands with land management plans finalized prior to 2017. Sensitive Species designations are being replaced by Species of Conservation Concern designations on individual National Forest as revised land management plans are finalized under the 2012 planning rule. Species of Conservation Concern A species, other than federally recognized Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area (36 CFR 219.9). Species of Conservation Concern replace regional forester Sensitive Species on individual National Forests as revised land management plans are finalized under the 2012 planning rule. Page 3 of 4MTNHP.org -SOC Report 1/2/2019http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p Andrea Pipp Program Botanist apipp@mt.gov (406) 444-3019 Montana Natural Heritage Program P.O. Box 201800 1515 E. 6th Ave. Helena, MT 59620-1800 Phone: (406) 444-5354 Fax: (406) 444-0581 E-mail: mtnhp@mt.gov FLOWERING PLANTS - DICOTS (MAGNOLIOPSIDA) TOWNSHIP = 001N003E (based on mapped Acknowledgements We would like to gratefully acknowledge the many people who contributed information on plant species' occurrences and distribution throughout Montana over the years -- those contributions are the building blocks of the MTNHP databases and this publication. We encourage you to continue submitting data for SOC, PSOC and Under Review taxa so that status ranks and this document are as accurate and comprehensive as possible. Selected References Dorn, R.D. 1984. Vascular Plants of Montana. Mountain West Publishing, Cheyenne, WY. 276 pp. Faber-Langendoen, D., L. Master, J. Nichols, K. Snow, A. Tomaino, R. Bittman, G. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L. Ramsay, and B. Young. 2009. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Methodology for Assigning Ranks NatureServe, Arlington, VA. On-line at http://www.natureserve.org/publications/ConsStatusAssess_RankMethodology.pdf Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 8+ vols. New York and Oxford. On-line at http://hua.huh.harvard.edu/FNA/ and http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx? flora_id=1 Hitchcock, C.L and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 30 pp. On-line at: http://www.iucn.org Lavin, M. and C. Seibert. 2011. Grasses of Montana. MSU Herbarium, Dept of Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 100 pp. On-line at: http://gemini.oscs.montana.edu/~mlavin/herb/mtgrass.pdf Lesica, P., G. Moore, K.M. Peterson, and J.H. Rumely. 1984. Vascular plants of limited distribution in Montana. Montana Academy of Science Monograph No. 2. Lesica, P. and J.S. Shelly. 1991. Sensitive, threatened and endangered vascular plants of Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Montana State Library, Helena, Montana. Master, L., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Bittman, G. Hammerson, B. Heidel, J. Nichols, L. Ramsay, and A. Tomaino. 2009. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Assessing Extinction Risk Arlington, VA. On-line at http://www.natureserve.org/publications/ConsStatusAssess_StatusFactors.pdf NatureServe. NatureServe Explorer: An on-line encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.7. Arlington, Virginia. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Regan, T.J., L.L. Master and G. A. Hammerson. 2004. Capturing expert knowledge for threatened species assessments: a case study using NatureServe conservation status ranks. Acta Oecologia 26: 95-107. Rollins, R.C. 1993. The Cruciferae of continental North America: Systematics of the mustard family from the Arctic to Panama. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 976 pp. USDA, NRCS. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. Contact Information For questions or comments specific to this publication or for specific plant related questions, please contact: For general questions and botany-related data requests please use the Information Request function on our website (www.mtnhp.org) or the general MTNHP contact info below. Species of Concern SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME TAXA SORT OTHER NAMES FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) FAMILY (COMMON) GLOBAL RANK STATE RANK USFWS USFS BLM MNPS THREAT CATEGORY Castilleja exilis Annual Indian Paintbrush Castilleja minor ssp. minor Orobanchaceae Broomrape Family G5T5 S2 2 Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Broadwater, Deer Lodge, Fergus, Gallatin, Jefferson, Madison, Park State Rank Reason: Annual Indian Paintbrush is known from a half dozen counties in southwest Montana with the majority of documented locations on private lands. Many areas of suitable habitat have been converted to agricultural uses and/or are used for livestock grazing. Additionally, populations are susceptible to hydrologic changes and may negatively impacted by invasive weeds. Senecio hydrophilus Alkali-marsh Ragwort Asteraceae Aster/Sunflowers G5 S3 Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Broadwater, Cascade, Flathead, Gallatin, Lincoln, Madison, Meagher, Missoula, Park, Powell State Rank Reason: Senecio hydrophilus is present in alkaline habitats within a portion of southwest Montana. Plants are not that common, and occur in low- elevation wetlands that can be victum to dewatering. Potential Species of Concern Special Status Species Additions To Statewide List Species Removed From Statewide List Citation for data on this website: Montana Plant Species of Concern Report. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Retrieved on 1/2/2019, from http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p Species of Concern2 Species Filtered by the following criteria: Township = 001N003E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) Page 4 of 4MTNHP.org -SOC Report 1/2/2019http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p Exhibit F NRCS Farmland Classification Farmland Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/2/2019 Page 1 of 4507830050786005078900507920050795005079800508010050804005078300507860050789005079200507950050798005080100467400467700468000468300468600468900469200469500469800470100470400470700 467400 467700 468000 468300 468600 468900 469200 469500 469800 470100 470400 470700 45° 52' 35'' N 111° 25' 12'' W45° 52' 35'' N111° 22' 35'' W45° 51' 24'' N 111° 25' 12'' W45° 51' 24'' N 111° 22' 35'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 500 1000 2000 3000 Feet 0 200 400 800 1200 Meters Map Scale: 1:15,400 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Not prime farmland All areas are prime farmland Prime farmland if drained Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated and drained Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance Farmland of local importance Farmland of unique importance Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Not prime farmland All areas are prime farmland Prime farmland if drained Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated and drained Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance Farmland of local importance Farmland of unique importance Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Not prime farmland All areas are prime farmland Prime farmland if drained Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated and drained Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Farmland of statewide importance Farmland of local importance Farmland of unique importance Not rated or not available Water Features Farmland Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/2/2019 Page 2 of 4 MAP INFORMATION Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 22, Sep 5, 2018 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 10, 2012—Nov 12, 2016 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Farmland Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/2/2019 Page 3 of 4 Farmland Classification Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 3A Glendive sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 1.3 0.1% 32B Amesha loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 120.4 13.8% 32C Amesha loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 64.0 7.3% 32D Amesha loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Farmland of local importance 2.9 0.3% 35B Kalsted sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 36.1 4.1% 35C Kalsted sandy loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 19.0 2.2% 35D Kalsted sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 40.9 4.7% 38B Chinook fine sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 296.6 33.9% 38C Chinook fine sandy loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 30.7 3.5% 232C Amesha cobbly loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Farmland of local importance 13.4 1.5% 438D Chinook-Kalsted sandy loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 248.5 28.4% Totals for Area of Interest 873.7 100.0% Description Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifies the location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlands are published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978. Rating Options Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary Tie-break Rule: Lower Farmland Classification—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/2/2019 Page 4 of 4 Exhibit G NRCS Irrigated Capability Classification Irrigated Capability Class—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/2/2019 Page 1 of 5507830050786005078900507920050795005079800508010050804005078300507860050789005079200507950050798005080100467400467700468000468300468600468900469200469500469800470100470400470700 467400 467700 468000 468300 468600 468900 469200 469500 469800 470100 470400 470700 45° 52' 35'' N 111° 25' 12'' W45° 52' 35'' N111° 22' 35'' W45° 51' 24'' N 111° 25' 12'' W45° 51' 24'' N 111° 22' 35'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 500 1000 2000 3000 Feet 0 200 400 800 1200 Meters Map Scale: 1:15,400 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Capability Class - I Capability Class - II Capability Class - III Capability Class - IV Capability Class - V Capability Class - VI Capability Class - VII Capability Class - VIII Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Capability Class - I Capability Class - II Capability Class - III Capability Class - IV Capability Class - V Capability Class - VI Capability Class - VII Capability Class - VIII Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Capability Class - I Capability Class - II Capability Class - III Capability Class - IV Capability Class - V Capability Class - VI Capability Class - VII Capability Class - VIII Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 22, Sep 5, 2018 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 10, 2012—Nov 12, 2016 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Irrigated Capability Class—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/2/2019 Page 2 of 5 Irrigated Capability Class Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 3A Glendive sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 4 1.3 0.1% 32B Amesha loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 4 120.4 13.8% 32C Amesha loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes 4 64.0 7.3% 32D Amesha loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 2.9 0.3% 35B Kalsted sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 4 36.1 4.1% 35C Kalsted sandy loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes 4 19.0 2.2% 35D Kalsted sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 4 40.9 4.7% 38B Chinook fine sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 4 296.6 33.9% 38C Chinook fine sandy loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes 4 30.7 3.5% 232C Amesha cobbly loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 4 13.4 1.5% 438D Chinook-Kalsted sandy loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes 4 248.5 28.4% Totals for Area of Interest 873.7 100.0% Irrigated Capability Class—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/2/2019 Page 3 of 5 Description Land capability classification shows, in a general way, the suitability of soils for most kinds of field crops. Crops that require special management are excluded. The soils are grouped according to their limitations for field crops, the risk of damage if they are used for crops, and the way they respond to management. The criteria used in grouping the soils do not include major and generally expensive landforming that would change slope, depth, or other characteristics of the soils, nor do they include possible but unlikely major reclamation projects. Capability classification is not a substitute for interpretations that show suitability and limitations of groups of soils for rangeland, for woodland, or for engineering purposes. In the capability system, soils are generally grouped at three levels-capability class, subclass, and unit. Only class and subclass are included in this data set. Capability classes, the broadest groups, are designated by the numbers 1 through 8. The numbers indicate progressively greater limitations and narrower choices for practical use. The classes are defined as follows: Class 1 soils have few limitations that restrict their use. Class 2 soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices. Class 3 soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both. Class 4 soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both. Class 5 soils are subject to little or no erosion but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat. Class 6 soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat. Class 7 soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to grazing, forestland, or wildlife habitat. Class 8 soils and miscellaneous areas have limitations that preclude commercial plant production and that restrict their use to recreational purposes, wildlife habitat, watershed, or esthetic purposes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Irrigated Capability Class—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/2/2019 Page 4 of 5 Tie-break Rule: Higher Irrigated Capability Class—Gallatin County Area, Montana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/2/2019 Page 5 of 5 Exhibit H FEMA Flood Map Exhibit I Hazardous Waste Sites Exhibit J Cultural Resources Inventory Study ADDENDUM to: DNRC Project No. 2018-3-1 A Cultural and Paleontologic Resources Inventory of SECTION 6, TIN R3E By Patrick Rennie for the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), March 2018. Prepared by Brenna Moloney Ethnoscience Inc. 4140 King Avenue East Billings, Montana 59102 Prepared for Great West Engineering 6780 Trade Center Ave. Billings, MT 59101 November 2018 2 Abstract In October 2018, Ethnoscience, Inc. conducted an inventory of cultural and paleontological resources on land in Section 6, TIN R3E. The tract lies just east of the Gallatin County Landfill, also known as the Logan Landfill. The land was previously State School Trust Land but was transferred to Gallatin County ownership at the time of the survey. The surveyed land is located in west Gallatin County on the south side of Interstate 90, just east of Logan, Montana (Figure 1). Previously, in March 2018, the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) conducted a survey (DNRC Project No. 2018-3-1) of the property as it considered exchanging Section 6, TIN R3E for Section 1, TIN R2E because the Gallatin Solid Waste District requires additional property for landfill expansion. The March 2018 survey and report were conducted and prepared by DNRC archaeologist Patrick Rennie. The present Ethnoscience work is an addendum to that report under contract with Great West Engineering as part of their planning process for landfill expansion. The October 2018 survey by Ethnoscience resulted in identification of two new sites and three isolated finds. The following report provides a description of the project area, the field methods used, and results. 1.0 Project Overview The area of potential effect (APE) is all of Section 6, Township 1 North, Range 3 East except for that portion in the NW quarter presently used for landfill operations (Figures 1 and 2). Survey in October 2018 concentrated on the area west of the creek on the eastern edge of Section 6, which will be developed for landfill expansion and no land east of the creek was surveyed. The topography of the project area is moderate to severe rolling prairie lying just east of the confluence of the Gallatin and Madison rivers. The prairie landscape within the project area is broken periodically by shallow to moderately deep ephemeral drainages. Vegetation in the project area consists of short prairie grasses, mixed sagebrush and prickly pear. Section 6 was cultivated in the past, as evidenced by historic aerial imagery and remnant plow scarring on the land. The project area consists 3 of sandy to silty loams of the Sheege Series while the bedrock consists of limestone, dolomite, and green shales (Veseth and Montagne 1980). Prior to conducting fieldwork, Ethnoscience reviewed record search results received from the Montana State Historic Preservation Office, as well as Bureau of Land Management General Land Office maps and property records, and historic USGS aerials to determine the potential for cultural resources in the proposed project area. According to the record search results, in addition to the 2018 DNRC survey, cultural inventories of portions of Section 6, T1N, 3E were conducted in 1984, 1994, and 2006. These surveys have collectively covered the entire project area, which encompasses all of Section 6 not presently used for landfill operations. With the exchange of Section 6, TIN R3E (State School Trust Land) for Section 1, TIN R2E (Gallatin County land), planning for landfill expansion will proceed. The 1984 and 1994 surveys, by Passman and Wood, respectively, identified no resources. The 2006 inventory by Rennie documented a lithic scatter (24GA1757) and an abandoned ditch (24GA1758). The March 2018 inventory work conducted by the DNRC, also by Rennie, identified additional abandoned ditch segments which were added to site 24GA1758. Another previously recorded ditch segment (24GA1860) was located and an update to the original site form was prepared. The March 2018 survey also identified two newly recorded cultural resources consisting of an abandoned segment of county road with an associated bridge or culvert (24GA1968), and a historic period trash dump (24GA1969). In addition to the cultural resources identified previously, one paleontological resource also lies within the project area (24GA1566). This site was discovered during construction of Interstate 90 in the 1960s and was examined the 1970s and early 2000s. The site consists of the fossilized remains of terrestrial mammalian species from the Tertiary period. Specimens from 24GA1566 are now housed at the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman. The October 2018 Ethnoscience survey identified two additional sites and three isolated finds within Section 6 T1N R3E. 24GA1972 is a diffuse historic artifact scatter/trash deposit located in the southwest quarter of Section 6. 24GA1973 is a deposit of vehicles, 4 machinery, and other large scrap metal remnants used to fill a drainage just east of the landfill in the northwest quarter of Section 6. Isolate A, and B are non-diagnostic lithic flakes and Isolate C is a tested cobble. All of the isolates were found on the top of hills in the northeast quarter of Section 6. In the March 2018 report, the DNRC determined sites 24GA1757, 24GA1758, 24GA1968, and 24GA1969 were not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Site 24GA1860 was recommended eligible for NRHP listing, but it was determined that the proposed property transfer and landfill expansion would not impact this site. Ethnoscience visited all sites west of the drainage on the eastern edge of Section 6 including 24GA1566, 24GA1757, and 24GA1968. Finding no changes to their condition since March 2018, Ethnoscience concurs with the recommendations made by Patrick Rennie in his report. The new sites and isolated finds identified in October 2018 are recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP. The future expansion of the existing Logan Landfill will therefore have No Effect on these resources as defined in the Montana State Antiquities Act and 36 CFR Part 800. 5 Figure 1. 1:24,000 topographic map of the project area showing land ownership. 6 Figure 2. 1:24,000 topographic map of the project area showing sites and land ownership. 7 2.0 Results The project area was surveyed in parallel east-west pedestrian transects spaced no more than 15 meters apart. Ground surface visibility ranged from 5 to 60% depending on vegetation, animal disturbance, and erosion along hilltops, cut banks and washes. Previously identified sites were visited to ascertain the present condition of these resources. All sites were photographed and their coordinates recorded using a handheld GPS receiver. Previously recorded sites 24GA1566 No evidence of this paleontological resource was observed during the October 2018 survey. Figure 3. View of 24GA1577 and I-90 facing east northeast. 24GA1757 8 The site consists of a diffuse scattering of chipped stone debris and a small number of tested cobble cores of a dark gray fine grained lithic material that appears to be dacite. The site lies on the top and sides of a hill centered in the north half of Section 6. It was identified in 2006 and determined not eligible for listing on the NRHP. The March 2018 survey determined there would be no effect for the proposed landfill expansion and no further work was recommended. The site’s condition has not changed and no updates to the site form were required. Figure 4. View of north end of 24GA1757 which overlooks I-90 to the north, facing northeast. 24GA1758 This site consists of four abandoned, historic irrigation ditch segments which traverse Section 6 from north to south in the northeast, northwest, and southwest quarters. The initial segment of the ditch was first identified in 2006 and the other three as part of the March 2018 inventory. The site was determined not eligible for listing on the NRHP and 9 a determination of no effect was recommended for the landfill expansion. The October 2018 survey found no changes to the site and the site form was not updated. Figure 5. View of 24GA1758 in the north half of Section 6 facing west. 24GA1968 The site is located in the northeast quarter of Section 6 on the west bank of an unnamed creek. It is an abandoned road bed 1,045 ft. long and 28 ft. wide on a raised bed with 4 ft. wide borrow ditches along its edges. An earthen mound and fragments of a concrete culvert are also present. The road was built after 1918 and it is not known when it was abandoned. The site was first identified in March 2018, it was determined to be not eligible for listing in the NRHP, and a determination of no effect for the proposed landfill expansion was made. Its condition has not changed and no updates to the site form were done. 10 Figure 6. Concrete culvert associated with 24GA1968 facing southeast. Figure 7. Roadbed and borrow ditches associated with 24GA1968 facing southeast. 11 Newly recorded sites and isolated finds 24GA1972 This multicomponent site is located in the southwest quarter of Section 6. It consists of a widely dispersed historic artifact scatter composed of domestic refuse, some building materials, and a single prehistoric lithic flake. The site lies on a terrace above an unnamed ephemeral stream bed to the east. The land slopes upward to the west to the fence and two-track which run along the section line. The site measures 160 meters north-south x 45 meters east-west. The boundary is based on the distribution of cultural materials observed on the ground surface. No features were observed. Artifacts consist of one non-diagnostic, prehistoric stone flake two cm. in length and composed of petrified wood. Historic artifacts observed at the site included 10 shards of milk glass, two shards amethyst glass, two fragments of a mint-green hand-pulled artisan glass rod, porcelain doll feet, one unpainted porcelain penny figurine, one crown bottle cap, less than 10 cobalt glass shards, 10 molded whiteware sherds including a teacup handle, five molded creamware body sherds, one scalloped edge undecorated whiteware rimsherd, two transparent bottle bases, approximately 20 shards flat transparent glass, one transparent glass insulator, 10 sanitary cans, one hole-in-top evaporated milk can, one molded brick fragment, concrete fragments, an iron bedspring, one tobacco or baking powder can lid with a solder dot, one tin wash tub, and one brown extract bottle. One transparent glass bottle base has the mark for the Hazel-Atlas Glass Company, (large stylized capital H over a smaller capital A) which can be dated to 1923-1986 (Figure 11). The other bottle base bears an L with an oval surrounding it which may be the mark of the W.J. Latchford Glass Company (1925-1939) or the Lynchburg Glass Corp. (1923- 1925). The embossed solder dot tin lid, which is in poor condition, has the marks "King P…DER" on it in addition to the weight of the contents and the word "MADE.” This lid may be from a Snow King Powder Baking Powder can. Established in the late 19th- Century, Snow King Powder was purchased by the General Foods Corporation in 1937 12 and ceased production under this name after that time (Lindsey 2018; Dietz 2012). These dates, considered in combination with the glass and ceramic types found at the site, point to a likely date range of 1920-1939 for the historic materials. No artifacts were collected. The artifacts were not found in association with any features, such as depressions or foundations, which might point to occupation at this location. BLM GLO land patent records indicate that this land passed into state ownership in 1889 and remained in state hands until the recent transfer to Gallatin County. The fragmentary condition of most of the artifacts may also indicate that this is a secondary deposition of household trash, possibly tossed from the two-track that runs along the section line uphill from the site to the west. In order to be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, a property must fulfill at least one of the Criteria of Significance and retain a sufficient level of integrity. National Register Bulletin #15 (NRB 15 1991) states that a property can be considered significant in association with Criterion A if a relationship between the site and a significant event or historical pattern can be demonstrated. The artifacts observed at the site are common 20th-Century household items which lack association with features or historical documentation which might establish a relationship to larger historical patterns. The non-diagnostic flake was also found in isolation. The site is therefore not eligible under Criterion A. A property is considered significant in association with Criterion B if a connection between the site and a person significant in local, regional, or national history or prehistory can be demonstrated (NRB 15 1991:14). No such association has been identified so the site is not considered significant in association with Criterion B. A property can be considered significant under Criterion C if it can be demonstrated to, "Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction (NRB 15 1991:18).” The type of cultural materials observed on the site's surface, the lack of evidence of subsurface cultural materials, and the lack of associated features mean that the site cannot be considered significant under Criteria C. The results of documentation suggest that the site does not contain the kinds of cultural materials or sufficient contextual data to significantly develop an understanding of larger 13 archaeological questions and therefore the site is recommended not eligible in association with Criterion D. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the Criteria but it also must retain sufficient integrity. The historic artifacts at this site are highly fragmented and scattered across the landform. The site is likely a secondary deposition and therefore lacks any integrity. Additionally, the site is in poor condition. The site is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP. The proposed landfill expansion may destroy the site. No further work is recommended. Figure 8. Site map of 24GA1972. 14 Figure 9. Overview of 24GA1972 to north with location of artifacts identified with pin flags. Figure 10. Porcelain figurine from 24GA1972. 15 Figure 11. Transparent bottle base from 24GA1972. Figure 12. Solder dot can lid, possibly Snow King Baking Powder, from 24GA1972. 16 Figure 13. Petrified wood flake from 24GA1972. 24GA1973 This site is located in the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 6. It consists of numerous automobiles, heavy equipment, and metal scraps which have been buried in an ephemeral drainage possibly to prevent erosion. The site is located at the eastern edge of the landfill, across the boundary fence, and 30 ft. from the access road and is likely associated with the development of the facility. It is irregularly shaped and follows the contour of the drainage generally measuring 127 meters north-south x 67 meters east-west. The boundary is based on the distribution of cultural materials observed eroding from the ground surface. Ground visibility was approximately 50% because the area had been heavily disturbed by animal burrowing and erosion. The automobiles appear to be mid to late 20th-Century models based on their forms and materials however they were mostly buried so a specific make or model and other 17 distinguishing marks could not be discerned. Some of the heavy equipment and machinery appeared to be more recent because of intact paint coating the metal and lack of corrosion. Like the automobiles, the machinery was mostly buried and could not be definitively identified. Other unidentifiable scrap metal fragments also protruded from the ground. In order to be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, a property must fulfill at least one of the Criteria of Significance and retain a sufficient level of integrity. National Register Bulletin #15 (NRB 15 1991) states that a property can be considered significant in association with Criterion A if a relationship between the site and a significant event or historical pattern can be demonstrated. The machinery and automobiles buried at the site are likely associated with development of the Logan Landfill. While this is a specific historical association, it is a common association and is not significant. The site is therefore not eligible under Criterion A. A property is considered significant in association with Criterion B if a connection between the site and a person significant in local, regional, or national history or prehistory can be demonstrated (NRB 15 1991:14). No such association has been identified so the site is not considered significant in association with Criterion B. A property can be considered significant under Criterion C if it can be demonstrated to, "Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction (NRB 15 1991:18).” While the site may be associated with historically situated erosion control practices and landfill development, it is not exemplary or distinctive and therefore cannot be considered significant under Criteria C. Lastly, while the site likely contains large subsurface deposits of cultural material, excavation and further study of these objects and their context is unlikely to yield important data which might significantly broaden understanding of the past and of people. The site is therefore does not fulfill Criteria D. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the criteria, but it also must have integrity. The heavy machinery, automobiles, and scrap metal used as erosion control in the drainage appear to have stayed in the position they were buried with minimal animal disturbance on the surface. The site therefore 18 retains integrity. Though the site retains integrity, it does not meet the minimum criteria and is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP. Figure 14. Site map of 24GA1973. 19 Figure 15. Overview of 24GA1973, view to the southeast looking down the drainage. Figure 16. Buried automobile at 24GA1973, looking down. 20 Figure 17. Half buried heavy machinery at 24GA1973, looking down. Isolated Finds There were four isolated non-diagnostic lithics identified on a hilltop in the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 6. The first, Isolate A, is a non-diagnostic utilized chert flake with a ball of percussion. It is located 38 meters north of Isolate B and 60 meters northeast of Isolate C. Isolate B consists of 2 flakes, one 8cm. in length and the other 6cm., found within two feet of one another south of Isolate A. Both flakes are very dark gray fine grained volcanic stone that may be dacite. They are similar to those identified at 24GA1757 two hundred meters to the west. Isolate C is located 40 meters east of Isolate B. This isolate consists of a tested cobble 10 cm. in diameter of the same dark gray volcanic material as found at Isolate 5 and 24GA1757. The stone was likely tested and then discarded after the material was deemed inferior by the toolmaker. There were no features identified in the vicinity of the isolates and it is likely they are the result of transient tool-making activity as people moved through the area. Isolates of less than five non-diagnostic pre-contact artifacts are not considered sites in Montana and are generally not eligible for listing in the NRHP. 21 Figure 18. Site map of Isolates A, B, and C. 22 Figure 19. Overview of hilltop where Isolates A, B, and C were located, looking north. Figure 20. Isolate A in situ. 23 Figure 21. Isolate B dacite flake. Figure 22. Isolate C tested dacite cobble. 24 3.0 Recommendation for Further Work The inventory identified one historic site, one multicomponent site, and three prehistoric isolates. None are recommended NRHP eligible. A determination of No Effect on Historic Properties is therefore recommended and no further cultural resource work is necessary prior to expansion of the landfill. 4.0 References Dietz, Kira 2012 “Snow King: Even MORE about Baking Powder.” Virginia Tech Culinary History Blog. Virginia Tech Special Collections Library. Electronic document: https://whatscookinvt.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/snow-king-baking-powder/. Accessed November 2018. Lindsey, Bill 2017 “Bottle/Glass Colors,” Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website. Society for Historical Archaeology and the Bureau of Land Management. Electronic document: https://sha.org/bottle/colors.htm. Accessed November 2018. National Register Bulletin #15 (NRB 15) 1991 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. 1991 Revision. National Park Service, Washington D.C. Passmann, D. 1984 Gallatin County Landfill Test. Report prepared for the DNRC (Helena, MT). Rennie, P. 2006 Cultural Resources Inventory in Response to the Gallatin Solid Waste District's Proposed Soil Storage Site. Report prepared for the DNRC (Helena, MT). -- 2018 A Cultural and Paleontologic Resources Inventory of SECTION 6, TIN R3E. Report prepared for the DNRC (Helena, MT). Veseth, R. and C. Montagne 25 1980 Geologic Parent Materials of Montana Soils. Montana State University and USDA-Soil Conservation Service Bulletin 721. November 1980. Wood, G. 1994 Cultural Resource Management Report: Empire Sand and Gravel—South Interstate Gravel Source: Gallatin County, Montana. Consultant's report (Gar C. Wood and Associates, Loma, MT prepared for Empire Sand and Gravel of Billings, MT. Exhibit K Letters Sent to Agencies and Agency Response Letters SHPO Project #:____________________ Contact Name: Organization: Address: City: State:MT Zip Code:59601 Telephone: Email: Project Name: Land Use:County: Agency Involved: (Private,FWP,BLM) Land Ownership: Township(N/S)Range (E/W) 1 N 3 E 1 $25.00 File Search Request Form Gallatin Montana State Historic Preservation Office 1301 E. Lockey, PO Box 201202 Helena MT 59620 Damon Murdo dmurdo@mt.gov (406) 444-7767 SEND TO: Stephanie Beckert Great West Engineering 2501 Belt View Dr. Helena 406-495-6191 sbeckert@greatwesteng.com Project Description: Gallatin Solid Waste Management District is proposing to expand landfill operations. The proposed landfill expansion area boundaries encompass a total of 535 acres, which is portions of Section 6 (T1N, R3E) excluding the northwest corner and northeast corner. The northwest corner is the active and licensed landfill which has been active/operated since the early 1990’s, the northeast corner of Section 6 is located on the opposite side of I-90 from the rest of Section 6. The District owns the property planned for expansion, which is currently undeveloped grassland. Total amount to be paid to SHPO: Total Sections to be searched: An invoice will be sent with your file search results. Gallatin Solid Waste Management District - Logan Class II Landfill License Expansion Class II Landfill Private Private Please complete this form and attach a map showing the proposed project location. Feel free to attach additional project information if available. $25 / section File Search Fee StructureProject Area Location Information All sections must be added up and entered in to the box below before a file search will take place. Section(s) 6 All fields must be completed in order to process your request. Ver. 2017 From:Lloyd, Timothy To:Stephanie Beckert Subject:FW: 2020-09-29 Gallatin County Waste Management District- Logan Class II Landfill License Expansion Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2020 12:04:51 PM Attachments:2020-09-29 Gallatin County Waste Management District- Logan Class II Landfill License Expansion.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution whenopening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Stephanie, I am working at home and my scanner is not working. Please accept this email as our response that we don’t have any comments. Tim Lloyd Bureau Chief Montana Department of Labor & Industry Business Standards Division Building and Commercial Measurements Bureau PHONE (406) 841-2053 tlloyd@mt.gov Attachment 1 Operation and Maintenance Plan Operation and Maintenance Plan for License Expansion Gallatin County Class II Sanitary Landfill at Logan June 2020 Prepared by: GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 i TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................... 1 I. MISSION STATEMENT ........................................................................................... 1 II. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 III. SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 1 IV. SITE SOILS & HYDROGEOLOGY ......................................................................... 3 INSERT FIGURE 1INSERT FIGURE 2CHAPTER 2 – LANDFILL DESIGN ...................... 4 I. LANDFILL DESIGN ................................................................................................ 6 A. General .......................................................................................................................... 6 B. Roads/Buildings............................................................................................................ 6 C. Scale/Waste Accounting ............................................................................................. 7 D. Liner Systems ............................................................................................................... 7 E. Leachate Collection Systems ..................................................................................... 8 F. Closure Plan and Final Cover System ...................................................................... 9 G. Drainage and Storm Water Control ........................................................................... 9 H. Life of Site.................................................................................................................... 10 I. NSPS Regulations ..................................................................................................... 10 INSERT FIGURE 3CHAPTER 3 – LANDFILL OPERATIONS ........................................ 11 I. OPERATION CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................ 12 A. Purpose of Facility...................................................................................................... 12 B. General Operating Procedures ................................................................................ 12 C. Daily Operation & Equipment ................................................................................... 13 D. Scavenging/Salvaging ............................................................................................... 14 E. Scale Operations ........................................................................................................ 15 F. Waste Compaction, Daily Cover, ADC, & Intermediate Cover ........................... 16 G. Personnel Requirements .......................................................................................... 17 H. Preparation and Closure of Cells ............................................................................. 20 I. Leachate Control and Management ........................................................................ 21 J. Stormwater Control & Management ........................................................................ 22 K. Environmental Monitoring ......................................................................................... 23 L. Litter Control................................................................................................................ 23 M. Waste Screening ........................................................................................................ 24 N. Waste Diversion ......................................................................................................... 25 O. Composting ................................................................................................................. 25 P. Asbestos ...................................................................................................................... 27 Q. Freon Containing Appliances ................................................................................... 29 R. Special Wastes/Special Problems ........................................................................... 29 S. Record Keeping .......................................................................................................... 31 T. Financial Assurance .................................................................................................. 32 CHAPTER 4 – FACILITY MAINTENANCE ...................................................................... 33 I. FACILITY MAINTENANCE ................................................................................... 33 II. SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE ........................................................................... 33 GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 ii A. Drainage Ditches/Culverts ........................................................................................ 33 B. Detention Ponds ......................................................................................................... 33 III. LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM ................................................................... 34 IV. FINAL COVER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE ........................................................... 34 V. FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM .......................................................................... 34 VI. SAFETY PROGRAM ............................................................................................. 35 VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS PROGRAM ....................................................... 37 A. Dust .............................................................................................................................. 37 B. Odors ............................................................................................................................ 37 C. Vectors ......................................................................................................................... 38 D. Noise ............................................................................................................................ 38 CHAPTER FIVE – OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE TASK LIST ................................. 39 I. DAILY TASKS ....................................................................................................... 39 A. Waste Acceptance ..................................................................................................... 39 B. Waste Compaction and Daily Cover ....................................................................... 39 C. Other Daily Tasks ....................................................................................................... 40 II. WEEKLY TASKS .................................................................................................. 40 III. MONTHLY TASKS ................................................................................................ 40 IV. QUARTERLY TASKS ........................................................................................... 41 V. SEMI-ANNUAL TASKS ........................................................................................ 41 VI. ANNUAL TASKS .................................................................................................. 41 VII. OTHER PERIODIC TASKS (AS-NEEDED TASKS) ............................................. 41 CHAPTER 6 – CONTINGENCY PLANS.......................................................................... 43 I. GENERAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE ................................................................ 43 II. DISTRICT MANAGER ........................................................................................... 43 III. IMPLEMENTING ................................................................................................... 43 IV. COORDINATION AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES . 44 V. RESPONSE PROCEDURES ................................................................................ 44 A. Earthquake .................................................................................................................. 44 B. Injury ............................................................................................................................. 45 C. Property Damage/Accident ....................................................................................... 45 D. Fire ................................................................................................................................ 45 E. Debris Management .................................................................................................. 46 F. Power Outages ........................................................................................................... 47 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 - LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2 - OVERALL SITE PLAN FIGURE 3 - OVERALL DRAINAGE MAP FIGURE 4 - CONTINGENCY PLAN FLOW DIAGRAM GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 iii APPENDICIES APPENDIX A – 2020 LANDFILL MASTER PLAN DRAWINGS APPENDIX B – SCALE SITE RECORD DRAWINGS APPENDIX C – FACILITY AS-CONSTRUCTED DRAWINGS APPENDIX D – STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT & SURFACE WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN APPENDIX E – CLASS IV MATERIALS DEFINITIONS APPENDIX F – LANDFILL PERFORMANCE & LIFE EVALUATION APPENDIX G – CURRENT FEE SCHEDULE & LATE FEE DISPOSAL POLICY APPENDIX H – MONTANA DEQ APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE DAILY COVER (ADC) APPENDIX I – POSITION DESCRIPTIONS APPENDIXJ – MONTANA DEQ LEACHATE RECIRCULATION APPROVAL APPENDIX K – SECURE LOAD POLICY APPENDIX L – SEVERE WEATHER CLOSURE POLICY APPENDIX M – WASTE SCREENING PLAN APPENDIX N – DEAD ANIMAL COMPOSTING GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDIX O – FREON RENEWAL FORM APPENDIX P – WASTE TRACKING FORM APPENDIX Q – SAFETY MANUAL APPENDIX R - TELEPHONE LIST APPENDIX S - MOBILE STRUCTURES/UNITS DISPOSAL POLICY APPENDIX T - CLEAN WOOD WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM APPENDIX U - NON-PROFIT REDUCED TIPPING FEE POLICY AND FORM APPENDIX V - EMPLOYEE WORK TIME CHECK-IN/OUT POLICY APPENDIX W - ADDITIONAL METHANE GAS TESTING ALONG WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY APPENDIX X - ACCIDENT/INCIDENT REPORTS APPENDIX Y - EXPLOSIVE GAS MONITORING PLAN (METHANE MONITORING PLAN) GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 1 CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION I. MISSION STATEMENT The purpose of the Gallatin County Solid Waste Management District is: to provide constituents with cost efficient solid waste services; to provide for the balanced consideration and representation of the diverse views and issues regarding solid waste management; to advocate for the health, safety and welfare of the residents; to manage the processing, reclaiming, storing, transporting, or disposing of waste in ways that protect the ecology of lands in the District; to identify goals, policies and procedures that will aid local jurisdictions in meeting solid waste reduction and recycling goals. II. INTRODUCTION This document replaces all previous Operation and Maintenance Plans. The last comprehensive Operation and Maintenance Plan was prepared in 2013 by Great West Engineering in association with Crowley Consultants. The 2013 Plan was subsequently amended at various times to address specific operations changes, such as Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) use, Leachate Recirculation, composting and facility expansion. These amendments are incorporated into this document. This operation and maintenance (O&M) plan covers operations and maintenance activities in the future license expansion area. This Operation and Maintenance Plan (OMP) is intended to be used as a guidance document to ensure the landfill is operated and maintained in compliance with State and Federal Rules & Regulations. The information presented in the OMP is based on the best available technical practices which are currently available and applicable to the operation of this landfill. This document will require periodic revision to incorporate new disposal techniques, regulations or designs as they change with the available technology. Since the District will not be moving into the expansion area for several years many of the appendices and supporting documentation will be added later prior to commencement of waste management activities in the expansion area. III. SITE DESCRIPTION The landfill site is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of Logan, Montana and 4 miles west of Manhattan, Montana. The front gate is approximately 1.5 miles east of the Logan interchange on the paved frontage road, Two Dog Road, and is at 45.87669 N, 111.41049 W (NAD 83). The street address of the facility is 10585 Two Dog Road, Manhattan, MT. The original 80-acre parcel licensed by the State of Montana for landfill operations is located in the W ½ of the NW ¼ of Section 6, T 1 N, R 3 E. This parcel was originally obtained from the State in 1972. The license boundary was expanded in 2015 to include the current composting area and the property south of the interstate. This expanded the license boundary from 80 acres to 127 acres. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 2 The facility consists of several parcels that are owned by Gallatin County and the Solid Waste District as follows: • All of Section 6, T 1 N, R 3 E consisting of approximately 634 acres, • A portion of Section 31, T 2 N, R 3 E in the W ½ of the SW ¼ consisting of approximately 60 acres, • Minor Subdivision 403A Lot A-1 located in Section 36, T 2 N, R 2 E and Section 1, T 1 N, R 2 E consisting of 29 acres. The total acreage owned by the District is approximately 700 acres. The District will not be licensing all of the property it owns with the license expansion. The Interstate right- of way and the property the District owns north of the Interstate will not be licensed. The 2020 license expansion application expands the total licensed acreage from 127 acres to 670.8 acres with the addition of 543.8 new acres. Please see Figure 1 for locations of the existing licensed boundary and the proposed license expansion boundary. Access to the site is via the paved frontage road (Two Dog Road) from Interstate 90. The total area licensed by the District for solid waste operations is approximately 127 acres. The site began accepting wastes in approximately 1970. The facility was first licensed by the State when licensing began in 1975. The original facility was divided into five distinct municipal solid waste landfill units (Class II units), and one Class IV construction and demolition waste unit. The large unlined unit was filled between 1970 and 1993. Lined cells under phases 1 through 4 were constructed after liners were required in 1993. Phase 4 construction was completed in November 2018. The original landfill will be filled and the District will begin placing waste in Phase 5 of the expansion area when Phase 4 is nearing capacity. The original facility also had a Class IV disposal unit within the original 127 acre licensed area. In 2019, the District began the master planning and hydrogeological investigation for the future expansion of the facility in Section 6 located to the east and south of the current 127 acre license boundary. The landfill currently services Gallatin County, including the West Yellowstone/Hebgen Lake Refuse District, the Cities of Belgrade, Three Forks, Bozeman, and Town of Manhattan. The facility also receives waste from Madison County, Jefferson County, Park County, Broadwater County and Yellowstone National Park. The landfill is licensed, (No. 158), by the Montana Solid Waste Management Program, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to accept Class II municipal solid waste for disposal and currently accepts 160,000 – 170,000 tons of solid waste per year. The new expansion area includes the ultimate disposal of waste over 330 acres. The expansion area will be developed over approximately 23 phases (Figure 2). GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 3 IV. SITE SOILS & HYDROGEOLOGY The site lies in a semi-arid area which receives approximately 12 inches of precipitation per year. The majority of site soils consist of sands, sandy silts and silty sands. These soils are present throughout the majority of the excavations planned for the site. Some bedrock may be encountered in the expansion area as detailed in the hydrogeologic and soils study. Bedrock will be ripped, crushed and used for road base and ditch stabilization rip rap. The majority of on-site soils are suitable for use as daily and intermediate cover. The majority of site soils are sandy materials that suffer from wind and water erosion at times. The application of water and mag chloride will be used to control dust during windy conditions. When silt/clay soils are encountered in excavations, they will be stockpiled separately for use as final cover material. There is volatile organic compound contamination of groundwater on the existing landfill. The facility is currently in a Corrective Measures program with the Montana DEQ. The District and Great West are currently working with DEQ on the evaluation and implementation of a Corrective Measures Soil Vapor Extraction Program. The depth to uppermost groundwater beneath the expansion area generally ranges from 65 to 180 ft bgs, except in the northwest corner of the expansion area where the depth to groundwater is relatively shallow at approximately 30 ft bgs. The saturated zones and uppermost groundwater occur in the more permeable clean sand zones, typically 10 to 20 ft thick. The confining layers above and below these saturated zones are typically dry to slightly moist, and consist of finer-grained silt, or relatively low-permeability consolidated sandstone or siltstone. The groundwater flow direction beneath the landfill expansion area is generally to the northwest, with a hydraulic gradient in the range of 0.004 to 0.05 ft/day. The uppermost saturated zones (groundwater) were correlated with relatively clean sand zones with an average hydraulic conductivity of 31 ft per day (equivalent to 1.08x10-2 cm/sec). A great number of test borings, test pits, laboratory testing, and reports have been conducted on site soils and groundwater. Numerous hydrogeologic and soils reports produced by Blue Ridge, Huntingdon, Chen Northern, and Great West have been prepared in both the existing landfill area and the expansion area. These reports are available at the landfill and the Montana DEQ on this subject matter. Project LocationFigure 1Location MapGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONengineeringRNORTHAPPROXIMATE LICENSEEXPANSION FINAL WASTEBOUNDARY 300 ACRESLICENSE EXPANSIONPROPERTY BOUNDARYAPPROXIMATE 535 ACRES8.8 ACRE OFFICE AND SCALESITE TO BE INCLUDED INLICENSE EXPANSIONTWO DOG ROADI-90I-90127 ACRE CURRENTLICENSED LANDFILLAREAASBESTOSDISPOSALBOUNDARYCOMPOST AREABOUNDARY C TTTPFOFOFOCOUGPUGPUGPFMFMWWCFigure 2Site PlanGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONengineeringRNORTHPHASE 519.98 ACRESPHASE 711.82 ACRESPHASE 811.83 ACRESPHASE 612.37 ACRESPHASE 912.32 ACRESPHASE 1012.45 ACRESPHASE 1112.83 ACRESPHASE 1212.10 ACRESPHASE 1312.09 ACRESPHASE 1415.42 ACRESPHASE 1515.80 ACRESPHASE 1612.73 ACRESPHASE 1712.73 ACRESPHASE 1812.73 ACRESPHASE 1912.63 ACRESPHASE 2012.64 ACRESPHASE 2112.23 ACRESPHASE 2212.21 ACRESPHASE 2312.11 ACRESPHASE 2412.12 ACRESPHASE 2513.17 ACRESPHASE 2612.89 ACRESPHASE 2713.11 ACRESEXPANSION AREAWASTE LIMITEAST STORMWATERDETENTION PONDAPPROXIMATEWASTE LIMITPHASE 4LANDFILL AREAPHASE 3LANDFILL AREASHOPEXISTINGSTORMWATERDETENTION PONDEXISTINGLEACHATEPONDNORTHSTORMWATERDETENTIONPONDSCALEHOUSEADMINBUILDINGINTE R S T A T E 9 0PERIMETERROAD RUN-OFFCONTROLDITCHPHASE 2CLOSUREAREAE-WASTEBUILDINGOLDSHOPRUN-ONCONTROLDITCHPROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.)PHASE 1CLOSURE AREAPHASE 2CLOSUREAREACLASS IVAREASPILLWAY (TYP.)COMPOST AREAACCESS ROADINTERIMSTORMWATERDETENTIONPONDLEACHATEPONDLEACHATEPONDASBESTOSDISPOSALBOUNDARYCOMPOST AREA BOUNDARY GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 6 CHAPTER 2 – LANDFILL DESIGN I. LANDFILL DESIGN A. General The total life of the expansion area is estimated to be approximately 181 years based upon the current waste quantity generation, landfill performance characteristics, and the proposed final contour design for the landfill expansion. The current final design contour plan shows final design elevations, final detention pond locations, property boundaries and the limit of the area to receive waste. (see Landfill Expansion Master Plan, June 2020 in Appendix A). Generally, the landfill is designed and operated as an area fill facility. The master plan shows 23 phases of unit development (Phases 5-27). The landfill will be closed in phases as shown on the master plan. Wind direction at the facility is generally from the west, northwest and southwest and is strongest during the fall, winter, and spring. In order to control litter better, waste is placed in more sheltered areas whenever possible when strong winds are present. On windy days, the lower lying partially sheltered areas of the expansion area will be used, if possible. Under the current operating plan, when a new liner phase is opened, waste fill is initiated at the head of the unit and filled in a down gradient direction. Progression of fill in a down gradient direction allows the fill to be graded in a manner that prevents ponding of storm water in the active cell areas. The initial waste placement in the cell is designed to cover the bottom of the cell as rapidly as possible with refuse. Because the cell has a complete leachate collection and removal system in place, all of the precipitation that enters the leachate collection system is considered leachate after the first load of refuse is placed in the cell. The new cells are normally initially footprinted with about 4-6 feet minimum of refuse that is relatively uncompacted. This refuse layer and the intermediate cover over it absorb the precipitation that falls on the cell and reduces the amount of leachate that must be pumped to the leachate pond. The lack of compaction of this first lift is not a problem because the weight of the refuse subsequently placed on over this footprint layer will significantly consolidate it. This method of waste placement also prevents inadvertent damage to the liner system by keeping machinery well above the liner. B. Roads/Buildings Access to the site is provided by Interstate 90 at the Logan interchange and by Two Dog Road to the landfill entrance. The access roads to the site are all well-maintained paved roads. The site has a paved access road beyond the scales to the entrance to existing 127 acre parcel licensed for waste disposal operations. This road will be GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 7 extended as shown on the Expansion Master Plan to service the new cells. The internal access roads within the landfill parcel are graveled roads maintained by the landfill staff. The road network provides all-weather access to operations areas. Some other roads used strictly for soil transportation by large equipment are dirt roads that are maintained by the landfill staff. Maintenance includes grading, snow removal and dust suppression as necessary. The site has an equipment maintenance building located within the current landfill area. The building includes an equipment storage and maintenance area, along with an office and handicap accessible restroom. The equipment building has potable water, sanitation facilities, communication, heat and electricity. The site also has an administrative office building and scale house located on the scale parcel owned by the District. These buildings also have potable water, sanitation facilities, communication, heat and electricity. The site also has an old equipment building, public tipping area, waste diversion building within the northwestern portion of the existing landfill. There is also a composting area on approximately 20 acres on the western side of the currently licensed area. These areas will continue to be used for equipment storage, e-waste storage, Freon recovery, composting and general public waste disposal and recycling. The site controls access through access controlled mechanical and lockable entrance gates and perimeter fence around the entire expansion area. There is a camera security system on site and access to certain buildings is controlled through a card- reading security system. C. Scale/Waste Accounting The site has three 80-foot long pit scales for weighing loads in and out. All loads which arrive at the site are weighed allowing the District to accurately record the arriving weight of waste at the site. Daily records are kept including the time, vehicle in–and-out weights, and waste weight deposited at the site. Waste Works software is used to track the waste weights and for billing. Private individuals and companies that do not have charge accounts at the facility pay upon leaving the facility. Cash and credit cards are accepted forms of payment. Checks are no longer be accepted at the scales to reduce extended wait times and congestion due to increased user volume. The scale house has closed circuit television cameras that digitally record both interior and exterior views as part of the on-site security system. Appendix B includes the Record drawings for the scale project. D. Liner Systems The site is designed to protect the groundwater to the maximum extent required by the State and Federal regulations. The existing site had an unlined area as well as several lined areas which were constructed after the implementation of the Federal Subtitle D rules. DEQ has copies of the as-constructed drawings for these cells. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 8 The cells in the expansion area will be constructed with a DEQ-approved alternative composite liner system consisting of a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) overlain by a 60 mil HDPE liner. The liner systems are designed to sustain minimal damage in the event of a significant seismic event. All the cells in the expansion area will also have a leachate collection system. E. Leachate Collection Systems The leachate collection system and leachate collection pond for the existing landfill area is well documented in the As-Constructed/Record drawings for the facility. The expansion area will utilize similar design concepts for the leachate collection design. The bottom of each lined landfill cell has a minimum slope of 2% and maximum side slopes of 4H:1V. Leachate from lined phases will drain by gravity into lined leachate ponds. The leachate collection systems will consist of gravel-covered drainage piping. Each Phase has a drainage layer which conveys leachate to collection laterals spaced on regular intervals throughout the landfill area. The collection laterals will be constructed of 8-inch HDPE, slotted underdrain pipe. The collection laterals are situated in recessed trenches that will help minimize head on the liner. Cleanouts are provided at the termination of the leachate collection laterals around the perimeter of the site to facilitate cleanout of plugged lines. The collection laterals ultimately convey water to the leachate collection and evaporation pond The LCS is protected by a 15-inch thick layer of gravel material. Details of the liner and leachate collection systems are depicted on the Expansion Master Plan. The landfill cell and leachate collection system final design documents will be completed at a later date and submitted to the Montana DEQ for approval. As-constructed drawings and engineering certifications for cell construction will be well documented as part of the operating record for the facility. Predicting leachate volume through the use of the HELP Model is an uncertain and subjective task, especially for arid climates such as the one in which this site is located in. The leachate production for Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been monitored for over fifteen years. The collection system for the existing site produces little leachate. The extreme contrast between the effective composite liner hydraulic conductivity (~1 x 10-10 cm/s) and the drainage layer hydraulic conductivity (1 x 10-2 cm/s) results in a very high percentage of leachate that is produced being collected. Each 8-inch lateral has the capability of collecting and delivering approximately 300 gallons/minute. This is at least two orders of magnitude above any percolation rate the site has ever experienced. The evaporation pond is designed to evaporate collected leachate. In the event that the leachate pond capacity is filled, the back-up plan will be to recirculate leachate back onto the lined waste areas. In this scenario, collected leachate will be monitored, measured, tested and reapplied to the landfill. DEQ approval for recirculation of leachate within lined areas is enclosed in Appendix J. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 9 Seismic demonstrations will be completed for each new unit or landfill phase for approval from the Department. F. Closure Plan and Final Cover System The final cover to be used for the closure projects on-site is documented in the DEQ-approved Gallatin County Logan Landfill Alternative Final Cover Demonstration, Great West Engineering 2008. The alternative final cover design relies on storage and evapotranspiration of moisture to prevent percolation of moisture into the waste mass. The approved final cover system for the landfill consists of a four-foot thick cover system constructed of native soil materials. From bottom to top it consists of a one-foot thick layer of native sand, a two-foot layer of select native silt material and another foot of native sand/topsoil augmented with compost. The key to the final cover design is the select silt/clay material. This material needs to be selectively stockpiled for future use in the final cover whenever encountered in excavations. If the District runs out of suitable materials during the life of the facility to construct all the phases of final closure work, an alternative closure design will be provided to DEQ for approval. All topsoil will be stripped and selectively stockpiled to be reused as the final layer within the final cover system. The landfill is designed to provide positive drainage from all areas in which waste has been placed. The site is designed with maximum waste slopes of 4H:1V and will have a minimum final slope in waste areas of at least 5%. G. Drainage and Storm Water Control Landfills need to meet two general regulatory criteria: solid waste and clean water. Both sets of regulations are integrated under State and Federal rules. The State and Federal solid waste rules require run-on and run-off controls. The State and Federal Clean Water Act requires stormwater discharge permits for landfills and prohibit the discharge of contaminants. When designing any landfill, it is important that both solid waste and Clean Water Act criteria are met. The solid waste criteria include: (1) no stormwater that is generated off the site may run onto and over the areas that are filled with waste; (2) any water that has passed through or been in direct contact with uncovered refuse is considered to be leachate; (3) stormwater from the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, or less, that runs off the landfilled areas that have not met all final closure requirements must be run through a stormwater detention pond. In order to meet these requirements, ditches and separate leachate collection and stormwater detention ponds are needed. All landfills are required to obtain coverage under the Montana Pollution Discharge Elimination System (MPDES). The State of Montana has an EPA approved program that regulates facilities at least as stringently as the Federal requirements and serves in lieu of a Federal program. The landfill currently has coverage under the MPDES General Permit for Industrial Activity No. MTR 00358. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 10 The site incorporates perimeter ditches and berms to divert any run-on from entering any waste area. These perimeter ditches provide effective run-on and run-off control for the active area. All run-off collected from the landfill area is directed to storm water detention ponds. The detention ponds detain greater than the total volume of water from the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The location of the detention ponds and run-on and run-off ditches are shown on the Master Plan documents and Figure 3. The District staff is responsible for maintenance of all on-site drainage structures and ditches. Maintenance includes erosion control measures for the ditches, as necessary. The landfill will operate and maintain the detention ponds and ditches in accordance with the Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and General Industrial Discharge Permit which will obtained prior to beginning operations in the expansion area. H. Life of Site To determine the approximate life of the landfill, the engineer used the landfill performance criteria which have been closely monitored the last 15 years of the site. Criteria measured include waste density, the waste-to-soil ratio, and the volume of landfill space used per ton of waste received. The landfill expansion cells will accept both Class II and Class IV wastes. An effective disposal efficiency was calculated for the existing landfill. In recent history, the landfill has consistently achieved an effective volume per ton ration of 1.95 cubic yards/ton. The landfill can achieve this by maintaining a compacted waste density of 1,280 lb/cy and a 4.3:1 waste-to-soil ratio. Based on this performance, coupled with the estimate that the site will continue to receive approximately 160,000 tons per year of waste, it is projected that the expansion area has a life expectancy of approximately 181 years. The interim and ultimate life of the landfill will be impacted by the by the actual waste volume accepted and the landfill performance over these periods. The District should continue to perform landfill performance evaluations and life estimates on an annual basis. The most recent performance and life analysis is included in Appendix F. I. NSPS Regulations The facility design will place the landfill into NSPS regulations requiring a Title V Permit, Tier 2 testing, and eventually a GCCS Plan and gas extraction system. The initial requirements will be met when the facility builds into the license expansion area. CTTT PFOFOFOCOSSSUGPUGPUGPFMFM WCFMFMFMFMFMFigure 3Overall Drainage MapGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONengineeringRNORTHEXPANSION AREAWASTE LIMITEAST STORMWATERDETENTION PONDAPPROXIMATEWASTE LIMITPHASE 4LANDFILL AREAPHASE 3LANDFILL AREASHOPEXISTINGSTORMWATERDETENTION PONDEXISTINGLEACHATEPONDNORTHSTORMWATERDETENTIONPONDSCALEHOUSEADMINBUILDINGINTE R S T A T E 9 0PERIMETERROAD RUN-OFFCONTROLDITCHPHASE 2CLOSUREAREAE-WASTEBUILDINGOLDSHOPRUN-ONCONTROLDITCHPHASE 1CLOSURE AREAPHASE 2CLOSUREAREACLASS IVAREACOMPOST AREAACCESS ROADSPILLWAYINTERIMSTORMWATERPONDSIDE SLOPE DRAINAGEDITCH (TYP.)ASBESTOS DISPOSALBOUNDARY GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 12 CHAPTER 3 – LANDFILL OPERATIONS I. OPERATION CONSIDERATIONS A. Purpose of Facility The sanitary landfill serves as a municipal solid waste landfill for Gallatin County, Montana. The landfill is licensed to accept Group II municipal solid wastes, Group III inert wastes, and Group IV construction and demolition wastes. The landfill currently services Gallatin County, including the West Yellowstone/Hebgen Lake Refuse District, the Cities of Belgrade, Three Forks, Bozeman, and the Town of Manhattan. The facility also receives waste from Jefferson County, Broadwater County, Madison County, Park County, and Yellowstone National Park. The facility services approximately 120,000 persons. The DEQ has taken the position that it cannot regulate the service area of licensed landfills. Therefore, if in the future the District elects to expand its service area, it will accomplish this by an addendum to the operating plan. The municipal solid waste landfill currently accepts between 160,000 and 170,000 tons of Groups II, III and IV waste per year. The landfill has a projected life of approximately 181 years based upon current waste generation rates, landfill performance, and service population. B. General Operating Procedures A sign indicating the hours of operation when the facility is open is located at the main access gate and at the corner of the junction at Interstate 90 East bound. • Summer hours: May 1st – October 31st Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Saturday from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. • Winter hours: November 1st – April 30th Monday through Saturday 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Anyone exiting the landfill after the seasonal daily closure time will be charged a late fee to cover overtime costs incurred by the facility. The Late Disposal Fee Charge Policy is included in Appendix G. The facility is closed on Sundays and the holidays of Christmas, New Years, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, and Thanksgiving. The facility may also close early on Christmas Eve and New Years Eve depending on Board review and approval. Regularly scheduled closures will be posted at the facility, on the District website(gallatinsolidwaste.org) and posted on Facebook. The landfill is open to the general public. The facility is used by individuals, small companies, waste hauling companies, and governmental entities. The facility operates on a fee basis. Fees are set for various materials such as municipal solid waste, light construction debris, tires, dead animals, etc. The current schedule of fees are available on the District’s website. Since the District is 100% funded by fees, all persons using the facility are required to pay for services received. Payment may be made by cash or credit card at the scalehouse. Checks are not accepted at the scales. An account may GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 13 be set up for monthly billing by business, commercial, and governmental entities. All vehicles are required to weigh in and out. The District does have a process for non-profits to obtain a reduction in tipping fees. The policy and application form are included in Appendix U. Since waste is brought to the landfill in a variety of vehicles, the landfill attempts to keep the individual haulers apart from the larger commercial vehicles at the face. Not all wastes are hauled directly to the working face. A public tipping area was approved by MDEQ in May 2011. The public tipping area contains 3 roll-off boxes and one metal/white goods box. Once full, the boxes are pulled and dumped in the lined cells or metal pile. Commercial waste is placed and compacted within the active cells of the landfill, the waste is monitored by the equipment operators. The operators are trained to identify hazardous, PCB or other unacceptable wastes. If an unacceptable waste or hazardous waste is identified, the waste is isolated until it is removed from the working face. C. Daily Operation & Equipment A minimum of two equipment operators are on site at all times except under illness or emergency situations. A minimum of one scalehouse attendant is on site to open the facility. The facility has the following equipment on-site for waste management: • Compactors (2) • Motor Grader • Haul Truck • Excavator • Loader with bucket, forks, and brush. • Dozers (2) • Ag Tractor • Compost Turner • ADC Sprayer • Service Truck • Roll-off/ Hook Truck • Water Truck • Litter Vac Intermediate cover is excavated with an excavator and placed with the haul truck and dozers. Cover material is obtained from stockpiles created from cell construction or from the next projected phase of landfill development. Landfill equipment is maintained by the landfill staff and serviced within its preventative maintenance program. In the event of equipment breakdown, the landfill has enough redundancy with its equipment to continue with operations until a specific piece of equipment is fixed. The equipment back-up plan is as follows: GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 14 · The secondary compactor will be used as a back-up compactor if the primary is down for servicing. If both compactors were to be down, the dozers will be used to place waste on an interim basis until one of the compactors is repaired. · The roll-off truck is the back-up for the haul truck for cover operations. · The haul truck and excavator are typically used for cover operations. If necessary, the District will lease equipment for excavation and hauling of soil cover on an interim basis. · If the motor grader is out of service for an extended period of time, a motor grader may be rented or the wheel loader/dozer will maintain access roads on an interim basis. The landfill will occasionally request the temporary use of the County Road Department equipment for special applications. Other equipment is used at the site, such as the water truck, and smaller utility vehicles. Should the landfill need other equipment it will be rented or purchased as necessary. D. Scavenging/Salvaging When customers bring materials to the facility it is with the understanding that the materials will be properly handled and their privacy preserved. Sometimes the facility will receive materials that appear perfectly good, but, because of insurance requirements, health regulations, or other regulations, must be destroyed. The customers of the Logan Landfill will have their wishes respected regarding the materials they bring to the facility. ALL MATERIALS THAT ENTER THE LOGAN LANDFILL FACILITY FOR MANAGEMENT ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE GALLATIN COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISTRICT. Employees are expressly prohibited from removing any material from the facility. Violations of this policy can lead to punishment up to and including termination and prosecution. Individuals found scavenging/salvaging will be reported to the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department. Landfill personnel may warn, make notes, take down license plate numbers and vehicle descriptions or photograph individuals scavenging/salvaging, but they will not detain them. No person may remove any food or consumable items from the Logan landfill. The Gallatin Solid Waste Management District may use or dispose of any materials left on the site. No materials will be removed from the working face or source separated materials by employees for the District in an unsafe manner. Employees are not allowed to walk through refuse to salvage material without the specific permission of the Site Foreman or District Manager on a case-by-case basis. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 15 E. Scale Operations The scale operator is the point of first contact with the public. Scale operators will greet customers to the landfill in a polite and friendly manner. The scale operator determines what type of material is being disposed of and directs the customer to the appropriate waste management area. The landfill has three primary classes of waste it accepts; Municipal Solid Waste, Light Construction Materials, and Heavy Construction Materials. The landfill also accepts several types of special wastes. Each of these wastes has a separate definition and fee schedule available on the District’s website (gallatinsolidwaste.org). The scale operator is responsible for categorizing the waste type and charging the customer appropriately. The scale operator queries the customer for possible prohibited wastes and commercial renovation and demolition wastes requiring asbestos inspection certification. The scale operators also designate customers for further waste screening under the Random Load waste screening program. The administration building maintains records regarding the Freon removal policy of all appliances that could contain Freon. Scale operators are also responsible for tracking the waste entering the facility and collecting the fees or billing information due upon exit from the facility. Both public and commercial vehicles weigh in on the one inbound pit scale. Public vehicles are customers from the general public typically with a pickup truck load or a pickup with a trailer. Commercial vehicles are classified as the large haulers such as the City of Bozeman, L&L, Republic, Contractors and other frequent haulers the District chooses. The commercial vehicles have charge accounts and do not complete a monetary transaction at the scale house. The public vehicles weigh out on the outbound pit scale closest to the scale house to complete transactions with the scale house attendant. The commercial vehicles will weigh in on the inbound scale and weigh out on an automated above ground, platform scale located directly East of the public outbound scale. The automated outbound scale has a kiosk which includes a keypad for drivers to enter their truck number. The commercial driver drives on to the scale and enters their truck number in the keypad. The kiosk prints a receipt of the transaction for the driver’s records and a receipt is printed in the scale house for the District’s records. There is also be an electronic record of the transaction kept in the District’s computer system. The weighing system bills the customer at the regular billing interval as set up by the District. The kiosk is equipped with an intercom for the driver to communicate with the scale house without exiting their vehicle. Typically, the commercial outbound scale does not require interaction with the scale house, except for the following examples; the truck driver forgets the truck number, the receipt machine requires new paper, or the load of waste was different than what the truck driver had indicated to the scale attendant on the incoming scale. The kiosk is integrated with the existing weighing software. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 16 F. Waste Compaction, Daily Cover, ADC, & Intermediate Cover The equipment operators typically place the waste in approximately fifteen-foot thick lifts. Daily waste cells are placed with a working face slope of approximately 5H:1V. The cells are normally 50 to 75 feet wide. The solid waste is then compacted and covered at the end of the workday with six inches of daily cover soil or with one of the DEQ-approved alternative daily covers (ADC). This practice is not only a regulatory requirement but is also necessary to control vectors, litter, odors and other landfill nuisances. This practice also helps reduce storm water contamination and the production of leachate. The landfill uses a compactor for compacting waste at the site on each day that the site receives waste. The landfill shall continue to use a compactor equivalent in weight and overall performance as the existing compactor. The primary job of the compactor is to compact waste to the maximum density practically achievable. As such, it spends as much time on the refuse as possible. An Excavator and Haul Truck are used for excavating and hauling daily and intermediate cover from the soil stockpile/borrow areas to the fill area. The wheel loader and the tracked dozers are used to place and spread weekly and intermediate soil cover. Several standard compaction procedures are used on site. These procedures include compacting the waste in thin lifts (less than two feet thick) with multiple equipment passes and compacting each lift in two directions perpendicular to each other. At the end of the day, the tracked dozer will clean, repair and grade the tipping floors in the active disposal areas. The compactor will ensure waste compaction is maximized and prepared for the application of ADC or soil cover. These compaction and grading procedures result in site efficiency, as measured by the volume per ton ratio, which is well above industry standards. The landfill will continue the standard compaction, ADC and soil cover procedures that have been adopted for the site. In the event that dead animals are received at the working face, (dead animals should be diverted to the animal mortality compost pile) the landfill crew will excavate a small area in the waste for disposal of the animal. The animal is then immediately covered with waste. Daily cover then is installed at the end of the day. Some asbestos containing wastes are handled in a similar manner. See section 3P for specifics on managing wastes that contain more than 1% asbestos. Two spray-on materials, TopCoat and Posi-Shell have been approved by the Montana DEQ as alternative daily cover (ADC) for this site. The Montana DEQ approval for ADC is included in Appendix H. These materials greatly reduce the amount of soil placed within the landfill. They have proven to be reliable covers and are helping the landfill save air space over a traditional daily soil cover. The alternative daily cover system should be utilized on all days that the wind and weather allows deployment. When the weather prohibits the use of ADC, the crew will cover the waste with soil to meet the GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 17 daily cover requirements. When soil cover is used on the working face, the thickness should never exceed 6". TopCoat is shipped as a dry product and mixed on-site. TopCoat is a hydromulch of recycled paper blended with proprietary binders. TopCoat is used as a true daily cover. It is used in areas that will receive waste the next day. The material is sprayed on with the hydroseeder thick enough that litter is controlled and birds and other vectors are discouraged from the working face. When applied in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, it meets all of the requirements for an ADC. The DEQ requires the landfill to cover any areas that use ADC with soil on a weekly basis. Areas of exposed TopCoat ADC are inspected daily and re-covered with TopCoat as needed. The landfill staff will maintain records of each ADC application and follow-up inspections. Intermediate cover of 12 inches (minimum) soil cover shall be placed on the intermediate top elevation as the lift progresses across the landfill cell to meet DEQ requirements. The material is placed on the top of the lift with the haul truck and is spread and track packed by the dozer. When the next lift starts over the top of refuse with intermediate cover, the landfill crew will use the intermediate cover from the lift as a tipping floor for the next lift of waste. This practice saves the landfill a large amount of air space. The landfill staff shall keep records of daily waste tonnage and daily/intermediate cover soil and ADC used. This information will be used with periodic topographic surveys of the fill area once per year to determine the compacted waste density, waste-to-soil ratio, and overall volume per ton ratio. The landfill will continue its procedure of tracking cover soil usage including separate numbers for loads excavated from borrow areas, stockpiles and loads imported into the cells for cover. The landfill will also continue to keep detailed records of tonnage accepted on-site. The landfill goal is to reach an overall volume per ton ratio of 1.85 CY/ton on a consistent basis. Consistent application of the operation changes instituted in 2007 will allow the District to continue to meet this goal. Intermediate and final cover procedures follow the closure and post-closure plan. G. Personnel Requirements The detailed position descriptions enclosed are in Appendix I. General job description for the positions at the facility are: District Manager The District Manager is responsible for the overall operation of the facility and personnel supervision. The District Manager supervises the Office Manager and the Site Foreman. The District Manager reports directly to the Gallatin County Administrative Officer and meets with Gallatin Waste Management District Board of Directors on a monthly basis. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 18 HHW/Safety Coordinator This position coordinates the approval and disposal of household hazardous waste and small quantity exempt generated wastes through the District’s HHW Collection Program. The position also assists the District Manager with the approval and disposal of special wastes entering the landfill. The HHW/Safety coordinator provides additional operational support at both the Logan Landfill and Bozeman Convenience Site. The position develops and presents safety training topics to District staff and coordinates with the Site Foreman for the scheduling and implementation of safety related topics and policies. Office Manager The Office Manager is responsible for the operation of the facility office and the scale house. Supervision includes the support staff, the accounting person, and scale employees. The Office Manager is responsible for providing Administrative Support for the facility, assisting the District Manager in policy development, and providing Administrative Support for the District Board. Accountant The Accountant is responsible for a variety of accounting, revenue collection, and auditing work. The accountant reports to the Office Manager. Scale House Operator The Scale House Operators are responsible for providing customer service, cashiering, and waste monitoring at the facility’s scale house. They track incoming waste and waste types, monitor for restricted items, and direct customers to the proper areas to place wastes. They report to the Office Manager. Scale House Operator/Operational Support This position provides additional Scale House, Administrative, site maintenance, and operational support. Site Foreman/Lead Equipment Operator The Site Forman is responsible for overseeing the general day-to-day landfill operations at the facility. The Site Foreman is also the lead equipment operator. The Site Foreman supervises the Equipment Operators and Site Maintenance employees. The Site Foreman is responsible for the placement of wastes in the units and the proper compaction and cover for the waste materials. The Site Foreman is also responsible for the maintenance of the compost operations, leachate collection system, site maintenance, and the recycling areas. The Site Foreman will conduct weekly safety and operations meetings with landfill operations personnel. Equipment Operators/Site Maintenance Equipment operators operate the heavy equipment needed to operate the landfill on a daily basis. The equipment operators report to the Site Foreman. The GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 19 District employs four full-time operators, to operate the landfill. A minimum of two operators will be on-site each day the landfill is open. The operators will split the following duties: · Safely Operate heavy equipment · Spread, compact and cover waste · Maintain slopes and keep outer slopes maintained by removing bulky wastes such as, tires, mattresses, litter, etc. · Deploy alternative daily cover · Place waste and cover in accordance with landfill design · Estimate grades, distances and depths of waste · Identify and remove unacceptable waste material from working face · Road, ditch, and detention pond maintenance · Daily and weekly litter cleanup and control · Excavation and hauling of daily and intermediate cover · Keep daily operating records for cover soil, ADC, and fuel. · Equipment maintenance and inspections · Keep detailed records of daily and intermediate cover used at the site · Monitor special loads General Site Maintenance Duties · Special projects, as needed Report any problems to the Site Foreman Compost Equipment Operator/Site Maintenance The Compost Equipment Operator/Site Maintenance position is responsible for performing a variety of general labor duties at the facility related to site maintenance. In addition, the position will be required to operate compost and landfill equipment to maintain and monitor the general/animal and bio-solid compost operations. Depending on the work assignment, they may report to the Site Foreman, and/or Office Manager. Duties related to site maintenance include: building and scale maintenance, direct traffic, collect wind-blown litter, installing litter control fencing, evacuating freon, bulb crushing, waste oil/antifreeze, installation of site signage, snow removal, monitor site for unauthorized personnel, etc. These tasks are also performed by the Equipment Operators, Mechanics and Site Foreman. Lead Mechanic The Lead Mechanic is responsible for equipment maintenance and recordkeeping. The Lead Mechanic currently supervises one mechanic. The Lead Mechanic will maintain records on all landfill equipment. Records shall include repair, periodic maintenance, oils and fuel usage for each piece of equipment. The maintenance records will be part of the operating record kept on-site. These records will aid in determining performance, applicability and operational costs. Mechanics The Mechanics are responsible for equipment maintenance and recordkeeping. The Lead Mechanic reports directly to the Site Foreman. The Mechanics will GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 20 maintain records for all landfill equipment. Records shall include repairs, periodic maintenance, oil, and fuel usage for each piece of equipment. Assist with the maintenance and monitoring of the leachate collection and pumping system. The mechanics will also perform site maintenance and equipment operator duties when directed by the Site Foreman. Employee Work Time Log-In/Out Policy Employees are required to log into and out of work according to the Policy included in Appendix V. The Policy also includes procedural requirements for timesheets, excused and unexcused absences. Consultants The District retains qualified professional consultants to ensure the facility is properly operated, maintained, planned, constructed, and monitored. The consultants shall be readily available and on-call to assist and provide guidance to the District as necessary. The following provides a list of anticipated responsibilities: · Monitoring and reporting on groundwater · Monitoring and reporting on methane · Plan and design future expansion as well as closure projects · Conduct periodic inspections and provide guidance on operational issues · Conduct periodic volume measurements and evaluations of landfill performance and site life · Conduct annual engineering review as required by MDEQ · Supervise, inspect, and certify on-site construction projects · Assist District in preparation of any reports required by MDEQ · Respond to hazardous waste situations Training Training for identification of hazardous waste materials, response and emergency procedures is a necessary part of all full-time landfill employees. The management will ensure that the landfill employees are thoroughly trained for their position and competent in their responsibilities. Key personnel will attend training courses and seminars recommended and provided by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality DEQ), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), and/or training provided at the facility to remain current with the latest regulations and technologies affecting landfill operation and management. H. Preparation and Closure of Cells Landfill cells and final closure projects will be designed by a professional engineer licensed in Montana and submitted to the Montana DEQ for approval. District forces will excavate future cells as part of soil cover operations under the direction of engineer of GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 21 record. Cell lining and leachate collection system construction will be contracted out to private general contractors. Project construction will be documented by a licensed engineer and the final project certified to the State of Montana. Depending on available District resources closure projects may be constructed by District personnel. The District will receive design approval from the DEQ for closure work prior to proceeding with construction. This contract shall include final contouring, placement of the cover soil and topsoil, and vegetation of the cap. Project construction will be documented by a licensed engineer and the final project certified to the State of Montana. I. Leachate Control and Management Due to the low amounts of moisture that fall in the area coupled with the on and off-site drainage control that has been included in the design of the landfill, the landfill site has generated only minor amounts of leachate to date. Leachate production will continue to be minimized by utilizing an evapotranspiration final cover, daily cover, good positive drainage control and achieving final cover in portions of the landfill as quickly as possible. However, leachate production will be monitored in the leachate collection pond to document the effectiveness of final cover and drainage systems. All leachate collected within Phases 5-27 will be directed by gravity or pumped to leachate evaporation ponds. Wastewater collected in the existing shop wash bay sump and septic system is pumped to the existing leachate pond. The District will undertake measures to properly dispose of the collected leachate. Disposal will normally be achieved through evaporation. However, if evaporation is inadequate to handle collected water, it will be recirculated onto the waste mass that is over liners. The DEQ approval letter for leachate recirculation is enclosed in Appendix J. The only time that the ultimate capacity of the leachate pond should typically be needed is immediately after a cell is constructed but before it is footprinted with waste. During this time window, significant quantities of storm water are able to enter the leachate system. Once a new cell is constructed, it should be footprinted with a shallow lift of waste (approximately 4-6 feet thick) as soon as possible to exclude stormwater from the leachate collection system. This procedure has been very successful and the landfill did not generate large volumes of leachate while Phase 3 and 4 were being footprinted. The leachate evaporation ponds shall be inspected for water level weekly and after significant rainfall events (greater than 0.50”). Records of leachate levels and the pump hours on the leachate pumps will be kept by landfill staff. In addition, staff will maintain records of recirculated leachate volumes, dates applied and application location. The water levels shall be checked without entering the leachate collection system. Under no circumstances shall a landfill employee enter a confined space unless proper safety precautions are followed. Proper precautions include filing a confined space entry permit and using an OSHA-approved confined space entry team to enter GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 22 any manhole. All confined space entry procedures shall comply with OSHA and Montana Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) regulations. J. Stormwater Control & Management Proper management of stormwater on-site will be discussed in detail within the landfill’s Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Industrial Activity Stormwater Discharge Permit which will be issued by the DEQ before beginning operations in the expansion area. All operations efforts regarding stormwater control should be completed in accordance with the SWPPP since it ensures compliance with the site’s stormwater discharge permit. The landfill is required to maintain and update the SWPP and discharge permit. Also, there are specific periodic reporting requirements for the landfill within the SWPPP. A summary of the key stormwater control mechanisms is discussed below. Site Drainage The site drainage and drainage areas is depicted on Figure 3. The general surface water flow on the site is split by a ridge running north and south on the property. The surface water flows to the northwest and northeast. The landfill is filled in a manner which promotes positive drainage from the waste areas. Separate ditches carry the site’s run-off to stormwater detention ponds. Ditches will be maintained on a periodic basis to remove collected sediment and stabilize eroded areas. Stabilization techniques on site have included rip rap, check dams, straw bale barriers, sediment fencing, hydromulching, compost and re-vegetation. Culverts will be cleaned on a regular basis and replaced, if necessary. Stormwater Detention Ponds The stormwater detention ponds collect run-off from all waste areas and other disturbed areas of the site. The ponds are designed to completely detain the 25 year/24 hour storm run-off from the site. The emergency spillway allows the embankment to overtop without compromising the structural integrity of the detention pond embankment dikes. Should an emergency discharge over the spillway occur, the operator will sample the discharge water in accordance with the SWPPP. The landfill has adopted a goal of minimizing stormwater discharges from the site. The landfill has a water truck and pump for spray irrigation of storm water accumulated in the ponds. Irrigation is performed mostly in areas of the site which drain back to the ponds, but may also be applied to soil stockpiles to promote plant growth or control dust. The irrigation is applied at agronomic rates. Stormwater may also be used for dust suppression on facility roads. Any stormwater remaining in the ponds is evaporated or percolates into the soil. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 23 K. Environmental Monitoring Class II landfills are required to monitor landfill gas, groundwater and surface water discharges throughout the life of the landfill. Landfill gas and groundwater also need to be monitored during the 30-year post closure period. Groundwater will be monitored by the District in accordance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) approved by the DEQ. The District will contract with a professional consulting firm to perform the monitoring work and report the results to the District and DEQ. The SAP will outline the wells monitored and the procedures for obtaining samples. The District maintains a complete file of the monitoring results to date in the facility operating record on-site and any DEQ-approved changes to the SAP. Part of the groundwater monitoring effort includes continuing to monitor the existing facility and implement the Corrective Measures for the groundwater contamination at the existing facility. An explosive gas monitoring plan for the expansion area is included in Appendix Y. The District will contract with a professional consulting firm to perform the monitoring work and report the results to the District and DEQ. The site will be monitored for explosive gases on a routine basis in accordance with the DEQ-approved monitoring plan. The District maintains records of gas monitoring conducted on site in the facility’s operating record. If the levels of methane ever exceed the standards, the District will notify the DEQ and mitigate the situation as appropriate. New methane monitoring wells will be drilled prior to initiating operations in the expansion area. In the event of a planned or unplanned surface water discharge from one of the facility detention ponds, the surface water will be sampled and tested in accordance with the Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which will be submitted to the DEQ prior to initiating operations in the expansion area. L. Litter Control The District has a litter control plan currently in effect. The landfill is surrounded by a series of litter control fences. The facility also uses portable litter fences to help control litter on site. Portable litter screens are moved as necessary to provide the best effect. Litter is periodically removed from these fences by landfill staff. Landfill employees pick litter as time allows. The facility also uses litter picking crews from the Gallatin County Detention Center Work Program on a regular basis to assist with litter control at the facility. The District has a Bobcat Tool Cat and an IES Litter Collection Attachment for litter collection and control. In addition, the District has adopted a policy of picking litter along Two Dog Road. The landfill has a policy requiring that all loads arriving at the facility be secured before entering the facility. The Secure Load Policy is included in Appendix K. The landfill also has a policy that stops delivery of waste if winds reach a sustained speed of 35 GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 24 mph for 10 minutes based on readings from the office anemometer, or wind gusts to 45 mph. If the winds exceed these speeds, District management has the discretion whether or not to close the landfill. The full Severe Weather Closure Policy is in Appendix L. The District has also installed the necessary signs and gates to help prevent indiscriminate dumping at the landfill site. If necessary, local law enforcement agencies will be used to prevent littering and indiscriminate dumping at the entrance gate and access roads leading to the site. M. Waste Screening The Logan Landfill is required to implement a program to detect and exclude regulated hazardous wastes and PCB wastes from the facility according to ARM 17.50.511(1)(e). The waste screening plan for the District is included in Appendix M. The Landfill is responsible for ensuring that any identified hazardous or prohibited wastes are set aside and dealt with appropriately rather than being landfilled. Household hazardous waste and conditionally exempt Small Quantity Hazardous Waste are accepted at the landfill. The landfill relies on a multi-tiered waste screening program that includes: · Visual screening at the scale via TV cameras · Questioning by the scale operators · Waste Acceptance Policy · Waste Tracking Forms · Inspection of the waste by the dozer operator. · Inspection of the waste by compactor operator. · Random Load Inspections · Waste Rejection Form The random load inspections will be initiated at the scale house and the scale house operator will notify the operators of the vehicle description by radio. The frequency of random load inspections is generated at the scale. The Scale Operator will randomly select a load for inspection after each 300th user enters the facility. This will ensure a minimum of 1% of commercial/industrial vehicles are inspected. The record of random load inspections will be maintained in the facility operating record. The landfill operators also survey the waste during spreading and compaction. The landfill operators are trained to identify hazardous, prohibited or other suspicious wastes. Any suspicious wastes are quarantined, and the area cordoned off until the wastes can be properly identified. The Waste Screening Program enclosed in Appendix M outlines the actions taken by the staff and management of the landfill in the event of hazardous or other prohibited wastes being discovered. The Waste Screening Program also contains a contact list with phone numbers for a hazardous waste incident. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 25 N. Waste Diversion The Landfill diverts the following wastes: · Green wastes that come in separated are sent to the compost area. · Clean wood waste that comes in separated is sent to the compost area. The Clean Wood Waste Collection Program is outlined in Appendix T. · Wastewater biosolids are directed to the composting area. · White goods are diverted and recycled. Refrigerators that need Freon removal are charged an additional fee and diverted to the e-waste building. · Propane cylinders are diverted and recycled · Car batteries are diverted and recycled. · Waste oil is collected and shipped to a recycling refinery or burned in a furnace in the Maintenance Shop · Non-friable asbestos is currently accepted at the facility · Friable asbestos will be accepted in the new asbestos area on the license expansion · Regulated hazardous waste is not accepted (except in household quantities). · Bulk liquids are not accepted (except in household quantities). · Large animals are routed directly to the compost area or working face. · Wastewater bio-solids are diverted to the compost area per special waste and screening policies. · Tires are generally managed in the working face of the Class IV unit or in the lined cell area. O. Composting Yard Waste Composting The landfill can use additional organic material for improving the intermediate or final cover on landfill units. Yard waste composting in Gallatin County continues to be offered at the Logan Landfill and Bozeman Convenience Site. The Logan Landfill receives processed clean wood wastes collected and chipped at the Bozeman Site. Compost collected at the Bozeman Site is maintained and monitored by the City of Bozeman. Compost generated at the Bozeman Site typically is not hauled or used at the Logan Landfill. The Logan Landfill facility has set up a yard waste composting area within the compost expansion area permitted in 2015. The composting is done in a static pile approximately 8 feet wide and six feet high. The feedstock is ground brush combined with grass cuttings and leaves. Brush is accumulated and periodically ground. As grass and leaves arrive, they are placed on a bed of ground brush, mixed, and placed in the windrow. Leaves and grass are mixed with the ground brush in a 50:50 ratio. The windrows are monitored for moisture content using the hand-squeeze test. If water runs out of the squeezed material it is too wet, if it fails to form a coherent ball, it is too dry. If the piles are too dry, additional GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 26 water is added prior to turning. Water is added into the piles using a water truck and sprinklers. Water is from the stormwater ponds, Logan Spring or the ground water wells. Temperatures in the pile are monitored with a compost thermometer, recorded and placed in the operating record. Piles are turned on a weekly basis during the warm weather months. Windrows that are sufficiently moist, but do not re-heat upon turning, are placed in a curing pile. Once the curing piles have matured, in about six months, they are either screened and the oversized material returned to the process stockpiles or used “as-is” for site reclamation. Once the compost process is finished, the material is a product useful for a number of purposes on-site. The primary use is for organic material addition to the intermediate and final cover soils. The material may also be used for stormwater control berms and filters or other reclamation uses. Dead Animal Composting The District has an area to for composting dead animals. The general process is similar to the Cornell University/NYSDOT process, a long, self-aerating, windrow. This is located in the yard waste composting area. A bed of wood chips from the brush grindings about two-feet thick is laid out eight-feet wide to accept the animals. A one-foot layer of previously composted material is placed on the animals. Animals are then covered with at least two feet of additional brush grindings. A second layer of animals may be placed over the first if they are deer or hog-sized animals before the additional layer of two-feet of chips. The final pile will be between four and six feet high. Temperatures in the pile are monitored with a compost thermometer, recorded, and placed in the operating record. If the piles lose temperature prematurely, they might be too dry. Additional water should be added to the piles to maintain temperature, especially in the summer months. Water should be added into the piles using the water truck and sprinklers. Water will either be from the stormwater ponds, Logan Spring or the old shop well. Depending on the size of the animals in the piles, the piles will be turned after three months or longer. The pile must stay at ambient temperature after moisture injection before turning may be done. In the case of bison, cow, or horse-sized animals may require up to a year. Materials for the composting operation will be stockpiled nearby on the licensed facility. Temperature records are placed in the operating record of the facility. The material should be screened to remove oversized bones from the processed material. The bones should be returned to the next compost pile for further degradation or placed on the working face. A copy of the New York State DOT Compost Manual is included in Appendix N. Bio-Solids Composting The District also does biosolids composting. Biosolids are normally received year-round. The City of Bozeman generates about 10-12 cubic yards of aerobically digested, dewatered biosolids and/or waste activated sludge per day. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 27 The City will transport the biosolids in a sealed 20 yard container on a daily basis. Biosolids are delivered to the receiving area designated by the landfill staff. The biosolids are placed on a bed of ground wood waste. The biosolids and the wood chip pre-mix are thoroughly blended using the front-end loader. Biosolids are mixed within two hours of delivery. Moisture content is checked once the materials are blended and water added, if necessary. Mix is placed on the chip bed for the windrow five feet high and ten feet wide and covered with six inches of coarse previously composted material. The yard waste/wood waste blend is then mixed with the biosolids. Moisture content is checked once the materials are blended and water added, if necessary. The windrows are covered with six inches of previously composted unscreened material during their construction. Covering the piles with a compost biofilter helps eliminate odor generation problems while the windrows are being constructed. Since ground brush is received at about a 2:1 ratio, the remainder of the ground brush is stockpiled for use with the biosolids or other materials as needed. The ground brush is mixed with other wood wastes and stored in a pre-mix carbon stockpile. The landfill also accepts biosolids from Yellowstone National Park and 4-Corners but the biosolids from these facilities are landfilled for now. Once the new license is obtained, the landfill will move the composting to the location shown on the maps. This area is large enough to process all of the biosolids. P. Asbestos The landfill currently accepts only non-friable asbestos, non- Regulated Asbestos Containing Materials at the landfill. Regulated Asbestos Containing Materials (RACM), friable asbestos wastes are not accepted at the Logan Landfill. Asbestos wastes are managed according to the types of materials containing asbestos and the ability of the asbestos fibers to become a hazardous air pollutant. For example: friable pipe coatings, insulation, and vermiculite are different from Transite© siding, which is different from shingles or asbestos tar coatings on a foundation. An area designated for asbestos disposal may be constructed in the new license area as shown on the maps. The Logan Landfill is concerned with two major issues with asbestos management: release of fibers to the environment and protection of persons at the facility, and recordkeeping for compliance with State and Federal requirements. Both issues are interconnected. The Federal regulations on the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and State requirements as outlined in the Montana Asbestos Control Program provides a comprehensive framework for asbestos management. The Logan Landfill must provide a reasonable and safe working environment for its employees, so all asbestos materials are subject to scrutiny and proper management, regardless of their source. In order to prevent delays while the scale operator determines the acceptability of the waste and its proper placement within the facility, waste haulers, contractors, GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 28 businesses, and homeowners will be required to complete and submit a waste tracking form for approval prior to disposal of non-regulated ACM at the landfill. Submittal of inspection reports and/or analytical reports will be required for contractors, waste haulers, and businesses generating ACM waste from non-exempt residential dwelling units or commercial/public buildings. The process starts at the construction, renovation, or demolition site. While individual homeowners are exempt from Federal regulation under the NESHAP, the landfill is still required to manage the wastes properly to protect workers at the facility. The Logan Landfill manages all wastes containing more than 1% asbestos the same, regardless of the source, for the protection of workers and users of the facility. All transportation and disposal of ACM, no matter what the source, is subject to the Logan Landfill special waste acceptance criteria requirements regarding asbestos containing materials. Wastes from multi-family (four or more dwelling units) and commercial/public facilities are subject to the Federal and State regulations and require inspections and proper management. The results of these inspections must be submitted to the landfill management/Scale Operator prior to the arrival of the load at the landfill. In order to prevent delays while the scale operator determines the acceptability of the waste and its proper placement within the facility, commercial contractors are required to present inspection certifications and submit a waste tracking form for approval to the landfill office prior to sending wastes to the facility. All inspection certifications will be placed in the landfill’s operating record. The Logan Landfill reserves the right to refuse any commercial/residental waste without proper certification. All loads of renovation and demolition debris will be queried as to their origin. All customers are required to complete and submit a copy of the Waste Tracking Form prior to approval for disposal, included in Appendix P. Landfill staff will note the name of the person presenting any un-certified waste or the license number of the vehicle and will note the general character of the wastes on the waste tracking form. A visual inspection will be performed to ensure the ACM waste is a Non-Friable ACM. Any video of the waste will be preserved for possible use by law enforcement. Non-regulated ACM Materials that contain less than 1% asbestos are subject to the asbestos acceptance criteria and special waste policies and procedures to ensure ACM waste streams are properly identified prior to disposal. All materials that contain more than 1% asbestos, NO MATTER WHAT THE ORIGIN, are subject to special handling and tracking, and the appropriate associated fees. Category I Non-friable Asbestos Containing Material may be placed in the Class II disposal area. Category I Non-Friable ACM wastes must be separated and bagged in preparation for disposal at the facility. Examples include linoleum, floor tile, asphalt shingles, and asphalt mastic coated concrete. These are materials that, when dry, cannot be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. These GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 29 materials are reasonably expected to not release asbestos fibers to the air during normal operations at the Class IV or Class II unit. These materials will not be directly compacted or treated in a manner that will cause the release of asbestos to the air. At least two-feet of non-asbestos containing material must be placed over Category I material before it can be compacted. Category II Non-Friable Asbestos Containing Material requires special handling and may be placed in the Class II disposal area. Category II Non Friable ACM wastes must be separated and bagged in preparation for disposal at the facility. These materials include Transite© siding, or cement asbestos siding, cement asbestos piping, hard asbestos-containing putties, etc, even if from private residences. If these materials are not removed from a building prior to demolition, the whole structure becomes RACM and subject to the management standards for RACM. The scale operator will notify either the Site Foreman or Equipment Operator of the arrival of the material and the approximate amount. An appropriately sized hole will be excavated in the working face to receive the Category II material. The customer will be required to deposit the load as close to the excavation as is reasonably possible. Once the customer has departed, the operators will gently push the material into the excavated working face and cover it with a minimum of two feet of loose municipal solid waste before resuming normal activities. Q. Freon Containing Appliances All appliances that may contain Freon will be disposed at the E-waste building and tracked to ensure proper Freon removal. These appliances include refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioners. Appliances received with certificates of Freon removal from an off-site trained refrigerant removal technician will be marked by placing an X through the tracking number. Once an appliance has the Freon removed on-site, the unit will be marked with a yellow tag identifying the unit information, date of removal, and employee removing the Freon. All appliances received without a proper certificate of Freon removal will be assessed a removal fee. This includes appliances where the compressor has been removed or the lines cut. Appliances that do not have a removal certificate will be held near the white goods pile for Freon removal by trained landfill staff. Staff will keep records and appropriately mark appliances. A copy of the District’s Freon removal form is included in Appendix O. All appliances that could have contained Freon will be stored for recycling. The doors on all refrigerators and freezers must be removed, the doors or latches disabled, or secured in the E-waste Building to prevent child entrapment. R. Special Wastes/Special Problems The District has developed a form for acceptance of special loads. The form is enclosed in Appendix P. The District requires that the customer sign a Waste Tracking Form (WTF) for all special loads that come directly to the landfill site. The WTF requires the customer to warrant that hazardous, RACM or other prohibited wastes are not GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 30 present within the waste being delivered to the landfill. The landfill staff will also randomly screen any suspicious special loads that arrive at the landfill. Spills If a hazardous waste spill occurs, the operator will immediately restrict access to the area until the situation is under control. Telephone numbers of reputable, licensed firms that handle such spills will be available at the landfill. The District will be responsible to keep such firms on call in case such an emergency occurs. Construction & Demolition Waste The District will accept construction and demolition wastes meeting the Montana DEQ standards for Group IV wastes. Definitions of materials acceptable for disposal in the Class IV area are included in Appendix E. Class IV wastes will be subject to the District’s Waste Screening Plan and Waste Acceptance Policy. All Class IV loads will be weighed and the District will keep a detailed record of Class IV tonnage. Contaminated Soils, Street Sweepings, Sludges, and Bio-Solids The District will accept contaminated soils, street sweepings, sludges, and Bio-solids providing a waste tracking form and appropriate analytical reports are submitted for review and approval prior to disposal at the Logan Landfill. Wastes streams must be sampled per Montana DEQ regulations and analyzed for hydrocarbons, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, and RCRA heavy metals. The waste must also pass the paint filter test for solid waste and be dewatered prior to disposal at the landfill. Tires Tires are accepted at the facility. The cost for disposal varies depending to the tire and the pre-treatment. Pre-treatment reduces the amount of air space needed and the difficulty in handling the tires. Tires that are quartered or shredded are accepted at the normal tonnage rate. Tires that are not recycled as per Section 3N are placed in the Class IV or Class II unit. The Fee Schedule is in Appendix G. Waste Oil Waste oil is accepted at both the Logan landfill site and the Bozeman Convenience Site. Waste oil is shipped to a recycling facility and is also used in the landfill maintenance shop used oil furnace during the winter months. Mobile Structures/Units The District does allow the disposal of mobile homes, camp trailers, titled and taxed personal or real property at the Logan Landfill. The guidelines and a form for this type of disposal are outlined within the Mobile Structures/Units Policy included in Appendix S. The fees for mobile home disposal are outlined in Appendix G. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 31 S. Record Keeping Up-to-date records of all activities at the landfill are kept in the office at the facility. The following records will be kept as a minimum: 1. Annual license shall be posted at the Administration building. The District should file the annual renewal report forms and annual license fee records. 2. The license application, supplemental information, conditions and original license. 3. Location restriction demonstration in the license expansion application materials. 4. Landfill design plans, QA/QC plans, QA/QC reports and certifications, as well as DEQ approvals. 5. Operation and Maintenance Plan as well as any addendums to the plan. 6. Counts of the number vehicles at the site on a daily basis. Records of actual waste weights of the various types of refuse placed at the site will be recorded. A computerized tracking system will be used to track vehicles and tonnages. 7. Daily and intermediate soil cover volumes used on the site. 8. Inspection reports completed by the Department of Environmental Quality. Also, inspection reports filed by any other Local, State or Federal Agency shall also be kept on-site. 9. Any groundwater, leachate, or methane gas monitoring data. 10. Log of special occurrences such as fires, earth slides, unusual and/or sudden settlement of disposal areas, injury and/or property damage, accidents, explosions, spills, flooding, and other unusual event. 11. Record of third party requests for disposal of prohibited (regulated) wastes. 12. Log of any problems causing operations to cease, including, but not limited to, weather, fire, or equipment breakdowns. 13. Closure and Post-Closure Plan 14. Financial assurance documentation 15. Personnel training records 16. Notification procedures 17. Vehicle and equipment maintenance and inventory records 18. Annual engineering operation reviews 19. Inspection records for random and hazardous waste screening GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 32 20. Freon removal certifications 21. The above records and the permit and operations plan will be available for review at the time of inspection by the DEQ or at the request of the EPA or concerned citizens. 22. Emergency conditions report - An emergency condition report will be made on all events of significance (outside the realm of normal landfill operation and construction). This will assist management in planning to avoid or respond to future emergencies. The information reported will be: · Date and time of emergency · Description of emergency condition · Description of probable causes · Length of time emergency condition existed · Remedial action taken · Recommendations for preventing such emergencies in the future T. Financial Assurance The District complies with all RCRA Subtitle D and State of Montana regulations governing financial assurance. Financial assurance documentation is kept at the facility office. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 33 CHAPTER 4 – FACILITY MAINTENANCE I. FACILITY MAINTENANCE The maintenance of the following controls and structures is required to keep the waste disposal facility in compliance with the State and Federal regulations. Proper maintenance of the facility also ensures that the facility is protecting the environment. II. SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE A. Drainage Ditches/Culverts All surface water ditches and culverts are designed and constructed to handle the 25 year - 24 hour storm water run-off. The landfill staff shall be responsible for maintenance items as follows: · Surface water ditches shall prevent any water from off the site running on to the waste areas · All run-off from waste areas shall be directed to the detention ponds · The drainage ditches shall be periodically inspected and any erosional damage repaired · Ditches which frequently have erosional damage should be mitigated with straw bales, rock checks, rip rap, permanent vegetation, or erosion blankets · Culverts should also be periodically inspected for blockage, especially after significant run-off events · Any plugged culverts should be immediately cleaned out to restore capacity. B. Detention Ponds The detention ponds shall be periodically inspected, maintained, and repaired as necessary. The detention ponds are designed to handle 25 year – 24 hour storm water run-off. Care must be exercised to maintain the water level in all detention ponds as low as possible (see Section 3J). Detention ponds shall be inspected quarterly and after all major storm run-off events. Potential problems may include the following: · Erosion of soil near pond inlets · Erosion of spillway due to overtopping · Accumulation of fine-grained materials in pond bottom · Soil piping at exterior of embankments due to leakage through earthfill dams Erosion problems shall be repaired by replacing soil material and seeding. Other options include rip-rap, or erosion blankets. Accumulated soil washed into the ponds should be periodically cleaned out with an excavator. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 34 III. LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM The leachate pumping systems and leachate evaporation ponds shall be inspected on a weekly basis and liquid levels and pump hours noted. The leachate collection pumping systems should be set to operate when the depth within the leachate sump exceeds 12-inches. The Leachate Collection Ponds should be maintained at as low a level as is practicable. The amount of leachate pumped must be noted in the leachate log. Pumped leachate may be sprayed on the waste mass in lined units, trucked to a treatment plant or disposed of in the on-site leachate pond. Records should be kept of leachate recirculation or disposal quantities. Leachate collection pipes or manholes shall only be entered by an OSHA-approved, MT DOLI-approved confined space entry team. All confined space entry shall comply with OSHA regulations governing personnel, permitting, duties, chain-of-command procedures and testing. IV. FINAL COVER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE The final cover system shall be periodically inspected and repaired as necessary. Final cover areas shall be inspected and evaluated during the yearly engineering report. Final cover may either be placed in conjunction with the construction of each new phase of the landfill or as an individual area is completed. The final cover has been designed, and the construction will be certified, by a qualified individual. The final cap shall have a minimum final grade of 5% and have positive drainage (no ponding) over all waste areas. Erosional damage to the cap shall be repaired by regrading and seeding the affected areas. Areas which continually erode shall be repaired with rip-rap or erosion blankets. Ponding areas caused by differential settlement shall be filled and regraded to ensure the 5% minimum final grade. V. FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM Fires Fires will be handled in a preventive as well as corrective manner. Operators will inspect for hot loads. However, any hot loads will be isolated and extinguished before they are placed in the landfill. If a fire occurs on the active fill, the operators will use their equipment to push the burning waste away from the active landfill, if they can do so safely. Once the waste is isolated, landfill operators and equipment will extinguish the fire. In the event of a larger or more persistent fire, the local fire department will be summoned. In the event of a larger fire, the landfill will notify the DEQ and the engineer of record for the facility. Equipment fires and landfill fires can occur at a disposal site. The landfill employees will be trained to spot potential trouble spots and threats caused by GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 35 fire due to hot loads, equipment, or natural causes. The best remedy is prevention, but in the event of a fire prompt action can limit injury and damage. The most common cause of fires at the landfill are loads of waste which are "hot". Loads may contain ashes, burning coals, chemicals or other fire causing material. The following procedures shall be used in the event of a landfill fire: · Operators should be alert for signs of hot loads arriving at the site. · If small enough to handle with landfill equipment, a "hot" load shall be excavated from the working face. It will then be either; a) Spread and allowed to burn out, or b) Extinguished with soil. · The load will be checked by an operator prior to replacing onto the working face. · If a fire of manageable size occurs on the active fill, the operators should use their equipment to push the burning waste away from the active face. · If the fire is too large to handle with the landfill equipment, the local fire department shall be called to extinguish the fire with the assistance of landfill staff and equipment. · The appropriate telephone numbers will be posted in landfill buildings and equipment log books. · Water should only be used as a last resort to extinguish fires on-site. · Soil or chemical foams should be utilized, if feasible. The landfill crew shall maintain "A, B, C" type fire extinguishers in all mobile landfill equipment, vehicles, and the facility buildings. Fire extinguisher locations should be marked with a plainly visible sign. The District contracts with a local fire suppression equipment supplier for annual inspections and recharging of fire extinguishers. VI. SAFETY PROGRAM The implementation of a safety program is necessary for protecting life and property from injury and damage. Thorough knowledge of this plan by the landfill employees will be required to facilitate immediate action if any situations should arise. All employees should read and be familiar with the Gallatin County Landfill Safety Manual. A copy of the manual is in Appendix Q. Safety at the site is the responsibility of all personnel active at the site. The District Manager and Safety Coordinator shall be in charge of implementing the landfill safety program. Records will need to be kept verifying training, accidents and situations that may lead to unsafe working conditions. The following guidelines will be followed in implementing the Safety Plan. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 36 The landfill staff will incorporate or establish and supervise: 1. A safe and healthful working environment 2. An accident prevention training program detailing: · Fire protection · Hazardous wastes · Lifting injuries · Operating equipment · First Aid, CPR/AED, and Bloodborne Pathogens 3. Initiate preliminary investigation of an accident that causes serious injury. 4. Report within 24 hours to the Department of Labor and Industries a fatality or multiple hospitalization (2 or more employees) resulting from an employment accident. 5. Maintain records of occupational injuries and illnesses. 6. Landfill employees will be trained in first-aid and CPR/AED methods by a qualified instructor. 7. Landfill employees should notify their supervisor if they suffer severe allergic reactions to wasp or bee stings or if they carry emergency devices for stings. Notification is not mandatory, nor is discrimination allowed if the employee refuses work assignments based on known allergic reactions. 8. A first-aid kit will be maintained and checked quarterly in the equipment building, office building, and scale. An AED is located at the equipment shop and office building. The kit should contain sufficient supplies to assist a responder in basic first aid objectives for mitigating life threatening conditions. (e.g. respiratory, circulatory, bleeding or shock). 9. The District has a written Safety Manual, The Gallatin County Landfill Safety Manual. The manual is provided to all employees. The manual contains information on emergency and first aid procedures, personal protective equipment, ergonomics, safe work procedures, a transition back to work policy, a fleet safety manual, and common forms and contact information. 10. The following phone numbers will be permanently posted next to the telephone in the scale, equipment building and administration building: · Local Police · State Police · Fire Department · Ambulance and Rescue services · Hospitals · Electrical/Gas Power Authority · Montana Department of Environmental Quality · US Environmental Protection Agency GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 37 VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS PROGRAM A. Dust Areas where dust may become problem are at the operational face, daily cover excavation area and along access roads. The amount of dust generated will depend on weather conditions, types of waste loads and traffic rates. Most dust will probably originate from movement of equipment and vehicles over access and haul roads. Occasionally, loads of dusty waste will be delivered to the site. The contents of these loads should be identified to assure they are not hazardous. Dust control measures to employ at the working face include: · Careful moving of dusty wastes and soils · Prompt covering of light, powdery wastes with other wastes · Orienting working face into wind if feasible · Minimizing earthwork activities during windy periods. · Installation and maintenance of sealed cab with filters in air systems of the compactor, dozers, excavators, haul trucks, and loaders · Intermediate cover with compost and vegetative seeding · Spray applied woody/straw/mulch cover material Methods to control dusts on roads will include: · Gravel surfacing of new roads · Water spraying · Grading fine soils from roads during wet periods · Control vehicle speeds · Cleaning of dirt from asphalt road leading to the front entrance after wet periods · Magnesium Chloride applied on non-paved road surfaces B. Odors Landfill odors occur from various stages of decomposition of refuse. This may start prior to delivery of the waste and continue for some time after placement. Delivered wastes, particularly in hot weather, often will have objectionable odors. These will primarily be food wastes. Also, special wastes such as manure, fermented grains, Bio-solids, sludge and food processing wastes can create strong odors. The daily, intermediate and final covers will provide the most effective odor control. Bio-solid odors are controlled by mixing wood chips and regular aeration. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 38 C. Vectors Vectors which can create health hazards and nuisances include flies, mosquitoes, rodents and birds. Vectors will be best controlled by proper spreading, compaction, and covering of incoming wastes. D. Noise Noise control at a landfill site is needed for comfort and safety of on-site personnel and to avoid nuisance to the surrounding community. The Logan landfill is fortunate that it is located at some distance from neighbors. The existing operation has a sufficient space barrier from the property edge to the operating perimeter to reduce operational noise to acceptable levels. Noise limitations imposed by the Department of Labor and Industries must be observed to protect employees from hearing damage. The following list provides procedures which will be implemented at the site to minimize noise: · Maintain proper mufflers on vehicles and operating equipment. · Periodically monitor equipment decibel levels of each machine. · Provide ear protection devices for operators. · Provide annual hearing tests and training per the Hearing Conservation Program · Maintain perimeter buffer zones. · Limit operating hours. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 39 CHAPTER FIVE – OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE TASK LIST This chapter summarizes the employee and District Manager tasks from the previous chapters and categorizes them according to the frequency. This list is not intended to be completely inclusive of all the tasks at the landfill however, this list does cover the majority of the operations and maintenance tasks performed at the landfill. I. DAILY TASKS A. Waste Acceptance · Scale operators shall record and weigh all wastes entering the landfill property. · All wastes will be screened by the scale and equipment operators for unacceptable wastes according to the site’s waste screening policies. · The scale operators will direct incoming loads to the appropriate area of the facility for placement. · The scale operators will track incoming loads for additional waste screening and notify the equipment operators and management as to loads that need additional screening. · Customers shall submit and sign a Waste Tracking Form (WTF) for special waste loads identified in the waste acceptance policy prior to arrival at the site. A Waste Rejection Form will be completed for all loads not accepted for disposal. · Unacceptable wastes shall be handled in accordance with the Waste Screening and Acceptance Program outlined in Appendix M. · Payment will be collected and billing records kept by the scale operators. B. Waste Compaction and Daily Cover · Each waste lift shall be spread to a depth of not greater than 24” prior to compaction. · After spreading the waste, each lift shall be compacted with a minimum of three passes in each direction (parallel and perpendicular to the waste slope). · TopCoat shall be deployed as the daily cover six days out of every seven, wind permitting. · If site conditions are too windy for deployment of TopCoat, six inches of daily cover soil will be placed on the working face. · Soil will be applied to the appropriate areas as required in the intermediate cover policy. · The District Manager/Site Foreman will inspect all areas for any waste exposure. · The operators shall examine the waste for unacceptable wastes as it is spread and compacted. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 40 · Prior to placing waste, the operators shall excavate as much of the intermediate soil cover as possible from the previous waste lift or abandoned access roads. This recycled soil shall be used as daily cover. · The operators shall enter soil usage into the soil log on a daily basis. The soil log shall identify the equipment, the number of loads and its use (intermediate or daily cover). · The working face shall be kept as small as is practical for the amount of incoming waste. · The Operators will place and move directional cones and signs as needed. C. Other Daily Tasks · The Lead Mechanic, Site Foreman, HHW/Safety Coordinator and Office Manager will give a concise verbal report to the District Manager on a regular basis. The report will cover operations status and any problems at the facility. · Daily equipment inspection, maintenance and refueling. · Lock gates and building prior to leaving for the day. · Random Load Inspections as outlined in the Waste Screening Program II. WEEKLY TASKS · The District Manager shall conduct a general visual inspection of the entire landfill property on a weekly basis, note any problems and implement corrective actions. · The District Manager and other managers shall meet on a weekly basis to discuss site operations, maintenance, safety, etc. · The District Manager shall conduct a visual inspection of the drainage ditches, detention ponds, leachate systems, and overall sediment and erosion control on a weekly basis. The District Manager shall conduct a detailed inspection of these on a quarterly basis and after significant precipitation events. III. MONTHLY TASKS · Maintain a log of leachate pond and sump elevations. The log shall also note all leachate volumes pumped and recirculated. · Maintain a log of the water levels within each storm water detention pond after a storm event producing .5” of precipitation in a 24 hour period. The log shall also record discharges and irrigation of collected storm water. · The District Manager, Office Manager, and Accountant shall attend the monthly District Board meeting. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 41 IV. QUARTERLY TASKS · The District Manager shall ensure that explosive gas monitoring and groundwater monitoring of the site is being conducted in accordance with Sampling and Analysis Plan. V. SEMI-ANNUAL TASKS · The District Manager shall ensure the quarterly discharge monitoring report (DMR) is submitted to DEQ by the quarterly deadline.. VI. ANNUAL TASKS · The landfill compaction, soil cover and efficiency shall be evaluated on a semi-annual basis by the District’s engineering consultant. The life of the current landfill cell will also be periodically updated. · The District Manager shall ensure that the annual comprehensive storm water certification is filed, before January 28, with the DEQ in accordance with the discharge permit and SWPPP. · The landfill shall be inspected annually by a licensed professional engineer and an inspection report filed with the Montana DEQ. · The financial assurance cost estimates shall be updated on an annual basis and submitted to the DEQ with the Annual License Renewal. · The Landfill Manager shall submit the Annual License Renewal Form to DEQ before April 1. · The scales and scale pits shall be inspected and cleaned at least annually. The scales also need to be certified by the State on an annual basis. · Annual Greenhouse Gas Report to the EPA · Annual Bio-solids report completed and placed in the operating record. VII. OTHER PERIODIC TASKS (AS-NEEDED TASKS) · Maintenance and repair of storm water ditches and ponds · Installation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control BMP’s · Discharge from storm water detention ponds in accordance with the discharge permit and SWPPP · Inspect and clean out scale pits after major precipitation events · Equipment maintenance and repair · Hauling and placement of intermediate cover · Construction and maintenance of site access roads · Irrigation of storm water collected in the detention ponds · Cleaning culverts GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 42 · Seeding of disturbed areas · Building maintenance and cleaning · Litter control and litter picking, on an as needed basis GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 43 CHAPTER 6 – CONTINGENCY PLANS The District Manager or any other personnel present will contact the appropriate emergency response personnel in the case of injury, fire, accident or disaster. General contingency plans will be initiated by the District Manager once an employee has appraised the District Manager of the situation. The following diagram (Figure 4) will give the general flow diagram as to how the contingency plan will proceed. A comprehensive telephone list is provided in Appendix R. I. GENERAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE When emergency situations occur, a prompt, appropriate response can often limit the extent of property damage and counteract the effects of injury to personnel. A knowledge and awareness of potential hazards will be most useful in identifying causes and conditions of an emergency. The basics of the contingency plan to provide for an effective emergency response are: · Trained personnel capable of responding to fire, poisoning, accidental injury and damage, and life threatening occurrences. · Safety equipment maintained in proper working order and in designated locations. · Plan initial responses, assign responsibilities for actions and routinely review these plans and assignments. II. DISTRICT MANAGER All emergency operations will be managed under the Incident Command System with one designated Incident Commander. Initial response will be the responsibility of the District Manager or any landfill employees present. This is to provide a mechanism to get the most appropriate emergency response personnel to the site as soon as possible. The District Manager will assume the lead role in coordinating all contingency plans beyond the initial response phase. In the absence of the District Manager, the Site Foreman, HHW/Safety Coordinator, Office Manager, and Lead Mechanic, in that order, will assume the role of Incident Commander unless replaced by a more appropriate person. III. IMPLEMENTING Implementing contingency plans will usually be based on the site assessment after all people have been removed from dangerous areas and affected areas have been secured. Site analysis and events will dictate the response crew and measures necessary to effectively mitigate the situation. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 44 IV. COORDINATION AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES The District Manager will obtain agreements from local authorities as to how jurisdiction will be broken down concerning lines of responsibilities. The fire department is usually the most appropriate agency to respond to fire and hazardous waste. Once the Fire Department is on the scene, the Local Fire Chief is usually the Incident Commander. The Incident Commander will assist and guide people within the fire, police departments or other local emergency personnel, to handle hazardous waste situations. Situations involving community health threats will need to be coordinated through the local hospitals and the local County Health Officer. The District Manager will need to also make arrangements for diverting the waste stream to another facility in the event of a severe emergency (landfill fire, hazardous waste clean-up, methane accumulation, etc.). The probability of such an event is extremely small but preparations will need to be in place should this occur. The landfill should resume full or partial operation once the District Manager, emergency remedial personnel, DEQ Waste Management Division and local County Health Officer concur that the situation has been remediated or is under sufficient control to not present a hazard to the public and daily operations. V. RESPONSE PROCEDURES General response procedures are provided for various scenarios requiring different levels of contingency plans: A. Earthquake · District Manager will assess damage and ability to continue operations. · The District Manager will notify DEQ Waste Management Division if emergency closure is necessary and implement emergency collection procedures. · Conduct repairs immediately under supervision of engineer. · Obtain additional construction equipment and crews necessary to conduct the repairs. · Any damage to landfill structures should be reported to and evaluated by a professional engineer. · District Manager will make a report and place this in the operating record. · In the event of a major earthquake, a detailed inspection and evaluation of the site shall be conducted by a professional engineer. · If the volume of debris from the event is significant, the District should begin developing plans for the disposal of the waste. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 45 B. Injury · District Manager/landfill employee will summon proper emergency response personnel immediately and direct initial first aid. · Landfill employee will brief the District Manager upon release of initial first aid by emergency response personnel. · District Manager will lead the investigation, a report will be placed into the operating record indicating cause, effect and review of safety measures reviewed and changed to mitigate a future occurrence. · Within 24 hours, District Manager will file appropriate reports with respect to severity of the injury with the County Human Resources Department, insurance carrier and the Montana Department of Labor & Industry, if necessary. The District Manager will conduct a review of safety procedures with employees. · Landfill personnel will be trained in basic first aid, CPR/AED, and Blood Borne Pathogens. C. Property Damage/Accident · In the event of property damage the employee shall immediately notify the District Manager. The District Manager or Office Manager will report the incident to the insurance company and County Human Resources, if necessary. · The employee shall also fill out an Accident-Incident Report. The District Manager or Office Manager will need to fill out an accident report for insurance claims, if necessary. Copies of these forms are included in Appendix X. D. Fire 1. Building Fire · Evacuate all people from dangerous areas and either move off-site or up wind of the source. DO NOT RE-ENTER BURNING BUILDINGS! · Contact fire department, report size, location, type of material involved (hazardous, inert, etc.). Contact Hazardous Waste Response Team if hazardous waste is involved. · Small spot fires may be extinguished with a fire extinguisher by approaching the flame source from the upwind side and spraying flame suppressant material on the source with a sweeping motion. Do not attempt this in any temporary hazardous waste storage area. · Contact and brief District Manager of the situation. · Conduct repairs immediately under supervision of District Manager. · The District Manager will obtain additional construction equipment and crews necessary to conduct temporary repairs. 2. Landfill Fire · Evacuate all people from dangerous areas and either move off-site or up wind of the source. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 46 · If fire is of manageable size, use landfill compactor or dozer to push burning waste away from active face and cover with soil to extinguish. · Remove all mobile equipment from the active area if this may be done without potential for injury to any personnel. · Contact and brief District Manager of the situation. · Contact fire department, report size, location and type of burning refuse material. · The District Manager will contact the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Waste Management Division. · Close the active area of the landfill and set up emergency collection procedures, if necessary. · Document and place in operating record all activities, remedial measures and operational changes that pertain to fighting the landfill fire. 3. Hazardous Waste, PCB Waste Release, or. Methane Gas Buildup · Evacuate all people from dangerous areas and either move off-site or up wind of the source. Do not attempt to administer to any unconscious victims in the affected hazardous waste spill area until the Fire Department, Hazardous Waste Response Team, and/or Ambulance have been contacted and landfill personnel have been briefed as to further action by qualified emergency response personnel. · Contact and brief District Manager of the situation. · The District Manager will notify DEQ Waste Management Division if regulated hazardous or PCB waste is discovered on site. · The District Manager will notify DEQ Waste Management Division if methane gas exceedance is detected. · The District Manager will notify DEQ Waste Management Division if emergency closure is necessary and implement emergency collection procedures. · Document and place in operating record all activities, remedial measures and operational changes that pertain to containment, treatment and remediating the incident. · See Appendix M for hazardous waste handling procedures. E. Debris Management In the event of a major natural disaster in the Gallatin Valley, a large amount of debris may be created. The Logan Landfill will likely be involved in the disposal of this debris. It is likely that a large percentage of the debris from a natural disaster will be classified as Class IV material. If the District's Class IV area has sufficient capacity, debris can be disposed of in this area. If the volume of Class IV wastes exceeds the capacity of the existing Class IV area, the District may work with the engineer to contact DEQ to permit a special area for the disposal of the material. In the event of a large disaster, emergency burn permits may be sought from the DEQ to manage burnable debris. The landfill staff will assist in emergency debris management as needed by appropriate GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Operations and Maintenance Plan | June 2020 47 officials. Landfill staff will be responsible for monitoring, weighing, compacting, and covering emergency debris brought to the landfill in accordance with this operation plan. F. Power Outages Power is provided to the landfill site by Northwestern Energy. In the event of a power outage, the landfill staff shall notify Northwestern Energy. The landfill will have an emergency generator and power transfer switch. The generator will provide enough energy to keep the office and scale buildings lighted and the computers operational during a power outage. In the event of a power outage, the emergency generator will allow landfill operations to continue as normal on-site. Figure 4 Contingency Plan Flow Diagram GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONengineeringR NOTIFY ONSITE PERSONNEL ABOUT THE INCIDENT SIZE UP THE SITUATION BASE ON AVAILABLE INFORMATION REQUEST AID FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES ALLOCATE PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT RESOURCES FOR RESPONSE SURVEY AND ASSESS CASUALTIES SURVEY AND ASSESS CASUALTIES REPLACE OR REJUVENATE DAMAGED OR EXHAUSTED EQUIPMENT DOCUMENT THE INCIDENT REVIEW AND REVISE SITE SAFETY AND CONTINGENCY PLANS STABILIZE AND ASSESS CASUALTIES EXTRICATE VICTIMS DECONTAMINATE VICTIMS TRANSPORT AND TREAT VICTIMS EVACUATE SITE PERSONNEL EVACUATE NEARBY PUBLIC CONTAIN HAZARD EXTINGUISH HAZARDPREPARATIONRESPONSE FOLLOW-UPSOURCE: OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH GUIDANCE MANUAL FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE ACTIVITIES NIOSH/OSHA/USOG/EPA, 1985. Attachment 2 Facility Location Map Project LocationAttachment 2Location MapGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONengineeringRNORTHAPPROXIMATE LICENSEEXPANSION FINAL WASTEBOUNDARY 300 ACRESLICENSE EXPANSIONPROPERTY BOUNDARYAPPROXIMATE 535 ACRES8.8 ACRE OFFICEAND SCALE SITETWO DOG ROADI-90I-90127 ACRE LICENSEDLANDFILL AREA Attachment 3 Landowners and Land Use of Adjacent Properties Attachment 3. Land Use The parcel is bound to the north by Interstate 90. The property across Interstate 90 is privately owned. The properties abutting the eastern, and southern boundary are privately owned. The property abutting the western boundary is state owned. The names and addresses of the owners are listed on the next page and are noted on the accompanying map. The surrounding properties are currently used for farming, grazing or open pasture. Attachment 3 Land Ownership Map GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONengineeringR NORTHCURRENT LICENSED BOUNDARY I-90 I-90 APPROX. PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.) STATE OF MONTANA STATE OF MONTANA STATE OF MONTANA STATE OF MONTANA CLIFFORD D & LAURA D SCHUTTER GALLATIN COUNTY KELSEY VALLEY RANCH LP ROBERT W & VIRGINIA A BOS CLIFFORD D & LAURA D SCHUTTER CLIFFORD D & LAURA D SCHUTTER CLI F F O R D D & L A U R A D S C H U T T E R CLIFFORD D & LAURA D SCHUTTER GALLATIN COUNTY GALLATIN COUNTY GALLATIN COUNTY CLIFFORD D & LAURA D SCHUTTER F DOUBLE D LLCF DOUBLE D LLC F DOUBLE D LLC CLIFFORD D & CARL E SCHUTTER GARY A & DENISE Y LONG TRUST CLIFFORD D SCHUTTER STATE OF MONTANA KELSEY VALLEY RANCH LP WENDY EVANS BRENT MILLER PROPOSED LICENSE EXPANSION PROPERTY BOUNDARY Attachment 3. List of Landowners of Property Adjacent to the Proposed Logan Landfill Expansion Owner Street CIty, State, Zip Code Geocode GALLATIN COUNTY 311 W MAIN ST RM 306 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-4574 06-1009-06-1-01-01-0000 GALLATIN COUNTY 1709 W COLLEGE ST BOZEMAN, MT 59715-4906 06-1108-31-3-02-01-0000 GALLATIN COUNTY 311 W MAIN ST RM 306 BOZEMAN, MT 59715-4574 06-1106-36-3-01-10-0000 STATE OF MONTANA PO BOX 201601 HELENA, MT 59620-1601 06-1008-01-1-01-01-0000 STATE OF MONTANA PO BOX 201601 HELENA, MT 59620-1601 06-1008-12-1-01-01-0000 STATE OF MONTANA GENERAL DELIVERY HELENA, MT 59601-9999 06-1008-02-1-01-01-0000 STATE OF MONTANA GENERAL DELIVERY HELENA, MT 59601-9999 06-1106-36-3-01-01-0000 SCHUTTER, CLIFFORD D 3845 KUIPERS RD MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8100 06-1108-32-4-01-01-0000 SCHUTTER, CLIFFORD D & CARL E 3627 WOODEN SHOE MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8108 06-1108-32-3-01-03-0000 SCHUTTER, CLIFFORD D & LAURA D 3845 KUIPERS RD MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8100 06-1009-08-1-01-01-0000 SCHUTTER, CLIFFORD D & LAURA D 3845 KUIPERS RD MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8100 06-1009-05-4-01-01-0000 SCHUTTER, CLIFFORD D & LAURA D 3845 KUIPERS RD MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8100 06-1009-05-2-01-01-0000 SCHUTTER, CLIFFORD D & LAURA D 3845 KUIPERS RD MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8100 06-1108-32-3-01-25-0000 SCHUTTER, CLIFFORD D & LAURA D 3845 KUIPERS RD MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8100 06-1108-31-3-01-01-0000 LONG, GARY A & DENISE Y TRUST 8166 FRONTAGE RD MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8049 06-1108-32-3-01-02-0000 EVANS, WENDY HAYS PO BOX 65 THREE FORKS, MT 59752-0065 06-1108-31-2-02-01-0000 BRENT MILLER 6690 FRONTAGE RD MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8030 06-1108-31-3-01-10-0000 F DOUBLE D LLC 8029 FRONTAGE RD. MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8031 06-1108-32-2-65-01-0000 F DOUBLE D LLC 8029 FRONTAGE RD. MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8031 06-1108-31-1-04-01-1001 F DOUBLE D LLC 8029 FRONTAGE RD. MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8031 06-1108-31-1-04-01-1002 BOS, ROVERT W & VIRGINIA A 1767 YADON RD MANHATTAN, MT 59741-8100 06-1009-08-2-01-01-0000 KESLEY VALLEY RANCH LP 5000TAYLOR FORK RD GALLATIN GTWY, MT 59730-9625 06-1008-11-1-01-01-0000 KESLEY VALLEY RANCH LP 5000TAYLOR FORK RD GALLATIN GTWY, MT 59730-9625 06-1009-07-2-01-01-0000 Attachment 4 Wetlands, Springs and Natural Drainages Attachment 4. Wetlands Attachment 4 shows the location of wetlands, springs, and drainages within a one-mile radius around the proposed expansion. These areas will not be disturbed with the construction of the landfill facilities. Attachment 4WetlandsGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONengineeringRNATURAL DRAINAGE (EPHEMERAL)NATURAL DRAINAGE (PERENNIAL)SPRINGSEASONAL IRRIGATION CANALWETLAND OR RIPARIAN CORRIDOR BOUNDARYEXPANSION AREA LICENSE BOUNDARYLEGENDNORTH GALLATIN RIVERI-90LOGANLANDFILLLOGANEXPANSIONAREAI-90EXISTINGLICENSEDBOUNDARYIRRIGATION PONDONE MILE RADIUS8.8 ACRE SCALESITE TO BEINCLUDED INLICENSEBOUNDARYASBESTOSDISPOSALBOUNDARY Attachment 5 Public and Private Water Supplies Attachment 5. Water Supplies The Montana Ground Water Information Center (GWIC) lists 21 water supply wells within a one-mile radius of the proposed expansion area. Two wells are located to the west of study area, nine to the south, six to the northeast, and four to the northwest. The depth of these wells ranges from 39 to 460 ft bgs, with an average depth of 185 ft bgs. The well type/usage from the MBMG database noted their main purpose was for either private domestic or stockwater. Only 1 well record (GWID 12684) was classified as ‘public water supply’, located approximately 0.7 miles to the northwest of the project study area near the town of Logan. Wells within Section 6 are not tabulated as they are all owned/installed by the Gallatin County Solid Waste Management District and are used for environmental monitoring of the landfill per ARM 17 50, Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action. A list of the recorded wells and a map of their locations is included in this section. Attachment 5 Public & Private Water Supplies GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONengineeringR NORTHGAL L A T I N RIVER I-90 LOGAN ONE MILE RADIUS LICENSED BOUNDARY 9289 254945 199350 9356 177250 12724 191969 249386 12726 12725 192772 12702 12700 12712 12684 WATER SUPPLY WELL (GWIC #) WATER SUPPLY SPRING LICENSED BOUNDARY LEGEND 288804 I-90 176957 269451 9357 EVAN'S SPRING MILLER'S SPRING LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSION PROPERTY BOUNDARY 299255 EXPANSION AREA 28755 FREEWAY SPRING Attachment 5 Water Well Records from MBMG Database in Vicinity of Project Area GWIC Record Name Location (T/R Section)Well Location Relative of Project Study Area Date Well Depth (ft bgs)Type 254945 Montana Rail Link T2N/R2E Section 36 West 2009 258 Domestic 9289 Western, T. & D.T1N/R2E Section 1 West 1985 80 Stockwater 199350 Bosway Holstiens T1N/R3E Section 7 South 2002 204 Domestic 9356 Zimmerman, Joe T1N/R3E Section 7 South 1947 135 Domestic 177250 Worman, Clint T1N/R3E Section 35 South 1999 50 Domestic 287555 Helle, Livestock T1N/R3E Section 18 South 2016 301 Domestic 9357 Kelsey-Vallee Ranches T1N/R3E Section 7 South 1981 460 Unknown 269451 Bos Robert T1N/R3E Section 7 South 2012 280 Unused 288804 Miller, Allen T1N/R3E Section 7 South 2016 300 Domestic 299255 Chaffins, Lucas T1N/R3E Section 7 South 2018 300 Domestic 199352 Bosways Holstiens T1N/R3E Section 7 South 2002 620 Stockwater 12724 Wytana Livestock Co.T2N/R3E Section 32 Northeast 1955 165 Domestic & Stockwater 191969 Pilati, Knox T2N/R3E Section 32 Northeast 2001 100 Domestic 249386 Martin, JoAnne T2N/R3E Section 32 Northeast 2009 82 Domestic 197772 King, Brian T2N/R3E Section 32 Northeast 2001 80 Domestic 12726 Flikkema, Maynard T2N/R3E Section 32 Northeast 1976 55 Domestic 12725 Glisan, Russel T2N/R3E Section 32 Northeast 1911 39 Domestic & Stockwater 12684 Groenendal, James T2N/R2E Section 36 Northwest 1985 100 Public Water Supply 12712 Gruenendal, Jim T2N/R2E Section 36 Northwest 1988 114 Domestic 12700 Heavner, William T2N/R2E Section 36 Northwest 1885 90 Domestic 12702 Karlstrom, Delbert T2N/R2E Section 36 Northwest 1900 65 Domestic Notes: 1. Well records from Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology via http://data.mbmg.mtech.edu/mapper. 2. Wells tabulated above are within an approxmately 1 mile buffer zone from perimeter extent of Section 6 T1N/R3E Project Area. 3. Wells within Section 6 T1N/R3E Project Area are all installed by Gallatin Solid Waste District used for landfill environmental monitoring. Attachment 6 Master Plan Drawings Attachment 6. Site Map The facility map showing the elements outlined on the Class II Solid Waste Management System License Application is included in the Master Plan, included here as Attachment 6. NO.DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONMissoulaMiles CityMaltaKalispellHelenaHamiltonGreat FallsGlendiveButteBozemanBillingsCANADAWYOMINGNORTH DAKOTAID AH OHavreShelbyWolf Point22294949090901515151SHEET NO.SET NO.PROJECT:DATE:SHEET INDEXPLANS PREPARED BY:PROJECT LOCATIONDYLAN PANNABECKERBRET ANDERSONAPPROVED BY:STEPHANIE BECKERT, P.E.GREAT WEST ENGINEERINGQA/QC BY:GREAT WEST ENGINEERINGPLANS PREPARED FOR:GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTROBERT CHURCH, P.E.JIM SIMON, DISTRICT MANAGERNOT TO SCALESHEET 1 - COVERSHEET 2 - LEGEND - ABBREVIATIONS AND GENERAL NOTESSHEET 3 - SEQUENCE PLANSHEET 4 - OVERALL CUT PLANSHEET 5 - OVERALL FILL PLANSHEET 6 - CROSS SECTIONSSHEET 7 - CROSS SECTIONSSHEET 8 - PHASE 5 EXCAVATION PLANSHEET 9 - PHASE 5 EXCAVATION CROSS SECTIONSSHEET 10 - PHASE 5 WASTE PHASE 6 EXCAVATION PLANSHEET 11 - PHASE 5 WASTE PHASE 6 EXCAVATION CROSS SECTIONSSHEET 12 - PHASE 6 WASTE PHASE 7 EXCAVATION PLANSHEET 13 - PHASE 5 WASTE PHASE 6 EXCAVATION CROSS SECTIONSSHEET 14 - PHASE 5 WASTE PHASE 7 EXCAVATION CROSS SECTIONSSHEET 15 - PHASE 7 WASTE PHASE 8 EXCAVATION PLANSHEET 16 - PHASE 7 WASTE PHASE 8 EXCAVATION CROSS SECTIONSSHEET 17 - PHASE 8 WASTE PHASE 9 EXCAVATION PLANSHEET 18 - PHASE 8 WASTE PHASE 9 EXCAVATION CROSS SECTIONSSHEET 19 - PHASE 9 WASTE PLANSHEET 20 - PHASE 9 WASTE CROSS SECTIONSSHEET 21 - PHASE 9 WASTE CROSS SECTIONSSHEET 22 - DETAILSSHEET 23 - DETAILSSHEET 24 - DETAILSSHEET 25 - DETAILSSHEET 26 - DETAILSSHEET 27 - DETAILSSHEET 28 - DETAILSSHEET 29 - DETAILSSHEET 30 - DETAILSSECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 1 N., AND RANGE 3 E.AUGUST 11, 20201-05119GALLATIN SOLID WASTEMANAGEMENT DISTRICTLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSEEXPANSION MASTER PLANengineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RLogan127 ACREEXISTINGLICENSEDAREA LICENSEEXAPANSIONBOUNDARYSCALE SITE8.8 ACRESLICENSE EXPANSION BOUNDARYAPPROX. 535 ACRES (TYP.)300 ACREEXPANSIONAREA WASTEBOUNDARY OF 302LEGEND - ABBREVIATIONSAND GENERAL NOTESBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTIONCTVCTVFOFOGGOHPOHPUGPUGPFMFMSSOHTOHTUGTUGTSDSDWWWLSTSSTSEXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTIONCCGPPTTVCCGPPTTVLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RPhaseTotalAirspace (CY)WasteVolume (CY)Daily Cover(CY)Final Cover(CY)Total SoilRequired(CY)Total Fill Requiredfor Construction(CY)TotalExcavation(CY)Tonnage(Tons)Life (Years)Soil Balance(CY)Roads, Ponds, & Ditches39,900 241,200 201,300Phase 51,865,900 1,488,200 346,100 31,600 377,700 8,100 892,100 952,4506.0506,300Phase 61,619,600 1,314,000 305,6000305,6000596,600 841,0005.3291,000Phase 71,056,800 843,800 196,200 16,800 213,0000509,800 540,0003.4296,800Phase 81,545,300 1,214,550 282,450 48,300 330,75020403,100 777,3004.972,330Phase 93,308,600 2,528,400 588,000 192,200 780,2000314,900 1,618,20010.1‐465,300Remaining West Side and East Side 48,442,400 37,964,200 8,828,900 1,649,30010,478,200 1,800 10,909,400 24,297,100152429,400Total57,838,600 45,353,150 10,547,250 1,938,200 12,485,450 49,820 13,867,100 29,026,0501811,331,830 FOFOFOOF 303SEQUENCE PLANBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020NORTHLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RPHASE 912.32 ACRESPHASE 4LANDFILL AREAPHASE 3LANDFILL AREAPHASE 2CLOSURE AREACLASSIV AREAINTERSTATE 90PHASE 2CLOSUREAREAPHASE 811.83 ACRESPHASE 711.32 ACRESPHASE 519.98 ACRESPHASE 1612.73 ACRESPHASE 1712.73 ACRESPHASE 1812.73 ACRESPHASE 2012.64 ACRESPHASE 1912.63 ACRESPHASE 1012.45 ACRESPHASE 2112.23 ACRESPHASE 2212.21 ACRESPHASE 2412.12 ACRESPHASE 2312.11 ACRESPHASE 1212.10 ACRESPHASE 2612.89 ACRESPHASE 2513.17 ACRESPHASE 1415.42 ACRESPHASE 2713.11 ACRESPHASE 1515.80 ACRESPHASE 1112.83 ACRESPHASE 612.37 ACRESPHASE 1312.09 ACRES 4NORTHA A' B B'DD'CC'PROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627ROF 30LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTPHASE 4LANDFILL AREAPHASE 3LANDFILL AREACLASSIV AREAPHASE 2CLOSUREAREAINTERSTATE-90PHASE 3LANDFILL AREAPHASE 2CLOSURE AREAOVERALL CUT PLANBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020 5NORTHA A' B B'DD'CC'PROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627ROF 30LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTB B'PHASE 4LANDFILL AREAPHASE 3LANDFILL AREAPHASE 2CLOSURE AREACLASSIV AREAPHASE 2CLOSUREAREAINTERSTATE-90OVERALL FILL PLANBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020 6PROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627ROF 30LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTCROSS SECTIONSBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020 7PROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627ROF 30LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTCROSS SECTIONSBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020 OF 308PHASE 5 EXCAVATION PLANBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTNORTHPHASE 5EE'F F' OF 309PHASE 5 EXCAVATION CROSS SECTIONSBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTPHASE 5EXCAVATIONPHASE 5EXCAVATION OF 3010PHASE 5 WASTE PHASE 6 EXCAVATION PLANBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020NORTHLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTGG'H H'PHASE 5PHASE 6PHASE 5CLOSURE4.9 ACRES OF 3011PHASE 5 WASTE PHASE 6 EXCAVATIONCROSS SECTIONSBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTPHASE 5EXCAVATIONPHASE 5EXCAVATIONPHASE 5WASTEPHASE 5WASTEPHASE 6EXCAVATION OF 3012PHASE 6 WASTE PHASE 7 EXCAVATION PLANBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020NORTHLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RII'J J'GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTKK'L L'PHASE 7PHASE 6PHASE 5PHASE 5CLOSURE OF 3013BAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020PROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTPHASE 5 WASTE PHASE 6 EXCAVATIONCROSS SECTIONSPHASE 5EXCAVATIONPHASE 6EXCAVATIONPHASE 6WASTEPHASE 5WASTEPHASE 6EXCAVATIONPHASE 6WASTE OF 3014BAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTPHASE 5 WASTE PHASE 7 EXCAVATIONCROSS SECTIONSPHASE 7EXCAVATIONPHASE 5EXCAVATIONPHASE 5WASTEPHASE 7EXCAVATION OF 3015PHASE 7 WASTE PHASE 8 EXCAVATION PLANBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020NORTHLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RMM'N N'PHASE 8PHASE 7PHASE 7CLOSURE2.6 ACRESGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTPHASE 5PHASE 6PHASE 5CLOSURE OF 3016BAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTPHASE 7 WASTE PHASE 8 EXCAVATIONCROSS SECTIONSPHASE 7EXCAVATIONPHASE 7EXCAVATIONPHASE 7WASTEPHASE 7WASTEPHASE 5WASTEPHASE 8EXCAVATION OF 3017PHASE 8 WASTE PHASE 9 EXCAVATION PLANBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020NORTHLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627ROO'P P'PHASE 9PHASE 8PHASE 8CLOSURE7.5 ACRESGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTPHASE 6PHASE 5PHASE 7PHASE 7CLOSUREPHASE 5CLOSURE OF 3018BAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTPHASE 8 WASTE PHASE 9 EXCAVATIONCROSS SECTIONSPHASE 8EXCAVATIONPHASE 7EXCAVATIONPHASE 8WASTEPHASE 8WASTEPHASE 9EXCAVATIONPHASE 7WASTEPHASE 8EXCAVATION OF 3019PHASE 9 WASTE PLANBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020NORTHLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RQQ'R R'PHASE 8PHASE 7PHASE 9CLOSURE29.8 ACRESPHASE 9PHASE 6PHASE 5GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS S'PHASE 5CLOSUREPHASE 7CLOSUREPHASE 8CLOSURE OF 3020PHASE 9 WASTE CROSS SECTIONSBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTPHASE 7EXCAVATIONPHASE 5EXCAVATIONPHASE 5WASTEPHASE 7WASTEPHASE 9EXCAVATIONPHASE 9WASTEPHASE 7EXCAVATIONPHASE 7WASTEPHASE 8EXCAVATIONPHASE 8WASTEPHASE 9WASTEPHASE 8WASTE OF 3021PHASE 9 WASTE CROSS SECTIONSBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTPHASE 9EXCAVATIONPHASE 9WASTEPHASE 6EXCAVATIONPHASE 6WASTE OF 3022DETAILSBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT OF 3023DETAILSBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT OF 3024DETAILSBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT OF 3025DETAILSBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT OF 3026DETAILSBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENTDISTRICTPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627R OF 3027DETAILSBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT OF 3028DETAILSBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT OF 3029DETAILSBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT OF 3030DETAILSBAA / SMBBAA / DCPRECSMB1-05119AUGUST 11, 2020LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONMASTER PLANPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Attachment 7 Hydrogeological and Soils Characterization LOGAN LANDFILL Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion June 2020 Prepared for: Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Gallatin Solid Waste Management District Table of Contents Certification…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….i 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose and Objectives ....................................................................................... 1 1.2 Regulatory Requirements and Coordination ........................................................ 1 1.3 Document Organization ....................................................................................... 1 2 Site Description and Adjacent Properties .........................................................................................3 2.1 Site Description .................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Expansion Area and Adjacent Properties ............................................................ 3 3 Site Characterization .........................................................................................................................4 3.1 Previous Related Work ........................................................................................ 4 3.2 Field Investigation Methods ................................................................................. 4 3.3 Field Investigation Data Summary ....................................................................... 6 4 Regional and Site-Specific Hydrogeologic Conditions .......................................................................9 4.1 Regional Framework ............................................................................................ 9 4.2 Site-Specific Soils and Hydrogeologic Conditions ............................................. 11 4.3 Uppermost Groundwater.................................................................................... 13 5 Summary and Technical Justification ............................................................................................ 18 6 References ..................................................................................................................................... 19 List of Tables 1 Summary of Field Investigation Borings and Well Construction Details 2 Well Development Summary 3 Soils Testing Laboratory Results 4 Climate Data 5 Summary and Technical Justification List of Figures 1 Site Location Map 2 Adjacent Properties and Land Use Map 3 Boring and Well Locations 4 Surface Water, Springs/Seeps, and Wetlands 5 Cross-Section Lines in Plan-View 5A Hydrogeologic Cross-Section A-A’ (North-Northwest Orientation) 5B Hydrogeologic Cross-Section B-B’ (North Orientation) 5C Hydrogeologic Cross-Section C-C’ (East-West Orientation) 6 Groundwater Flow Map 7 Groundwater Elevation Hydrograph Appendices A Photograph Log B Test Pit Map and Summary Table C Boring Logs: C.1 Borings C.2 Groundwater Monitoring Wells and As-Built Well Construction Diagrams C.3 Pre-Existing Logs (and As-Built Well Construction Diagrams) D Soils Testing Laboratory Results E Publicly Available Data: E.1 Topographic (Quadrangle) Maps of Study Area E.2 Geologic Map of Bozeman E.3 Watershed Boundaries of Gallatin River and Tributaries E.4 Soils Map via Natural Resources Conservation Service E.5 Water Well Logs Summary Table and Map Data from MBMG Database Certification Page: This report has been prepared by Mr. Craig Sauer, whom is a ‘Qualified Groundwater Scientist’ as is defined under Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) Chapter 17.50.1302. Mr. Sauer holds a bachelor’s degree in Geology and a master’s degree in Hydrogeology. He has over 20 years of consulting experience and is a certified Professional Geologist in the states of Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming. LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 1 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose and Objectives This report has been prepared for the Gallatin County Solid Waste Management District (the District) in support of the permitting requirements for expanding the Logan Landfill license. Specifically, the scope of this document is specified under Administrative Rule of Montana (ARM) Chapter 50, Solid Waste Management, Subchapter 17.50.13.11, Hydrogeologic and Soils Characterization. In accordance with these requirements, the owner is required to compile existing regional hydrogeologic data and collect site-specific subsurface data to characterize the soils and uppermost groundwater conditions as part of the permitting approval process. 1.2 Regulatory Requirements and Coordination In support of this work, Great West submitted a Work Plan (Great West 2018) to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on September 27, 2018. The Work Plan described the expansion area limits, preliminary related investigative work, existing groundwater conditions, and the proposed subsurface exploration plan for the proposed expansion area. As follow-up to comments from MDEQ on the initial Work Plan, Great West modified the exploration quantities (via email to John Collins on November 2, 2018) to include a total of 95 exploration locations, broken out into 71 test pit excavations and 24 test borings to comply with the minimum requirements per acres as specified in ARM 17.50.1311(3). To satisfy the hydrogeologic requirements, a subset of the test borings were advanced into uppermost groundwater and completed as groundwater monitoring wells. Groundwater monitoring is required for Class II landfills, and future related work, but beyond the current scope of this hydrogeology and soils report, is to establish the following: • Groundwater Monitoring Systems, per ARM 17.50.1304. • Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Requirements, per ARM 17.50.1305. • Detection Monitoring Program, per ARM 17.50.1306. A proposed Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan, which describes the groundwater monitoring network, sampling and data analysis procedures, and detection monitoring, is included in the landfill license application. Once the District obtains regulatory approval for expansion (i.e., the permit), these additional and related work elements will be coordinated and performed with MDEQ approvals. 1.3 Document Organization The intent of this report is to document the requirements as specified under ARM 17.50.1311, Hydrogeologic and Soils Characterization. The approach and overall layout of this report is described by section below: • Section 1. Summarizes the report objectives and regulatory framework. • Section 2. Summary of the site expansion area and adjacent land use to provide context for the soils and hydrogeology characteristics. • Section 3. Focused discussion on the existing data and the site-specific 2019 field investigation work and related data as outlined in the 2018 Work Plan submitted to MDEQ. • Section 4. Compilation of available soils and hydrogeologic data with discussion of the regional and site-specific soils and hydrogeologic conditions for the uppermost groundwater unit in the expansion area in support of ARM requirements. • Section 5. Summary of the specific ARM hydrogeologic and soils report requirements and associated technical justification as related to site-specific data. This section is intended to LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 2 be a quick-reference guide or checklist for readers/regulators to review the minimum requirements and locate the specific information via narrative, tables, figures, and/or appendixes. • Section 6. References cited throughout the document. LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 3 2 Site Description and Adjacent Properties 2.1 Site Description Figure 1 shows the proposed expansion area. The proposed solid waste expansion site is located within Township 1 North, Range 3 East, Section 6; approximately 2 miles southeast of Logan and within Gallatin County, Montana. The proposed landfill expansion area boundaries encompass a total of 535 acres for waste disposal activities and 8.8 acres of the existing scale facilities, which is portions of Section 6 (T1N, R3E) excluding the northwest corner and northeast corner. The northwest corner is the active and licensed landfill which has been active/operated since the early 1970’s, the northeast corner of Section 6 is located on the opposite side of I-90 from the rest of Section 6. Of the total acres designated as expansion, only 300 acres are planned for actual active landfilling of MSW and Class IV wastes (i.e., waste disposal limits). The District may dispose of asbestos in a 9 acre area as shown on the plans. The District owns the property planned for expansion, which is currently undeveloped grassland and has been intermittently used for grazing livestock. Access to/from the expansion area would utilize the same existing entrance road via Two Dog Road just south of and paralleling I-90. 2.2 Expansion Area and Adjacent Properties Figure 1 shows the extent of the MSW and Class IV waste refuse boundary (300 acres) and the permitted boundary (535 acres). Figure 2 shows the adjacent properties around the proposed expansion area. In 2019, the District acquired the property encompassing the entire project study area, which consists of 535 acres situated immediately to the east and south of the existing facility. The District intends to license the entire 535 acres of the newly acquired property, however, only 300 of these acres are intended for actual landfilling of MSW and Class IV wastes, 9 acres will be used for asbestos disposal, with the remaining property containing stormwater ponds, leachate ponds, access roads, buildings, infrastructure, and serving as a buffer zone around the new facility. The facility is also licensing the 8.8 acre existing scale facility which is property owned by the District, no waste disposal will be done in this area. The area immediately to the west/northwest of the expansion area is owned by the District and is the currently active and permitted Class II landfill which has been operational since approximately 1970 and was first licensed in 1975. The area north of the expansion waste boundary is a 500-foot buffer-zone extending to I-90, and is undeveloped grassland. The area due east of the waste boundary limits is another 1,000-foot buffer zone to the edge of District property, which abuts a transition from grassland to agricultural fields. The area immediately south of the expansion area is undeveloped grassland, and there is a 225-foot buffer between the southernmost waste limit boundary and the District property boundary. Section 4 of this report includes additional discussion on the adjacent land features with respect to site topography, soils, surface water, geology, and the regional hydrogeologic setting. LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 4 3 Site Characterization 3.1 Previous Related Work The District has completed previous work in support of management decisions to identify potential suitable landfill expansion areas. In 2006, field investigations were completed in two potential areas as ‘screening level’ efforts, including the Jackson Property, which is the 1 by 1 mile area (640 acres, Section 6) located immediately west of the active/existing permitted landfill, and the second area referred to at the time as ‘State Lands’ which is now owned by the District via land swap in 2019 (Section 6). These prior related efforts were documented by Great West and submitted to the District, however, they have not been submitted to MDEQ. These prior field investigation efforts completed in 2006 within the expansion area limits (i.e., formerly State Lands) included a total of 7 borings and 4 test pits. These prior data have been reviewed and are deemed suitable to be counted towards the site characterization permitting requirements as presented in Section 3.2. 3.2 Field Investigation Methods The Work Plan (Great West, 2018) submitted to MDEQ established the overall number of borings and test pits to meet ARM minimum requirements. All the field investigation work was conducted under the direct supervision of a qualified groundwater scientist (professional geologist), employed by Great West Engineering. The District supported the test pit explorations with an experienced operator and used a track-mounted excavator. The drilling work for the borings and groundwater monitoring wells was subcontracted through the District and performed by O’Keefe Drilling out of Butte, Montana. The fieldwork was completed in two phases to evaluate subsurface conditions from the initial phase of work to optimize the placement of groundwater monitoring wells planned for the second/final phase. The initial phase included test pits and drilling work and was completed from July 22 through August 9, 2019; the second phase included drilling work and was performed from October 1 through October 10, 2019. Additional details on work approach and methods for the primary activities is provided below. 3.2.1 Test Pits Test pit locations were selected to provide a general grid-like spatial coverage with respect to the expansion area and number of test pits needed. The test pit locations (coordinates) were determined from CAD mapping and then field located using a hand-held GPS Unit (Garmin III+) prior to excavation. The District operator rented a track-mounted John Deere excavator Model 350G with a 36-inch wide bucket. Test pit depths targeted maximum depth capacity of the excavator, which was typically in the range of 12-15 ft bgs (note that the ARM regulations cite test pit depths of ten feet). Bulk samples, or commonly referred to as ‘grab’ samples, of predominant soil types were collected, logged, and archived in zip-lock baggies at each test pit location. Predominant soil types were logged according to the visual-manual procedure as described in American Standard Test Methods (ASTM) D-2488, the presence/absence of saturated conditions, and the degree of difficulty for excavating. Photographs of each test pit were obtained before back-filling the pit with the native soils. 3.2.2 Test Borings In general, the location of the borings targeted the interior of the expansion area footprint in consideration of existing data and also filling in data gaps from the deeper borings generally placed around the perimeter of the waste boundary limits (as described below under groundwater monitoring wells). Depths of borings were determined from preliminary bottom liner design concepts to achieve at least 20 feet below the extent of potential future waste limits and considering site topographic features/elevation. LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 5 Drilling and soil sampling for test borings (and to facilitate installation of wells, described below) was performed using a track mounted Sonic Geoprobe Model 8150LS. The Sonic method involved initial advancement of an inner 4-inch diameter casing vibrated down to depth (typically attempting 10-ft runs); followed up by a larger 6-inch diameter casing advanced over the 4-inch casing to same depth. The 4-inch casing was then extruded (removed) and the soil core was vibrated out into plastic sleeves for geologic logging of soil types (and archiving of soil materials for lab testing, as needed). The larger 6-inch diameter casing kept the borehole open and facilitates repeated cycles of advancing the 4-inch casing ahead of the 6-inch casing until the total depth was achieved. At periodic intervals, the driller needed to inject potable water to enable advancement through some of the harder zones (such as through consolidated sandstone or siltstone intervals). The sonic samples, labeled as ‘runs’ on boring logs, were visually logged according to ASTM D-2488 on boring logs. Selected soil sample intervals were archived and labelled in zip-lock baggies, and a subset of archived samples was selected and submitted for laboratory analysis. In addition to recovering and logging the Sonic soil samples, at selected intervals as requested by the onsite geologist, typical standard-penetration test (SPT) drive samples were collected using a DH104 Auto-hammer in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. Per the method, this sampling technique uses a standard 1.5-inch wide by 18-inch long split-spoon sampler, driven 18 inches with the DH104 auto-hammer. Per the method, the number of blows for each of three 6-inch intervals is recorded on the soil boring log, and the soil density or consistency is the sum for the deepest 12 inch interval (commonly referred to and noted on soil boring logs as the “N-Value”). After achieving the total planned depth, the drilling contractor abandoned the boreholes to ground surface in accordance with ARM 17.50.1312. Specifically, abandonment was achieved by pouring bentonite chips from the bottom of the borehole to ground surface. To ensure a continuous seal, the procedure involved a series of placing bentonite chips while extruding/removing the temporary outer steel casing until all the casing had been removed and the bentonite was placed continuously up to ground surface. 3.2.3 Groundwater Monitoring Wells In plan-view, placement of the groundwater monitoring wells generally considered the extent of the waste limits boundary (see Figure 1) and targeted the outer perimeter areas, along with one interior (center) location. Depths of groundwater monitoring wells targeted the uppermost saturated conditions based on a review of groundwater characteristics from the active landfill area immediately to the northwest of the expansion area, and more specifically, based on the moisture content and degree of saturation observed from sonic soil samples during drilling advancement. The screen interval depths and screen lengths were determined in the field from the onsite geologist based on observed zones of uppermost saturated conditions. The screen lengths typically ranged from 10 to 20 feet and consisted of 2-inch diameter Sch. 40 PVC with 0.010-inch factory slots. The bottom of the well was a 6-inch long blunt end cap with factory threads, and stainless-steel centralizers were placed at the bottom and top of screen interval to center the screen assembly within the borehole. The filter pack (sand) consisted of No. 10-20 Silica Sand and was placed adjacent to and typically 3 to 6 feet higher than the top of the screen. The annular seal (above the screen zone) was filled with bentonite chips from the interval above the filter sand to approximately 1 foot below ground surface. The surface completion consisted of a concrete ring at ground surface securing a 6-inch diameter steel protective stick-up monument with lockable lid. The stick-up height of the PVC casing was typically 2.5 ft above ground surface, while the steel protective casing/lockable lid assembly was typically 3.0 ft above ground surface. LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 6 3.2.4 Well Development Well development activities were performed at all the newly installed wells as the final 2 days of the field investigation work and were conducted on October 9 and 10, 2019. Well development was facilitated by using a support truck with 20-foot high boom and hoist to facilitate surging and bailing (purging) of groundwater. Both surging and bailing activities were performed with a 1.5-inch diameter by 5-foot long stainless-steel bailer. The bailer was decontaminated before using at each well location. The procedure consisted of initial surging the screen interval by lowering and raising the bailer vigorously throughout the screen interval to agitate and suspend the fines; followed up by a phase of bailing of groundwater to remove the fines and improve hydraulic connection between screen zone and adjacent groundwater. 3.2.5 Laboratory Testing At the conclusion of the project, a subset of archived soil samples were selected for physical properties soil testing. The test methods included gradation (ASTM D-422), percent passing No. 200 sieve (i.e., wash, ASTM D-1140), Atterberg (ASTM D-4318), and hydraulic conductivity (ASTM D-2434 for coarse-grained samples or D-5084 for fine-grained material). The emphasis of soils testing work was to quantify or estimate the hydraulic conductivity (or typically referred to as permeability) to support the characterization of groundwater flow in the uppermost aquifer, and relative permeability in the confining units above and/or below the uppermost groundwater flow zones. Additional testing was conducted to verify or quantify field observations (such as gradation and P200), and to better understand fine-grained samples (i.e., Atterberg Tests). 3.2.6 Survey The planned locations for the borings/wells were initially established from CAD software mapping and then the target locations were staked by Great West. The initial survey supported the “one-call” utility locate, and also assisted with field determination of the actual drilling and test pit locations. After the drilling work was complete, Great West staff performed an as-built survey of the new and existing locations. The survey included positional coordinates (X-Y) at the center of each monitoring well recorded as latitude and longitude, and vertical elevation (North America Vertical Datum [NAVD] ) recorded to the nearest hundredth of a foot at both the ground surface and atop the PVC rim used as the reference point for collecting groundwater levels. The survey included all the new groundwater monitoring wells, plus verification of survey coordinates and top-of-casing elevations at the existing wells. 3.3 Field Investigation Data Summary This section provides a data summary of the primary activities and work approach as described above. Appendix A provides photographs showing the primary work activities, including the overall setup for test pit excavations, drilling rig setup, soil sampling equipment, typical soil samples from sonic and SPT methods, groundwater monitoring well installation, and well development activities. A more in-depth discussion and interpretation of the hydrogeologic and soils conditions as required per ARM requirements is presented in Sections 4 and 5 of this report. 3.3.1 Test Pits Appendix B includes a site map and summary table showing details of the test pit explorations. The total number of test pits was 71 within the expansion area footprint; 4 of these test pits were excavated in 2006, and the remaining 67 test pits were excavated in July of 2019. The test pit depths ranged from 9 to 16 ft bgs and averaged a depth of 13 ft bgs. Note that ARM requirements for test pits cite a minimum depth of 10 ft bgs, so all the 2019 test pit explorations exceeded the minimum depth criteria. LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 7 The predominant soil types observed from the test pit exploration were logged as fine to medium grained sand, typically poorly graded with a range of 5 to 10 percent fines (visual-manual field classification of SP or SP-SM). There were also occasional zones of silty fine sand (logged as SM), and consolidated zones interpreted as either sandstone or siltstone. As annotated on the map, there were selected locations which were more difficult to excavate (i.e., more consolidated or dense material). These locations were interpreted as either siltstone or sandstone, and their location correlated to surface elevations in the range of 4,270 to 4,300 ft msl positioned along the west- facing slope of the north-south trending ridgeline. Although selected areas were observed as ‘harder’ to excavate, the majority of locations were relatively easy to excavate, and the entire expansion area footprint is considered suitable for modern excavation equipment to construct a landfill in the uppermost soil horizons. 3.3.2 Test Borings Figure 3 shows the location of the 18 test borings, which included 7 borings completed in 2006 (HVTB-1 through HVTB-7), and 11 new borings completed in 2019 (TB-100 through TB-110). Appendix C includes copies of the digitized field boring logs. Table 1 summarizes the boring log details with respect to completion dates, coordinates, elevations, and total depth. The depth of borings ranged from 40 to 70 ft bgs, except for HVTB-7 which was relatively shallow at 17 ft bgs in the southeast corner of the expansion area. Overall, the subsurface soils encountered in the test borings was predominantly silty to poorly graded sand and/or weathered sandstone, with secondary soil types consisting of silt, siltstone, and occasional zones of clean coarse sand and gravel. The boring logs provide an interpreted graphic log of the soils encountered at each boring. The overall heterogeneity and variety of different soil types and relatively thin lenses observed from the continuous sonic sampling method suggests a relatively complex and active depositional history. Saturated zones and/or groundwater was not observed in any of the designated soil borings, except for HVTB-1 located in the northwest corner at the expansion area, where saturated conditions were observed at approximately 30 ft bgs. The presence of saturated conditions (i.e., groundwater) in HVTB-1 is consistent with the overall depth and elevation of uppermost saturated conditions observed for locations to the west associated with the active landfill, and also consistent with the depths/elevations for groundwater encountered in the new 2019 wells located to the east and south as described in the next section. 3.3.3 Groundwater Monitoring Wells Figure 3 shows the location of the 7 groundwater monitoring wells installed during the 2019 field investigation (LMW-100 through LMW-106). Note that these new wells were drilled and sampled with the same rig and sampling approach as described for the test borings, and they are counted as a ‘boring’ with respect to the ARM minimum site characterization requirements. Appendix C includes the digitized boring logs and as-built well construction diagrams. Table 1 summarizes the well construction date, coordinates, elevations, total depth, and the screen intervals. The depth of the borings for the groundwater monitoring wells ranged from 80 to 200 ft bgs, and the variability in depth is mainly attributed to the undulations in surface topography associated with the center ridge (topographic high), and also the regional topography generally sloping to the north. The observation of saturated zones (i.e., uppermost groundwater) was typically in relatively clean sand intervals in the range of 10 to 20 ft thick, and commonly associated with relatively finer-grained soil above and below these uppermost saturated zones horizons, which were typically lacking evidence of moisture or saturation. The depth (or elevation) to uppermost groundwater was typically observed at an elevation in the range of 4,170 to 4,150 ft msl, with the exception of LMW-102 which had the LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 8 highest observed uppermost groundwater encountered in a saturated sand zone in the range of 4,230 to 4,220 ft msl, noticeably higher in comparison to the rest of the wells. Sections 4 and 5 present and evaluate the groundwater flow characteristics by way of regional setting, hydrogeologic cross-sections, groundwater flow map, estimates of groundwater seepage velocity, and site hydrograph. 3.3.4 Well Development Well development was conducted to purge/remove the fine sediment (silt, clay, and very fine sand particles) from the filter pack to promote hydraulic connection, and specific to the objectives of this report, to verify the well is/was recharging and thus inferred to be hydraulically connected to uppermost groundwater. Table 2 shows a summary of the well development observations and measurements from the development performed over a two-day period on October 9 and 10th, 2019. Based on the well development observations, it demonstrated that all the new 2019 wells were producing (recharging) groundwater at the time of development, and that the groundwater levels were generally consistent with the depth to uppermost saturated conditions/groundwater as observed during drilling (and generally at a level near the top of the screen). The well development data are significant in that they support that all the wells were successfully completed in the uppermost groundwater zone and are in hydraulic connection with uppermost groundwater. Future monitoring of groundwater levels and groundwater quality data will be helpful to characterize seasonality and the uppermost groundwater characteristics. 3.3.5 Laboratory Testing Appendix D includes the laboratory testing results performed by Budinger & Associates, whom is an accredited testing laboratory located in Spokane, Washington. Table 3 summarizes the laboratory testing results for gradation, percent passing No. 200 sieve (P200), and hydraulic conductivity (or commonly referred to as permeability). The gradation results corroborated the field classifications and helped to quantify the borderline classifications between the sand and silt-sized fractions. The hydraulic conductivity testing was performed on samples from within the saturated intervals (well screen zones) and demonstrated relatively high values for the cleaner sand zones with an average value of 1.08x10-2 cm/sec, which is notably higher than the underlying fine-grained confining unit, with a range of hydraulic conductivity from 4.4x10-4 to 2.1x10-6 cm/sec (or an average for the underlying confining unit of 4.68x10-4 cm/sec). These hydraulic conductivity values are consistent with published values for sand and finer-grained silt material, respectively, as cited by Fetter (1994). 3.3.6 Survey Data Table 1 shows the as-built survey data coordinates and elevations performed by Great West as described in Section 3.2.6. The survey data is also recorded on the digitized boring logs and the well construction diagrams and is utilized for control to generate the hydrogeologic cross-sections and groundwater flow maps as presented in subsequent sections of this report. LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 9 4 Regional and Site-Specific Hydrogeologic Conditions 4.1 Regional Framework 4.1.1 Data Sources The regional framework has been synthesized from a review of the following publicly available data sources: • USGS Topographic maps of the expansion area site and surrounding areas; including quadrangle maps of Manhattan SW (the site), Logan (north of site), Manhattan (northeast of site), and Nixon Gulch (east of site) (USGS, 2014). • Soils maps and soil descriptions from the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2018). • Geologic Map of Montana, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Map 62 (Vuke and others, 2007). • Preliminary Geologic Map of the Bozeman 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, Southwestern Montana, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Open File Report No. 469 (Vuke and others, 2002). • Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Gallatin Valley, Gallatin County, Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1482 (Hackett and others, 1960). • Hydrogeological and Soils Investigation, Gallatin County Logan Landfill (Great West 2014). For reference, Appendix E includes copies of publicly available data sources which are the basis of discussions in subsequent sections, including topographic (quadrangle) maps, geologic map, soils map, a map illustrating the watershed boundaries and uppermost hydrogeolgic units in the Gallatin River watershed, and water supply well logs/records from MBMG database. 4.1.2 Climate The climate around Logan, Montana is classified as “cold semi-arid” and falls under the BSk climatic category according to the Koppen system of climatic classification. Table 4 shows a summary of average monthly high and low temperatures, monthly precipitation, and monthly snowfall based on data from 1981 through 2010 for the Belgrade area (located roughly 12 miles east of the landfill). The average high and low temperatures are 60 and 30 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively. The average annual precipitation is 14.0 inches with the highest months being May and June, while the least precipitation occurs during the months of December and January. The average annual snowfall is 41 inches and typically occurs during the months of November through April. 4.1.3 Regional Setting and Physiography The project study area lies within Gallatin County, which is in the southwestern portion of the State of Montana (see Figure 1). The study area is within the western end of the Gallatin River valley and located approximately 1 mile south of Gallatin River. The Gallatin River valley is situated within the Rocky Mountains, with the prominent physiographic features consisting of the Tabacco Root Mountain Range rising in elevation to the west, the Madison and Gallatin Mountain Ranges to the south, and the Bridger Range to the east. The surface topography of the study area is irregular but generally slopes to the northwest or northeast ranging from approximately 4,200 to 4,340 ft msl, which is a minimum of about 50 feet higher than the surface elevation of the Gallatin River valley to the north. To put these study area elevations into context, the highest elevations in the surrounding bounding mountain ranges rise to approximately 8,000-9,000 ft msl (examples include Hollowtop Mountain, Lone Mountain, and Sacagawea Peak respectively located to the southwest, south, and east of the study area). Maps showing topography of site and nearby areas are included in Appendix E.1) LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 10 4.1.4 Regional Geology The surface geology mapped by Vuke (2002) in the landfill expansion study area are Tertiary-aged sediment and sedimentary rocks (see geologic map in Appendix E.2). The regional information suggests that the stratigraphic sequence of the study area generally consists of up to a few hundred feet of unconsolidated sediment, predominantly fine sand to sandy silt, underlain by undifferentiated rocks consisting of siltstone, sandstone, and/or limestone. The uppermost unconsolidated sedimentary sequence is predominantly unconsolidated fine-grained sediment, but also contains variably weathered siltstone and/or sandstone. To the north of the study area, the surface materials associated with the Gallatin River valley floor are mapped as younger Quaternary-age alluvium, consisting mainly of coarser-grained sand and gravel. Quaternary-aged gravel zones are mapped at the surface in higher elevations located approximately 1 to 2 miles due south of the study area. Structural features, such as faults, folds, and or thrust zones are prominent within Gallatin County and in the general vicinity of the landfill expansion area as demonstrated from the mapping provided by Vuke (2002 and 2007) and others. The outcrops just north of Gallatin River (about 1 or 2 miles due north of the study area) correlate with northeast to southwest trending thrust zones, most notably, outcrops of siltstone, sandstone, and dolomite (most notably, the Madison Group, comprised of the Jefferson and Three Forks Formations). The characteristics and nature of the older/deeper rocks beneath the uppermost Tertiary-aged unconsolidated sequence is largely unknown due to lack of deep well data; however, other noteworthy geologic features mapped in the region are associated with igneous or volcanic rocks as evidenced by Tabacco Root Batholith (to the west of the site) and/or the Yellowstone volcanic rocks (to the southeast of the site). From a seismic perspective, the entire portion of southwest Montana has seismic potential in consideration of the major faults and the various tectonic features as shown in the maps by MBMG Map 62 (Vuke 2007). As shown in the geologic map by Vuke (included in Appendix E.2), there are several fault zones mapped around the landfill expansion area, including the Willow Creek Fault and the Nixon Thrust zone to the north, and the Central Part Fault to the south. There are not any major faults mapped through the immediate vicinity of the landfill expansion area. The MBMG Web database has an interactive seismic map application, which as of the writing of this report, shows some low-level earthquakes recorded near the landfill (recorded as less than 2 on the Richter Scale [RS]), but there are no major or destructive earthquakes recorded as greater than 5.5 RS within at least of 5-mile distance from the landfill expansion area. Some of the existing site structures/buildings, the active landfill, and current monitoring features (such as groundwater monitoring wells and gas monitoring probes) have been operational since 1970 and there are no known impacts or damages to these existing features from past seismic events. Although the entire portion of southwest Montana and landfill area has some seismic potential, the past operational history and review of seismic data does not suggest a complicating factor for permitting and expanding the active facility. 4.1.5 Regional Hydrogeology The landfill expansion area lies within the watershed boundaries of the Gallatin River Valley, and these watershed boundaries are illustrated by Hackett (1960). A copy of this map by Hackett is included in Appendix E.3. The Gallatin Canyon, located at the uppermost (southernmost) end of the watershed basin, is the primary inlet for surface water and groundwater entering the valley, and a gorge near Logan at the lowermost extent, is the only outlet for surface water or groundwater discharge exiting the watershed. LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 11 Groundwater is present within the coarse-grained Quaternary alluvial sediments associated with the Gallatin Valley floor, and also within the older Tertiary sediments which occur near and beneath the landfill expansion study area (see Geology description). Hackett (1960) notes that recharge to uppermost groundwater is primarily from infiltration of streams and excess irrigation, and only a minor component from direct infiltration of excess precipitation or snowmelt runoff; discharge of groundwater occurs from wells (pumping), springs, evapotranspiration, and groundwater discharge into surface water streams (in gaining reaches). The area within the Gallatin River Valley watershed is extensive, and for descriptive convenience, Hackett (1960) subdivides the groundwater characteristics into six hydrogeologic (groundwater) subareas, including: Gateway, Bozeman Fan, Belgrade, Central Park, Manhattan, and Camp Creek Hills. The Camp Creek Hills hydrogeologic subarea (i.e., uppermost groundwater) is present within the Tertiary-aged sediments and encompasses the landfill expansion area (see map Appendix E.3 by Hacket [1960]). The surface topography and stream features of this hydrologic subarea generally drain (slope) toward the Gallatin Valley floor to the north. Hackett (1960) notes that groundwater found in the Tertiary sediments in the Camp Creek Hills subarea occurs under unconfined and confined conditions, and although the unit is generally considered relatively low yield, there are sufficient number of wells in this hydrogeologic unit to support stock and limited domestic uses. Based on borehole data as described by Hacket (1960), the transmissivity of Tertiary-aged sediments in the Camp Creek subarea is relatively low (6,000-12,000 gpd/ft) in comparison to the adjacent Gallatin Valley alluvium in the Manhattan subarea, with relatively higher transmissivity values in the range of 120,000-140,000 gpd/ft. 4.2 Site-Specific Soils and Hydrogeologic Conditions 4.2.1 Surface Topography and Physiographic Features Figure 3 shows the surface topography of the landfill expansion area and the existing site features. Appendix E.1 includes topographic maps of the expansion area and adjacent properties. A topographic high ridgeline is oriented generally north-northeast, and from well LMW-101 location is at an elevation of 4,346 ft msl and extends through the center of the expansion area gently sloping northward to an elevation of approximately 4,275 ft msl along the north center perimeter near well LMW-104. The topography generally slopes north and away from this center ridgeline feature on the respective west and east sides of the expansion area. As described in Section 3.3.1 (test pits), this ridgeline feature is generally correlated with more resistant and weathered sandstone or siltstone. A photograph (Appendix A; see Photo #3) of the ground surface along this ridgeline shows an expression of the weathered sandstone material. The expansion area is completely undeveloped grassland and there are not any existing structures or prominent site features within the waste boundary limits. The only developed features are associated with the active disposal area along the northwest boundary of the expansion area, including a fence outlining the active disposal area, and a soils stockpile (fill soils) which are used for daily cover of active disposal activities. The expansion area is void of any trees or brush. Noteworthy drainages and surface water features are discussed in Section 4.2.3 (below). 4.2.2 Surface Soils Appendix E.4 includes a soil map of the study area obtained from the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) interactive web-tool: (https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.). As shown on the NRCS soils map, the majority of the expansion area falls within the symbol “38B”, which is described as a ‘fine sandy loam’ and correlated to areas with 0-4 percent slopes. This type LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 12 of soil is considered ‘prime farmland if irrigated’ however, the entire area is mapped as a ‘Class IV(4)’ soil which according to NRSC is a ‘soil which has very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both’. Based on a review of the test pit logs and the sonic soil samples recovered during drilling, the uppermost topsoil horizon, inferred from a typical darker color with higher percent fines, was typically on the order of 6-inches thick and classified as “silty fine sand”. 4.2.3 Surface Water, Springs/Seeps, and Wetlands Figure 4 shows the primary surface water features around the landfill expansion area, including perennial and ephemeral streams, an irrigation pond, irrigation canals, surface drainage features, springs/seeps, and jurisdictional wetlands. A discussion of these features is presented below. • Perennial surface water. The nearest major perennial surface water stream/river in the vicinity of the landfill expansion is the Gallatin River, which at its closest location to the landfill is approximately 1-mile due north of the landfill near Logan, Montana. Near Logan the Gallatin River is flowing westward toward the confluence of the Gallatin, Madison, and Jefferson Rivers located just north of Three Forks, Montana. • Irrigation Pond. A relatively small irrigation pond (estimated at approximately 5 acres) is located just southeast of the expansion area permitted boundaries. There were not any formal records or information located regarding construction of this pond or the design (such as bottom layers/liners). However, based on field reconnaissance in August and discussions with the District Solid Waste Manager, this pond receives surface water inflow from the “low- line” canal system during the months of approximately May through mid-October. The pond may also receive recharge from spring or stormwater runoff, and potentially recharge from shallow groundwater. • Ephemeral Streams (including irrigation canals). Immediately north of the irrigation pond is a drainage feature running northward along the eastern margin of the expansion property. This drainage channel carries irrigation water throughout the irrigation season from roughly May through mid-October. The irrigation water originates from two canals, including the “low-line” canal entering the southeast corner of the expansion area immediately south of the irrigation pond, and another un-named irrigation canal discharging into the drainage just east of well LMW-105 mid-way along the eastern margin (see Figure 4). Based on discussions with the District Manager, this channel is typically dry once these irrigation canals are shut down during winter months from roughly mid-October through April period, except for intermittent spring snowmelt or stormwater runoff events. No landfill activities or infrastructure are planned near these ephemeral streams. • Topographic low/surface drainage. There is a topographic low drainage feature running to the north-northeast along the western perimeter of the expansion area (or roughly running between the active cells and the expansion area). This drainage feature/channel is predominantly dry and only accumulates water during peak spring snowmelt events for limited duration but is otherwise dry. This area is generally characterized as a “topographic low” between the active landfill and the expansion area and does not typically have indications of any surface water flow (i.e., no evidence of erosion or runoff, etc). • Springs/seeps. There are three (3) springs/seeps located approximately one-quarter to three quarters of a mile north of the active landfill, labeled as ‘spring’ on the map. The elevation of where these springs emanate at ground surface correlates to the elevation and the overall LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 13 northward flow direction of uppermost groundwater monitored beneath the active landfill. As such, these springs are inferred to be an expression of uppermost groundwater hydraulically connected to the uppermost groundwater flowing generally northward beneath the landfill. • Wetlands. Based on a review of a wetland map by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2018) the only jurisdictional wetlands are in close proximity to the Gallatin River, roughly ¾ of a mile north of the landfill. 4.2.4 Site Stratigraphy Figure 5 presents a map showing the boring/well locations, and the orientation in plan-view for three (3) hydrogeologic cross-sections developed in subsequent figures to illustrate the site stratigraphy and depth to uppermost groundwater. Figure 5A shows the A-A’ cross-section oriented generally to the north-northwest and cutting through both the expansion area boundaries and the northeastern portion of the active cell area. Figure 5B shows the B-B’ cross-section oriented generally north through the center of the expansion area along the center ridgeline. Figure 5C shows the C-C’ section oriented east-west through the center of the expansion area and generally oriented perpendicular to the center ridgeline feature. Given the scale of these sections, the soils have been generalized to show the predominant soil types and relatively thin lenses were not included. The soil boring graphic logs (in Appendix C) present a scale that is suitable for showing relatively thin lenses of lithology that is otherwise too much detail to be illustrated on the generalized cross-sections. Consistent with the test pit and boring findings presented in Section 3, the cross-sections illustrate predominant soil types were silty to poorly graded sand and/or weathered sandstone, with secondary soil types consisting of silt, siltstone, and occasional zones of clean coarse sand. The overall heterogeneity and variety of different soil types and relatively thin lenses observed from the continuous sonic sampling method suggests a relatively complex and active depositional history. Given the heterogeneity and relatively complex depositional history, the units are not inferred to be laterally continuous from location to location, and as such, this type of geologic interpretation is not illustrated or attempted on the cross-sections. 4.3 Uppermost Groundwater 4.3.1 Nature & Occurrence of Uppermost Groundwater The observed soil moisture from the sonic soil cores (samples) collected during drilling was the primary basis to identify the depth to uppermost groundwater. The saturated zones observed in the field was the basis to determine the well screen design (i.e., length and depth interval) for construction of the groundwater monitoring wells. General characteristics of the observed saturated conditions and uppermost groundwater from each of the borings/wells is provided below (see boring log for details in Appendix C). • Well LMW-100. The depth to uppermost saturated conditions was observed from approximately 149 to 169 ft bgs, and this saturated interval consisted of primarily silty fine sand (SM) with occasional zones of poorly graded fine sand (SP-SM or SP). The material immediately above this saturated interval from 138-149 ft bgs was not saturated and logged as consolidated siltstone; the material from 169 to 180 ft bgs was logged as unconsolidated silt (ML) and considered an underlying confining zone. DTW 143 bgs – confined • Well LMW-101. The depth to uppermost saturated conditions was observed from 179 to 199 ft bgs, and this saturated interval consisted of primarily poorly graded clean sand (SP). The LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 14 material immediately above this saturated interval from 159-178 ft bgs was not saturated and logged as unconsolidated silt (ML). DTW 169 ft bgs - confined • Well LMW-102. The depth to uppermost saturated conditions was observed from 63 to 78 ft bgs, and this saturated interval consisted of primarily of poorly graded clean sand (SP). The material immediately above and below this saturated zone was siltstone and sandstone, respectively. DTW 67 ft bgs - unconfiined • Well LMW-103. The depth to uppermost saturated conditions was observed from 128 to 140 ft bgs, and this saturated interval consisted of alternating layers of poorly graded clean sand (SP) and well graded clean sand (SW). The material immediately above this zone was not saturated and logged as consolidated sandstone. DTW 129 ft bgs - unconfined • Well LMW-104. The depth to uppermost saturated conditions was observed from 99 to 114 ft bgs, and this saturated interval consisted primarily of poorly graded clean sand (SP) with a zone of well graded clean sand (SW) with gravel from 105 to 106 ft bgs. The material immediately above this saturated zone was a dry poorly graded sand; and the material below this at a depth from 114 to 120 ft bgs was unconsolidated silt (ML). DTW 97 ft bgs – confined or semi-confined • Well LMW-105. The depth to uppermost saturated conditions was observed from 85 to 98 ft bgs, and this saturated interval consisted primarily of poorly graded clean sand (SP). The material above and below this saturated zone was unconsolidated silt (ML). DTW 83 ft bgs – confined or semi-confined • Well LMW-106. The depth to uppermost saturated conditions was observed from 59 to 73 ft bgs, and this saturated interval consisted primarily of poorly graded clean sand (SP). The material above this saturated zone was consolidated sandstone, while the underlying confining unit was logged as an unconsolidated silt. DTW 62 ft bgs - unconfined. • HVTB-1. The depth to uppermost saturated conditions was observed at 30 ft bgs, and this saturated interval consisted primarily of poorly graded clean sand (SP). This boring was drilled in 2005 as part of preliminary screening evaluations, and the steel casing was installed to measure/monitor uppermost groundwater levels. Note that a steel casing without a screen is not typical installation for routine detection monitoring per ARM requirements, and this installation will be abandoned and replaced with a typical groundwater monitoring well as part of establishing the formal detection groundwater monitoring network, with MDEQ approvals. Table 1 shows the initial groundwater level measurements collected on November 5, 2019. To assess groundwater occurrence with respect to unconfined or confined conditions, these static groundwater levels (depths) were compared to the saturated zone depths described above, along with the field observations of the overlying and underlying confining units adjacent to the screen zones from the boring logs. From this assessment, it suggests the uppermost groundwater conditions range from unconfined in the southeast corner and center of the expansion area (respectively LMW-102 and LMW-103) to confined or semi-confined in all the other perimeter well locations. 4.3.2 Groundwater Flow Conditions Figure 6 is a groundwater flow map showing the groundwater elevations, groundwater elevation contours, and the inferred flow direction for the uppermost groundwater beneath the expansion area LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 15 and the active landfill. Groundwater elevations for this flow map were collected on November 5, 2019. Based on these groundwater level measurements, the general flow direction for the expansion area is to the northwest, and then near the active landfill, the groundwater flow direction shifts to the north. A general northward flow direction would be consistent with the conceptual site model of groundwater flow toward and discharging to the alluvial groundwater unit associated with the Gallatin River, which is located roughly 1 mile to the north of the landfill. Conceptually, groundwater flow from the Camp Creek Hills hydrogeologic unit northwards towards and discharging to the Gallatin River alluvial system, is described in the Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Gallatin Valley, Gallatin County, Montana, Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1482 (Hackett, et. Al., 1960). As shown on the groundwater flow map, the groundwater elevations are highest in the southeast corner of the expansion area associated with uppermost groundwater observed from well LMW-102. These groundwater elevations (and contours) shown in the southeast quadrant of the expansion area exhibit a relatively steeper hydraulic gradient (0.05 feet per foot) in comparison to the gradient shown in the northwest corner of the expansion area (0.004 feet per foot). The steeper hydraulic gradient could be a result of changes in the hydraulic conductivity, changes in the thickness of the uppermost water-bearing zones, and/ or could be attributed to the southeast corner being in closer in proximity to potential recharge sources associated with the irrigation pond and/or the east drainage ditch/canal. Although the areas in the southeast quadrant of the expansion area exhibit a relatively steeper gradient, the observed uppermost groundwater in this area is considered hydraulically connected with the groundwater zone in adjacent wells, is flowing to the northwest and connected to uppermost groundwater beneath the active landfill area, and is characterized as the “uppermost aquifer” per ARM 17.50.1304, Groundwater Monitoring Systems. Groundwater flow velocity estimates can be made using the following formula (obtained from Fetter, 1994): v = Kai ne where: v = groundwater velocity (seepage velocity) Ka = average horizontal hydraulic conductivity i = horizontal hydraulic gradient ne = effective porosity The estimated range in groundwater seepage velocity is 0.6 to 7.4 feet per day (or equivalent to 219 to 2,700 feet per year). This range of seepage values considers the variability of the hydraulic gradient as described above, and is based on: • An average value for hydraulic conductivity of 31 ft per day (equivalent to 1.08x10-2 cm/sec) for the sand materials typical in the saturated screen intervals, derived from the laboratory hydraulic conductivity testing results (see Table 3). • A range in hydraulic gradient from 0.004 ft per ft (northwest quadrant) and 0.05 ft per ft (southeast quadrant). These gradients are based on the groundwater levels measured November 5, 2019 and as presented in the groundwater flow map (see Figure 6). • An assumed value for effective porosity of 0.21, which is typical for a fine sand (Fetter, 1994). LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 16 4.3.3 Site Hydrograph and Seasonal Fluctuations Figure 7 presents a groundwater elevation hydrograph from the pre-existing active cell area wells which have a substantial period of record to assess seasonal fluctuations in the uppermost aquifer. These groundwater level data show groundwater level measurements typically collected twice per season (i.e., late spring and fall), which is consistent with the minimum semi-annual groundwater sampling conducted for the active Class II landfill per ARM 17.50.1306, Detection Monitoring Program. Based on these groundwater level data, the groundwater elevations typically fluctuate on the order of approximately 0.5 to 1 ft from the spring to fall event, and considering the wells respond (change) in a similar manner demonstrates they are hydraulically connected and influenced by a common recharge source. Note that future groundwater level measurements will be collected from the newly installed expansion area wells in support of establishing background conditions needed for the detection monitoring approach per ARM 17.50.1306. 4.3.4 Recharge and Discharge Areas The inferred recharge area (source of water to the uppermost groundwater system beneath the landfill) is believed to be infiltration of surface water via ephemeral tributaries and/or irrigation canals located southeast of the expansion area. Recharge areas from surface water infiltration could be a considerable distance from the landfill to the southeast considering the hydrograph response supports relatively low elevations in spring, and relatively higher elevations in fall. The surface water recharge areas are inferred to be near the ‘low-line’ canal and/or the ephemeral tributaries in the higher elevations near White or Buell (unincorporated mapped areas to the southeast of the expansion area). In addition to recharge source via surface water infiltration (either via upland tributaries or canals south of the site), it should also be noted that recharge to the uppermost aquifer in the landfill area could also be from deep circulation of a regional geothermal (hot water) source. This concept of deep geothermal recharge source is supported by Hackett (1960) whom notes that “hot springs near Bozeman were found in at least two test boreholes.” The geothermal hypothesis/concept is also supported from slightly elevated groundwater temperatures recorded during routine semi-annual sampling events for the landfill (Great West, 2014). It seems plausible that recharge to the uppermost groundwater system could be occurring from both surface water infiltration (associated with tributaries or canals) and from a deep geothermal source(s). Potential recharge from direct infiltration at the landfill through uppermost soil horizons is likely not occurring given (1) the dry characteristics of uppermost soil as characterized from recent 2019 drilling observations, (2) the uppermost materials have relatively low permeability zones impeding direct infiltration (such as silt, consolidated sandstone or siltstone), (3) the site hydrograph does not peak in the spring which would be typical of direct/nearby infiltration source, and (4) the climate is classified as ‘semi-arid’ with limited precipitation and thus the potential for surplus direct surface infiltration is limited. The discharge area for uppermost groundwater beneath the landfill is to the north, and occurs as a combination of (1) groundwater discharge to surface water occurring as seeps/springs located roughly one-quarter to three-quarters of a mile north of active landfill, and (2) groundwater discharge from the Camp Creek Hills hydrogeologic subarea associated with/beneath the landfill into the shallow alluvial groundwater unit associated with the Gallatin River. These concepts for groundwater discharge are supported from regional setting discussions presented in Section 4.1.5 (regional hydrogeologic setting) and considering evidence of seeps/springs as described in Section 4.2.3 (and shown in Figure 4). 4.3.5 Other Hydrogeologic Factors/Considerations This section presents an inventory of water well logs as required under ARM 17.50.1311(2)(e)(i), Local Water Supply Wells. This section does not include any on-site wells as these are described as part of the hydrogeologic and soils characterization report as presented in earlier sections. LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 17 Well logs located within an approximately 1-mile radius of the landfill expansion area were identified from the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG) Web-Based Tool: http://data.mbmg.mtech.edu/mapper. Appendix E.5 includes a summary table and map of the well log inventory search results. The MBMG well search identified a total of 24 water supply well logs; of these 3 are water supply wells for the Logan landfill facility including the Administration Building, the Old Shop, and the New Shop. The average total depth for these wells is less than 200 ft deep, which suggests that these wells are completed within and utilizing the same uppermost groundwater as characterized herein and as described as uppermost groundwater of the Camp Creek Hills hydrogeologic subarea by Hackett (1960). The regional setting and review of the MBMG well records does not identify or suggest a deeper aquifer system exists that is being utilized for potable beneficial uses in the area. Potential deeper bedrock fracture groundwater flow systems and/or geothermal groundwater sources could be present beneath the uppermost groundwater as characterized herein, however, there is limited publicly available data available to characterize these potential zones, and the collection of site-specific subsurface data to characterize the reginal framework is beyond the scope of this report to meet ARM requirements. LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 18 5 Summary and Technical Justification The following bullets outline the key elements of the of the site conceptual model with respect to hydrogeology for the Logan expansion area. • The body of pre-existing and new 2019 site data to support the minimum site characterization requirements consists of a total of 95 investigation locations. Of these, 24 were borings and 71 were test pits as outlined in the Work Plan (Great West, 2018). A total of 8 of the borings were converted into groundwater monitoring wells to characterize uppermost groundwater flow conditions beneath the expansion area. • In general, the predominant soil types in the unsaturated zone (above uppermost groundwater) were characterized as unconsolidated sand, unconsolidated silt, and consolidated weathered rock such as sandstone and siltstone. In the northeast corner of the expansion area, there were relatively thin zones of gravel encountered above the uppermost groundwater unit. The overall heterogeneity and variety of different soil types suggests a relatively complex and active depositional history. • The depth to uppermost groundwater beneath the expansion area generally ranges from 65 to 180 ft bgs, except for the northwest corner of the expansion area (near HVTB-1) where the depth to groundwater is relatively shallow at approximately 30 ft bgs. The saturated zones and uppermost groundwater were identified in the more permeable clean sand zones, typically 10 to 20 ft thick, with an average hydraulic conductivity of 31 ft per day. The confining layers above and below these saturated zones were generally dry to slightly moist, and consisted of finer-grained silt, or relatively low permeability consolidated sandstone or siltstone, with an average hydraulic conductivity of 1.3 ft per day. • The groundwater flow direction beneath the landfill expansion area is generally to the northwest toward the active Class II landfill, with a hydraulic gradient in the range of 0.004 to 0.05 ft per day. Near the currently active landfill the groundwater flow direction is more northerly, and toward the Gallatin River to the north. Groundwater beneath the active cell has been monitored since the early 1990’s as part of the detection monitoring requirements for a Class II landfill. The groundwater beneath the expansion area is upgradient of and contiguous with the groundwater beneath the existing landfill. Table 5 has been developed to summarize the hydrogeologic and soils characterization requirements as listed under ARM 17.50.1311. For each row this table sub-divides the explicit ARM requirements (first column), and then provides a summary of the primary technical rationale or justification as provided in the report narrative (middle column), and then a crosswalk to the supporting information with respect to tables, figures, or appendixes (third column). The information summarized in this table has been presented and explained in earlier sections of the report. LOGAN LANDFILL | Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion 19 6 References Fetter, 1984. Applied Hydrogeology, Third Edition. Great West, 2014. Hydrogeological and Soils Investigation, Gallatin County Logan Landfill. Great West, 2018. Gallatin Solid Waste Management District – Logan Landfill – Class II Landfill License Expansion, Hydrogeologic and Soils Study Work Plan (License #158). Hackett et. al, 1960. Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Gallatin Valley, Gallatin County, Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1482. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG), 2019. Web-based mapping application for water wells and seismic data. Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), 2010. Administrative Rule of Montana (ARM) Chapter 50, Solid Waste Management, Subchapter 17.50.13.11, Hydrogeologic and Soils Characterization. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2018. Online Search for Soil Survey Map of Study Area. United States Geological Service (USGS), 2014. Online public domain USGS topographic maps of the expansion area site and surrounding areas; including quadrangle maps of Manhattan SW (the site), Logan (north of site), Manhattan (northeast of site), and Nixon Gulch (east of site). United States Climate Data, 2019. Online search for climate data for Belgrade, Montana. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, 2018. National Wetlands Inventory (Map) of Study Area. Web search National Wetlands Inventory Map via NMI Web Viewer. Vuke et. al., 2007. Geologic Map of Montana, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Map 62. Vuke et. al., 2002. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Bozeman 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, Southwestern Montana, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Open File Report No. 469. Tables Table 1. Summary of Field Investigation Borings and Well Construction DetailsHydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill ExpansionBoring DepthGround ElevationElevation, Top-of-CasingScreen Length Screen Top Screen Bott. Screen Top Screen Bott. Depth to Water* Groundwater Elev.* Latitude Longitude(ft bgs) (ft msl) (ft toc) (ft) (ft bgs) (ft bgs) (ft Elev.) (ft Elev.) (ft btc) (ft Elev.)2019 New Expansion Area Monitoring WellsLMW-10045 51 36.832340 N111 24 23.599453 W7/31/20191804318.364320.02201491694169.364149.36146.454173.57Up or cross-gradient, southwest perimeter.LMW-10145 51 37.214519 N111 24 05.032299 W7/26/20192004346.484348.14201791994167.484147.48172.004176.14Upgradient, south perimeter.LMW-10345 51 57.432132 N111 24 01.099168 W8/2/20191404304.824306.35101281384176.824166.82132.554173.80Center/middle of expansion area.LMW-10445 52 20.451369 N111 23 51.441453 W8/5/20191204267.044268.6115991144168.044153.0499.704168.91Downgradient, north perimeter.LMW-10245 51 37.662360 N111 23 43.411759 W10/2/2019804298.994300.431069794229.994219.9970.204230.23Upgradient, southeast perimeter.LMW-10545 51 59.471649 N111 23 33.789149 W10/3/20191004267.284268.751584994183.284168.2885.604183.15Upgradient, eastern perimeter.LMW-10645 51 52.000158 N111 24 30.567967 W10/8/2019804234.294236.011064744170.294160.2965.054170.96Downgradient, northwest perimeter.LMW-145 52 02.367529 N111 24 27.729585 W --1344218.574221.633045754173.574143.5753.704167.93Upgradient, Background for Active CellsLMW-245 52 28.317484 N111 24 27.319981 W8/27/19901174221.244223.2650551054166.244116.2463.014160.25Downgradient point-of-compliace for Active CellsLMW-445 52 28.413944 N111 24 22.858163 W12/20/1994754211.494212.732548734163.494138.49 -- --Downgradient point-of-compliace for Active CellsLMW-545 52 28.87000 N111 24 06.442200 W12/20/1994644200.094202.481545604155.094140.0940.304162.18Downgradient point-of-compliace for Active CellsLMW-645 52 24.109958 N111 24 19.829727 W5/22/2006604202.894203.832238604164.894142.8940.604163.23Near leachate evaporation pond.LMW-745 52 26.888488 N111 24 21.281546 W5/23/2006604208.544209.301446604162.544148.5447.204162.10Near leachate evaporation pond.LMW-945 52 25.965987 N111 24 22.760919 W5/24/2006704214.224219.821753704161.224144.2257.804162.02Near leachate evaporation pond.LMW-10 45 52 21.560375 N 111 24 38.550461 W 11/1/2010 125 4259.09 4260.18 15 110 125 4149.09 4134.09 99.70 4160.48 Downgradient point-of-compliace for Active CellsLMW-1145 52 32.954442 N111 24 19.220793 W11/2/2010624194.384195.602040604154.384134.3837.314158.29North of facility for corrective measures study.LMW-1245 52 34.573468 N111 24 25.962884 W10/29/2010844207.184208.882060804147.184127.1856.904151.98North of facility for corrective measures study.LMW-1345 52 36.569683 N111 24 34.084662 W10/28/2010914217.284218.881075854142.284132.2865.714153.17North of facility for corrective measures study.LMW-1445 52 31.521913 N111 24 23.636858 W11/3/2010824207.514209.122060804147.514127.5150.354158.77North of facility for corrective measures study.LMW-1545 52 27.623286 N111 24 41.865558 W12/16/20131204239.574242.0820971174142.574122.5784.904157.18North of facility for corrective measures study.Old Shop45 52 26.004000 N111 24 33.984000 W12/14/197411842454245.74111071184138.004127.00834162.74Water well used for facility water supply.HVTB-145 52 21.109050 N111 24 11.323344 W11/9/2005604192.134194.11 -- -- -- -- --28.354165.76Northwest corner of expansion area.HVTB-245 52 08.72147 N111 23 58.27095 W11/9/2005604305.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --North center/interior of expansion area.HVTB-345 51 59.08208 N111 23 51.81648 W11/6/2005504297.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --North center/interior of expansion area.HVTB-445 51 47.92118 N111 24 02.33019 W11/9/2005604320.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --South center/interior of expansin area.HVTB-545 51 44.77694 N111 24 18.54154 W11/9/2005554275.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Southwest quadrant of expansion area.HVTB-645 52 02.59632 N111 24 10.95870 W11/9/2005174270.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --West interior of expansion area.HVTB-745 51 42.43000 N111 23 41.14729 W11/9/2005404295.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Southeast corner of expanion area.TB-10045 52 13.307257 N111 24 11.300368 W8/9/2019504237.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Northwest corner of expansion area.TB-10145 52 04.784481 N111 24 15.422768 W8/9/2019504257.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --West perimeter of expansion areaTB-10445 51 53.283738 N111 24 09.475644 W8/8/2019454302.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --West center interior of expansion area.TB-10545 51 48.012556 N111 24 28.379920 W8/9/2019504249.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Southwest quadrant of expansion area.TB-10645 51 46.403215 N111 24 07.809672 W8/7/2019704332.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --South center/interior of expansin area.TB-10745 51 51.712652 N111 23 46.802992 W8/6/2019684298.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Southeast quadrant of expansion area.TB-10845 51 43.466314 N111 23 54.286957 W8/7/2019404323.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Southeast quadrant of expansion area.TB-10245 52 05.931287 N111 23 52.264843 W10/8/2019704308.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --North center/interior of expansion area.TB-10345 52 08.593623 N111 23 41.756784 W10/7/2019604284.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Northeast quadrant of expansion area.TB-11045 52 14.996126 N111 23 38.125893 W10/4/2019504269.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Northeast corner of expansion area.Notes:"--" Not available and/or not measured."ft" = feet ft bgs = feet below ground surface ft TOC = feet below top of casing (surveyed reference point) ft Elev. = feet Elevation* Depth-to-water measured November 5, 2019 (groundwater levels and elevations) and can vary seasonally.Comments:2019 Test BoringsPre-Existing Class II Landfill Active Cell Area Monitoring Wells2005-2006 Expansion Area Investigations (all borings except for HVTB-1 which was a 6-inch diam. steel casing into uppermost groundwater)Location IDPositional CoordinatesCompleted Table 2. Well Development Summary Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for Logan Landfill Expansion Well Pre-Development Static DTW (ft btc) Total Volume Purged (gals) Post- Development Final DTW (ft btc) Comments LMW-100 146.85 12 147.20 Final purge water light grey. Minimal drawdown after purging 12 gals. LMW-101 172.20 15 172.90 Final purge water light grey. Minimal drawdown after purging 15 gals. LMW-102 70.45 12 70.55 Final purge water light grey. Minimal drawdown after purging 15 gals. LMW-103 132.90 12 132.90 Final purge water light grey. No drawdown after purging 12 gals. LMW-104 99.70 25 99.80 Final purge water light grey. Minimal drawdown after purging 25 gals. LMW-105 85.90 25 85.90 Final purge water light brown. No drawdown after purging 25 gals. LMW-106 65.30 20 65.30 Final purge water light brown. No drawdown after purging 20 gals. Note: static depth-to-water (DTW) measured before surging/bailing activities; final DTW measured after purging specified total number of gallons. Table 3. Soils Testing Laboratory ResultsHydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill ExpansionPermeabilityGravel (%)Sand (%)Fines (%)(cm/sec)LMW-100 11-12R-3SW or GWGradationD-4220946 --Coarser material35-37R-9MLP200 (Wash Analysis)D-114004753 --Fine-grained sample150-152 R-21 SM or SP Sand Hydraulic Conductivity D-2434 -- -- --1.99x10-3Screen interval, wet zoneLMW-10162-64R-10ML, SiltstoneP200 (Wash Analysis)D-114002872 --Fine-grained sample186-187 R-23 SP or SM Permeability D-2434 -- -- --4.01x10-3Screen interval, wet zoneLMW-10233-34R-7ML, SiltstoneP200 (Wash Analysis)D-114002476 --Fine-grained sample75-78 R-12 SP Hydraulic Conductivity D-2434 -- -- --1.13x10-2Screen interval, wet zone78-80 R-12 SM, Sandstone Hydraulic Conductivity D-5084 (fine-grained) -- -- --9.4x10-4Underlying Confining UnitLMW-103 5-7R-1MLP200 (Wash Analysis)D-114003169 --Fine-grained sample133 R-14 SP Hydraulic Conductivity D-2434 -- -- --8.35x10-3Screen interval, wet zoneLMW-10455-56R-6ML P200 (Wash Analysis)D-114003763 --Fine-grained sample105-107 R-11 SW Hydraulic Conductivity D-2434 -- -- --2.37x10-3Screen interval, wet zone115-116 R-12 ML or SM, borderline Hydraulic Conductivity D-5084 (fine-grained) -- -- --4.9x10-4Underlying Confining UnitLMW-10514-15R-3MLP200 (Wash Analysis)D-1140 --2773 --Fine-grained sample87-88 R-12 SP Hydraulic Conductivity D-2434 -- -- --2.04x10-2Screen interval, wet zone98-100 R-13 ML with sand Hydraulic Conductivity D-5084 (fine-grained) -- -- --4.4x10-4Underlying Confining UnitLMW-106 63-64 R-10 SP Hydraulic Conductivity D-2434 -- -- --2.73x10-2Screen interval, wet zone72-73 R-11 ML/SM Hydraulic Conductivity D-5084 (fine-grained) -- -- --2.1x10-6Underlying Confing UnitTB-10137-38R-5ML with fine sandP200 (Wash Analysis)D-114006436 --Fine-grained mixed sampleTB-10215-20R-4SM with finesGradationD-42208317 --Sand sampleTB-10324-25R-6GW-GMGradationD-42269265 --Gravel zoneTB-104 10-12R-5SP/SP-SMGradationD-42208416 --Sand sampleTB-10521-22R-5GWGradationD-42249492 --Gravel zone30-31.5SPT-2SM or MLP200 (Wash Analysis)D-114005347 --Borderline SM or ML sampleTB-10625-26R-8SMGradationD-42205644 --Sand sampleTB-108 11-12R-4ML, SiltstoneP200 (Wash Analysis)D-114002872 --Siltstone sampleNotes: See Appendix D for the laboratory testing report and gradation curves for ASTM D-422 and hydraulic conductivity data for ASTM D-2434 (coarse samples) and ASTM D-5084 (fine-grained samples).Field classifications (abbreviations) are visual-manual procedure and the nomenclature per ASTM D-2488."Fines" are silt-clay sized fraction which are smaller than (or fall through) a #200 sieve.CommentsDepth (ft)LocationGradation/ASTM D-422 & D-1140ASTM MethodLab Test/TypeField ClassificationSample ID Table 4. Climate DataHydrogeology and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecAverages:Totals: Average High Temp. (F) 36 40 50 59 68 77 88 87 75 61 45 3359.9 --Average Low Temp. (F) 11 15 23 31 39 46 51 49 40 31 20 930.4 --Average Precip. (Inches) 0.51 0.43 0.94 1.61 2.44 2.44 1.10 1.06 1.10 1.10 0.79 0.51 --14.0Average Snowfall (Inches) 4 5 8 8 3 0 0 0 0 2 5 6 -- 41Notes:Souce: US Climate Data.com (online)Climate data for Belgrade, Montana; Longitude: -111.161, Latitude: 45.788 Page 1 of 2 Table 5. Summary and Technical Justification Hydrogeology and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Expansion ARM 17.50.1311 Requirements for Hydrogeologic and Soils Characterization Summary of Technical Rationale and Justification Crosswalk to Report Contents (1) The owner or operator of a facility required to monitor ground water shall prepare a site-specific hydrogeologic and soils report, pursuant to (2), for the facility. As presented in this document and summarized under sections (2) listed below. As presented in this document and summarized under sections (2) listed below. (2) (a) descriptions of the regional and facility specific geologic and hydrogeologic characteristics affecting groundwater flow beneath the facility, including: (i) regional and facility specific stratigraphy; The regional hydrogeologic setting is described in Section 4.1; site specific stratigraphy described in Section 4.2; site-specific groundwater flow characteristics are described in Section 4.2.5. The groundwater flow is influenced by the regional topographic setting, site stratigraphy, watershed boundaries, and the relative recharge and discharge areas with respect to location of the landfill expansion area. Regional setting data provided in Appendix E, including topographic maps, geologic map, watershed boundaries, hydrogeologic units, and soils map. Hydrogeologic Cross-Sections illustrated in Figures 5 (plan-view), 5A, 5B, and 5C (sections) showing site-specific stratigraphy and depth to uppermost groundwater. Site-specific stratigraphy shown on test pits (Appendix B) and via boring logs (Appendix C). (2) (a): (ii) structural geology; A discussion on structural geology is presented in Section 4.1.4. The geologic map in Appendix E.2 shows geologic structure features, such as fault zones, folds, and thrust faults in the vicinity of the landfill. (2) (a): (iii) groundwater potentiometric maps; A discussion on uppermost groundwater characteristics, including groundwater elevations and groundwater flow map is presented in Section 4.2.5. Figure 6 is a groundwater flow map, showing the groundwater elevations and inferred groundwater elevation contours and flow direction for the landfill area. (2) (a): (iv) a discussion of any regional deep aquifers; Sections 4.2.5.4 and 4.2.5.5 discuss regional concepts and the potential for any regional deep aquifers. Potential deeper aquifers and/or geothermal groundwater resources could be present beneath the uppermost groundwater unit as discussed in the sections above, however, there is limited public domain data available to characterize these potential deeper zones, and the collection of site-specific subsurface data to characterize the regional framework is beyond the scope of this document for meeting ARM requirements. The report by Hackett (1960) does not identify any regional deep aquifers found within the Gallatin River watershed boundaries beneath the uppermost Camp Creek Hills groundwater system, which is correlated with the uppermost groundwater unit beneath the existing landfill and the expansion area as characterized herein. The MBMG database well logs are generally shallow (less than 200 ft deep) and do not suggest a regionally deep aquifer system that is being utilized for beneficial use(s). Appendix E.5 presents the water well log search results. (2) (a): (v) regional and facility specific groundwater flow patterns; Regionally, the report by Hackett (1960) describes groundwater flow associated with alluvium unit associated with and near the Gallatin River; flow patterns for this alluvial unit would be correlated to surface topography and the general flow direction is inferred to be toward the river. Site-specific groundwater flow for the expansion area is to the northwest; and then a more northerly flow pattern is developed beneath the active landfill, as presented in Section 4.2.5. The report by Hackett (1960) describes the regional groundwater flow patterns associated with the Gallatin River alluvium unit. Figure 6 is a site-specific groundwater flow map, showing the groundwater elevations, groundwater elevation contours, and the groundwater flow direction for the landfill area. (2) (a): (vi) characterization of seasonal variations in the groundwater flow regime; A discussion on groundwater elevation changes to assess seasonal variations is presented in Section 4.2.5.3. Based on a substantial period of record, seasonal fluctuations are minimal (typically 1 ft or less) and the elevations fluctuate (change) in a similar magnitude. These characteristics suggests the wells are hydraulically connected, responding to a common recharge source, and since they change in a similar magnitude the gradient and general flow direction is relatively constant, and does not change seasonally. Figure 7 is a groundwater elevation hydrograph for existing wells with a substantial period of record to assess seasonal fluctuations. (2) (a): (vii) identification and description of the confining layers present, both above and below the saturated zone(s); The site stratigraphy is discussed in Section 4.2.4; the nature and occurrence of groundwater and the confining layers above and below saturated zones is discussed in Section 4.2.5.1. In general, saturated zones were identified in the more permeable clean sand zones, typically 10 to 20 ft thick and at depths ranging from approximately 65 to 180 ft bgs. The confining layers above and below these saturated zones were generally dry to slightly moist, and consisted of finer-grained silt, or relatively low-permeability consolidated SANDSTONE or SILTSTONE. Appendix C includes boring logs showing lithology relative of saturated zones. Figures 5A, 5B, and 5C are cross-sections showing generalized materials, the screen intervals, and the confining layers above and below the saturated zones. Table 3 summarizes the soils laboratory testing results, including gradations and permeability results to characterize both the saturated zones and the layers above and below saturated zones. (2) (b): an analysis of any topographic features that influence groundwater flow; A discussion on regional setting is provided in Section 4.1; a discussion of site-specific topography is provided in Section 4.2. In general, the surface topography (i.e., ridge feature) does not appear to have any significant influence on groundwater flow for the expansion area; the groundwater flow is influenced by other factors such as stratigraphy, watershed geometry, surface water features, and the relative recharge and discharge areas as described in (2)(a)(i) above. Figure 3 shows surface topography. Figure 4 shows surface water features. Appendix E includes topographic maps, geologic maps, and watershed boundaries. (2) (c): a description of the hydrogeologic units that overlie the uppermost aquifer; The site-stratigraphy is presented in Section 4.2.4. In general, the predominant soil types above uppermost saturated zones are unconsolidated sand, unconsolidated silt, and consolidated weathered rock such as SANDSTONE and SILTSTONE. In the northeast corner of the expansion area, there were relatively thin zones of gravel encountered above the uppermost groundwater unit. Figures 5A, 5B, and 5C present hydrogeologic cross-sections showing the generalized stratigraphy. Appendix C are detailed boring logs. Table 3 presents soils laboratory testing results to characterize subsurface conditions. (2) (d): a description of the hydrogeologically-significant sand and gravel layers in unconsolidated deposits. The site-stratigraphy is presented in Section 4.2.4. Unconsolidated SAND is the predominant soil type found at various depths and thicknesses at each boring/well location. Unconsolidated GRAVEL zones were relatively infrequent and relatively thin, and only encountered in the northeast quadrant at locations TB-102, TB-103, TB-110, and LMW-103. Figures 5A, 5B, and 5C present hydrogeologic cross-sections showing the generalized stratigraphy. Appendix C are detailed boring logs showing sand layers and the infrequent zones of gravel. Table 3 presents soils laboratory testing results to characterize subsurface conditions. Page 2 of 2 Table 5. Summary and Technical Justification Hydrogeology and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Expansion ARM 17.50.1311 Requirements for Hydrogeologic and Soils Characterization Summary of Technical Rationale and Justification Crosswalk to Report Contents (2) (e): a description of the manmade structures that affectthe hydrogeology of the site, such as: (i) local water supplywells, (ii) pipelines, (iii) drains, (iv) ditches, and (v) septictanks.Section 4.2.6 presents other hydrogeological factors including manmade structures such as water supply wells. There are not any water supply wells within the boundaries of the expansion area. There are a total of 24 water supply wells identified within an approximate 1-mile radius of the site from the MBMG database, which excludes the site characterization borings/wells as discussed in this report. There are not any known pipelines, drains, or septic tanks within the expansion area boundaries. Surface ditches (canals) are discussed in Section 4.2.3. Appendix E.5 includes search results (map and summary table) for water supply wells from the MBMG database. (2) (f) for each groundwater monitoring well at the facility,the following: (i) location, (ii) elevation, (iii) well log, (iv)sampling and (v) operational history.Section 3.1 presents pre-existing wells for the active landfill, and Section 3.2 presents the groundwater monitoring wells installed for the expansion area site characterization requirements. Table 1 provides a summary of the Borings and Well Construction Details, including date of installation to provide context for operational history. Appendix B includes a table and map showing the test pit locations and details. Appendix C includes the boring logs. (3) Soil boring locations and minimum number requirements(Note: see additional details specified in regulations based on number of acres and also considering that test pits may be substituted for borings). The expansion area encompasses a total of 535 acres for waste disposal; per ARM requirements the area of interest dictates the minimum number of site characterization borings to satisfy the hydrogeologic and soils characterization requirements. The investigation locations totaled 95 locations, consisting of 24 borings and 71 test pits; a total of 8 of the borings were converted into groundwater monitoring wells. This number of locations was consistent with the Work Plan (Great West, 2018) and related follow-up email correspondence submitted to MDEQ to satisfy the site characterization locations relative of expansion area. Table 1 provides a summary of the borings and well construction details. Figure 3 shows the investigation borings and wells. Appendix B includes a table and map showing the test pit locations and details. Figures Project Location Figure 1 LOCATION MAP GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONengineeringRNORTHLICENSE EXPANSION PROPERTY BOUNDARY APPROXIMATE 535 ACRES APPROXIMATE LICENSE EXPANSION FINAL WASTE BOUNDARY 300 ACRES 127 ACRE LICENSED LANDFILL AREA TWO D O G R O A D I-90 I-90 8.8 ACRE OFFICE AND SCALE SITE TO BE INCLUDED IN LICENSE EXPANSION ASBESTOS DISPOSAL BOUNDARY COMPOST AREA BOUNDARY NORTH GALLATIN RIVERI-90I-90LOGANLANDFILLLOGANPROPERTY BOUNDARYLICENSED BOUNDARYLEGENDLICENSED BOUNDARY2ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND LAND USE MAP PROJECT: DESIGNED: DRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: NO.DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTION FIGURE NO.engineering 2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601 (406)449-8627 R CDS BAA SMB CDS 1-05119 JUNE 2020 LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSION GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TTTCOHVTB-3HVTB-1HVTB-6HVTB-5HVTB-4HVTB-7HVTB-2TB-103TB-110TB-102TB-100TB-101TB-108TB-105TB-106TB-104TB-107LMW-100LMW-101LMW-102LMW-103LMW-105LMW-104LMW-106LMW-5LMW-4LMW-2LMW-13LMW-12LMW-14LMW-11LMW-15LMW-10LMW-9LMW-6LMW-7LMW-107LMW-108LMW-13BORING AND WELL LOCATIONSNORTH PROJECT: DESIGNED: DRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: NO.DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTION FIGURE NO.engineering 2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601 (406)449-8627 R CDS BAA SMB CDS 1-05119 JUNE 2020 LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSION GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTLEGENDPROPOSEDSTORMWATER PONDPROPOSED WASTEBOUNDARYPROPOSEDSTORMWATER PONDACCESS ROA D EXISTING LANDFILLPROPOSEDSTORMWATER PONDASBESTOS DISPOSALBOUNDARY NORTH GALLATIN RIVERI-90I-90LOGANLANDFILLLOGANONE MILE RADIUSNATURAL DRAINAGE (EPHEMERAL)NATURAL DRAINAGE (PERENNIAL)SPRINGSEASONAL IRRIGATION CANALWETLAND OR RIPARIAN CORRIDOR BOUNDARYEXPANSION AREA LICENSE BOUNDARYLEGENDEXISTINGLICENSEDBOUNDARY4SURFACE WATER, SPRING/SEEPS, AND WETLANDS PROJECT: DESIGNED: DRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: NO.DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTION FIGURE NO.engineering 2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601 (406)449-8627 R CDS BAA SMB CDS 1-05119 JUNE 2020 LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSION GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT EXPANSIONAREAIRRIGATION POND8.8 ACRE SCALESITE TO BEINCLUDED INLICENSEBOUNDARYASBESTOSDISPOSALBOUNDARY TTTCOHVTB-3HVTB-1HVTB-6HVTB-5HVTB-4HVTB-7HVTB-2TB-103TB-110TB-102TB-100TB-101TB-108TB-105TB-106TB-104TB-107LMW-100LMW-101LMW-102LMW-103LMW-105LMW-104LMW-106LMW-5LMW-4LMW-2LMW-13LMW-12LMW-14LMW-11LMW-15LMW-10LMW-9LMW-6LMW-7LMW-107LMW-108LMW-15CROSS SECTION LINE PLAN VIEW CDS BAA SMB CDS 1-05119 DECEMBER 2019NORTHLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSION GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PROJECT: DESIGNED: DRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: NO.DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTION FIGURE NO.engineering 2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601 (406)449-8627 R CDS BAA SMB CDS 1-05119 JUNE 2020 LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSION GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT A'AC C'BB'LEGENDPROPOSEDSTORMWATER PONDACCESS ROA D EXISTING LANDFILLPROPOSED WASTEBOUNDARYPROPOSEDSTORMWATER PONDPROPOSEDSTORMWATER PONDASBESTOS DISPOSALBOUNDARY 5AHYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A'(NORTH-NORTHWEST ORIENTATION)CDSBAASMBCDS1-05119DECEMBER 2019LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONFIGURE NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RCDSBAASMBCDS1-05119DECEMBER 2019LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTUNCONSOLIDATED SANDUNCONSOLIDATED SILTCONSOLIDATED SANDSTONECONSOLIDATED SILTSTONEGROUNDWATER ELEVATIONMEASUREMENTS COLLECTEDNOVEMBER 5, 2019 AND SUBJECTTO SEASONAL FLUCTUATIONGEOLOGY KEY 5BHYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B'(SOUTH-NORTH ORIENTATION)CDSBAASMBCDS1-05119DECEMBER 2019LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONFIGURE NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RCDSBAASMBCDS1-05119DECEMBER 2019LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTUNCONSOLIDATED SANDUNCONSOLIDATED SILTCONSOLIDATED SANDSTONECONSOLIDATED SILTSTONEGROUNDWATER ELEVATIONMEASUREMENTS COLLECTEDNOVEMBER 5, 2019 AND SUBJECTTO SEASONAL FLUCTUATIONGEOLOGY KEY 5CHYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION C-C'(EAST-WEST ORIENTATION)CDSBAASMBCDS1-05119DECEMBER 2019LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONFIGURE NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RCDSBAASMBCDS1-05119DECEMBER 2019LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTUNCONSOLIDATED SANDUNCONSOLIDATED SILTCONSOLIDATED SANDSTONECONSOLIDATED SILTSTONEGROUNDWATER ELEVATIONMEASUREMENTS COLLECTEDNOVEMBER 5, 2019 AND SUBJECTTO SEASONAL FLUCTUATIONGEOLOGY KEY TTTCOHVTB-3HVTB-1HVTB-6HVTB-5HVTB-4HVTB-7HVTB-2TB-103TB-110TB-102TB-100TB-101TB-108TB-105TB-106TB-104TB-107LMW-100LMW-101LMW-102LMW-103LMW-105LMW-104LMW-106LMW-5LMW-4LMW-2LMW-13LMW-12LMW-14LMW-11LMW-15LMW-10LMW-9LMW-6LMW-7LMW-1LMW-107LMW-1086GROUNDWATER FLOW MAP CDS BAA SMB CDS 1-05119 DECEMBER 2019NORTHLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSION GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PROJECT: DESIGNED: DRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: NO.DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTION FIGURE NO.engineering 2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601 (406)449-8627 R CDS BAA SMB CDS 1-05119 JUNE 2020 LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSION GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTLEGEND 4173.574170.144230.234183.154168.914173.804170.964167.934160.484157.184153.174160.254158.774162.184151.984158.294162.104162.024163.23415541604165.76416541704175418042204210420041904185PROPOSEDSTORMWATER PONDACCESS ROA D EXISTING LANDFILLPROPOSED WASTEBOUNDARYPROPOSEDSTORMWATER PONDPROPOSEDSTORMWATER PONDASBESTOSDISPOSALBOUNDARY 4,150 4,155 4,160 4,165 4,170 4,175 1/1/00 4/15/03 7/28/06 11/9/09 2/21/13 6/5/16 9/18/19 12/31/22Groundwater Elevations (feet above means sea level)Date of Measurement LMW-1 LMW-2 LMW-4 LMW-5 LMW-10 SHOP LMW-6 LMW-7 LMW-9 LMW-11 LMW-13 LMW-14 LMW-15 LMW-12 Figure 7. Groundwater Elevation Hydrograph (Existing Wells) Soils and Hydrogeology Report for the Logan Landfill Expansion Fall -November 21, 2010 Late Spring/Early Summer -July 26, 2011 Appendices Appendix A Photograph Log Overview (Looking West from Center Ridge) Test Pit Work (foreground) and Drilling Work (background) Date: July 2019 Test Pit Activities and Equipment TP-106 Date: July 2019 Ground Surface Surficial Outcrops of Weathered Sandstone –Center Ridgeline of Expansion Area Date: July 2019 Drilling Rig and Typical Setup Date: July 2019 Drilling Rig –Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampler and SPT Soil Sample Typical SPT Sample at LMW-101 Date: July 2019 Drilling –Continuous Soil Samples via Sonic Sampling Method Typical Sonic Soil Samples from LMW-101 Date: July 2019 Sonic Soil Samples Typical Weathered Consolidated Siltstone Samples from Sonic Drilling (compacted and cohesive but specimen highly weathered and crumbles in hand) Date: October 2019 Drilling –Sonic Soil Samples Photo Shows Contact of Saturated Zone Clean Sand and Underlying Fine-Grained Confining Unit (Aquitard) Date: October 2019 Drilling –Soil Samples Test Boring 102, Typical Weathered Sandstone and Siltstone Samples via Sonic Method Date: October 2019 Drilling –Soil Samples Test Boring TB-103, Gravel Zone Date: October 2019 Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation Groundwater Monitoring Well LMW-100, Setting PVC Screen with Stainless-Steel Centralizers Date: August 2019 Monitoring Well Development Monitoring Well LMW-101, Well Development Truck and Stainless-Steel Bailer with Hoist Date: October 2019 Surface Water –Lowline Canal Flow of Lowline Canal in the area just Southeast of Expansion Area (southeast of LMW-102) Date: October 2019 Irrigation Pond and Overflow Pond Located Southeast of Expansion Area Date: October 2019 Surface Water –Drainage Along East Perimeter Photo taken of Lowline Canal just East of LMW-105 Date: October 2019 Appendix B Test Pit Map and Summary Table SP-SM SP-SM SP SW SP SP-SM Sandstone SP SW-SM SP-SM SP-SM SP SP-SM SP SP-SM SP SP-SM SM SP SP-SM SM SP SW SP-SM SP-SM SP SP-SM SPSP-SM SM SP-SM SM SP-SM SP-SM SW SP SP-SM SP SP SP-SM ML SP-SM SP SM SP-SM SP-SM SP SW Rock SP SM SW SP-SM SW SP GW SW SP-SM SM SP SM SP-SM SP-SM SW-SM SP-SM SP SP-SMSP-SMSM SP-SM SP-SM SP SP-SM SP SW SP-SM SM SP-SM SM SM SP-SM SP-SM SW SW ML SP-SM SM SM SP SP-SM SP SP-SM SP SP-SM SW SP-SM ML Siltstone SM SP-SM SW SP SP-SM SM SP-SM SP SP-SM SM SP-SM SM SM SP-SM SMSP-SM SM SP-SM ML SP-SM SM SM SP-SM SP-SM SP SW SP-SM SM SP-SM SP-SM SW SP-SM SP Sandstone SM SM Siltstone ML SP-SM ML SP-SM SP-SM SM 2019 Test Pit Excavation (67 locations) 2006 Test Pit Exploration (4 locations) Test pits which were more difficult to excavate – inferred weathered SANDSTONE or SILTSTONE. Indicates approximate area where outcrops of weathered SANDSTONE are exposed at ground surface (see Photos in Appendix A). Predominant soil/rock types shown near each test pit classified via ASTM-2488: where: SM = silty SAND; SP or SP-SM = Poorly graded SAND; SW = well graded SAND; ML = SILT. Appendix B.1 Test Pit SummaryNorthHVTP-3HVTP-2HVTP-1HVTP-4 Appendix B.2 Test Pit Summary Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for Logan Landfill Expansion PIT ID LATTITUDE LONGITUDE Completion Date Depth (ft)Generalized Soil Types Samples TP-101 45 51 39.671483 N 111 24 04.884233 W 7/30/2019 14.0 SP-SM, SM 2 TP-102 45 51 42.097949 N 111 23 59.397062 W 7/30/2019 13.0 SP-SM, ML 2 TP-103 45 51 47.880824 N 111 23 50.735145 W 7/30/2019 12.0 SP-SM, SM 2 TP-104 45 51 50.956464 N 111 23 59.681933 W 7/30/2019 13.0 SP-SM 1 TP-105 45 51 51.810165 N 111 24 05.378248 W 7/31/2019 12.5 SP-SM,SW 1 TP-106 45 51 57.254406 N 111 24 06.494485 W 7/31/2019 11.0 SP-SM, SP, SW 1 TP-107 45 52 02.960091 N 111 24 02.329095 W 7/31/2019 11.0 SP-SM, SP, SW, Rock 1 TP-108 45 51 55.968488 N 111 23 57.561987 W 7/31/2019 13.5 SP-SM, SP 1 TP-109 45 52 03.255370 N 111 23 57.345990 W 7/31/2019 11.5 SP, SM, SW 1 TP-110 45 52 07.513671 N 111 23 56.614715 W 8/1/2019 11.0 SP-SM, SW, SP 1 TP-111 45 52 06.918902 N 111 23 47.356351 W 8/1/2019 12.5 SP-SM, SP 1 TP-112 45 52 10.530959 N 111 23 52.185167 W 8/1/2019 12.5 SW, SP-SM 1 TP-113 45 52 10.452761 N 111 24 04.601055 W 8/1/2019 13.0 SP-SM, SM 3 TP-114 45 52 18.101102 N 111 24 08.772820 W 8/1/2019 13.0 SP-SM, SP 1 TP-115 45 52 15.492369 N 111 24 05.378468 W 8/1/2019 10.5 SP-SM 1 TP-116 45 52 17.701842 N 111 23 59.721736 W 8/1/2019 13.0 SW, SP 1 TP-117 45 52 05.176171 N 111 24 08.131892 W 8/1/2019 12.5 SM, SP-SM 3 TP-118 45 51 59.516125 N 111 24 13.464584 W 7/31/2019 14.0 SP-SM, SM 2 TP-119 45 51 54.745430 N 111 24 21.382262 W 7/30/2019 16.0 SP 1 TP-120 45 51 44.115462 N 111 24 27.124763 W 7/30/2019 13.0 SM, Siltstone, ML 2 TP-121 45 51 39.433840 N 111 24 21.365035 W 7/30/2019 11.0 SP-SM 1 TP-122 45 51 40.213085 N 111 24 31.129469 W 7/30/2019 11.0 SP-SM, SP, Sandstone, SM 2 TP-123 45 51 49.166490 N 111 24 19.807170 W 7/30/2019 12.5 ML, Siltstone, SM, 3 TP-124 45 51 40.076498 N 111 24 12.003381 W 7/30/2019 14.0 SP-SM, SP 1 TP-125 45 51 47.969360 N 111 24 13.193018 W 7/31/2019 14.0 SP-SM, SW, SP 1 TP-126 45 52 07.765560 N 111 24 12.582539 W 8/1/2019 13.5 SP-SM 1 TP-127 45 51 55.371798 N 111 24 11.279038 W 7/31/2019 13.5 SP-SM, SM 2 TP-128 45 51 40.332836 N 111 23 51.845301 W 7/30/2019 13.0 SP-SM, SM 2 TP-129 45 51 40.671360 N 111 23 43.981698 W 7/30/2019 14.0 SP-SM, SM 2 TP-130 45 51 48.264562 N 111 23 42.633016 W 7/30/2019 12.5 SP-SM, SM 1 TP-131 45 51 50.636082 N 111 23 38.526444 W 7/30/2019 12.5 SP-SM, SM 2 TP-132 45 51 54.409088 N 111 23 51.922732 W 7/31/2019 15.0 SM, SP-SM 1 TP-133 45 51 45.552189 N 111 23 47.240314 W 7/30/2019 12.0 SM 2 TP-134 45 51 55.122502 N 111 23 41.259338 W 7/31/2019 14.0 SP-SM 2 TP-135 45 51 59.357919 N 111 23 38.347947 W 7/31/2019 15.5 SP-SM, SW-SM 2 TP-136 45 51 57.869116 N 111 23 46.159962 W 7/31/2019 13.0 SP-SM, SP 2 TP-137 45 52 17.121926 N 111 23 46.102048 W 8/1/2019 11.0 SP-SM, SP 1 TP-138 45 52 04.820243 N 111 23 38.454808 W 8/1/2019 12.0 SP-SM, SP 2 TP-139 45 52 16.839099 N 111 23 39.941674 W 8/1/2019 11.5 SP-SM, SP 1 TP-140 45 52 02.575590 N 111 23 48.541713 W 7/31/2019 14.0 SP, GW, SW 1 TP-141 45 52 11.350959 N 111 23 39.350861 W 8/1/2019 12.0 SP-SM, SM, SP 2 TP-142 45 52 13.719614 N 111 23 42.973723 W 8/1/2019 13.0 SP-SM, SP 1 TP-143 45 52 13.087653 N 111 23 47.543436 W 8/1/2019 13.0 SP-SM, SM, SP 2 TP-144 45 52 02.174038 N 111 23 42.537823 W 7/31/2019 14.0 SP-SM, SM, SP 2 TP-145 45 52 14.245063 N 111 23 56.740732 W 8/1/2019 9.5 SP-SM, Sandstone 1 TP-146 45 52 16.293192 N 111 23 51.816088 W 8/1/2019 14.5 SP, SW-SM, SP-SM 1 TP-147 45 51 48.025857 N 111 23 56.761634 W 7/30/2019 15.0 SP-SM, SP 1 TP-148 45 51 43.096987 N 111 24 08.518167 W 7/31/2019 15.0 SM, SP-SM 2 TP-149 45 51 53.629032 N 111 24 15.939262 W 7/30/2019 11.0 SM, SP, SP-SM 2 TP-150 45 51 45.455957 N 111 24 22.008545 W 7/30/2019 13.0 SM, SP-SM 1 TP-151 45 51 52.029407 N 111 24 24.325116 W 7/30/2019 10.0 SP-SM, SP 1 TP-152 45 51 53.941158 N 111 24 33.710660 W 7/31/2019 14.5 SW, ML 2 TP-153 45 52 00.083225 N 111 24 29.292909 W 7/31/2019 14.0 SP-SM 1 TP-154 45 51 44.0 N 111 24 15.4 W 7/31/2019 12.0 SW, SP-SM 1 TP-155 45 51 47.6 N 111 24 03.1 W 7/31/2019 14.0 SP-SM, SM 2 Page 1 of 2 Appendix B.2 Test Pit Summary Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for Logan Landfill Expansion PIT ID LATTITUDE LONGITUDE Completion Date Depth (ft)Generalized Soil Types Samples TP-156 45 51 39.2 N 111 24 26.8 W 7/31/2019 11.5 SP-SM, ML 2 TP-157 45 52 00.4 N 111 24 34.8 W 7/31/2019 14.5 SP-SM, SW 1 TP-158 45 51 49.0 N 111 24 33.9 W 7/31/2019 13.5 SP-SM, SW 2 TP-159 45 51 56.6 N 111 24 24.7 W 7/31/2019 14.0 SM 1 TP-160 45 51 58.9 N 111 23 54.5 W 7/31/2019 12.0 SM, SP-SM 1 TP-161 45 52 06.1 N 111 23 43.6 W 8/1/2019 12.0 SP, SP-SM, ML 1 TP-162 45 51 54.2 N 111 23 45.9 W 8/1/2019 13.0 SP-SM 1 TP-163 45 52 08.9 N 111 23 46.1 W 8/1/2019 12.0 SP-SM, SP 1 TP-164 45 52 02.8 N 111 23 53.3 W 8/1/2019 12.0 SP-SM, SW 1 TP-165 45 52 10.7 N 111 23 57.3 W 8/1/2019 12.0 SP-SM, SP 1 TP-166 45 52 09.1 N 111 24 08.3 W 8/1/2019 11.0 SP-SM, SM 3 TP-167 45 52 01.1 N 111 24 07.5 W 8/1/2019 12.0 SP-SM, SM 3 HVTP-1 NA NA 1/4/2006 8.0 SILTSTONE NA HVTP-2 NA NA NA ?NA NA HVTP-3 NA NA 1/4/2006 9.0 SP/SM NA HVTP-4 NA NA 1/4/2006 8.0 ML, SANDSTONE NA Notes: TP-101 through TP-153 were pre-determined locations via CAD mapping andd staked in advance of fieldwork. TP-154 through TP-167 were located in the field to fill data gaps and coordinates obtained via hand-held GPS unit. HVTP-series (total of 4) were excavated in 2006 during earlier field investigation efforts. NA = not available. Page 2 of 2 Appendix C Boring Logs Appendix C.1 Borings SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 4 Boring ID:LMW-100 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:7/27/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:7/31/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 8" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,318.36 ft msl TOTAL DEPTH:180 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 40 10 20 30 Southwest perimeter NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)CommentsSoil Description soil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Graphic LogSample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). R-1 0-6' --3.5'R-1 0-1ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), brown, loose, dry, topsoil. R-1 1-6ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM), grey, dry, loose, estimated 5-8% fines. SPT-1 10- 11.5' 14, 50, 50/4"(100/ 10") SPT-1: Well graded SAND (SW-SM) with silt and 30% fine gravel, grey, dry, rounded gravel. - R-2 Poory Recovery ~10% of run. -Slow advancement.Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SAND1.0' R-2 6-10' --0.5'R-2: Same-as-above (SP-SM). R-3 10-13' --3'R-3: Same-as-above (SW-SM). R-4: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP), brown, dry, loose. R-5: Similar as above but gradational change to (SP-SM).R-6: Same-as-above (SP-SM). R-4 13-15' --2' R-5 15-17' --2' R-6 17-20' --2' R-7 20-25' --2'R-7: Same-as-above (SP-SM).Unconsolidated SILTR-5 25-30' --0.5'R-8: Poor recovery, assume same-as-above (SP-SM). SPT-2 30-31.5'27, 43, 46(N=89) 1.0'SPT-2: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP), grey-brown, very dense, loose, trace coarse sand. R-9 30-40' --10'R-9: SILT (ML) with fine sand, brown, cohesive, dry,estimated 30-40% very fine sand. -Archive 5-gallon bucket of SILT material for potential lab testing at 35-37 ft interval. R-10 30-40' --9'R-10: Same-as-above with occasional thin layers of silty fine SAND (SM) with 40% silt. Most of R-9 and R-10 material is SILT (ML). -Moderately easy advancement in SILT material. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 4 Boring ID:LMW-100 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:7/27/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:7/31/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 8" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,318.36 ft msl TOTAL DEPTH:180 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 90 80 60 70 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). Southwest perimeter NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments R-11 50-60' --9'R-11: Same-as-above (ML). .-Significant interval of SILT from 29 to 62 ft bgs.Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SILTR-12 60-70' --8.5'R-12 60-62ft: Same-as-above (ML). R-12 62-70ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), with trace coarse sand and fine gravel, brown, hard, dry. -Color change from brown to tan at 62 ft coinciding with change from SILT to SAND. -Fast advancement. R-13 70-80' --6.5'R-13: Poorly graded SAND (SP)with intervals of silty fine SAND (SM), tan, slightly moist, sandstone interval from 70 to 71 ft bgs. -Thin layer of sandstone 70-71 ft bgs. R-14 80-90' --5.5'R-14: Predominantly poorly graded SAND (SP) with zones ofsilty fine SAND (SM), tan and brown, dense, layered SP and SM. R-15 90-10' --4'R-15: Poorly graded SAND (SP) with gravel zones, grey, loose, estimated 20% fine-medium gravel. - Sample runs R-14 and R-15 are 'wet' but driller is adding water. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:3 OF 4 Boring ID:LMW-100 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:7/27/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:7/31/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 8" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,318.36 ft msl TOTAL DEPTH:180 ft bgs SWL: 100 150 140 130 110 120 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). Southwest perimeter NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments R-16 100-110' --5'R-16: Silty fine SAND (SM), with estimated 20-30% silt, brown, moist, dense, 50% recovery.-Driller is advancing with adding water sooutside 'core' is moist to wet but not inferred due to groundwater.Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SANDR-17 110-120' --10'R-17: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP),trace gravel, grey, loose, dry. -Driller switches to 'dry' advancement and doesn't add water at depths below 110 ft bgs. R-18 120-130' --10'R-18: Same-as-above (SP) with occassional zones of (SP-SM) and 5% rounded gravel, dry, grey, loose. -Samples from runs R-17 and R-18 completely dry. R-19 130-140' --10'R-19: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP-SM) with ~10% silt and ~10% fine gravel, dry, loose,, tan-brown. -Distinct change to tan-grey weathered SILTSTONE at 138 ft bgs.Consolidated SILTSTONER-20 140-150' --10'R-20: SILT (ML)with fine sand, tan, cohesive and compacted, estimated 30-40% fine sand, occassional fine sand lenses,weathered SILTSTONE. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:4 OF 4 Boring ID:LMW-100 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:7/27/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:7/31/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 8" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,318.36 ft msl TOTAL DEPTH:180 ft bgs SWL: 150 200 190 180 160 170 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). Southwest perimeter NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments R-21 150-160' --10'R-21: Silty fine SAND (SM) with zones of poorly graded fine SAND (SP-SM),brown, loose, SP zones are saturated-wet; SM material has 15-20% fines.Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SILTR-22 160-170' --10'R-22: Same-as-above (SM with SP-SM and SP zones); thin layer of SILT from 161 to 162 ft bgs. . R-23 170-180' --10'R-23: Predominantly SILT (ML) with fine sand with minorlenses of silty fine SAND (SM) with 30% fines, brown, hard, cohesive, slightly moist but not saturated. - First saturated zones/uppermost groundwater observed in sample run R-21 in SP zones. - Collected screen-zone grab samples for potential laboratory testing at 150-152 ft bgs and from 164-165 ft bgs. Total depth 180 ft bgs on 7/30/19 END OF LOG -SILT at 169 to 180 ft lower confining unit beneath upper saturated zone. -See Well Completion Diagram for Well Construction Details.Screen Interval149 to 169 ft bgs SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 4 Boring ID:LMW-101 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:7/24/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:7/26/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4346.48 ft TOTAL DEPTH:200 ft bgs SWL: 50 40 10 20 30 South perimeter, center ridge, inferred upgradient 171 ft bgs Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)CommentsSoil Description soil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Graphic LogSample ID column R=sonic sample ("run").Consolidated SANDSTONER-1 0-10' --1'R-1: Fine sandy SILT (ML), trace fine gravel, light tan, dry, soft, estimted 40% fine sand. SPT-1 10- 10.4'50/5" (R) 0.3'SPT-1: Fine sandy SILT (ML) or silty fine SAND (SM), trace fine gravel, light tan, dry, soft. R-2 10-12' --1' R-3 12-17' --2' R-4 17-20' --2' SPT-2 20- 21.5'17, 20, 26 (N=46) 1.5'SPT-2: Poorly graded fine SAND with silt (SP-SM), brown, dry, dense, cemented and weathered, estimated 10% fines. R-2, R-3, and R-4: Same as above. R-5 20-27' --5'R-5: Same as above (weathered sandstone). Poor recovery with R-1 (10%). Very hard slow advancement to 10 ft bgs. R-6 27-30' --2'R-6: Same as above (weathered sandstone). SPT-3 30- 30.4' 50/5" (R) 0.3'SPT-3: Same as above (weathered sandstone). R-7 30-40' --7.5'R-7: Same as above (weathered sandstone). Occassional zones of finer-grained material (inferred siltsone lenses witin the SPT-4 40- 41.5' 9, 16, 22 (N=38)SPT-3: Same as above (weathered sandstone).1.4'Driller starts adding water to ease advancement at 40 ft bgs; faster advancement rate at 40 ft. Dry sample runs, no evidense of saturated conditions to 50 ft bgs. R-8 40-50' --8'R-8: Same as above (weathered sandstone).Unconsolidated SANDTransition to weathered sandstone at 18-20 ft bgs _________ SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 4 Boring ID:LMW-101 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:7/24/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:7/26/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4346.48 ft TOTAL DEPTH:200 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 South perimeter, center ridge, inferred upgradient 171 ft bgs Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 80 60 70 90 Transition to unconsolidated sand at 74- 75 ft bgs.SANDSTONER-9 50-60' --8.5'R-9: Same as above (weathered sandstone) except interval of clean poorly graded unconsolidated sand (SP) from 52 to 54 ft bgs.SILTSTONESANDSTONER-10 60-68' --8'R-10: Fine sandy SILT (ML),brown, hard, dry, compacted and cemented, specimen crumbles in hand, estimated 30-40% fine sand (weathered siltstone). Transition to SILT or compacted siltstone at 60 ft bgs. R-11 68-73' --3.5'R-11 68-70ft:same as above (weathered siltstone). R-11 70-73ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), brown-tan, cemented- compacted, dry, estimated 30% fines (sandstone). R-12 73-80' --7'R-12 73-75ft:same as above (weathered sandstone). R-12 75-80ft: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP), unconsolidated, grey, dry, loose beach-sand appearance. R-13 80-90' --9.5'R-13: Same as above (SP). From 82 to 85 ft zone of sand with 15% sub-rounded gravel. Unconsolidated. Dry sample runs, no evidense of saturated conditions to 100 ft bgs. R-14 90-99' --7'R-14 90-98ft: Same as above (SP). Unconsolidated. R-14 98-99: Fine sandy SILT (ML), cemented-compacted, brown-tan, dry, very hard, estimated 30-40% fine sand (weathered siltstone).Unconsolidated SAND SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:3 OF 4 Boring ID:LMW-101 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:7/24/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:7/26/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4346.48 ft TOTAL DEPTH:200 ft bgs SWL: 100 150 South perimeter, center ridge, inferred upgradient 171 ft bgs Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 130 110 120 140 Unconsolidated SANDR-15 99-110' --10'R-15 99-103ft:same as above (weathered siltstone). R-15 103-110ft: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP), loose, dry, grey, unconsolidated-loose. R-16 110-120' --9'R-16:Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM) with trace gravel and estimated 10% fines, loose, grey, dry, unconsolidated. R-17 120-130' --10'R-17:Fine sandy SILT (ML), brown, cohesive with weaklycemented zones, dry, hard, estimated 30% fine sand. R-18 130-140' --9.5'R-18:Same as above, SILT (ML). R-19 140-150' --10'Unconsolidated SILTR-19 140-148ft:Same as above, SILT (ML). R-19 148-150ft:Silty fine SAND (SM), compacted, brown, estimated 20-30% silt (weathered sandstone). Dry sample runs, no evidense of saturated conditions to 150 ft bgs. Color change and transition to brown fine sandy SILT at 120 ft bgs. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:4 OF 4 Boring ID:LMW-101 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:7/24/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:7/26/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4346.48 ft TOTAL DEPTH:200 ft bgs SWL: 150 200 190 180 160 170 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). South perimeter, center ridge, inferred upgradient 171 ft bgs Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description (ASTM D-2488)Comments -See As-Built Well Diagram for well construction details.Screen Interval179 to 199 ft bgsR-20 150-160' --9'R-20:Silty fine SAND (SM), compacted, brown, estimated 20-30% silt, occasional zones of silt (weathered sandstone). -Faster/easier advancement rate after 140 ft bgs. -No evidense of saturated conditions to 160 ft bgs. R-21 160-170' --10'R-21:Fine sandy SILT (ML), brown, slightly moist, stiff- cohesive, estimated 30% fine sand, occasional zones of silty sand and clay lense from 164 to 165 ft bgs, trace fine gravel. R-22 170-180' --9.5'R-22 170-178ft: same as above, SILT (ML). R-22 178-180ft: Poorly graded clean SAND (SP), fine-medium grained, tan, loose, estimated 5% fines, wet zone.-First indication of saturated zone at 178 ft bgs in clean sand. R-23 180-190' --9.5'R-23: Same as above, SAND (SP). Bottom of Boring 200 ft bgs (total depth). R-24 190-200' --10'R-24: Same as above, SAND (SP). Poorly graded SAND with 20%gravel zone from 186 to 188 ft bgs; sub-rounded 3/4-1" gravel.-Archived lab samples from sonic run at intervals of 186-187 ft bgs; and 195 to 196 ft bgs for permeability testing. END OF LOG Unconsolidated SILTSANDSTONEUnconsolidated SAND SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 2 Boring ID:LMW-102 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:10/1/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:10/2/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing ELEVATION:TOTAL DEPTH:80 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 40 10 20 30 Southeast Corner; just north of the irrigation pond. NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)CommentsSoil Description soil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. 4298.99 ft (ground); 4300.43 ft (top-of-casing)Graphic LogSample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). R-1 0-8' --5'R-1 0-2ft: Topsoil,silty SAND (SM), brown, loose, dry. R-1 2-8ft: Silty fine SAND (SM),estimated 15% fines, 10%Unconsolidated SANDConsolidated SILTSTONE-Very difficult advancement at 6 ft bgs,driller started adding water to ease advancement.R-2 8-10' --2'R-2: Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM), estimated 10% fines, trace fine gravel, tan, loose, dry. R-3 10-16' --4.5'R-3 10-14ft: Same as above, (SP-SM). R-3 14-16ft: Fine sandy SILT (ML -SILTSTONE), est. 20% fine sand, dry, brown, very hard, compacted, weathered SILTSTONE. R-4 16-20' --4'R-4: Predominantly fine sandy SILT (ML-SILTSTONE), occassional lenses of silty fine sand (SM) consolidated, brown, dry, weathered SILTSTONE. R-5 20-28' --8'R-5 20-21ft: Same as above, (ML-SILTSTONE). R-5 21-26ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM), trace gravel, loose, brown, dry. R-5 26-28ft: Intermixed SILTSTONE and SANDSTONE lenses, consolidated, brown, dry, weathered. Unconsolidated SANDConsolidated SILTSTONER-6 28-30' --2'R-6: SILTSTONE with SANDSTONE lenses, similar to above. R-7 30-38' --8' -Zone from 26 to 46 ft depicted as consolidated SILTSTONE but has occassional thin lenses of SANDSTONE. R-7: Fine sandy SILT (ML-SILTSTONE), brown, dry, estimated 20% very fine sand, consolidated-cohesive. R-8 38-40' --2'R-8: Same as above,(ML-SILTSTONE). R-9 40-50' --10'R-9 40-46ft: Same as above,(ML-SILTSTONE). R-9 46-50ft: Silty fine SAND (SM-SANDSTONE), consolidated, tan, dry, weathered, estimated 20-30% fines and trace gravel.Consolidated SANDSTONE-Moderate advancement rate but difficult to extrude samples from sonic steel sampler. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 2 Boring ID:LMW-102 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:10/1/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:10/2/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing ELEVATION:TOTAL DEPTH:80 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 90 80 60 70 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). Southeast Corner; just north of the irrigation pond. NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments 4298.99 ft (ground); 4300.43 ft (top-of-casing) R-10 50-59' --9'R-10 50-58ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM/SP) with 5-10% fines, loose, dry, slightly moist. R-10 58-59ft: Fine sandy SILT (ML -SILTSTONE), dry, consolidated, tan.Consolidated SILTSTONEUnconsolidated SANDConsolidated SANDSTONER-11 59-69' --9.5'R-11 58-63ft: Same as above, (ML-SILTSTONE). R-11 63-68ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP), dry, brown-grey, loose, estimated 5% fines and trace fine gravel. R-12 69-80' --11'R-12 69-78ft: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP), brown,loose, wet, trace coarse sand. R-12 78-80 ft: Silty SAND (SM-SANDSTONE), dry, brown, cemented, estimated 20-30% fines. -First indication of saturated conditions in R-12 clean sand; had driller pull back casing to 74 ft bgs and measure borehole water at 70 ft bgs and slightly rising. -Collected grab samples of screen zone and underlying aquitard unit.Unconsolidated SANDScreen Interval68 to 78 ft bgsBottom of Boring 80 ft bgs (total depth).END OF LOG -See As-Built Well Diagramfor well construction details. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 3 Boring ID:LMW-103 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/1/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/1/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,304.82 ft msl TOTAL DEPTH:140 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 Graphic LogSample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 30 Center of expansion footprint NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)CommentsSoil Description soil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. 40 10 20 R-1 0-10' --1'R-1: Fine sandy SILT (ML), grey, dry, cohesive, stiff, estimated 30% fine sand. SPT-1 10- 11.5'9, 8,22(N=30) 1.5'SPT-1: 10-11' Same as above (SAA). SPT-1: 11.0-11.5' Poorly graded fine SAND (SP), grey, dry, dense. R-2 10-20' --0' SPT-2 20- 21.5'17, 30, 39 (N=69) 1.5' -Fast drilling advancement -No recovery with R-2 and R-3; sample washed out with driller adding water. SPT-3 30-31'0.3' R-4 30-40' --6.0'Unconsolidated SILTR-2: No recovery; inferred clean material. SPT-2: 20.0-21.5' Poorly graded fine SAND (SP), grey, dry, dense.Unconsolidated SANDR-3 20-30' --0'R-3: No recovery; inferred clean material. 18, 50, 50/1" (R) SPT-3: Poorly graded fine SAND (SP), grey, dry, dense, clean less than 5% fines. R-4: Alternating layers of silty fine SAND (SM) and poorly graded SAND (SP), grey, dense, wet due to driller adding water; SM is 20% fines. R-5 40-50' --2.0'R-5: Poor recovery; assume clean poorly graded SAND (SP) with SM zones; clean material washing out with driller adding water.Unconsolidated SAND-Poor recovery (20%). SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 3 Boring ID:LMW-103 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/1/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/1/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,304.82 ft msl TOTAL DEPTH:140 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 90 80 60 70 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). Center of expansion footprint NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments R-6 50-60' --5.5'R-6: Silty fine SAND (SM), brown with tan streaks, slightly cohesive, estimated 20% fines, occassional silt lenses. -Fast drilling advancement; driller addingwater so sample is wet.Unconsolidated SAND Consolidated SILTSTONEUnconsolidated SANDR-7 60-70' --7.0'R-7: 60-65' SAA (SM). R-7 65-70' SILT (ML)with sand, tan, dry, hard-crumbly,weakly cemented, estimated 20% fine sand. R-8 70-80' --7.5'R-8 SILT (ML)with sand, tan, dry, hard-crumbly, weakly cemented, estimated 40% fine sand. -Color change to tan hard crumbly SILT (weathered siltstone) at 65 ft bgs. R-9 80-90' --7.5'R-8 Transition at 81 ft to Silty fine SAND (SM), brown, dense, compacted, dry, sand content increases with depth (highly weathered sandstone). R-10 90-100' --6.0'R-10 Same-as-above to 94 ft bgs.R-10 94-96' Well graded GRAVEL (GW), rounded gravel, grey, dense, less than 5% fines.R-10 96-100' Silty find SAND (SM), light tan-grey, dry, hard, cohesive, estimated 30% fines - Thin gravel zone 73-75 ft bgs. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:3 OF 3 Boring ID:LMW-103 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/1/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/1/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,304.82 ft msl TOTAL DEPTH:140 ft bgs SWL: 100 150 Center of expansion footprint NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 130 110 120 140 R-11 100-110' --7'R-11: Silty fine SAND (SM), color change to dark green, loose, estimated 15-20% fines.-Color change from tan-grey to dark green at 100 ft.Unconsolidated Consolidated SANDSTONER-12 110-120' --10'R-12: Transition/contact at 111 ft -Poorly graded fine- medium SAND (SP/SP-SM), grey, loose beach-sand, dry, predominatly SP but some zones of SP-SM. Trace fine gravel in interval from 117 to 120 ft. R-13 120-130' --10' -Driller stops adding water drilling dry at depths below 110 ft bgs to identify uppermost groundwater. -First indication of saturated conditions from 130 to 140 ft bgs. -Collected grab samples of saturated zone at 132 ft and 138 ft depths for permeability testing in saturated zone. R-13: Transition to silty fine SAND (SM) at 127 ft and weathered SANDSTONE (SM) at 128 ft bgs, dry, grey-tan,cemended and weathered sandstone. R-14 130-140' --10'R-14: Intermixed Poorly graded SAND (SP) and well graded SAND (SW) with gravel zones at 132 and 138 ft depths, wet, loose-clean material, dense.Unconsolidated SANDScreen Interval128 to 138 ft bgsBottom of Boring 140 ft bgs (total depth).END OF LOG -See As-Built Well Diagram for well construction details. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 3 Boring ID:LMW-104 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/5/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/5/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4267.04 ft TOTAL DEPTH:120 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 40 10 20 30 North perimeter, center NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)CommentsSoil Description soil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Graphic LogSample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). R-1 0-10' --4'R-1: Silty fine SAND (SM), trace fine gravel, moist, medium dense, brown and tan, estimated 30% fines. SPT-1 20- 21.5'14, 29, 36(N=65) SPT-1: 20-20.5' Same as above (SAA). SPT-1: 20.5-21.5' Poorly graded fine SAND (SP), grey, dry, dense, clean less than 5% fines. -Driller plans to drill wet adding water from 0-60 ft bgs, then switch to dry thereafter to identify uppermostsaturated conditions.Unconsolidated SAND1.5' R-2 10-20' --0'R-2: No recovery,assume sample was clean and washed out when driller was adding water for drilling advancement. Assume silty SAND (SM).-Slower advancement at 12 ft bgs.Unconsolidated SANDSILTR-3 20-30' --0'R-3: No recovery,assume sample was clean and washed outwhen driller was adding water for drilling advancement. Assume poorly graded SAND (SP). SPT-2 30- 31.5'18, 29, 38 (N=67) 1.5'SPT-2: Poorly graded SAND (SP), trace gravel, grey, moist, very dense. R-4 30-40' --3'R-4: Same-as-above, Poorly graded SAND (SP), trace gravel, grey, moist, very dense. 30% Recovery. -Poor recovery in sonic runs to 40 ft bgs due to clean material and driller adding water to ease advancement. R-5 40-50' --7'R-5 40-45ft: Same-as-above, Poorly graded SAND (SP). R-5 45-47ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), brown-tan, moist, hard.R-5 47-50ft: SILT (ML) with fine sand, tan, hard-cohesive, crumbly, dry, estimated 20% fine sand. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 3 Boring ID:LMW-104 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/5/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/5/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4267.04 ft TOTAL DEPTH:120 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 90 80 60 70 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). North perimeter, center NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments R-6 50-60' --8.5'R-6: SILT (ML)with fine sand, brown-tan, dry, cohesive- crumbly, estimated 20% fine sand.-Relatively fast-easy advancement to 50 ft bgs. -Archive lab sample of SILT material from55 to 56 ft bgs.Consolidated SILTSTONEUnconsolidated SANDR-7 60-70' --8'R-7 60-65ft: Same-as-above SILT (ML)with fine sand, brown- tan, dry, cohesive-crumbly, estimated 20% fine sand.R-7 65-70ft: SILT/SILTSTONE (ML), dry, hard, crumbly, tan, cemented weathered siltstone, estimated 10% fine sand.-Transition to advance without water to identify uppermost groundwater at 60 ftbgs. R-8 68-80' --12'R-8: Same as above, SILT/SILTSTONE (ML)dry, hard,crumbly, tan, cemented weathered siltstone, estimated 10% fine sand. Occasional zones of SANDSTONE.Unconsolidated SILTR-9 80-90' --10'R-9 80-84ft: Same-as-above (SILTSTONE). R-9 84-88ft: Silty fine SAND (SM) weathered SANDSTONE, hard, crumbly, brown-grey, dry, moderately competent. R-9 88-90ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), dry, dense, loose, estimated 20% fines.Consolidated SANDSTONER-10 90-99' --10'R-10 90-99ft: Same-as-above, silty SAND (SM). R-10 99-100ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP), tan-grey, looseclean sand, wet-saturated material. -Uppermost saturated zone identified at 99 ft bgs in clean SAND (SP). SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:3 OF 3 Boring ID:LMW-104 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/5/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/5/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4267.04 ft TOTAL DEPTH:120 ft bgs SWL: 100 150 140 130 110 120 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). North perimeter, center NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments R-11 100-110' --10'R-11: Predominantly poorly graded medium SAND (SP) with well graded SAND (SW) zones at 105-106 ft, trace gravel, wet, clean, loose sand. -Uppermost water-bearing zone from 99 to 114 ft bgs in clean SAND (SP).SILTUnconsolidated SANDR-12 110-120' --10'R-12 100-114ft: Same-as-above, SAND (SP). R-12 114-120ft: Borderline fine sandy SILT (ML)/silty fineSAND (SM), green-grey, slightly moist but not saturated, cohesive,estimated 50% fines. (ML/SM) -Material from 114 to 120 ft bgs is dry/not saturated and Bottom of Boring 120 ft bgs (total depth).END OF LOG - Archive lab samples at 102-103 and 105 ft zones for permeability testing of screen zone; archive sample of 115-116 ft of SILT for lab testing of underlying confining unit. -See As-Built Well Diagram for well construction details.Screen Interval99 to 114 ft bgs SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 2 Boring ID:LMW-105 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:10/2/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:10/3/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing ELEVATION:TOTAL DEPTH:100 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 40 30 10 20 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). East perimeter just west of drainage creek/canal NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments 4267.28 ft (ground); 4268.75 ft (top-of-casing) R-1 0-5' --3.5'Unconsildated SILTUnconsolidated SANDConsolidated SANDSTONE-Topsoil 0-2.5ft R-1 0-2.5ft: Silty SAND (SM), dark brown, loose, moist, topsoil. R-1 2.5-5ft: Well graded SAND (SW-SM), brown, loose, dry, estimated 30% rounded gravel. R-2 5-10' --5'R-2 5-7ft: Same as above, (SW-SM). R-7-10ft: Fine sandy SILT (ML-SILTSTONE), tan, dry, compacted-cemented, trace fine gravel, estimated 20% R-3 10-18' --8'R-3 Borderline fine sandy SILT or silty fine SAND (ML/SM), tan, cohesive, dry, very slow drilling. -Rougher/slow advancement at 7 ft bgs; very slow at 10 ft bgs. R-4 18-20' --2'R-4 Same as above, (ML/SM). R-5 20-30' --6'R-5 Same as above to 21 ft. R-5 21-25ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP), grey, dry,loose, clean sand. R-5 25-30ft: Fine sandy SILT (ML), tan-brown, dry, cohesive,estimated 30% very fine sand. Unconsolidated SANDConsolidated SILTSTONEUnconsolidated SANDConsolidated SANDSTONE-Relatively easy drilling R- 7 to 50 ft bgs. No evidense of saturated zones to 50 ft R-6 30-40' --10'R-6 30-33ft: SILT (ML-SILTSTONE), compacted, dry, tan- grey, estimate 20% fine sand. R-6 33-35 ft: Silty SAND (SM-SANDSTONE),highly weathered, tan-grey, dry, cemented and consolidated. R-6 35-40ft: same as 30-33ft interval, (ML-SILTSTONE). R-7 40-50' --9'R-7 40-45ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM), brown, loose, dry, estimated 5-8% fines. R-7 45-50ft: Silty SAND (SM-SANDSTONE), grey, dry, cemented-pulverized SANDSTONE. Gradational contact at 45 ft. (Continued)(Continued) SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 2 Boring ID:LMW-105 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:10/2/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:10/3/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing ELEVATION:TOTAL DEPTH:100 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 East perimeter just west of drainage creek/canal 4267.28 ft (ground); 4268.75 ft (top-of-casing)NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 80 60 70 90 R-8 50-60' --10'UnconsildatedSILTUnconsolidated SANDR-8 50-53ft: Well graded SAND (SW) with trace fine gravel, loose, grey, dry. R-8 53-56ft: SILT (ML), trace fine sand, tan, slightlymoist, dry, cohesive. R-8 56-60ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM)with estimated 5-8% fines, brown, loose, dry. -Relatively easy drilling advancement.SANDConsolidated SANDSTONE SILTSTONER-9 60-67' --7'R-9 60-53ft: Same as above, (SP-SM). Dry. R-9 63-67ft: Fine sandy SILT (ML -SILTSTONE), cohesive,cemented, tan, dry, estimated 20% fine sand. R-10 67-70' --7'R-10 67-70ft: Silty SAND (SM-SANDSTONE), cemented, consolidated, fairly competent rock, grey-white, dry. R-11 70-80' --10'R-11 Silty fine SAND (SM), estimated 30% fines, grey- green, loose but semi-cohesive, first indication of saturation at 75-77 ft bgs, unconsolidated. -First indication of uppermost saturated or moist soil from 75-77 ft bgs.UnconsildatedSANDUnconsolidatedSILTUnconsildatedSILTUnconsildatedSANDR-12 80-90' --10'R-12 80-85ft:SILT (ML), cohesive, massive, moist, light grey to white, estimated 10-20% fine sand, soft material cuts with knife to smooth surface.R-12 85-89.5ft: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP), trace fine gravel, brown, wet, less than 5% fines, grey-brown. R-12 90-100' --10' R-12 90-92ft:Alternating thin lenses of SANDSTONE and SILTSTONE, mosit, consolidated-cemented. R-12 92-98ft: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP-SM), grey, loose, wet. R-12 98-100ft: SILT (ML) with estimated 40% very fine sand, tan-grey, moist, cohesive and crumbly. Bottom of Boring 80 ft bgs (total depth).END OF LOG Screen Interval84 to 99 ft -See As-Built Well Diagram for well construction details. -Thin lenses of weathered sandstone-siltstone from 90- 92 ft bgs. -Collected lab samples of screen interval and underlying confining unit. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 2 Boring ID:LMW-106 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:10/7/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:10/8/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing ELEVATION:TOTAL DEPTH:80 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 40 30 10 20 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). Northeast corner near drainage creek NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments 4234.29 ft (ground); 4236.01 ft (top-of-casing) R-1 0-10' --6'Consolidated SANDSTONE-Topsoil 0-1ft . -Very easy fast advancement for R-1.R-1 0-2.5ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), brown, loose, dry,dense, loose, estimated 20% fines, 5% fine gravel.Unconsolidated SAND(Continued)(Continued) R-2 10-14' --3.5'R-2 Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM), brown, loose, dry, estimated 10% fines, 5% subrounded gravel. R-3 14-17' --3'R-3 14-15ft: Same as above, (SP-SM). R-3 15-17ft: Fine sandy SILT (ML -SILSTONE), tan, hard,cohesive, estimated 10-15% fine sand. R-4 17-18' --1'R-4 Silty fine SAND (SM-SANDSTONE), tan-brown, dry,cemented. Occassional lenses of SILTSTONE. R-5 18-20' --1.5'R-5 Same as above (SM-SANDSTONE). R-6 20-30' --10'R-6 Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP-SM), loose,grey-brown, dry, estimatedd 5-12% fines.Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SANDR-7 30-40' --9.5'R-7 30-35ft: Same as above, (SP-SM). Dry. R-7 35-40ft: Well graded SAND (SW-SM) with ~10% fine rounded gravel and 5-10% fines, dry, brown, loose, alluvium sand. -Fast advancement with R-7. -Increasing gravel with depth from35to 40 ft bgs. R-8 40-50' --10'R-8 Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP-SM), brown- grey, loose, dry, estimated 5-15% fines variable lenses. -Color change brown to light grey at 45 ft but same material. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 2 Boring ID:LMW-106 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:10/7/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:10/8/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing ELEVATION:TOTAL DEPTH:80 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 Northeast corner near drainage creek 4234.29 ft (ground); 4236.01 ft (top-of-casing)NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 80 60 70 90 R-9 50-60' --10'Consolidated SANDSTONE-Contact to SANDSTONE at 53 ft. R-9 50-53ft: Same as above, (SP-SM). Dry. R-9 53-60ft: Silty SAND (SM-SANDSTONE), light grey,dry, estimated 30% fines, cemented but highly weathered.Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SILTR-10 60-70' --10'R-10 Poorly graded SAND (SP), fine-medium grained, loose, brown, wet. Occasional well graded SAND zones. Clean less than 5% fines. -Encounter uppermost saturated zone entire 10ft run wet/saturated from 60to 70 ft bgs. R-11 70-80' --10'R-11 70-73ft: Same as above, (SP), wet. R-11 73-80ft: Borderline sandy SILT or silty fine SAND (ML/SM),tan-brown, moist, cohesive, hard, unconsolidated. Estimated 40-60% fines. Bottom of Boring 80 ft bgs (total depth).END OF LOG -Collect grab permeability samples forscreen zone and underlying confining unit.Screen Interval33 to 73 ft -See As-Built Well Diagramfor well construction details. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 1 Boring ID:TB-100 (soil boring) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/19/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/19/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,237.0 TOTAL DEPTH:50 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 Graphic LogSample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 30 NW Quadrant of Expansion Area; just east of daily stockpile. NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)CommentsSoil Description soil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. 40 10 20 R-1 0-10' --0'R-1 0-10ft: No recovery; sample washed out. SPT-1 10- 11.5' 4, 5,4 (N=9)SPT-1: Silty fine SAND (SM), grey,dry, medium dense, estimated 10-15% fines. - R-1 No Recovery; driller added water sample washed out.Unconsolidated SAND1.5' R-2 10-20' --6'ConsolidatedSANDSTONESPT-2 30-31.5'17, 30, 45(N=75) 1.5'SPT-2: Silty fine SAND (SM), grey,dry, medium dense, estimated 10-15% fines. R-4 30-40' --10'R-4 30-38ft: Same-as above (SM). R-4 38-40ft: Silty SAND (SM), dry, highly compacted and weathered sandstone with iron staining (SANDSTONE). R-5 40-50' --10'R-5 40-45ft: Same-as-above (SANDSTONE). R-5 45-50ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP), grey-brown, loose,clean less-than 5% fines. -Driller switched to dry drilling at 10 ft to enhance sample recovery. R-2 10-20ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), tan, dry, medium dense, estimated 20% fines, fines increasing with depth. R-3 20-30' --10'R-3 20-30ft: Same-as-above (SM); fines percentage increasing to 30-40% from 18-20 ft bgs. -Relatively fast advancement in sand.UnconsolidatedSAND-No saturated zones or groundwater to 50 ft bgs. . Abandon borehole backfilled with END OF LOG Total Depth = 50 ft bgs 8/9/19 SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 1 Boring ID:TB-101 (soil boring) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE: 8/9/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE: 8/9/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4257.9 ground surface TOTAL DEPTH:50 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 40 10 20 30 West perimeter edge; just east of background LMW-1. NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)CommentsSoil Description soil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Graphic LogSample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). R‐1 0‐5' ‐‐0.5'R‐10‐0.5ft: Poor recovery; sample washed out. Material on tip was silty SAND (SM), tan‐grey, dense‐compact, weathered sandstone. SPT‐1 10‐ 11.5' 8, 13, 15 (N=28) SPT‐1: Poorly graded SAND (SP), grey,dry, loose, medium dense, clean less than 5% fines. ‐Hard drilling; slow advancement at 3ft bgs. Unconsolidated SAND1.5' R‐3 10‐20' ‐‐0' SPT‐2 20‐ 21.5' 7, 26, 15 (N=41)SPT‐2 20‐21ft: Same‐as‐above (SP). SPT‐2 21‐21.5ft: Well graded SAND(SW), grey, brown, dense, dry. R‐4 20‐30' ‐‐6'R‐4 20‐26ft: Same‐asabove (SW). R‐4 26‐30ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), tan, dry, hard‐cohesive, estimated 30‐40% fines. R‐5 30‐40' ‐‐6' R‐3 Poor/no recovery.‐Relatively fast advancement in sand.UnconsolidatedSILT‐No saturated zones or groundwater to 50 ft bgs. . Abandon borehole backfilled with END OF LOG Total Depth = 50 ft bgs 8/9/19 R‐2 5‐10' ‐‐0.5' R‐2 Poor recovery ‐assume same‐as‐above (SM). 1.2' R‐5 30‐34ft: Same‐asabove (SM). R‐5 34‐40ft: SILT (ML) estimated with 30‐40% very fine sand, tan, cohesive, crumbly, dry. R‐6 40‐50' ‐‐7'R‐6 40‐46ft: Same‐asabove (ML). R‐5 46‐50ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), brown, moist, hard‐ cohesive, estimated 30% fines.Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SAND SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 2 Boring ID:TB-102 (soil boring) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:10/8/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:10/8/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing ELEVATION:TOTAL DEPTH:70 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 North center ridge NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments 4308.0 ft (ground)Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 30 10 20 40 R-1 0-8' --6'Consolidated SANDSTONE-0-6"Topsoil. R-1 0-5ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), brown, loose, dry, estimated 20% fines, 20% subrounded gravel. (Continued)(Continued)Unconsolidated GRAVEL & SANDUnconsolidated SANDR-2 8-10' --2'R-2 8-10ft: Silty SAND (SM -SANDSTONE), 20% fine gravel and 20% fines, grey-brown, compacted, highly weathered, dry. R-3 10-15' --5'R-3 Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM SANDSTONE), grey, dry, highly weathered, estimated 5-10% fines. R-4 15-20' --4.5'R-4 Same as above (SP-SM SANDSTONE), dry. R-5 20-30' --10'R-5 Transition at 21 ft to Silty fine SAND (SM- SANDSTONE),grey, dry, consolidated-cemented, estimated 20-40% fines, occassional lenses of SILTSTONE. Highly weathered and crumbly. R-6 30-40' --10'R-6 30-33ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP), brown, dry, loose, 5% fines. R-6 33-37ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), brown, dry, loose, estimated 30% fines. R-6 37-40ft: Silty SAND (SM-SANDSTONE), grey, dry, cemented with estimated 10-20% fines. Rock specimen crumbles in hand, highly weathered. R-7 40-50' --10'R-7 Same as R-6 from 37-40 ft, (SM-SANDSTONE). Dry. -Slower drilling from 8-10 ft bgs. -Thin lense of well graded sand from 16 -Faster advancement with R-6 from 30 Consolidated SANDSTONE SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 2 Boring ID:TB-102 (soil boring) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:10/8/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:10/8/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing ELEVATION:TOTAL DEPTH:70 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 90 80 60 70 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). North center ridge 4308.0 ft (ground)NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments R-8 50-60' --10'Consolidated SANDSTONER-8 50-55ft: Same as above, (SM-SANDSTONE).R-8 55-60ft:Fine sandy SILT (ML-SILTSTONE), tan-grey, cemented, estimated 30% very fine sand, occassional sandstone lenses. END OF LOGBottom of boring 70ft bgs -Very slow drilling 55-60 ft bgs. R-9 60-70' --8.5'R-9 Same as above R-8 from 55-60 ft bgs, (ML-SILTSTONE).Dry. Occassional sandstone lenses. -No groundwater or saturated zones observed to bottom of boring. -Abandon borehole with bentonite hole plug.Consolidated SILTSTONE SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 2 Boring ID:TB-103 (soil boring) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:10/4/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:10/7/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing ELEVATION:TOTAL DEPTH:60 ft bgs SWL: 0 18" 50 40 30 10 20 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). Northeast quadrant NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments 4284.0 (ground surface) R-1 0-10' --4'Consolidated SANDSTONE-Relatively easy advancementR-1 Silty fine SAND (SM), brown, dry, estimated 20% fines, loose. Occassional zones of sandy SILT. (Continued)(Continued)Unconsolidated SANDR-2 10-15' --1' -Unconsolidated loose material. SPT-1 11-15 12 (N=27) 10-11.5'SPT-1 Same as above, (SM). Dry. R-2 Same as above, poor recovery, (SM). Dry. -Relatively fast advancement. R-3 15-16' --1'R-3 Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM) with silt and gravel, grey, dry, dense but loose, estimated 15% fines and 20% gravel to 3" diameter. R-4 16-18' --2'R-4 Same as above, (SP-SM).Dry. R-5 Well graded GRAVEL, with silt and sand (GW-GM), grey, dense, subrounded gravel to 3" diameter. Estimated 10% fines and 20% sand. R-5 18-20' --2' R-6 20-30' --8.5'R-6 Same as above,(GW-GM). Dry. R-7 28-34ft: Silty fine SAND (SM-SANDSTONE), grey, dry, consolidated and highly weathered. R-7 34-36ft: Fine sandy SILT (ML-SILTSTONE), grey, dry, consolidated and weathered. R-7 36-40ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), brown, dry, loose, estimated 30% fines. R-7 30-40' --8' R-8 40-50' --10'R-8 40-45ft: Same as above, (SM). Increasing fines with depth to 40% fines at 45 ft. R-8 45-50ft: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP), grey, dry, loose, clean less than 5% fines. Trace coarse sand. -Collect grab sonic samples at the 42 and 47 ft depths,respectively SM and SP material. Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated GRAVEL-Thin lense of SILTSTONE Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SAND SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 2 Boring ID:TB-103 (soil boring) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:10/4/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:10/7/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing ELEVATION:TOTAL DEPTH:60 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 Northeast quadrant 4284.0 (ground surface)NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 80 60 70 90 R-9 50-60' --10'-Relatively easy/fast advancement. -No groundwater or saturated zones to 60 ft bgs. -Abandoned borehole with Bentonite Hole Plug. R-9 50-55ft: Same as above, Poorly graded SAND (SP). Dry, loose. R-9 55-60ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM), grey, dry, loose, estimated 5-10% fines, increasing fines with depth and gradational contact.Unconsolidated SANDBottom of borehiole to 60 ft bgs END OF LOG SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 1 Boring ID:TB-104 (soil boring) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/8/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/8/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,302.0 ground surface TOTAL DEPTH:45 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 Graphic LogSample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 30 West center NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)CommentsSoil Description soil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. 40 10 20 R-1 0-5' --2.5'R-1 ft: Poorly graded SAND with silt (SP/SP-SM), estimated 5- 8% fines, brown, loose, dry. SPT-1 10-11.5' 13, 18, 22 (N=40) SPT-1: Poorly graded SAND (SP) grey, dense, loose, clean, fine-medium grained. -Slower advancement rate at 5 ft bgs.Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidatedSAND1.5' R-4 7-10' --3'ConsolidatedSILTSTONESPT-2 20- 21.5' 15, 20, 24 (N=44) R-4 Poorly graded SAND with 5-8% silt (SP-SM), brown, dry - No saturated zones or groundwater to 45 ft bgs. - Abandon borehole backfilled with bentonite hole plug. END OF LOGTotal Depth = 45 ft bgs 8/8/19 R-2 5-6' --0.5'R-2 Same-as-above (SP/SP-SM). R-3 Silty SAND (SM) with traace fine gravel, brown, dry. 1.5' R-3 6-7' --0.5' R-5 10-12' --1'R-5 Same-as-above (SP).R-6 Same-as-above (SP).R-7 Same-as-above (SP). Weathered SANDSTONE.R-6 12-14' --2' R-7 14-16' --2' -Short runs from 10 to 16 ft due to slow/diffcult advancement. R-8 16-19' --3' R-9 19-20' --1'R-8 and R-9 Silty SAND (SM), highly weathered sandstone,ConsolidatedSANDSTONER-10 20-30' --10' SPT-2 Poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-SM), grey, dry, dense. (SANDSTONE) R-10 SILT (ML) with very fine sand, tan-olive green, dry, cohesive, hard. Estimated 20-30% very fine sand. Transition to sand at 31 ft bgs. -Archive R-10 SILT from 25-26 ft bgsfor potential lab testing. -Faster advancement after 25 ft bgs. SPT-3 30- 31.5' 30, 48, 50 (N=98) 1.5'SPT-3 Well graded SAND with silt and trace fine gravel (SW- SM), dry, grey, very dense, estimated 5-8% fines.ConsolidatedSANDSTONER-11 30-40' --10' R-11 30-36ft: Same-as-above (SW-SM).R-11 36-40ft: Silty SAND (SM) with trace gravel, dry,cemented, rust red color, weathered consolidated -Note, at 45 ft bgs, driller broke outer 6-inch casing and boring was terminated to 45 ft bgs. No recovery with R-12. On 8/10/19 the driller recovered the 6-inch steel casing and abandoned borehole with bentonite. R-12 40-45' --0' SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 1 Boring ID:TB-105 (soil boring) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/8/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/9/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,249.0 ground surface TOTAL DEPTH:50 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 Graphic LogSample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 30 Southwest Quadrant of Expansion Area NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)CommentsSoil Description soil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. 40 10 20 R-1 0-7' --4'R-1 Poorly graded fine SAND (SP-SM), dry, grey loose, estimated 5% fines. SPT-1 20- 21.5' 3, 16,19 (N=35)SPT-2 Well graded SAND (SW) with trace fine gravel, dense, clean material. Borderline GW/SW. -No saturated zones or groundwater to 50 ft bgs. -Abandon borehole backfilled with END OF LOG Total Depth = 50 ft bgs 8/8/19 1.1' R-2 7-9' --2' SPT-2 30- 31.5' 12, 11,16 (N=27) 1.5'SPT-3 Silty very fine SAND (SM) with 40% fines, tan, hard, cohesive, dry. R-2 Same as above. SAND (SP-SM). R-3 9-10' --1'R-3 Same as above. SAND (SP-SM). R-4 10-20' --0'R-4 No recovery, sample washed out driller adding water. Contact to GW/SW inferred/estimated at 14 ft. R-5 20-30' --3'R-5 Well graded GRAVEL (GW) with 40% fine sand, grey, dense, alluvial gravel. R-6 30-40' --5'R-6 30-36ft Same as above (SM). R-6 36-40ft SILT (ML) with 40% very fine sand, tan, hard, cohesive. R-7 40-45' --5'R-7 40-43ft same as above (ML). R-7 43-45ft Silty SAND (SM), dark tan, dry, dense, cohesive, estimated 30% fines. Highly weathered SANDSTONE. R-8 45-50' --5'R-8 45-46ft same as above (SM). SANDSTONE. R-7 46-50ft Silty SAND (SM), grey, dry, loose sand, estimated 10-15% fines.Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SAND/GRAVELUnconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SILTUnconsolidated SAND-Borderline well graded GRAVEL or well graded SAND from 14 to 24 ft bgs -0-6"Topsoil. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 2 Boring ID:TB-106 (soil boring) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/7/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/7/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,332.0 ground surface TOTAL DEPTH:70 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 40 10 20 30 South Center Ridgeline of Expansion Area NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)CommentsSoil Description soil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Graphic LogSample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). R-1 0-5' --3.5'R-1 Silty fine SAND (SM), dry, grey, loose to 2.5 then weathered sandsdone, medium dense. SPT-1 10- 11.5' 17, 15, 17(N=32) Continued....UnconsolidatedSANDUnconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SILT-Slower advancement at 15 ft - 0-6"Topsoil. -Change to weathered SANDSTONE at 2.5 ft bgs. R-2 5-9' --3.5'R-2 5-8 Same as above (SM). R-2 8-9 Poorly graded SAND (SP) with 5% subrounded gravel, grey, loose, less than 5% fines. R-3 9-10' --1.5'R-3 Same as above (SP). Loose beach sand. SPT-1 Same as above (SP). Trace coarse sand and fine gravel,grey, dry, dense.1.5 R-4 10-13' --3'R-4 SILT (ML) with fine sand, cohesive, tan-green, dry, weathered SILSTONE, 10-20% fine sand. R-5 13-16' --2'R-5 Same as above (ML, SILSTONE).R-6 16-17' --1'R-6 Same as above (ML, SILSTONE). R-7 17-20' --3'R-7 Poorly graded clean SAND (SP), dry, grey, loose, less than 5% fines. SPT-2 20- 21.5' 5, 9,11(N=20)SPT-2 SILT (ML) with trace fine sand, tan-brown, soft, R-8 Silty fine SAND (SM), grey, dry, loose, variable, 10-20% fines. -Transition to SM at 23 ft bgs R-8 23-30' --7' SPT-3 30- 31.5' 20, 28,41 (N=69) R-8 Poorly graded clean SAND (SP), grey, loose, dry, very dense. R-9 30-40' --10'R-9 Same as above (SP). R-10 40-50' --10'R-10 Same as above (SP).Consolidated Unconsolidated SILT SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 2 Boring ID:TB-106 (soil boring) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/7/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/7/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,332.0 ground surface TOTAL DEPTH:70 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 90 80 60 70 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). South Center Ridgeline of Expansion Area NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments R-11 50-60' --10'R-11 50-52ft Same as above (SP). R-11 52-57ft Poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel (SP-SM), grey, dry, loose, estimated 5-8% fines and 5% gravel.R-11 57-60 ft Well graded SAND with silt and gravel (SW-SM), brown, dry, loose, 5-8% fines and 5-10% gravel.Unconsolidated SAND/GRAVELConsolidatedSILT-Slower advancement at 53 ft R-12 60-70' --10'R-12 60-61ft Same as above (SW-SM). R-12 61-63ft Silty fine SAND (SM) with 30% fines, grey-tan,loose. R-12 63-70ft SILT (ML) with estimated 20% very fine sand, cohesive, blocky tan-green, dry, weathered SILTSTONE. -Slower advancement at 63 ft -No groundwater to bottom of borehole. -Abaondon with 3/8" Bentonite. END OF LOGTotal Depth 70 ft bgs 8/7/19 SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 2 Boring ID:TB-107 (soil boring) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/6/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/6/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,298.4 ground surface TOTAL DEPTH:68 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 40 10 20 30 Southeast Quadrant of Expansion Area NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)CommentsSoil Description soil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Graphic LogSample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). R-1 0-10' --6'R-1 Silty fine SAND (SM), dry, brown, estimated 20% fines. Continued....ConsolidatedSILTSTONEUnconsolidated SAND- 0-6"Topsoil. -Increasing fines with depth. SPT-1 10-11.5' 7, 15,17 (N=32) R-6 30-40' --6.5'Consolidated SANDSTONE18"SPT-1 Same as above (SM). R-2 10-13' --2'R-2 Same as above (SM). R-3 13-15' --2'R-3 Silty fine SAND (SM, SANDSTONE), white-grey-brown, dry, compact-consolidated. R-4 15-20' --4'R-4 Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM) with 5-10% fines, grey-tan,dry, loose. SPT-2 20- 21.5' 22, 24,27 (N=51) 18"SPT-1 Same as above (SP-SM). R-5 20-30' --6'R-5 20-24ft Well graded SAND (SW). R-5 24-30ft SILT (ML)with fine sand, compact, light grey- green, dry, estimated 30% fine sand. SILTSTONE. -Slower advancement hard at 13 ft bgs. -Contact to SILTSTONE at 24 ft bgs. SPT-3 30-31.5' 15, 22,28 (N=50) 18"SPT-3 Borderline silty fine SAND (SM) or SILT (ML), tan, dry, cohesive, very dense/hard. Weathered siltstone/sandstone. -Weathered siltstone/sandstone. R-6 Same as above (SM or ML). Zones of both silty SAND and SILT; sandstone and siltstone. R-7 40-50' --9'R-7 40-47ft Poorly graded fine SAND (SP-SM), grey, dry, loose, estimated 5-10% fines. R-7 47-50ft SILT (ML),with fine sand, dark green olive, dry,cohesive, compact weathered siltstone, estimated 30% fine sand. -Weathered siltstone/sandstone. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 2 Boring ID:TB-107 (soil boring) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/6/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/6/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,298.4 ground surface TOTAL DEPTH:68 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 90 80 60 70 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). Southeast Quadrant of Expansion Area NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments R-8 50-60' --9'R-8 50-52ft Same as above. (ML, SILTSTONE). R-8 52-60ft Poorly graded SAND (SP),grey-brown, dry, loose, sand, dense, estimated 5% fines. Trace zones of SW with coarse sand. Total Depth 68 ft bgs8/6/19 UnconsolidatedSANDConsolidated SILTSTONER-9 60-65' --5'R-9 60-63ft Same as above. (SP). R-9 63-65ft SILT (ML) with fine sand, light olive green, dry,cohesive-hard, weathered SILTSTONE. R-10 65-68' --2.5' R-10Same as above. (ML, SILSTONE). -Hard/slow at 63 ft bgs. -No zones of groundwater observed to 68 ft bgs. END OF LOG SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 1 Boring ID:TB-108 (soil boring) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/7/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/7/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,323.3 ground surface TOTAL DEPTH:40 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 Southeast Quadrant of Expansion Area NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 30 10 20 40 R-1 0-6' --4'R-1 Silty SAND (SM) with estimated 10%rounded gravel, dry, dense, weathered SANDSTONE. Total Depth 40 ft bgs 8/7/19 Consolidated SILTSTONE-Hard/slow at 3 ft bgs. -R-2 no deeper than R-1; dense material. END OF LOG R-3 6-10' --3.5' R-2 NA --0' R-3 Same as above (SM, SANDSTONE). SPT-1 10- 11.5'10, 20, 33 (N=53) 18"SPT-1 and R-4 at 10.5 ft transition to SILT (ML) with estimated 20-30% fine sand, dry, cohesive-hard-crumbly, weathered SILTSTONE. R-4 10-14' --3.5'R-4 Same as above (ML, SILTSTONE). R-5 14-20' --5'R-5 Same as above (ML, SILTSTONE). SPT-2 20- 20.5'7, 10, 10(N=20)18"SPT-2 Same as above (ML, SILTSTONE). R-6 20-23' --2'R-6 Same as above (ML, SILTSTONE). R-7 22-29' --5.5'R-7 Same as above (ML, SILTSTONE). SPT-3 R-8 29-30' --1'R-8 Same as above (ML, SILTSTONE). 30-31.5 19, 34, 50 (N=84) 18"SPT-3 Same as above (ML, SILTSTONE). R-9 32-40' --7'R-9 Same as above to 37 ft; at 37 transition to Silty fine SAND (SM), highly weathered sandstone, brown, dry, very -Transition to SANDSTONE at 37 ft bgs. -No saturated zones observed to 40 ft bgs. -Abandon borehole with bentonite.Consolidated SANDSTONEConsolidated SANDSTONE SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 1 Boring ID:TB-110 (soil boring) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:10/4/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:10/4/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing ELEVATION:TOTAL DEPTH:50 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 40 30 10 20 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). Northeast quadrant NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments 4269.0 (ground surface) R-1 0-3' --2.5'Consolidated SANDSTONE- 0-6" Topsoil.R-1 Silty fine SAND (SM), tan, dry, estimated 20% fines,loose. 10% subrounded gravel. Dense-crumbly. R-2 3-7' --2.5'-Slower drilling at 4 ft bgs. SPT-1 41-5050/5" (N=100/11") 10-11.5'SPT-1 Well graded SAND (SW-SM) with silt and gravel, grey,dry, estimated 5-10% fines and 15% gravel. -Very slow advancement thus short runs, driller not adding water to enhance sonic recovery.Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated GRAVELUnconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SANDR-3 7-10' --2.5' R-2 Same as above,(SM). Dry. R-3 Same as above, (SM). Dry, gravel percentage 16" R-4 10-11' --1'R-4 Same as above (SW-SM). Dry. R-5 Poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand (GP-GM), R-5 11-14' --2.5' R-6 14-16' --1.5'R-6 Silty SAND (SM-SANDSTONE), grey-tan-white coloring, dry, consolidated, cemented. R-7 and R-8 Same as above (SM-SANDSTONE). Dry.R-7 16-18' --2'R-8 18-20' --2' SPT-1 20-21.5'16-20 19 (N=39) 18" SPT-2 Silty very fine SAND (SM), light grey, loose, dry, unconsolidated, estimated 20% fines. R-9 20-30' --7.5'R-9 20-28ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP), grey, dense but not not consolidated, dry. R-9 28-30ft: Silty SAND (SM-SANDSTONE), brown, dry, compacted weathered sandstone. Estimated 20% fines. -Contact to weathered sandstone at approximately 15 ft bgs. R-10 30-40' --6'R-10 Same as above (SM-SANDSTONE). Dry. R-11 40-50' --7'R-11 Same as above for the intervals 40-42ft, and from 46-50ft, (SM-SANDSTONE). From 42-46 ft alternatinglayers of poorly graded SAND (SP) and silty SAND (SM), loose, grey, dry. Bottom of borehole to 50 ft bgs END OF LOG -Contact to weathered sandstone at approximately 28 ft bgs. -No groundwater or saturated zones observed to 50 ft bgs. -From 42 to 46 ft alternating layers of unconsolidated poorly graded SAND and silty SAND. -Abandon with Bentonite Hole Plug.Consolidated SANDSTONE Appendix C.2 Groundwater Monitoring Wells and As-Built Well Construction Diagrams DATE: 7/31/2019 MONITORING WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM PROJECT : Logan Landfill Expansion DRILLING METHOD: COORDINATES:GROUND SURFACE ELEV(ft msl): TOP OF CASING ELEV. (ft msl): 2 6a 1 3 1-Above ground completion Ground Surface Concrete Pad 2-Casing Stickup 7a 3-Surface Completion/Pad 7b 4-Dia./type of well casing 4 5-Type/slot/size of screen 6-Type screen filter 6a-Annular at surface: 8 7a-Type of seal - Depth 5 7b-Type of seal - Depth 8-Centralizers (if applicable) 9-Sump below screen 6 Well Development: 8 9 Comments:8-nch diameter borehole due to 6-inch temporary Concrete and bentonite Bentonite chips, 3/8", Baroid Seal Same as above Bottom, Center, and Top fo Screen (3 total) 6-inch blunt end Sonic Geoprobe; 6-inch Casing casing was temporarily stuck in borehole; driller advanced larger 8-inch casing to extrude the 6-inch which resulted in a larger borehole. Concrete ring; 6-inch thick 6-inch Diam. Steel Lockable Lid Generalized Monitoring Well Completion Diagram 2-inch PVC.; Sch. 40 PVC. Flush-threaded. 0.010" (10-slot); Factory Slots; 20ft long from 149 to 169 ft bgs Premier Factory Package; No 10x20 Silica Sand 2.5ft stick-up above grade WELL ID: LMW-100 1-05119 Soils and Hydro Investigation Southwest corner, perimeter location 45 51 36.832340 N; 111 24 23.59W PROJECT #: LOCATION : 4,318.36 ft 4,320.02 ft 180 feet 6 feet 20ft long 149-169 ft bgs 8-inch borehole 143 ft LMW-100_Well_Diagram 154902 See Table 2. DATE: 7/26/2019 MONITORING WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM PROJECT : Logan Landfill Expansion DRILLING METHOD: COORDINATES:GROUND SURFACE ELEV(ft msl): TOP OF CASING ELEV. (ft msl): 2 6a 1 3 1-Above ground completionGround Surface Concrete Pad 2-Casing Stickup 7a 3-Surface Completion/Pad 7b 4-Dia./type of well casing 4 5-Type/slot/size of screen 6-Type screen filter 6a-Annular at surface: 8 7a-Type of seal - Depth 5 7b-Type of seal - Depth 8-Centralizers (if applicable) 9-Sump below screen6 Well Development: 8 9 Comments: Concrete and bentonite Bentonite chips, 3/8", Baroid Seal Same as above Bottom, Center, and Top fo Screen (3 total) 6-inch blunt end Sonic Geoprobe; 6-inch Casing Concrete ring; 6-inch thick 6-inch Diam. Steel Lockable Lid Generalized Monitoring Well Completion Diagram 2-inch PVC.; Sch. 40 PVC. Flush-threaded. 0.010" (10-slot); Factory Slots; 20ft long from 179 to 199 ft bgs Premier Factory Package; No 10x20 Silica Sand 2.5ft stick-up above grade WELL ID: LMW-101 1-05119 Soils and Hydro Investigation South perimeter, center ridgeline, inferred upgradient 45 51 37.214519 N; 111 25 05.03W PROJECT #: LOCATION : 4346.48 ft 4348.14 ft 200 feet 5 feet 20 ft long 179-199 ft bgs 6-inch borehole 174 ft LMW-101_Well_Diagram 154902 See Table 2. DATE: 10/02/2019 MONITORING WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM PROJECT : Logan Landfill Expansion DRILLING METHOD: COORDINATES:GROUND SURFACE ELEV(ft msl): TOP OF CASING ELEV. (ft msl): 2 6a 13 1-Above ground completionGround Surface Concrete Pad 2-Casing Stickup 7a 3-Surface Completion/Pad 7b 4-Dia./type of well casing 4 5-Type/slot/size of screen 6-Type screen filter 6a-Annular at surface: 8 7a-Type of seal - Depth 5 7b-Type of seal - Depth 8-Centralizers (if applicable) 9-Sump below screen 6 Well Development: 8 9 Comments: WELL ID: LMW-102 1-05119 Soils and Hydro Investigation Southeast corner; just north of irrigation pond 45 51 37.66N; 111 23 43.41W (Lat; Long) PROJECT #: LOCATION : 4298.99 ft 4300.43 ft 6-inch Diam. Steel Lockable Lid Generalized Monitoring Well Completion Diagram 2-inch PVC.; Sch. 40 PVC. Flush-threaded. 0.010" (10-slot); Factory Slots; 10 ft long from 69 to 79 ft bgs Premier Factory Package; No 10x20 Silica Sand 2.5ft stick-up above grade Sonic Geoprobe; 6-inch Casing Concrete ring; 6-inch thick Concrete and bentonite Bentonite chips, 3/8", Baroid Seal Same as above Bottom and top of screen assembly 6-inch blunt end 80 feet 4 feet 10 ft long 69-79 ft bgs 6-inch borehole 65 ft LMW-102_Well_Diagram 154902 See Table 2. DATE: 8/02/2019 MONITORING WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM PROJECT : Logan Landfill Expansion DRILLING METHOD: COORDINATES:GROUND SURFACE ELEV(ft msl): TOP OF CASING ELEV. (ft msl): 2 6a 1 3 1-Above ground completionGround Surface Concrete Pad 2-Casing Stickup 7a 3-Surface Completion/Pad 7b 4-Dia./type of well casing 4 5-Type/slot/size of screen 6-Type screen filter 6a-Annular at surface: 8 7a-Type of seal - Depth 5 7b-Type of seal - Depth 8-Centralizers (if applicable) 9-Sump below screen6 Well Development: 8 9 Comments: Concrete and bentonite Bentonite chips, 3/8", Baroid Seal Same as above Bottom, Center, and Top fo Screen (3 total) 6-inch blunt end Sonic Geoprobe; 6-inch Casing Concrete ring; 6-inch thick 6-inch Diam. Steel Lockable Lid Generalized Monitoring Well Completion Diagram 2-inch PVC.; Sch. 40 PVC. Flush-threaded. 0.010" (10-slot); Factory Slots; 10ft long from 128 to 138 ft bgs Premier Factory Package; No 10x20 Silica Sand 2.5ft stick-up above grade WELL ID: LMW-103 1-05119 Soils and Hydro Investigation Center of landfill 45 51 57.432132 N; 111 24 01.09W PROJECT #: LOCATION : 4304.82 ft 4306.35 ft 140 feet 5 feet 10 ft long 128-138 ft bgs 6-inch borehole 123 ft LMW-103_Well_Diagram 154902 See Table 2. DATE: 8/05/2019 MONITORING WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM PROJECT : Logan Landfill Expansion DRILLING METHOD: COORDINATES:GROUND SURFACE ELEV(ft msl): TOP OF CASING ELEV. (ft msl): 2 6a 1 3 1-Above ground completionGround Surface Concrete Pad 2-Casing Stickup 7a 3-Surface Completion/Pad 7b 4-Dia./type of well casing 4 5-Type/slot/size of screen 6-Type screen filter 6a-Annular at surface: 8 7a-Type of seal - Depth 5 7b-Type of seal - Depth 8-Centralizers (if applicable) 9-Sump below screen6 Well Development: 8 9 Comments: Concrete and bentonite Bentonite chips, 3/8", Baroid Seal Same as above Bottom, Center, and Top fo Screen (3 total) 6-inch blunt end Sonic Geoprobe; 6-inch Casing Concrete ring; 6-inch thick 6-inch Diam. Steel Lockable Lid Generalized Monitoring Well Completion Diagram 2-inch PVC.; Sch. 40 PVC. Flush-threaded. 0.010" (10-slot); Factory Slots; 15 ft long from 99 to 114 ft bgs Premier Factory Package; No 10x20 Silica Sand 2.5ft stick-up above grade WELL ID: LMW-104 1-05119 Soils and Hydro Investigation North perimeter, center, downgradient 45 52 20.451369 N; 111 23 51.44W PROJECT #: LOCATION : 4267.04 ft 4268.61 ft 120 feet 5.5 feet 15 ft long 99-114 ft bgs 6-inch borehole 94 ft LMW-104_Well_Diagram 154902 See Table 2. DATE: 10/03/2019 MONITORING WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM PROJECT : Logan Landfill Expansion DRILLING METHOD: COORDINATES:GROUND SURFACE ELEV(ft msl): TOP OF CASING ELEV. (ft msl): 2 6a 13 1-Above ground completionGround Surface Concrete Pad 2-Casing Stickup 7a 3-Surface Completion/Pad 7b 4-Dia./type of well casing 4 5-Type/slot/size of screen 6-Type screen filter 6a-Annular at surface: 8 7a-Type of seal - Depth 5 7b-Type of seal - Depth 8-Centralizers (if applicable) 9-Sump below screen 6 Well Development: 8 9 Comments: WELL ID: LMW-105 1-05119 Soils and Hydro Investigation East perimeter near drainage canal 45 51 59.471649 N; 111 23 33.789149 W PROJECT #: LOCATION : 4267.28 4268.75 6-inch Diam. Steel Lockable Lid Generalized Monitoring Well Completion Diagram 2-inch PVC.; Sch. 40 PVC. Flush-threaded. 0.010" (10-slot); Factory Slots; 15 ft long from 84 to 99 ft bgs Premier Factory Package; No 10x20 Silica Sand 2.5ft stick-up above grade Sonic Geoprobe; 6-inch Casing Concrete ring; 6-inch thick Stainless steel 1.5-inch diameter x 5ft long bailer used to surge and then purge/bail water. Concrete and bentonite Bentonite chips, 3/8", Baroid Seal Same as above Bottom and top of screen assembly 6-inch blunt end 100 feet 4.5 feet 15 ft long 84-99 ft bgs 6-inch borehole 79.5 ft LMW-105_Well_Diagram 154902 See Table 2. DATE: 10/08/2019 MONITORING WELL COMPLETION DIAGRAM PROJECT : Logan Landfill Expansion DRILLING METHOD: COORDINATES: GROUND SURFACE ELEV(ft msl): TOP OF CASING ELEV. (ft msl): 2 6a 13 1-Above ground completionGround Surface Concrete Pad 2-Casing Stickup 7a 3-Surface Completion/Pad 7b 4-Dia./type of well casing 4 5-Type/slot/size of screen 6-Type screen filter 6a-Annular at surface: 8 7a-Type of seal - Depth 5 7b-Type of seal - Depth 8-Centralizers (if applicable) 9-Sump below screen 6 Well Development: 8 9 Comments:Requested screen interval from 61 to 71 ft bgs; WELL ID: LMW-106 1-05119 Soils and Hydro Investigation Northwest corner along drainage 45 51 52.00 N; 111 24 30.57 W PROJECT #: LOCATION : 4234.29 4236.01 6-inch Diam. Steel Lockable Lid Generalized Monitoring Well Completion Diagram 2-inch PVC.; Sch. 40 PVC. Flush-threaded. 0.010" (10-slot); Factory Slots; 10 ft long Premier Factory Package; No 10x20 Silica Sand 2.5ft stick-up above grade Sonic Geoprobe; 6-inch Casing screen assembly fell to as-built depth as indicated on diagram. Concrete ring; 6-inch thick Stainless steel 1.5-inch diameter x 5ft long bailer used to surge screen interval and then purge/bail water. Concrete and bentonite Bentonite chips, 3/8", Baroid Seal Same as above Bottom and top of screen assembly 6-inch blunt end 80 feet 4 feet 10 ft long 64-74 ft bgs 6-inch borehole 60 ft LMW-106_Well_Diagram 154902 See Table 2. Bottom borehole filled with bentonite Appendix C.3 Pre-Existing Logs (and As-Built Well Construction Diagrams) 08-17-2006 c:\BLS\Logan\CMA\well logs\LMW-1.BOR LOG OF BORING LMW-1 (Page 1 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : Drilling Firm : Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : Schafer Depth in feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION silt loam silty sand, med-crs sand & gravel sand, v. fine, weakly consolidated sand and gravel sand, crs to fine sand and gravel sand, fn to crs, coarsening w/ depth sand and gravel, some sst stringers sand, fn to crs, some gravel sand and gravel sand, fn to med Surf. Elev. 4221 4220 4215 4210 4205 4200 4195 4190 4185 4180 4175 4170 4165 4160 4155 4150 Elev.: 4221 Well: LMW-1 bentonite seal Surface Casing Cover 2" PVC 2' PVC 20-slot 08-17-2006 c:\BLS\Logan\CMA\well logs\LMW-1.BOR LOG OF BORING LMW-1 (Page 2 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : Drilling Firm : Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : Schafer Depth in feet 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION sandstone & claystone sand, silty, fn sand and gravel, somewhat cemented sandstone, fine w/ interbedded claystone sandstone and claystone sandstone, clayey, siliceous, hard sandstone, brown, siliceous sandstone, v fn gr gravel and sand Surf. Elev. 4221 4145 4140 4135 4130 4125 4120 4115 4110 4105 4100 4095 4090 4085 4080 4075 Elev.: 4221 Well: LMW-1 2' PVC 20-slot 01-25-2013 C:\BLS\Logan\CMA\well logs\LMW-2.BOR LOG OF LMW-2 (Page 1 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 8/27/90 Drilling Firm : Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : Schafer Depth in feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION silt loam, dark to light brown, calcareous, dry silty sand, light brown, fine to medium, moderately graded; gravel increasting with depth; calcareous sandstone; silty, very fine-grained, light brown, soft sand and gravel; yellow brown; medium to coarse sand and fine to coarse gravel; well graded; subround to round, coarsening to coarse gravel from 32.5 to 33.5 sand & gravel sandy silt, yellowish brown claystone; yellow-brown, interbedded sandstone sandy clay, buff sand; grey brown silty sand; yellow brown siltstone/claystone sandstone, gray, gravel at depth sandstone, dark gray br, wet sand, gry brown, 10% small gravel at depth sand and gravel, sandstone stringers Surf. Elev. 4222.29 4220 4215 4210 4205 4200 4195 4190 4185 4180 4175 4170 4165 4160 4155 4150 Elev.: 4217.12 Well: LMW-2 bentonite seal 10/20 silica sand Surface Casing Cover 4" PVC 4" PVC 20-slot 01-25-2013 C:\BLS\Logan\CMA\well logs\LMW-2.BOR LOG OF LMW-2 (Page 2 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 8/27/90 Drilling Firm : Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : Schafer Depth in feet 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION sand, yellow brown sand and gravel claystone, tan w/ some gray clayey sst sandstone, brown, w/ gry siltstone sandstone, buff, w/ claystone Surf. Elev. 4222.29 4145 4140 4135 4130 4125 4120 4115 4110 4105 4100 4095 4090 4085 4080 4075 Elev.: 4217.12 Well: LMW-2 10/20 silica sand bentonite seal 4" PVC 20-slot 08-17-2006 c:\BLS\Logan\CMA\well logs\LMW-4.BOR LOG OF BORING LMW-4 (Page 1 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 12/20/94 Drilling Firm : Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : K. Gallagher Depth in feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION silt loam silty fine sand, brown, poorly graded, <10% medium to coarse gravel, sub-rounded, calcareous sand and grave; well-graded predominately medium to coarse sand with fine to coarse, well-rounded gravel, coarseningto 12' and fining predominatntly moderately well-graded sand at 16', fines to poorly-graded coarse sand; Slightly calcareous in upper portion silty clayey sand; yellowish brown, medium to coarse, moderately well-graded silty very fine sand, yellowish brown, poorly graded sand, very fine to fine, tuffaceous, slightly silty, becoming siltier with depth very fine sand, yellowish-brown, slightly silty, slightly lithified, more consolidated from 32-34', becoming siltier with depth sand and sandstone, dark gray, very fine, slightly silty as above, but siltier, softer and unconsolidated sandstone, dark gray, hard Surf. Elev. 4208.6 4205 4200 4195 4190 4185 4180 4175 4170 4165 4160 4155 4150 4145 4140 4135 Elev.: 4208 Well: LMW-4 bentonite seal Surface Casing Cover 2" PVC 2' PVC 20-slot 08-17-2006 c:\BLS\Logan\CMA\well logs\LMW-5.BOR LOG OF BORING LMW-5 (Page 1 of 1) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 12/20/94 Drilling Firm : Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : K. Gallagher Depth in feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION silt loam coarse brown sand sand and gravel silty sand, yellow-brown with some fine gravel silty sand silty sand coarse brown sand silty brown sand sandstone, dark gray, hard sand and gravel, grading to silty sand silty sand, yellowish-brown sand and gravel Surf. Elev. 4201.6 4200 4195 4190 4185 4180 4175 4170 4165 4160 4155 4150 4145 4140 4135 4130 Elev.: 4201.6 Well: LMW-5 bentonite seal Surface Casing Cover 2" PVC 2' PVC 20-slot 12-20-2010 C:\bls\logan\cma\well logs\LMW-10.BOR LOG OF LMW-10 (Page 1 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 11/1/2010 Drilling Firm : Red Tiger Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : B. Siegmund Depth in feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION tan silty topsoil fine sand and small gravel silty sand with minor clay fine sand light tan siltstone olive green siltstone poorly-sorted sand, salt & pepper appearance Surf. Elev. 4259 4255 4250 4245 4240 4235 4230 4225 4220 4215 4210 4205 4200 4195 4190 4185 Elev.: 4261.25 Well: LMW-10 bentonite seal Surface Casing Cover 2" PVC 12-20-2010 C:\bls\logan\cma\well logs\LMW-10.BOR LOG OF LMW-10 (Page 2 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 11/1/2010 Drilling Firm : Red Tiger Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : B. Siegmund Depth in feet 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION fractured grey sandstone with few olive green siltstone interbedded olive green siltstone; +/-4 gpm olive green siltstone with interbedded poorly-sorted sand; 18 gpm Surf. Elev. 4259 4180 4175 4170 4165 4160 4155 4150 4145 4140 4135 4130 4125 4120 4115 4110 Elev.: 4261.25 Well: LMW-10 2" PVC screen 2" PVC 20-slot 03-17-2014 c:\bls\logan\well logs\LMW-11.BOR LOG OF LMW-11 (Page 1 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 11/02/10 Drilling Firm : Red Tiger Drilling Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : B. Siegmund Logan Landfill License Expansion Gallatin County, Montana Depth in feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION topsoil poorly-sorted sand and gravel; fine-grained sand, small gravel fine sand with small gravel, some tan clay limestone; fractured, tan limestone; fractured, light greay and tan sandstone; dark olive green, streaked, some siltstone beds silstone; tan with limestone stringers; water sandstone and siltstone; some limestone stringers Surf. Elev. 4194.75 4190 4185 4180 4175 4170 4165 4160 4155 4150 4145 Elev.: 4194 Well: LMW-11 Surface Casing Cover 2" PVC screen: 2" PVC, 0.010-inch slot 03-17-2014 c:\bls\logan\well logs\LMW-11.BOR LOG OF LMW-11 (Page 2 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 11/02/10 Drilling Firm : Red Tiger Drilling Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : B. Siegmund Logan Landfill License Expansion Gallatin County, Montana Depth in feet 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION siltstone; dark olive green with sandstone and limestone stringers limestone; light tan with fine sand stringers Surf. Elev. 4194.75 4140 4135 4130 4125 4120 4115 4110 4105 4100 4095 Elev.: 4194 Well: LMW-11 screen: 2" PVC, 0.010-inch slot 03-17-2014 c:\bls\logan\well logs\LMW-12.BOR LOG OF LMW-12 (Page 1 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 10/29/10 Drilling Firm : Red Tiger Drilling Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : B. Siegmund Logan Landfill License Expansion Gallatin County, Montana Depth in feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION topsoil sand and gravel; fine- to medium-grained sand, small gravel sand and gravel; fine-grained sand with streaks of small gravel and very coarse sand tan siltstone siltstone; olive green with fine sand streaks sand; coarse, salt & pepper appearance siltstone; olive green Surf. Elev. 4208 4205 4200 4195 4190 4185 4180 4175 4170 4165 4160 Elev.: 4208 Well: LMW-12 Surface Casing Cover 2" PVC 03-17-2014 c:\bls\logan\well logs\LMW-12.BOR LOG OF LMW-12 (Page 2 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 10/29/10 Drilling Firm : Red Tiger Drilling Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : B. Siegmund Logan Landfill License Expansion Gallatin County, Montana Depth in feet 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION fractured olive green siltstone sand; poorly sorted, 42 gpm water Surf. Elev. 4208 4155 4150 4145 4140 4135 4130 4125 4120 4115 4110 Elev.: 4208 Well: LMW-12 2" PVC screen: 2" PVC, 0.010-inch slot 03-17-2014 c:\bls\logan\well logs\LMW-13.BOR LOG OF LMW-13 (Page 1 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 10/28/10 Drilling Firm : Red Tiger Drilling Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : B. Siegmund Logan Landfill License Expansion Gallatin County, Montana Depth in feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION topsoil poorly-sorted sand and gravel; brown, small gravel poorly-sorted sand with silt; medium- to fine-grained sand, yellowish to greenish grey medium to fine sand; salt & pepper appearance poorly sorted gravel and sand; yellowish brown, medium to small gravel, ample dark clasts medium to fine sand; salt & pepper appearance poorly-sorted sand and gravel; small gravel and very coarse sand; yellowish brown medium to fine sand, salt & pepper appearance poorly-sorted sand and gravel; vey coarse gravel Surf. Elev. 4218 4215 4210 4205 4200 4195 4190 4185 4180 4175 4170 Elev.: 4218 Well: LMW-13 Surface Casing Cover 2" PVC 03-17-2014 c:\bls\logan\well logs\LMW-13.BOR LOG OF LMW-13 (Page 2 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 10/28/10 Drilling Firm : Red Tiger Drilling Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : B. Siegmund Logan Landfill License Expansion Gallatin County, Montana Depth in feet 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION hard siltstone; light grey-brown poorly-sorted sand and gravel with very coarse gravel sandy gravel; yellowish brown w/ medium to small gravel and coarse sand sandstone and limestone; hard, resistant; sandstone has medium to coarse clasts, ample mafic grains Surf. Elev. 4218 4165 4160 4155 4150 4145 4140 4135 4130 4125 4120 Elev.: 4218 Well: LMW-13 Surface Casing 2" PVC screen: 2" PVC, 0.010-inch slot 03-17-2014 c:\bls\logan\well logs\LMW-14.BOR LOG OF LMW-14 (Page 1 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 11/03/10 Drilling Firm : Red Tiger Drilling Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : B. Siegmund Logan Landfill License Expansion Gallatin County, Montana Depth in feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION topsoil fine sand with pea-sized gravel fine sand with medium gravel and clay tan siltstone dark tan siltstone olive green siltstone with light tan streaks Surf. Elev. 4208.25 4205 4200 4195 4190 4185 4180 4175 4170 4165 4160 Elev.: 4210.25 Well: LMW-14 Surface Casing Cover 2" PVC 03-17-2014 c:\bls\logan\well logs\LMW-14.BOR LOG OF LMW-14 (Page 2 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 11/03/10 Drilling Firm : Red Tiger Drilling Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : B. Siegmund Logan Landfill License Expansion Gallatin County, Montana Depth in feet 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION tan streaked siltstone and medium-grained sandstone olive green sandstone olive green fine sands, variably-lithified, 4 gpm olive green sandstone with streaks of fine, unconsolidated sand, 10 gpm olive green siltstone dark olive green siltstone poorly-sorted fine- to coarse-grained sand, 25 gpm Surf. Elev. 4208.25 4155 4150 4145 4140 4135 4130 4125 4120 4115 4110 Elev.: 4210.25 Well: LMW-14 2" PVC screen: 2" PVC, 0.010-inch slot 01-02-2014 c:\bls\logan\cma\well logs\LMW-15.BOR LOG OF LMW-15 (Page 1 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 12/16/2013 Drilling Firm : Red Tiger Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : B. Siegmund Depth in feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION grey-tan silty sand buff silt grading to siltstone dark yellow to grey-yellow silty sand; some lithified sandstone clasts; marginally resistant yellowish grey sand; salt & pepper appearance; fairly clean coarsens with depth to include some small gravel; a few scattered siltstone layers in the lower 1/3 yellowish silty sandstone yellowish tan, slightly silty coarse sand yellow-tan siltstone with minor fine sand; damp; poorly lithified, but still somewhat resistant to drilling fine-grained slightly silty sand and sandstone; grey brown; poor return; driller injected water in lower part of interval Surf. Elev. 4240.5 4240 4235 4230 4225 4220 4215 4210 4205 4200 4195 4190 4185 4180 4175 4170 Elev.: 4240.50 Well: LMW-15 6" steel casing Cover 2" PVC 01-02-2014 c:\bls\logan\cma\well logs\LMW-15.BOR LOG OF LMW-15 (Page 2 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 12/16/2013 Drilling Firm : Red Tiger Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : B. Siegmund Depth in feet 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION fine- to medium-grained sand; yellowish tan; grades to coarse, dark yellow sand dark grey-green silty sand and sandstone tan to light brown silty sand; increasing small gravel with depth grey-green silty sand and sandstone with minor gravel boring yields about 11 gpm on air lift, most water entering below 98'; added ~3' of 10/20 sand to bottom of hole Surf. Elev. 4240.5 4165 4160 4155 4150 4145 4140 4135 4130 4125 4120 4115 4110 4105 4100 4095 Elev.: 4240.50 Well: LMW-15 2" PVC screen 2" PVC 20-slot 01-23-2013 C:\BLS\Logan\CMA\well logs\shop well.BOR LOG OF shop well (Page 1 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : Drilling Firm : Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : Schafer Depth in feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION sands clay sandy clay no return fine sand Surf. Elev. 4245 4245 4240 4235 4230 4225 4220 4215 4210 4205 4200 4195 4190 4185 4180 4175 Elev.: 4221 Well: shop well bentonite seal Surface Casing Cover 01-23-2013 C:\BLS\Logan\CMA\well logs\shop well.BOR LOG OF shop well (Page 2 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : Drilling Firm : Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : Schafer Depth in feet 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION soft sandstone Surf. Elev. 4245 4170 4165 4160 4155 4150 4145 4140 4135 4130 4125 4120 4115 4110 4105 4100 Elev.: 4221 Well: shop well 4" PVC screen Surface Casing Appendix D Soils Testing Laboratory Results Tested By: KC Checked By: TB Project No. Client:Remarks: Project: Source of Sample: on site Sample Number: 19-1212 Source of Sample: on site Sample Number: 19-1217 Source of Sample: on site Sample Number: 19-1204 BUDINGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.Date LL PL D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cc Cu MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TEST DATE USCS NM 6.7116 3.1434 2.3979 1.0149 0.2538 0.1500 2.18 20.96 1.5534 0.4061 0.2959 0.1766 0.1626 0.0974 0.0826 LMW-100 11-12 R-3 sand with gravel trace silt TB-104 10-12 R-5 sand with silt TB-106 25-26 R-8 silty fine sand L19986 Great West Engineering 1/15/20PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 0 25 31 23 15 6 0 0 0 5 34 45 16 0 0 0 0 1 55 446 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report Logan Landfill Sampled by Client Sampled by Client Sampled by Client Tested By: KC Checked By: TB Project No. Client:Remarks: Project: Source of Sample: on site Sample Number: 19-1200 Source of Sample: on site Sample Number: 19-1205 Source of Sample: on site Sample Number: 19-1207 BUDINGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.Date LL PL D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cc Cu MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TEST DATE USCS NM 1.3013 0.5133 0.3715 0.1581 20.4736 12.9810 9.0895 4.0514 1.8382 0.6000 2.11 21.64 65.5949 49.4876 42.5144 18.1116 2.6883 0.6000 11.05 82.48 TB-102 15-20 R-4 silty sand TB-105 21-22 R-5 sandy gravel GW TB-103 24-25 R-6 sandy gravel trace silt L19986 Great West Engineering 1/15/20PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 0 1 7 38 37 17 0 18 48 18 8 6 2 0 69 12 6 4 4 56 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report Logan Landfill Sampled by Client Sampled by Client Sampled by Client Appendix E Publicly Available Data Appendix E.1 Topographic (Quadrangle) Maps of Study Area Imagery................................................NAIP, January 2010Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele AtlasNames...............................................................GNIS, 2010Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2010Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2010 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 4800 42004 3 0 0 4300450047 0 0 480042004400 4800470047004700 480 0 4400 4900 4600 4 7 0 0 440 0 4300490045004 4 0 0 44004400 4600 4600 46004700420044004500 4300 4700 4800 4400 4300 4300 4500 4 8 0 0 480049004700 4300 45004500 4800 4100 46004800480047004900 4500 48004200 4900490 04700 470048004600430049004900 4200 49 0 047004200 5000 4600 47004800450044004400 4400 45004700 4600460043004300 4300 4600450050004900 4600 4600470047004300 4900 4 7 0 044004600 45004400 4400 460046004800 4500480047004700 465045004100 4550 4300 T1N R2E T1S R3ET1S R2E T1N R3E 35 30 18 17 29 03 28 36 16 21 09 06 16 11 15 02 08 17 2322 05 15 13 14 06 08 17 10 19 02 05 01 01 31 27 14 32 20 24 08 17 07 07 04 05 08 04 26 17 10 12 13 33 32 0812 29 05 05 20 09 03 11 25 34 18 §¨¦90 GRAVEL PIT RD WYTANA RDBUFFALO JUMP RDCROWLEY LN MCDONNELL RD STAGECOACH TRAIL RD TWO DOG RD WYTANA RDMADISON RDAMSTERDAM RD GRAINBELT RDMADISON RDAMSTERDAM R DBUFFALO JUMP RDMCDONNELL RD SCHUTTER RD BOSTANA RDCLIMBING A R R O W R D Spri ng CrSpring CrRey CrSpring CrSpring Cr Re y Cr Rey CrS p r i ng CrRey CrRey CrLowline CanalSloan Di tchCrow le y D i t ch Sloan DitchSloan DitchL o w l i n e C anal Sloan DitchDarlington DitchDarlington DitchMadison RiverMa dis o n River 50 4 69 4 52' 50 27' 30' 50 50 70 67 000 FEET 111° 50 74 590 FEET 47' 45° 73 50 76 4 64 50' 5072 50 74 70 462 47'30" 69 50 4 4 68 30" N 4 70 111° 111°22' 50 50 80 000mE 45°52' 50 80 50 64 65460 50 50 77 4 63 65 45° 50 77 N 68 4 111° 76 79 4 67 000 FEET 30" 27' 72 50 000 25' 45' 75 50 50 78 560 50 63 4 30' 30" 73 67 45'4 66 490 30" 22' 69 50 66 4 4 30"30" 50 68 50 000m 4 30" 70 4 E FEET 50 1 25' 68 78 000m 691 000 79 4 45° 50 5067 75 000m 50' MONTANA QUADRANGLE LOCATION MANHATTAN SW QUADRANGLEMONTANA-GALLATIN CO.7.5-MINUTE SERIES MANHATTAN SW, MT 2014 Expressway Local Connector ROAD CLASSIFICATION Ramp 4WDSecondary Hwy Local Road Interstate Route State RouteUS RouteWX./H MANHATTAN SW, MT 2014 ROAD CLASSIFICATION Check with local Forest Service unitfor current travel conditions and restrictions. FS Primary Route FS High Clearance RouteFS PassengerRouteª«▬Interstate Route State RouteUS RouteWX./H Expressway Local Connector Ramp 4WDSecondary Hwy Local Road This map was produced to conform with the National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.16 CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEETNORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 SCALE 1:24 000 1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000 21KILOMETERS00.51 1 0.5 0 MILES 1 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 FEET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1 Three Forks 8 Anceney 2 Logan3 Nixon Gulch4 Three Forks SE5 Manhattan6 Norris NE7 Madison Plateau ADJOINING QUADRANGLES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Imagery..................................................NAIP, July 2011Roads....................................................... HERE, ©2013Names..........................................................GNIS, 2013Hydrography....................National Hydrography Dataset, 2011Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2005Boundaries............Multiple sources; see metadata file 1972 - 2013Public Land Survey System..................................BLM, 2011 North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 12T Produced by the United States Geological Survey 10 000-foot ticks: Montana Coordinate System of 1983 This map is not a legal document. Boundaries may begeneralized for this map scale. Private lands within governmentreservations may not be shown. Obtain permission beforeentering private lands. North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 12T Produced by the United States Geological Survey 10 000-foot ticks: Montana Coordinate System of 1983 This map is not a legal document. Boundaries may begeneralized for this map scale. Private lands within governmentreservations may not be shown. Obtain permission beforeentering private lands. Imagery<IMG_LEADER><IMG_CITATION>Roads<TRANS_LEADER> HERE, ©2013Roads within US Forest Service Lands.............FSTopo Data with limited Forest Service updates, 2013Names...............................................................GNIS, 2013Hydrography<HYDRO_LEADER>National Hydrography Dataset, <HYDRO_DATE>Contours<HYPSO_LEADER><HYPSO_CITATION>Boundaries............Multiple sources; see metadata file 1972 - 2013<OPTIONAL_CITATIONS> U.S. National Grid 100,000-m Square ID Grid Zone Designation VR 12T ^ Ù MN GN UTM GRID AND 2014 MAGNETIC NORTHDECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET 0° 19´6 MILS 12° 28´222 MILS *7643016377233*NSN.7643016377233NGA REF NO.USGSX24K27463 Imagery................................................NAIP, January 2010Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele AtlasNames...............................................................GNIS, 2010Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2010Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2010 !(E' ○ ○E' #!" #!" 4900 4300 4400 4400 4700 4 2 0 0 420043004600470044004200440 0 44004400 4400 4400 4200 4200430050005100 4300 4700 5000 45004800 48004200 4500460043005000 4800 4700 42004700 42 0 0 4400 4600 41004400 4900 4700 4300 430044004600 4700 4900 4200 44004400440046004400 4900 500047004500450047004800 4200420043004300 4300 4600460050004600 4400 4700430041004100 41004300460047004700 5000410 0 4800 42004300450 0 44004400 46004400 4500 480042004200430043004400 4300 41004300 41004100 4500450044004500 4800 4200450045 0 0 4300460047004200 5000 4400 420045004500430044004400 4500 460046004800 4300 4400 420047004100 4200 4500430043004900 4600 47004400 480048004 8 0 0 4300 420045004500 43004400 4200 46004900 460043004400 48004300 4100450 0 4400440044004600 4500 4700 4200 4300 4100 41004200 450045004500 44004700 48004400 4300 4100 5000 510043004200 46004900 4300 4200 T3N R3E T3N R2E T2N R2E T2N R3E 21 29 3236 18 34 24 27 31 29 22 17 32 12 08 30 05 32 20 35 25 06 23 28 13 29 23 08 22 01 33 19 19 05 32 17 07 15 34 09 35 02 20 26 20 32 11 30 14 24 16 03 25 20 28 21 05 26 04 27 29 3133 10 36§¨¦90 §¨¦90 ¬«205 ¬«205 TWO DOG RDAUSTIN DRFOUR R I V ERS RDCAMP SPR IN G RDLITTLE COULEE TRLBUFFALO JUMP RDTRIDENT RDMADISON RDLOGAN TRIDENT RD HORSESHOE COTTONWOOD RDCLARKSTON RD CARPENTER RD LOGAN CEMETARY RDPONDEROSA RDHORSESHOE COTTO N WO OD RD C L A R K S T O N R D CRIM P SPRING RD TRIDENT RDCLARKSTON RDFRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD FRONTAGE RD BRO A D W A T E R C O G A L L A TI N C O BROAD W A T E R C O G ALLATIN CO CressSprings Rey CrS pring Cr Gallatin River Gallatin River M is s ouri River Missouri RiverMissouri RiverLogan Cem HeadwatersCem Eustis Trident Ponderosa Pines Logan Carpenter Big DavisGulch CottonwoodGulch LoganBridge TridentBridge Northern PacificRailroadBridge 50 50 50 50 63 000m 62 30" 30' 50 5082 67 000 FEET 1 25' 52' 50 88 50 55' 30" N 4 70 52' 50 N 4 4 25'30' 87 000m 4 86 50 89 4 70 E 000m 57' 46° 50 4 64 4 460 640 111°22' 81 94 50 E 50 92 93 50 69 57' 27' 82 91 6564 4 FEET 55' 00' 50 94 68 50 50 90 664 89 000m 600 111° 50 85 691 000 111° 30" 45° 84 85 50 86 4 4 000 5091 83 50 92 468 4 88 4 FEET 46° 50 50 50 5084 50 67 4 466 490 30" 30" 87 462 4 30" 83 90 81 000 FEET 30" 63 30" 00' 22' 50 65 27'111° 45° MONTANA QUADRANGLE LOCATION LOGAN QUADRANGLEMONTANA7.5-MINUTE SERIES LOGAN, MT 2014 Expressway Local Connector ROAD CLASSIFICATION Ramp 4WDSecondary Hwy Local Road Interstate Route State RouteUS RouteWX./H LOGAN, MT 2014 ROAD CLASSIFICATION Check with local Forest Service unitfor current travel conditions and restrictions. FS Primary Route FS High Clearance RouteFS PassengerRouteª«▬Interstate Route State RouteUS RouteWX./H Expressway Local Connector Ramp 4WDSecondary Hwy Local Road This map was produced to conform with the National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.16 CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEETNORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 SCALE 1:24 000 1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000 21KILOMETERS00.51 1 0.5 0 MILES 1 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 FEET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1 Plunket Lake 8 Manhattan 2 Lombard3 Roy Gulch4 Three Forks5 Nixon Gulch6 Three Forks SE7 Manhattan SW ADJOINING QUADRANGLES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Imagery..................................................NAIP, July 2011Roads....................................................... HERE, ©2013Names..........................................................GNIS, 2013Hydrography....................National Hydrography Dataset, 2011Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2005Boundaries............Multiple sources; see metadata file 1972 - 2013Public Land Survey System..................................BLM, 2011 North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 12T Produced by the United States Geological Survey 10 000-foot ticks: Montana Coordinate System of 1983 This map is not a legal document. Boundaries may begeneralized for this map scale. Private lands within governmentreservations may not be shown. Obtain permission beforeentering private lands. North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 12T Produced by the United States Geological Survey 10 000-foot ticks: Montana Coordinate System of 1983 This map is not a legal document. Boundaries may begeneralized for this map scale. Private lands within governmentreservations may not be shown. Obtain permission beforeentering private lands. Imagery<IMG_LEADER><IMG_CITATION>Roads<TRANS_LEADER> HERE, ©2013Roads within US Forest Service Lands.............FSTopo Data with limited Forest Service updates, 2013Names...............................................................GNIS, 2013Hydrography<HYDRO_LEADER>National Hydrography Dataset, <HYDRO_DATE>Contours<HYPSO_LEADER><HYPSO_CITATION>Boundaries............Multiple sources; see metadata file 1972 - 2013<OPTIONAL_CITATIONS> U.S. National Grid 100,000-m Square ID Grid Zone Designation VR 12T ^ Ù MN GN UTM GRID AND 2014 MAGNETIC NORTHDECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET 0° 19´6 MILS 12° 29´222 MILS *7643016377163*NSN.7643016377163NGA REF NO.USGSX24K70725 Imagery................................................NAIP, January 2010Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele AtlasNames...............................................................GNIS, 2010Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2010Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2010 ........ ...... ......... ............ ... ............ ........ ... ......... . ... .. . .. . ...... . . .. ... ... ....... . .... . . . ... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. .... . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . ... .. . . . . . . . . ............................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ......... ... ................. . ................ . ..... . ..... ..... ................ ... ........ . .. .. . . .... . . . .. ... . ..... . . . . ..... ... .. . ..... . . . . .. . . ..... . . .. #!" ▄OP¥^ █n █n █n █n █n F F 440045004550 4650 4300 44504350 4500 4650 44504350 4500 4600 435046504300445044 0 0 46004450 4350 45004450 4550 4350455047004750 45004500 445043504500 4500 4400 4500 4250 44504550 4300 440046004550 4250 445045504250 44004450 4 3 0 0 4500 4250 450044 0 0 4400T1S R3E T1N R4E T1S R4E T1N R3E 07 17 16 14 33 23 17 12 0601 08 13 2020 13 0102 32 15 21 05 16 22 11 19 17 04 1109 05 05 31 29 32 25 06 12 30 24 02 18 04 29 15 08 17 36 05 35 18 28 14 03 09 03 34 08 10 10 26 08 07 05 27 17 08 §¨¦90 §¨¦90 ¬«346 ¬«288 ¬«288 ¬«346 ¬«288 ¬«347 ¬«288 DYK RDNIXON GULCH RDWHITE RD GREENSPUR RD KUIPERS RDNW PASSAGE LNYADON RDFARM A L L L N HIGHLINE RDE CEDAR MEADOWS LN W G A L L A T I N A V E WOODEN SHOE LN HEEB RDSALES RDWYTANA RD MANHATTAN FRONTAGE RD NBURNT RD KUNJE BLVDMANHATTAN S RDBA K E R C R EEK LN POELMAN LN MEADOW VIEW RD STAGECOACH TRAIL RD DYK RDCAMP CREEK RDSTAGECOA CH T R AIL RD BAKER S P R I N G S DRCURTI S L NCEDAR STFLYIN G EAGLE WAY AMSTERDAM RD GRAVEL PIT RD HEMLOCK STMORNING MIST RD AMSTERDAM RD W RAILROAD AVE N WOODEN SHOE RDCENTRAL PARK RDBULL RUN RDSTAGECOACH TRAIL RD THORPE RDNUMBER 1 RANCH RD HEEB RDVELTKAMP RDWOODEN SHOE RDE MANHATTAN AVE KUIPERS RDGODFREY WAYW PARK AVE PINE STSPRUCE STW DRY CREEK RD FRONTAGE RD CHURCHILL RDAMSTERDAM RD CHURCHILL RDFRONTAGE RDN 5TH STW DRY CREEK RD CHU R C HILL RD GallatinOverflow ChannelCamp CrCamp CrBake r CrGallatin Ri ve rBaker CrB a k e r CrGal l atin River Godfrey CrCamp CrBullr un CrBullrun CrCamp CrValley DitchValley DitchLowline CanalMoreland DitchLowline Canal Lowline Ca n al Lewis DitchLewis Overflow W h i t e D i tchLowline CanalLo w line CanalW hite DitchL o w line CanalWhite DitchWhi te DitchMeadowviewCem Manhattan Buell Amsterdam Churchill BelgradeJunction White Blakely Bridge Ray Angel Bridge Central Park Bridge KinkleBridge 74 E 73 52' 50 50 N 4 78 7920'111° 30" 74 50 50 75 4500 000 FEET 30" 15' 50 72 79 80000 FEET FEET 30" 50 17' 45° 73 50 4 4 30" 7822' 45° 50 50 30" 69 50 71 4 78 79 80 4 67 4 50' 50 75 000m 744 FEET 20' 22' 30" N 50 76 50 80 72 73 72 E 45° 50 000m 47' 50 76 4 1 30" 50 50 50 452' 68 75 50 75 4 17' 45° 77 50 76 4 111° 70 4 520 111° 111° 45' 50 50 70 67 77 77 000 30" 45' 72 50 000m 73 000m 1 47' 50' 50 69 5079 4 560000 15' 68 76 50 77 4 4 590 MONTANA QUADRANGLE LOCATION MANHATTAN QUADRANGLEMONTANA-GALLATIN CO.7.5-MINUTE SERIES MANHATTAN, MT 2014 Expressway Local Connector ROAD CLASSIFICATION Ramp 4WDSecondary Hwy Local Road Interstate Route State RouteUS RouteWX./H MANHATTAN, MT 2014 ROAD CLASSIFICATION Check with local Forest Service unitfor current travel conditions and restrictions. FS Primary Route FS High Clearance RouteFS PassengerRouteª«▬Interstate Route State RouteUS RouteWX./H Expressway Local Connector Ramp 4WDSecondary Hwy Local Road This map was produced to conform with the National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.16 CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEETNORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 SCALE 1:24 000 1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000 21KILOMETERS00.51 1 0.5 0 MILES 1 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 FEET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1 Logan 8 Bozeman Hot Springs 2 Nixon Gulch3 Horseshoe Creek4 Manhattan SW5 Belgrade6 Madison Plateau7 Anceney ADJOINING QUADRANGLES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Imagery..................................................NAIP, July 2011Roads....................................................... HERE, ©2013Names..........................................................GNIS, 2013Hydrography....................National Hydrography Dataset, 2011Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2005Boundaries............Multiple sources; see metadata file 1972 - 2013Public Land Survey System..................................BLM, 2011 North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 12T Produced by the United States Geological Survey 10 000-foot ticks: Montana Coordinate System of 1983 This map is not a legal document. Boundaries may begeneralized for this map scale. Private lands within governmentreservations may not be shown. Obtain permission beforeentering private lands. North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 12T Produced by the United States Geological Survey 10 000-foot ticks: Montana Coordinate System of 1983 This map is not a legal document. Boundaries may begeneralized for this map scale. Private lands within governmentreservations may not be shown. Obtain permission beforeentering private lands. Imagery<IMG_LEADER><IMG_CITATION>Roads<TRANS_LEADER> HERE, ©2013Roads within US Forest Service Lands.............FSTopo Data with limited Forest Service updates, 2013Names...............................................................GNIS, 2013Hydrography<HYDRO_LEADER>National Hydrography Dataset, <HYDRO_DATE>Contours<HYPSO_LEADER><HYPSO_CITATION>Boundaries............Multiple sources; see metadata file 1972 - 2013<OPTIONAL_CITATIONS> U.S. National Grid 100,000-m Square ID Grid Zone Designation VR 12T ^ Ù MN GN UTM GRID AND 2014 MAGNETIC NORTHDECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET 0° 13´4 MILS 12° 25´221 MILS *7643016377232*NSN.7643016377232NGA REF NO.USGSX24K27460 Imagery................................................NAIP, January 2010Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele AtlasNames...............................................................GNIS, 2010Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2010Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2010 ..... ... . .. ........ . . . .. . . . ............................................. ... ........ . .. . .... . ...... . ......E' ○E'E' #!" F 6000600056 0 044005000 5300 5600 55004800 5000 4200 4700 53005600 4400 6200 5100 5300 6100 4200 4900 4600 4800 56005500 4900 530055004800 4600 6000 5500 4300 460052005200 5500 6200 4600 42005900 5400 5400 4700530055004700 55005100 6000 4800 590058004400470053005200 56005600 45005400 4600 6100550051005100 53004300 4800 4600 4800 4600 4800 5100 4700 4900 540047004500 530050005200 4400 540049005100 4400490049004800 4800 52006000 61004700 4200 440049004900480051005600 56004900 4800 6000 4700 5400 460047005000520052005 2 0 047005600 4800550056004600 61006000 5800 4500 4800600059004300 430054004600 4600 4700 52005700 530 0 5400 540058005400 5000 4500 500049004900 4400 47005300500046004800 4800530051004300 45005900 49005000 5000510051004600 5900 540053005300510052005200 5200 47004200 5100 5800570057005500 45004 5 0 0 6000 5500 5000 4700 4900 4900 580057004400 4500 53004800 4400 5300 4800 51004200 55004300 4300460052006300 500042005400460053005300 51005100 590057004400440045005000 5000 5200620045005300 43004900 48005100 4600 5 0 0 0 6000 49005 1 0 0 5000 5700 5500 55004500 48 0 0 5000510057004900 6100 5800 5000 4900 54004900 5800 4700 4500 5000 5000510050004900 5300 4900 590058005700 44004 5 0 05200 5200 T2N R4E T3N R3E T3N R4E T2N R3E 32 19 03 27 17 36 10 20 05 34 30 04 35 32 0102 29 31 2021 0809 14 13 05 32 25 07 06 25 28 22 26 36 33 34 29 19 29 18 27 31 29 15 32 21 12 23 08 28 33 24 2420 30 11 23 35 2022 17 26 16 YUCCA PASSBONANZA T RLACCESS RDLOOKABOUT LNCLOVER LNLITTLE JO TRL RESERVOIR C U T O FF RDTW IN RIVERS CUTOFF RD CLEARWATER TRLCLIFFVIEW RD TRAPPERS RDLA Y PASS RD MENARD RDPRICKLY PEAR RD J UMPI NG FISH TRLS K IN N E R R DYADON RDN CANYON RD FAWN MEADOW RDE RESER VOIR CUTOFF RD UPPER PASS RD BLUE BONNET RDJEEP TRLG ALLATIN RIVER RD S RIVER CONNECTION RDSUNCREST LNHORSE S H OE COTTO N WOO D RDCRESTED BUTTE RDJAWBONE T RLMOSSY ROCK LNOVERLA ND TRLN DEERHAVEN RD BL AZING STA R TR L HORS E SH O E C O T T O N W O O D RDHILLTOP RD EQ UESTRIAN C ENTER LOOPHIGH MEADOW RDDOUBLE D LN N PASS RD WhiteSpring Bullr u n CrGallatin River East Gallatin River East Gal l a tin RiverNixonGulch Mixon Gulch Mixon Gulch CottonwoodGulch ChipmunkGulch Nixon Gulch Big DavisGulch HorseshoeHills Gallatin River Bridge 50 57' 30" 4 111° 4 50 N 82 000m 50 5081 4 80 000 111° 50 87 50 E 000m30" 87 88 50 89 73 74 640 30" 30"52' 89 50 50 4 55' 50 83 77 4 500 1 20'30" 15' 84 50 93 85 52' 82 50 75 E 17'111° 00'00' 50 50 90 4 600 50 50 4 79 000 22' 50 81 4 77 1 30" 46° 4 50 50 92 520 17' 20' 45° 83 93 78 78 000 FEET46° 000m 79 FEET 22' 90 91 50 50 91 4 75 76 000 FEET 111° 50 73 4 4 80 5088 4 84 50 50 76 4 4 15' 92 000m 86 50 445° 5086 94 FEET 30" 85 N 72 472 55' 57' 30" MONTANA QUADRANGLE LOCATION NIXON GULCH QUADRANGLEMONTANA-GALLATIN CO.7.5-MINUTE SERIES NIXON GULCH, MT 2014 Expressway Local Connector ROAD CLASSIFICATION Ramp 4WDSecondary Hwy Local Road Interstate Route State RouteUS RouteWX./H NIXON GULCH, MT 2014 ROAD CLASSIFICATION Check with local Forest Service unitfor current travel conditions and restrictions. FS Primary Route FS High Clearance RouteFS PassengerRouteª«▬Interstate Route State RouteUS RouteWX./H Expressway Local Connector Ramp 4WDSecondary Hwy Local Road This map was produced to conform with the National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.16 CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEETNORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 SCALE 1:24 000 1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000 21KILOMETERS00.51 1 0.5 0 MILES 1 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 FEET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1 Lombard 8 Belgrade 2 Roy Gulch3 Maudlow4 Logan5 Horseshoe Creek6 Manhattan SW7 Manhattan ADJOINING QUADRANGLES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Imagery..................................................NAIP, July 2011Roads....................................................... HERE, ©2013Names..........................................................GNIS, 2013Hydrography....................National Hydrography Dataset, 2011Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2005Boundaries............Multiple sources; see metadata file 1972 - 2013Public Land Survey System..................................BLM, 2011 North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 12T Produced by the United States Geological Survey 10 000-foot ticks: Montana Coordinate System of 1983 This map is not a legal document. Boundaries may begeneralized for this map scale. Private lands within governmentreservations may not be shown. Obtain permission beforeentering private lands. North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 12T Produced by the United States Geological Survey 10 000-foot ticks: Montana Coordinate System of 1983 This map is not a legal document. Boundaries may begeneralized for this map scale. Private lands within governmentreservations may not be shown. Obtain permission beforeentering private lands. Imagery<IMG_LEADER><IMG_CITATION>Roads<TRANS_LEADER> HERE, ©2013Roads within US Forest Service Lands.............FSTopo Data with limited Forest Service updates, 2013Names...............................................................GNIS, 2013Hydrography<HYDRO_LEADER>National Hydrography Dataset, <HYDRO_DATE>Contours<HYPSO_LEADER><HYPSO_CITATION>Boundaries............Multiple sources; see metadata file 1972 - 2013<OPTIONAL_CITATIONS> U.S. National Grid 100,000-m Square ID Grid Zone Designation VR 12T ^ Ù MN GN UTM GRID AND 2014 MAGNETIC NORTHDECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET 0° 13´4 MILS 12° 26´221 MILS *7643016377475*NSN.7643016377475NGA REF NO.USGSX24K32174 Appendix E.2 Geologic Map of Bozeman 10N Pluton C R O S S ANTICLINE RANGE HOR S E S H O E F A U L T SYNCLINE EUSTIS TRID E N T SYNC LI N E NIXON THRU S T THRUST THRU ST THRUST PASS TRIDENT FAULT GREEN LOMBARD SYNCLINE FAULT FAULT CREEK ZONE WILLOW TRANSVER S E DITCH CARDWELLMONTANA FAULT STARRETS CAVE GREER GULCH SYNCLINE CANYON FAULT JEFFERSON FAULT PARK SOUTHWES T ANTICLINE CENTR A L CARDWELLBUFFALO JUMP SYNCLINE Buttleman Laccolith L o nd on Hi l l sFault CARM ICH AE L EL K F AU L T C R E E K FA U L T M A M M O T H F A U L T C H E R R Y H O L L OW T O P C R E E K SA L E S V I L L E F A U L T F A U L T TOBACCO ROOT FA U L T BATHOLITH BI S M A R K F A U L T 97 Open File MBMG 469, Plate 1 of 1 Geologic Map, Bozeman 30'x60' Quadrangle MONTANA BUREAU OF MINES AND GEOLOGY A Department of Montana Tech of The University of Montana Maps may be obtained fromPublications OfficeMontana Bureau of Mines and Geology1300 West Park Street, Butte, Montana 59701-8997Phone: (406) 496-4167 Fax: (406) 496-4451http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu Partial support has been provided by the STATEMAP component of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program of the U.S.GeologicalSurvey under Contract Number 02HQAG0038 and Montana Department of Transportation under contract CFDA number 20.205. GIS production: Ken Sandau, John Dillon and Paul Thale, MBMG. Map layout: Susan Smith, MBMG. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Bozeman 30' x 60' Quadrangle Southwestern Montana 2002 Compiled and mapped by Susan M. Vuke, Jeffrey D. Lonn,Richard B. Berg, and Karl S. Kellogg Montana Bureau of Mines and GeologyOpen File No. 469 Revised Date Map and text (minor)1/03 PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE BOZEMAN 30’ x 60’ QUADRANGLE SOUTHWESTERN MONTANA Compiled and mapped by Susan M. Vuke1, Jeffrey D. Lonn1, Richard B. Berg1, and Karl S. Kellogg2 Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report MBMG 469 2002 Minor revisions: 1/03 Text revised and plate removed: 6/03 References added, Plate 2 removed: superseded by Geologic Map of Western and Northern Gallatin Valley (Vuke, 2003). Page 2 text changed to reflect this. 1Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 2U.S. Geological Survey This report has been reviewed for conformity with Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology’s technical and editorial standards. Partial support has been provided by the STATEMAP component of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program of the U.S. Geological Survey under contract number 02HQAG0038, and Montana Department of Transportation under contract CFDA number 20.205. PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE BOZEMAN 30’ x 60’ QUADRANGLE This geologic map of the Bozeman 30’x 60’ quadrangle is released with the intention that it will be followed by a revised version that incorporates new mapping of the Cenozoic deposits, including Geologic Map of Northern and Western Gallatin Valley, Southwestern Montana (Vuke, 2003). Ash samples have been collected for 40Ar/39Ar dates from Tertiary beds in the Madison bluffs and Storey Hills areas, and the results will also be included in a future version of the enclosed map. The senior author has made tentative structural interpretations on the enclosed map that are based on map patterns but with only minimal subsurface data. These interpretations were not shown on the earlier blueline version of Plate 1 (MBMG Open file report 334). Faults shown as concealed or inferred are speculative. It is clear from surface mapping, however, that many faults, especially those that strike northwest- southeast, have had multiple episodes of reactivation that may include reversal of vertical movement and strike-slip movement. Only the last episode of movement or the net movement is indicated on the map. Cross sections and discussion are not provided with this map, but they will be included with the future revised version. The map user is referred to the extensive bibliography provided with the map for more information at this time. Susan Vuke Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 1300 W. Park St. Butte, Montana 59701 svuke@mtech.edu 2. CORRELATION DIAGRAM (continued) BOZEMAN 30’ x 60’ QUADRANGLE Paleozoic and Precambrian Pp IPq PIPpq I PMa IPMabs Mmc Ml MDt Dj D mr unconformity DЄmr Єsr unconformity Єpi Єp Єm Єw Єf unconformity Yla unconformity Aum Aqfg Aamh Aq Aqa Aif Permian Pennsylvanian Mississippian Devonian Cambrian Proterozoic Archean Precambrian Paleozoic Mm Djm Єpm KAg? Єgs 4. Ydb GEOLOGIC MAP SOURCES AND INDEX OF 7.5’ QUADRANGLES BOZEMAN 30’ x 60’ QUADRANGLE Doherty Moun- tain 1, 12, 18, 20, 24, 26, 39, 41, 43 Negro Hollow 9, 18, 20, 26, 30, 40, 43 Milligan Canyon 27, 43 Three Forks 23, 27 Logan 28, 31, 32, 35 Nixon Gulch 8, 11, 28, 32, 35 Horse- shoe Creek 8, 14, 35, 43 Flathead Pass 8, 14, 21, 38 Jefferson Island 29 Sapping- ton 29, 36 Willow Creek 29, 36, 38, 43 Three Forks SE 4, 27, 43 Manhat- tan SW 11, 31, 43 Manhat- tan 8, 11, 14, 31 Belgrade 8, 11, 14, 19, 42 Miser Creek 8, 11, 14, 19, 21, 3, 42 Pony 25, 29, 36 Harrison 5, 13, 29, 36 Willow Creek Reser- voir 7, 17, 38, 43 Norris NE 7, 17, 43 Madison Plateau 11, 19, 31, 38, 42, 43 Anceney 2, 8, 11, 19, 22 Boze- man Hot Springs 8, 11, 19 22 Boze- man 8, 10, 11, 19, Potosi Peak 36, 43 Maltbys Mound 6, 36, 43 Norris 7, 15, 36 Bear Trap Creek 2, 7, 16 Cherry Creek Canyon 2, 22, 8, 33 Ruby Moun- tain 2, 8, 19, 22, 33 Gallatin Gateway 2, 8, 19, 34, 38, 42 Wheeler Moun- tain 3, 8, 10, 19, 34, 37, 38, 42 112o 111o 46o 45o30’ Numbers above correspond with reference list on next page. 5. GEOLOGIC MAP SOURCES AND INDEX OF 7.5’ QUADRANGLES BOZEMAN 30’ x 60’ QUADRANGLE Numbers below correspond with index of map sources on next page. Published, thesis, and dissertation maps 1. Alexander, R.G., Jr., 1951, pl. 1, scale 1:25,344. 2. Clabaugh, S.E., and Armstrong, F.C., 1950, pl. 11, scale 1:125,000. 3. Custer, S.G., 1995a, Figs. 7-9. 4. Davis, W.E., Kinoshita, W.T., and Robinson, G.D., 1965. 5. Elliott, W.S., 1998a, scale 1:24,000. 6. Elliott, W.S., 1998b, scale 1:24,000. 7. Feichtinger, S.H., 1970, pl. 1, scale 1:24,000. 8. Fix, P.F., 1940, pl. 21, scale 1:126,720. 9. Glaman, L.R.B., 1991, pl. 1, scale 1:12,000. 10. Glancy, P.A., 1964, pl. 1, scale 1:24,000. 11. Hackett, O.M., Visher, F.N., McMurtrey, R.G., and Steinhilber, W.L., 1960, pl. 2, scale 1:63,360. 12. Hendrix, T.E., and Stellavato, N., 1976, Fig. 10–1, scale 1:62,500. 13. Hoh, A.M., 1997. 14. Hughes, G.C., 1981, pl. 1, scale 1:63,000. 15. Kellogg, K.S., 1994, scale 1:24,000. 16. Kellogg, K.S., 1995, scale 1:24,000. 17. Kellogg, K.S., and Vuke, S.M., 1996, scale 1:24,000. 18. Lofgren, D.L., 1985, pl. 1, scale 1:24,000. 19. Lonn, J.D., and English, A.R., 2002, scale 1:48,000 20. Ludman, A., 1965, pl. 1, scale 1:6,000. 21. McMannis, 1955, pls. 1 and 2, scale 1:48,000. 22. Mifflin, M.D., 1963, scale 1:31,680. 23. Mitchell, M.M., 1987, pl. 1, scale 1:24,000. 24. Moore, G.T., 1954, pl. 1, scale 1:6,000. 25. O’Neill, J.M., 1983, pl. 1, scale 1:50,000. 26. Richard, B.H., 1966, pls. 1-4, scale 1:24,000; pl. 5 scale 1:60,000; Fig. 10 scale 31,680. 27. Robinson, G.D., 1963, pl. 1, scale 1:48,000. 28. Sayers, F.E., 1962, pl. 8, scale 1:33,000. 29. Schmidt, C.J., 1975, pl. 1, scale 1:24,000. 30. Schmidt, C.J., and O’Neill, J.M., 1982, Fig. 17, scale 1:168,960. 31. Schneider, G.B., 1970, pl. 1, scale 1:24,000. 32. Spahn, R.A., Jr., 1967, pl. 1, scale 1:24,000. 33. Tilley, C.W., 1976, pl. 1, scale 1:24,000. 34. Tysdal, R.G., 1966, pl. 1, scale 1:31,680. 35. Verrall, P., 1955, pl. 1, scale 1:24,000. 36. Vitaliano, C.J., and Cordua, W.S., 1979, scale 1:62,500. 37. Weber, W.J., 1965, pl. 1, scale 1:28,800. Unpublished maps, excluding thesis and dissertation maps 38. Berg, R.B., Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 39. Cox, B., Earthworks, Inc., for Golden Sunlight Mines, Inc. 40. Dresser, H., Montana Tech of the University of Montana, A stereo picture guide to some of Montana’s thrust faults (1996) 41. Hanneman, D., Whitehall Geogroup, Inc., for Golden Sunlight Mines, Inc. 42. Lonn, J.D., Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 43. Vuke, S.M., Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Entire quadrangle Vuke, S.M., Berg, R.B., Lonn, J. D., and Kellogg, K.S., 1995, scale 1:100,000. 6. 7 DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS BOZEMAN 30’ x 60’ QUADRANGLE Note: Thicknesses are given in feet because original field maps were on 7.5’ quadrangles with contour intervals in feet. To convert feet to meters (the contour interval unit on this map), multiply feet x 0.3048. Qal Alluvium (Holocene)—Light gray to light brown gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited in stream and river channels, on floodplains, and on low terraces as much as about 20 ft above modern streams and rivers. Moderately sorted to well sorted. Larger clasts subangular to well rounded. Composition varies, but includes clasts of Archean metamorphic rocks, Precambrian orthoquartzite, Paleozoic limestone and quartzite, vein quartz, and volcanic rocks. Clasts of some smaller streams originating in Tertiary uplands are dominantly granule size and smaller and may include rip-up clasts. Thickness variable, but may be as much as 50 ft in channels of Jefferson, Madison, and Gallatin Rivers. Loess (Holocene and Pleistocene) (Not mapped)—Tan, calcareous silt, clay, and sand that mantles many areas. Thickness as much as 4 ft on hilltops, thinner on slopes. Qc Colluvium (Holocene and Pleistocene)—Light grayish-brown deposits on gentle slopes in the Tobacco Root Mountains. Mostly sand, silt, and clay with many fewer cobbles and pebbles. Thickness unknown, but maximum thickness is probably less than 30 ft. Qat Alluvial terrace deposit (Holocene and Pleistocene) Qaf Alluvial fan deposit (Holocene and Pleistocene)—Light gray to light brown gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited where Hyalite Creek crosses an abrupt change in slope gradient (where the fault- bounded northern Gallatin Range meets the Bozeman valley) extending for about 7 miles into the valley, and similarly from 1 to 5 miles into the Gallatin Valley from the front of the Bridger Range. Distribution of clast sizes varies. In general, coarser sediment is dominant near the head of the fan and finer sediment near the margins. Clasts are dominantly matrix supported, and dominantly poorly sorted, although sediment deposited in distributary channels is moderately to well sorted and clast-supported. Larger clasts subrounded to rounded. May be as much as 200 ft thick. Qls Landslide deposit (Holocene and Pleistocene)—Mass-wasting deposit that consists of stable to unstable, unsorted mixtures of clay- to boulder-size sediment at the north end of the Gallatin Range. Includes rotated or slumped blocks of bedrock and surficial sediment, earthflow deposits, and mudflow deposits. Color and lithology reflect that of parent rocks and transported surficial materials. Thickness probably less than 100 ft. Qgr Gravel deposits, undivided (Holocene and/or Pleistocene)—Various deposits of gravel, sand, and silt that include alluvium, pediment veneer, colluvium, outwash, and fan deposits. Clast composition, rounding, and sorting vary depending on deposit location and type. The most extensive deposits are in the Gallatin Valley and include dissected blankets of sub-rounded to rounded pebbles, cobbles, small boulders, and rare larger boulders. Composition is dominantly orthoquartzite, vein quartz, quartz-rich gneiss, and dark volcanic rocks. Thickness ranges from pediment veneer about one inch thick to valley fill as much as 400 ft thick. North of the Jefferson River, most are fan and alluvial deposits that overlie pediment surfaces. Clast composition reflects local sources and clasts range from angular to rounded depending on the type of deposit. In the area of the headwaters of the Missouri River, some of the deposits on pediment surfaces consist dominantly of angular limestone clasts. South of the Jefferson River many gravel deposits are dominantly well-rounded pebbles and cobbles of quartzite, well-cemented sandstone, volcanic and metamorphic rocks. These gravels 8 range from a veneer to deposits over 100 ft thick. Some of the gravel deposits south of the Jefferson River are thin sheet deposits of subangular to angular, locally derived clasts. In the Cottonwood Canyon area and eastward for ten miles (apparent on either side of Interstate 90), map unit also includes the “Ballard gravels” (Aram, 1979). Clast size is dominantly cobble to coarse sand, but includes boulders. Clast composition is dominantly Elkhorn Mountains Volcanics and orthoquartzite with some angular clasts of Renova Formation (Aram, 1979, 1981). [Removed from map following 2002 field work; Ballard gravels are Tertiary deposits.] Qab Alluvial braid plain deposit (Holocene? and Pleistocene)—Well-rounded, well-sorted bouldery gravel and sand with some thin beds of clayey silt. Underlies the plain that extends from Bozeman Hot Springs to north of Belgrade. Clast lithologies in order of abundance are: Precambrian metamorphic rocks, mafic volcanic rocks, dacite (?) porphyry, sandstone, quartzite, limestone, and chert. As much as 800 ft thick (Hackett and others, 1960). Qat Alluvial terrace deposit (Pleistocene)—Well-rounded, well-sorted, bouldery gravel and sand with some thin beds of clayey silt. Underlies terrace 10-25 ft above modern stream deposits. Clast composition similar to Qab. About 20 ft thick. Qafo Older alluvial fan deposit (Pleistocene)—Poorly to well-sorted, rounded to sub-angular gravel sand, and silt with minor amounts of clay. Surfaces have distinct fan shape. Clasts locally derived and in general, grain size decreases and degree or sorting increases with distance from mountain fronts. Generally less than 100 ft thick. Qg Glacial deposits, undivided (Pleistocene)—Poorly sorted, angular to rounded, unconsolidated clasts of dominantly cobbles and boulders, but also pebbles, sand, silt, and clay. Larger clasts of dominantly Archean metamorphic rocks, and igneous rocks of the Tobacco Root Batholith. Includes unstratified till and stratified outwash, and thin cirque lake deposits that probably include some Holocene sediment. Thickness of deposits less than 150 ft. QTgr Gravel deposits (Pleistocene, and/or Pliocene)—Well-rounded, moderately well-sorted, clast- supported, calcite-cemented to unconsolidated cobble and pebble gravel with some small boulders, on either side of the Madison River. Sand and granule matrix. Clast composition dominantly gray and purple orthoquartzite of Belt Supergroup, with much less abundant gray Archean gneiss, white vein quartz, igneous clasts, and Paleozoic orthoquartzite. A white calcrete as much as 1 ft thick is present below the deposit in many places. Thickness of deposits 30–50 ft. Other deposits near Willow Creek, in the Tobacco Root Mountains in the southwestern part of the quadrangle, and just west of Four Corners and Gallatin Gateway may be unrelated to those described above. Near Willow Creek, gravel consists of angular to rounded matrix-supported cobbles, most of which are white quartz, schist, and amphibolite. Some of the clasts have caliche rinds. Matrix is sand and silt. Include basal immature, matrix-supported breccia with angular to subangular granules, pebbles, and cobbles of Archean metamorphic rocks. Combined thickness of both deposits is 20 to 40 ft. The deposit in the Tobacco Root Mountains contains matrix- supported, well-rounded pebbles, cobbles, and boulders up to 30 ft thick in a sandy matrix. Clast composition includes Archean metamorphic rocks, granodiorite of the Tobacco Root Batholith, and well cemented sandstone. Deposits west of Four Corners and Gallatin Gateway have the same clast composition as pebbles and cobbles in the underlying Tertiary rocks. Thickness of map unit about 30 ft. [Deposits west of Four Corners and Gallatin Gateway were removed from map following 2002 field work. They are cobble conglomerate lenses within a Miocene unit. QTgr near Willow Creek and Qgr near Harrison are also this Miocene unit.] QTaf Alluvial fan deposit (Pleistocene and/or Pliocene)—Deposit similar to Qaf, but underlies Qaf, and is separated from it by a pediment surface. Thickness as much as 120 ft. QTdf Debris flow deposit (Pleistocene and/or Pliocene)—Mostly poorly stratified, poorly sorted, pebbly sand, but includes some subangular, bouldery gravel with huge boulders up to 6 ft in diameter. 9 Clasts composed of locally derived Precambrian metamorphic rocks and Paleozoic limestone. At least 200 ft. thick. Ts Sediment or sedimentary rock, undivided (Tertiary)—Includes units that could not be assigned to established Tertiary stratigraphy at this time. Diamicton in Cherry Creek area: Subangular to subrounded clasts of Archean gneiss and Paleozoic rocks as large as 6.5 ft long. Thickness of unit greater than 160 ft. Conglomerate west of Willow Creek Reservoir: Subangular to angular clasts of Archean gneiss and subrounded cobbles of vein quartz, Archean gneiss and amphibolite. Many clasts have caliche rinds, underlain by conglomerate with subangular to angular clasts of Archean rocks, mostly pebble size, but with some cobbles. Thickness 70 ft. Tuffaceous siltstone and sandstone between tributaries of Burnt Creek west of Norris: Dominantly light-brown, locally tuffaceous siltstone and fine-grained sandstone with pebbly beds and lenses. Pebbles dominantly quartz and subordinately Archean gneiss. Thickness 40 ft. Upper Tertiary Upper Tertiary sediment or sedimentary rocks, undivided (Miocene and Pliocene?)—An informal allostratigraphic unit bounded at its base by the early-Tertiary (Hemmingfordian) unconformity and at its top by an unconformity separating it from overlying surficial deposits. (An allostratigraphic unit is a mappable stratiform body of sedimentary rock that is defined and identified on the basis of its bounding discontinuities [North American Stratigraphic Code, 1983, p. 865-867]). Unit is in the stratigraphic position of the Sixmile Creek Formation (Robinson, 1963) as redefined by Kuenzi and Fields (1971). Note that the original type Sixmile Creek Formation of Robinson (1963, 1967), lies both below and above the middle Tertiary unconformity (Fields, and others, 1985). Unit is also in the stratigraphic position of the Madison Valley formation (informal) (Douglass, 1907). Thickness about 900 ft. Tsuf Dominantly fine-grained facies (Miocene)—Grayish-pink to grayish-orange clayey, tuffaceous siltstone with grayish-brown to light gray conglomeratic sandstone beds and numerous lenses and some beds of dominantly pebble conglomerate or gravel that may be either matrix- or clast- supported. Siltstones typically have numerous calcareous rootlet traces, and zones of root casts are present locally. Conglomerate or gravel typically includes clasts derived from Archean and dark extrusive and intrusive volcanic rocks, characteristically including reddish brown scoria as well as chert, quartzite, and rare limestone. An exception is the Dry Creek area where clasts are almost exclusively Paleozoic limestone and Precambrian LaHood arkose. Locally, conglomerate or gravel clasts are dominantly cobble and and small boulder size. In the Madison bluffs area bone fragments and pieces of opalized wood are common. Fossils found in lenses of pebble congomerate or gravel in the basal and middle parts of the unit were identified as a Barstovian Merychippus jaw bone and teeth by Alan R. Tabrum (Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, 2002), and Ralph Nichols (Museum of the Rockies, Bozeman, 2002). Glassy ash beds are present locally in the siltstone. Thickness about 300 ft. Tsuc Dominantly coarse-grained facies (Miocene and Pliocene?)—Brown to gray conglomerate. North Boulder River area (Lofgren, 1985): Clast composition west of the North Boulder River is of Elkhorn Mountains Volcanics, and east of the river is of Paleozoic carbonate rocks with some intrusive rocks. Matrix-supported conglomerates are poorly sorted, laterally continuous, with angular to subrounded pebbles, cobbles, and boulders. Clast-supported conglomerates are tabular to lensoid, moderately sorted, and contain subangular to subrounded pebbles, cobbles, and rare boulders. Other conglomerates are dominated by pebbles, granules, and sand. Clasts typically have caliche rinds. Clasts are typically caliche-coated. Placement of basal contact with the Renova Formation was inferred in the northwestern part of the quadrangle following fossil identification of Lofgren (1985), and includes only that part of the Tertiary above the early-Tertiary (Hemmingfordian) unconformity. Bozeman area (Glancy, 1964): Conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and nearly pure volcanic ash beds. Clast composition of conglomerate mainly andesite, diorite, gabbro, and granodiorite porphyries, porphyritic granodiorite, basalt, and andesite with sporadic Archean gneiss, 10 sandstone, and limestone. In some areas there is also a component of angular Livingston Group sandstone. Thickness about 1,200 ft. Dry Creek, Reese Creek area (Hughes, 1980): Coarse sandstone and conglomerate interbedded with subordinate amounts of fine-grained mudstone, tuffaceous marl, and vitric ash. Conglomerate clast composition is dominantly Paleozoic limestone and Precambrian LaHood arkose. A K/Ar date of 8.9±0.4 (late Miocene) was obtained from and ash in this unit in NE1/4, NE ¼, NE1/4 sec. 6, T1N, R5E (Hughes, 1980, Lang and others, 1980). Exposed thickness about 500 ft., maximum thickness not known in this area. Lower Tertiary Tdc Dunbar Creek Formation (Eocene and Oligocene)—Dominantly grayish-yellow, yellowish-white, and light gray, tuffaceous siltstone and fine-grained sandstone, with isolated coarse-grained sandstone and conglomerate beds and lenses; and calcareous, tuffaceous paleosol beds. Conglomerate beds with subangular to subrounded granule- and pebble-size clasts that include: Paleozoic limestone; red clasts that may be derived from Proterozoic Belt rocks; coarse sand- and granule-size glassy quartz grains; and rarely, isolated pebble- to small cobble-size clasts of scoria and silicified wood. Conglomerates are dominantly matrix-supported. Many coarse-grained sandstones are poorly sorted and superficially resemble granitic rocks by their clast composition and distribution. Some sandstones also contain many red grains that may be derived from Proterozoic Belt rocks. A K-Ar date of 30.6±1.2 (Oligocene) was obtained from the Dunbar Creek Formation (Renova Formation) in the Dry Creek Valley (Hughes, 1980). Type section is within quadrangle in E1/2 sec. 7, T1S, R2E (Robinson, 1963). Thickness 800–1000 ft (Robinson, 1963). Tdcl Lower Dunbar Creek Formation? (Eocene? or Oligocene?)—Yellowish-white, light gray to gray, light brown silty or sandy tuffaceous limestone interbedded with calcareous siltstone, fine- grained sandstone, and air-fall ash beds. Some beds contain root casts. Tentatively correlated with tuffaceous, calcareous paleosol beds in the lower Dunbar Creek Formation south of Three Forks. Called “Norwegian Creek carbonate unit” by Feichtinger (1970). Thickness at least 150 ft. Tca Climbing Arrow Formation (Eocene)—Pale olive, light olive brown, and reddish-brown, bentonitic, sandy clay and claystone that displays “popcorn” weathering; yellowish-gray, coarse-grained, argillaceous sand and sandstone; and white, tuffaceous siltstone and fine-grained sandstone composed almost entirely of volcanic glass. Throughout, coarse sand grains are typically subangular to subrounded, and composed of quartz, feldspar, and biotite. A K/Ar date of 50.4±1 (Eocene) was obtained from an ash in the NE1/4, NE1/4, NE1/4 sec. 11, T2N, R1W (Lang and others, 1980). The discrepancy between this date and Chadronian vertebrate fossils found in this unit suggests that there may be an unconformity within the unit (D. Hanneman, personal communication, 2002).Type section is within quadrangle in W1/2 sec.12, T1N, R1E (Robinson, 1963). Thickness not less than 750 ft, but may be considerably more than 1000 ft (Robinson, 1963). Tmc Milligan Creek Formation (Eocene)—Light gray, fine-grained, tuffaceous, argillaceous limestone, marlstone, and calcareous mudstone that interfinger with sandstone and conglomerate with rounded to subrounded clasts dominantly of quartz and volcanic rock. Type section is within quadrangle in E1/2 sec. 11, NW1/4 sec. 12, and SW1/4 sec. 1, T1N, R1W (Robinson, 1963). Trb Red Bluff Formation (Eocene?)—Upper: White and light yellowish-brown siltstone, sandstone, conglomerate, and subordinate, but conspicuous, brick-red and maroon mudstone and siltstone; locally tuffaceous. Most clasts Archean gneiss, and vein or pegmatite quartz, with some quartz monzonite and granodiorite from Tobacco Root Batholith (map unit Kit). Locally, highly silicified. Lower: Subrounded to well-rounded, matrix supported, bouldery diamictite. Clast composition dominantly quartz monzonite or granodiorite of the Tobacco Root Batholith with matrix of immature decomposed quartz monzonite or granodiorite. Boulders very large, some as large as 50 ft wide. Type locality is within quadrangle in W1/2 sec.13, T3N, R1W (Kellogg, 1994). 11 Tre Renova Formation (Eocene and Oligocene) Dunbar Creek Member (Eocene? and Oligocene)—Grayish-orange, immature and submature vitric siltstone, tuffaceous, montmorillonitic mudstone, immature to submature very fine-grained to granular sandstone, very coarse-grained arkose, and conglomerate. Thickness about 1000 ft (Kuenzi and Fields, 1971). Climbing Arrow Member (Eocene)—Pale olive-gray, tuffaceous, montmorillonitic mudstone, immature vitric siltstone (Kuenzi and Fields, 1971), and fine-grained, submature to immature arkosic sandstone or granule conglomerate that superficially resembles a granitic rock, contains both biotite and a light-colored mica (muscovite or phlogopite?), and weathers to gruss-like, unconsolidated sediment. Thickness at least 175 ft (Kuenzi and Fields, 1971). Bone Basin Member (Eocene)—Light yellowish-gray, pale olive-gray, pale olive, and nearly white alternating micritic and oölitic limestone, montmorillonitic mudstone, vitric siltstone, vitric arenite, arkose, and minor conglomerate. Type section in quadrangle in sec. 33, T1N, R4W and sec. 28, T1N, R4W (Kuenzi and Fields, 1971). Thickness as much as 3,500 ft (Kuenzi and Fields, 1971). Trr Red Hill member (Eocene) (informal)—Dominantly moderate-red and reddish-orange mudstone with thin beds and lenses of pale olive-gray or moderate red, very coarse-grained, immature sandstone with clasts that include limestone, shiny black chert, clear and rose quartz, and red mudstone rip-up clasts; granule, pebble, and conglomerate lenses of similar composition in red mudstone matrix; and limestone breccia with red mudstone matrix. Unit typically weathers to red soil. Includes Conrow Creek conglomerate of Lofgren (1985) and Sphinx conglomerate of Robinson (1963). Tav Absaroka Volcanics (Eocene)—Light-brown-weathering, dark-gray to black, basic, slightly porphyritic andesite that contains plagioclase, augite, and hypersthene phenocrysts in superimposed individual flows interlayered with stratified flow breccias. Exposed thickness 850 ft. Trvi Rhyolite vitrophyre (Eocene)—White, pink, and gray, flow-banded, sparsely porphyritic rhyolite of dominantly brown cloudy glass and subordinate sanidine with sparse phenocrysts of altered biotite. Extensively brecciated near margin. Exposed thickness 850 ft. Trs Rhyolite vitrophyre sediment (Eocene)—Very light gray to white, well-bedded, well-indurated siltite, sandstone, and clast-supported sedimentary breccia composed almost entirely of rhyolite vitrophyre; clasts angular and as much as 3 ft long. Interlayered and locally intermixed with abundant white air-fall ash. Exposed thickness about 100 ft. Tba Basalt (Eocene?)—(from Robinson, 1963) Black, very dark gray, and grayish-brown, fine-grained intergranular basalt and basalt breccia flows along Cherry Creek fault. Commonly vesicular or flow banded. Vesicles in many places encrusted by yellow, fine-grained zeolite. Exposed thickness as much as 650 ft. Olivine basalt near Three Forks mostly compact but vesicular in some places. Homogeneous flow bands and minor flow breccia. TKjb Jasperoid breccia (Eocene or Upper Cretaceous)—Yellow, tan, and reddish-brown, banded jasperoid that is almost entirely brecciated, and consists of angular clasts as much as 1 1/2 ft thick. Exposed thickness as much as 250 ft. TKl Latite (Eocene or Upper Cretaceous)—Medium-gray to medium-dark-gray with sparse and small phenocrysts of feldspar and pyroxene in a dense nonvesicular holocrystalline matrix (Robinson, 1963). Many latite sills not mapped. Exposed thickness as much as 300 ft. TKqm Quartz monzonite (Eocene or Upper Cretaceous)—(from Robinson, 1963) Pink, pale grayish-brown- or moderate-brown-weathering, dominantly quartz monzonite, but also includes monzonite porphyry, diorite porphyry, and quartz latite porphyry. Exposed thickness 250 ft. 12 TKa Andesite (Eocene or Upper Cretaceous)—(from Robinson, 1963) Medium-gray, dominantly andesite porphyry, but also includes porphyritic latite, and latite porphyry. Many small phenocrysts of both feldspar and mafic minerals only slightly larger than the groundmass. Exposed thickness as much as 360 ft. TKda Dacite (Eocene or Upper Cretaceous)—(from Robinson, 1963) Medium-light-gray with local yellowish-brown or yellowish-green splotches from oxidation of iron-bearing minerals; uniformly fine-grained. Dominantly dacite, but includes some quartz latite. Exposed thickness as much as 250 ft. Intrusive rock, undivided (Eocene or Upper Cretaceous) (Not mapped)—Intrusive rock of various compositions including, but not limited to, pyroxenite, latite, rhyolite, andesite, trachyandesite, diorite, monzonite, granodiorite, granitic aplite, basalt, and lamprophyre in small stocks, plugs, dikes, and thin sills. KAg Granite (Late Cretaceous or Archean) Pegmatite and quartz veins (Late Cretaceous, and Early Proterozoic to Archean) (Not mapped)— White to pink, coarse-grained to very coarse-grained, massive and foliated dikes and sills composed mostly of potassium feldspar, quartz, plagioclase, muscovite, and rarely, biotite. In some places grades into quartz veins that are white, massive quartz in lenticular, generally discordant veins and irregular pods. Very widespread in areas of Archean rocks. Kit Intrusive rock of the Tobacco Root Batholith (Upper Cretaceous)—Gray, coarse-grained, inequigranular to porphyritic, massive, hornblende-biotite granodiorite, quartz monzonite, monzogranite, and monzodiorite. Exposed thickness as much as 1,300 ft. Kem Elkhorn Mountains Volcanics (Upper Cretaceous)—Dominantly dark gray, grayish-black, greenish- black, light gray, and very dusky reddish-purple andesite porphyry, tuff, conglomerate, breccia, and minor flows; and subordinate basalt. Andesite porphyry displays variable texture and resistance. Conglomerates contain clasts up to boulder size that are rounded and as much as 20 inches in diameter in a coarse-grained sand matrix. Rests unconformably on units as old as the Lodgepole Limestone. As much as 9,000 ft thick (Alexander, 1955). Kse Sedan Formation (Upper Cretaceous)—(from Skipp and others, 1999) Mudstone member (informal): Greenish-gray and brownish-gray volcaniclastic mudstone, siltstone, sandstone, and minor interbedded conglomerate and altered vitric tuff. Middle sandstone member (informal): Olive-green and dark greenish-gray, volcaniclastic sandstone, conglomerate, mudflow conglomerate, and minor siltstone and mudstone. Ash-flow tuff member (informal): Pale yellowish-green, light greenish-gray, grayish-red, and pale yellowish-brown, welded to nonwelded tuff and ash-flow tuff conglomerate, interbedded with volcaniclastic conglomerate, sandstone, mudstone, and porcellanite. Lower sandstone member (informal): Dark olive-gray, greenish-gray, and yellowish-gray, volcaniclastic sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, altered crystal vitric tuff, minor hornblende dacite, and minor lignitic coal. Formation equivalent to Miner Creek and Cokedale Formations of the Livingston Group (Berg and others, 2000). Thickness of formation in map area about 3000 ft. Ket Eagle Sandstone and Telegraph Creek Formation, undivided (Upper Cretaceous) Eagle Sandstone—Grayish-orange to light olive-gray, arkosic, cross-bedded fine- to medium-grained, thin-bedded sandstone interbedded with siltstone. Contains carbonaceous siltstone, carbonaceous shale, and thin coal beds at base and top. Thickness about 250 ft. Telegraph Creek Formation—Light olive-gray to pale yellowish-brown, thin-bedded to massive, very fine-grained calcareous, arkosic sandstone and siltstone, interbedded with silty mudstone. Thickness about 250 ft. Kcof Cody Shale and Frontier Formation, undivided (Upper Cretaceous) 13 Cody Shale—Dark gray to brown mudstone interbedded with siltstone and very fine grained sandstone. Greenish-gray, thin-bedded, glauconitic, fine-grained sandstone in middle of formation. Thickness about 500 ft. Frontier Formation—Light brownish-gray, fine- to coarse-grained thick-bedded to massive sandstone with subordinate siltstone. Dark gray to black, thin, chert-pebble conglomerate in some localities generally at bases of thick sandstone beds (Dyman, and others, 1996; McMannis, 1952). Thickness about 550 ft. Kmt Mowry and Thermopolis Shale, undivided Mowry Shale (Upper and Lower Cretaceous)—Dark gray to olive-green, siliceous and nonsiliceous mudstone with thin interbeds of siltstone, and fine-grained sandstone. Thickness about 350 ft. Kt Thermopolis Shale (Lower Cretaceous)—Upper: Dark-gray to black, fissile shale to mudstone, that contains thin interbeds of micaceous, planar- or cross-bedded, lithic sandstone. Middle: Medium-gray, fissile, micaceous, clayey shale with a few thin interbeds of siltstone (Dyman, and others, 1996). Basal: Yellowish-gray- to pale-olive-weathering, light gray, fine- to medium-grained with quartz overgrowths, cross-bedded or ripple marked, clean, well-sorted quartz sandstone that may have interspersed limonite specks. Unconformably overlain by Elkhorn Mountains Volcanics in western part of map area. Thickness about 300–350 ft. Kk Kootenai Formation (Lower Cretaceous)—Upper: Light gray gastropod coquina or gastropod-rich limestone that may also contain charophytes and ostrocods. The gastropod limestone is not present in the Bridger Range (McMannis, 195\2). Middle: Dominantly red, orange, and purple variegated shale and mudstone with subordinate light and medium gray shale and mudstone, interbedded with light-gray “salt-and-pepper” limonitic or nonlimonitic, fine- to coarse-grained, poorly to well-sorted, massive or cross-bedded, chert-rich, locally conglomeratic sandstone. Basal: Light brown to yellowish-gray “salt-and-pepper” conglomeratic, cross-bedded, chert-rich sandstone or conglomerate. Thickness about 400 ft. Jm Morrison Formation (Jurassic)—Green, red, and gray variegated mudstone, shale, and siltstone with thin, interbedded yellowish-brown to grayish-orange, very fine-grained sandstone and siltstone beds, and thin, gray limestone beds. Carbonaceous shale or coal at the top in some areas of the northern part of the quadrangle. Thickness about 350 ft. Je Ellis Group (Jurassic) Swift Sandstone—Grayish-orange, calcareous, limonitic or glauconitic, cross-bedded, coarse-grained, fossiliferous, quartz sandstone. Thickness about 60 ft. Rierdon Limestone—Light-gray, oölitic, fossiliferous limestone, and calcareous shale. Quartz and chert sand grains are interspersed throughout some of the limestone beds, and locally the quartz and chert clasts are granule or small pebble size. Thickness about 50 ft. Sawtooth Formation—Upper: Yellowish-brown, fossiliferous mudstone; thin-bedded fossiliferous carbonaceous siltstone and dolomite; and light-gray, thin-bedded, fossiliferous limestone. Lower: Gray to dark brown conglomeratic quartz and chert sandstone of variable thickness, with subangular to subrounded chert and light gray limestone pebbles. Formation not present in western part of map area. Thickness 0 to 80 ft. Jme Morrison Formation and Ellis Group, undivided Tr d Dinwoody Formation (Triassic)—Reddish-brown to dark brown, fossiliferous, silty limestone with abundant Lingula brachiopods. Sparcely present in map area; mapped only in Harrison 7.5- minute quadrangle (Elliott, 1998a) Thickness 0 to130 ft. 14 Pp Phosphoria Formation (Permian)—Brown, to greenish-brown, laminated or thin- to thick-bedded chert, yellow to yellowish-orange sandstone and siltstone, greenish-gray, medium- to coarse- grained, oölitic, phosphatic sandstone, and yellowish-gray dolomitic limestone. May also include conglomerate with well rounded chert pebbles or cobbles. Thickness ranges from 100 to 200 ft. IP q Quadrant Formation (Pennsylvanian)—Light gray, pinkish-gray, and yellowish-gray, medium- to thick-bedded, medium- to fine-grained, well-sorted, quartz sandstone with rounded clasts, cemented by quartz overgrowths. Very light gray, medium to thick dolomite beds may be present in the lowermost and uppermost parts, interbedded with quartz sandstone. Thickness variable, ranging from 50 ft (McMannis, 1952) to 500 ft (Robinson, 1963). PIP pq Phosphoria and Quadrant Formations, undivided (Permian and Pennsylvanian) IPMa Amsden Formation (Pennsylvanian and Mississippian)—Red, blackish-red, and pale red, irregularly bedded mudstone, siltstone, and sandstone, and gray dolomitic limestone (Lombard Limestone of Blake, 1959). May include equivalents of the Snowcrest Group of Wardlaw and Pecora (1985), Big Snowy Group of Gardner (1959), and/or Amsden Group of Maughan and Roberts (1967). Thickness 120 ft (Glaman, 1991) to 650 ft (Robinson, 1963). IPMabs Amsden and Big Snowy Formations, undivided (Pennsylvanian and Mississippian) Big Snowy Formation—Bridger Range (McMannis, 1952): Upper: Dark gray to black, fossiliferous shale, shaly limestone, and cherty limestone. Middle: Red, pink, and pale yellowish-orange sandstone, sandy siltstone, sandy dolomite, and subordinate red siltstone. Lower: Red and pink, dolomitic silststone, and red to purple hackly shale with subordinate thin, light gray or very pale orange dolomite, or dolomite-clast breccia. Eustis Syncline, western Horseshoe Hills (Verrall, 1955): Upper (Heath Fm. equivalent): Dark gray to reddish-gray fissile, blocky shale and dark brownish-gray, thin-bedded to massive, calcareous orthoquartzite. Thickness 89 ft. Middle (Otter Fm. equivalent): Yellowish-brown, silty, laminated to flaggy, finely crystalline limestone with interbeds of yellowish-brown, highly calcareous siltstone, and thin interlaminae of dark gray chert. Thickness 19 ft. Lower (Kibbey Fm. equivalent): Medium gray to yellowish-orange fissile to hackly shale. Lower part has numerous thin interbeds of medium to dark gray, impure, calcareous, hard, quartzitic sandstone with grayish-orange shale beneath each bed. Thickness 125 ft. Mm Madison Group, undivided (Mississippian) Mmc Mission Canyon Limestone (Mississippian)—Gray, microcrystalline, thick-bedded locally fossiliferous limestone with abundant gray, black, olive-black, and pale yellowish-brown, lentil- shaped or elongate chert nodules. Solution breccia and paleo-karst features are apparent in some areas. Variable thickness ranges from 430 ft (McMannis, 1952) to 1500 ft (Robinson, 1963). Ml Lodgepole Limestone (Mississippian)—Dark-gray, thin-bedded, fossiliferous, microcrystalline limestone, with yellowish-brown and grayish orange, thin partings and interbeds of calcareous mudstone. Thickness ranges from 200 to 855 ft. MDt Three Forks Formation (Mississippian and Devonian)— Sappington Member (from Sandberg, 1965): Yellowish-orange and yellowish-gray thin- to thick-bedded, flaggy siltstone and fine- grained sandstone. May contain U-shaped trace fossils. Type section is in map area near Logan (Holland, 1952), and type locality is in the map area in Milligan Canyon near Sappington (Berry, 1943). Thickness 57–100 ft. Trident Member (from Sandsberg, 1965): Greenish-gray, light olive-gray, and yellowish-gray calcareous to slightly calcareous fossiliferous clay shale, with yellowish-gray, dark yellowish- orange, and medium gray dolomitic limestone, silty dolomite, and calcitic dolomite at the base and a massive bed of fossiliferous argillaceous limestone at the top. Type section is in map area about five miles northwest of Logan (Sandberg, 1965). Logan Gulch Member: Yellowish-gray and grayish-red, argillaceous limestone or shale breccia that may be partly interbedded with dolomitic shale, dolomitic siltstone, and silty dolomite; yellowish-gray, thin-bedded, contorted limestone; and red mudstone. Type section (Sandberg, 15 1962) is in map area within the Three Forks type section (Sloss and Laird, 1947) north of the Gallatin River at Logan. Thickness ranges from 90 to 150 ft. Dj Jefferson Formation (Devonian)—Birdbear Member: Light brownish-gray to medium gray, very finely crystalline to microcrystalline, sucrosic, partly pseudobrecciated dolomite. Type section (Sandberg, 1965) is in map area within the type section of the Jefferson Formation (Sloss and Laird, 1947) on the north side of the Gallatin River near Logan. Thickness about 80 ft. Lower member (informal): Dark yellowish-brown, brownish-gray, medium-dark gray, and light olive-gray, finely crystalline, fetid dolomite, and calcitic dolomite. Thickness ranges from 470 to 665 ft. Djm Jefferson and Maywood Formations, undivided Jefferson Formation (Devonian) (see above) Maywood Formation (Devonian)—Grayish-red, thin- to medium-bedded, aphanitic to very finely crystalline, dense to friable and shaly dolomite. Locally contains a bright pale yellow saccharoidal limestone bed in the upper part. Grayish-red to yellowish-orange calcareous siltstone at base in some places. Not present in the northern Gallatin Range (Tysdal, 1966). Thickness as much as 90 ft. Єgs Grove Creek and Snowy Range Formations (Cambrian)—(southwestern part of map area only) Grove Creek Formation: Light pinkish-gray, greenish-gray, and light gray, sucrosic dolomite; grayish-orange dolomite with silicified wavy shale partings; local flat-pebble dolomite conglomerate. Snowy Range Formation: Green shale and gray limestone that is partly a flat-pebble conglomerate; bed of columnar fractured limestone locally present in lower part of Snowy Range Formation. DЄmr Maywood and Red Lion Formations, undivided (Devonian and Cambrian)— Maywood Formation (Devonian) (See above) Єsr Snowy Range Formation (Cambrian) (Eastern part of map area only, lateral equivalent of Red Lion Formation)—Sage Pebble Conglomerate Member: Medium light gray to light olive-gray, thin- to medium-bedded, flat-pebble limestone conglomerate with subangular to subrounded clasts; and very finely crystalline to aphanitic, dense limestone with minor interbeds and interlaminae of greenish to red fissile shale and subordinate light grayish-red, irregular-bedded or laminated siltstone, banded or mottled with yellowish-orange. In the Bridger Range there is a persistent 4 to 25 ft biostromal columnar limestone composed of calcareous fossil algae at the base of the member (McMannis, 1952). In the Horseshoe Hills, it is at the base up to the middle of the member, but missing east of Nixon Gulch and northeast of Trident. (Verrall, 1955). Thickness as much as 204 ft in the Bridger Range (McMannis, 1952). Flat pebble conglomerate is not present in the Gallatin Range, but a limestone member is present in the stratigraphic position of the Sage Pebble Conglomerate Member that also has a biostromal columnar limestone at its base (Tysdal, 1966). Dry Creek Member: Light olive-gray, grayish-green, or bluish-gray, fissile shale with interbedded pale orange to yellowish-brown, calcareous, fine-grained sandstone and siltstone beds that commonly have scour bases. Thickness is irregular, ranging from 6 ft (Tysdal, 1966) to 76 ft (McMannis, 1952) in eastern part of map area. Єpi Pilgrim Limestone (Cambrian)—Light gray or bluish-gray limestone or dolomite, typically with yellowish-orange mottles. May be sandy or sucrosic; may contain intraformational flat-pebble conglomerate, or lenses of dark gray limestone or dolomite that are glauconitic, oölitic, and/or fossiliferous; weathers hackly. Thickness ranges from 200 ft (eastern map area) to as much as 450 ft (western map area). Єp Park Shale (Cambrian)—Grayish-green and pale purple, fissile shale and silty shale. May contain a thin limestone bed or limestone flat-pebble conglomerate at the top, and thin interbeds of grayish- red-purple, coarsely crystalline, ferruginous limestone. Thickness ranges from 150 to 350 ft. 16 Єm Meagher Formation (Cambrian)—Light gray or bluish-gray limestone, dolomite, or dolomitic limestone, with yellowish-orange or moderate orange-pink mottles; weathers hackly. Dominantly thick-bedded, but thin-bedded in part, with siltstone partings. In the eastern part of the map area, may contain interbeds of greenish-gray, micaceous, fissile shale. May contain oölitic beds with some oncolites and intraformational conglomerate. Thickness ranges from 300 to 550 ft. Єpm Park and Meagher Formations, undivided (Cambrian)—See above. Єw Wolsey Shale (Cambrian)—Dominantly grayish-green, but also grayish-purple and grayish-red- purple, micaceous, fissile, wavy-bedded shale with trace fossils on many bedding surfaces. In western part of map area includes Silver Hill Member in middle of formation, a greenish-brown, carbonaceous, silty limestone unit. May be interbedded with thin orthoquartzite beds at base. May contain trilobite casts and molds. In some areas plutonic rocks take the place of the Wolsey Shale (Robinson, 1963). Thickness ranges from 150 ft (eastern map area) to as much as 400 ft (western map area). Єf Flathead Formation (Cambrian)—Very light gray, pinkish-gray, or light brownish-gray quartzose sandstone or orthoquartzite, and well-cemented granule to pebble conglomerate. May be massive or crossbedded and contain subordinate grayish-green, grayish-purple or grayish-red-purple, micaceous, fissile shale beds. In some areas in the central part of the map area, the Flathead Formation is missing by nondeposition. Basal unconformity places the Flathead on Archean rocks south of the Willow Creek fault, and on Proterozoic rocks north of the fault. Where present, thickness ranges from 40 ft (Gallatin Range; Tysdal, 1966) to 150 ft. Ydb Diabase (Proterozoic)—Includes igneous bodies northwest of Pony and numerous unmapped dikes that cut across Archean rocks, but do not extend into younger rocks (Schmidt and Garihan, 1986b). Yla LaHood lithosome (Proterozoic)—Map unit includes the LaHood Formation, and units that have been called Newland Limestone and Greyson Shale following Alexander (l955), all of which are part of the Belt Supergroup. The shale and limestone intertongue with LaHood lithologies and are genetically related (Foster and Chadwick, 1999; Foster and others, 1999), but cannot be correlated spatially or temporally with the type Newland or Greyson in the map area (Foster and Chadwick, 1999; Hawley, and others, 1982; Bonnet, 1979). For this reason, the LaHood is mapped as a lithosome (Sando, 1990) that includes the LaHood Formation as redefined by McMannis (1963), and the fine-grained and carbonate facies it intertongues with. The names Newland and Greyson are not used on this map. (Correlation of the LaHood with the Newland and Greyson may be demonstrable just north of the map area from the northern Bridger Range into the Big Belt Mountains [McMannis, 1963, Fig. 8]). LaHood Formation facies: Dark gray, dark brownish-green, and locally reddish-brown, arkosic boulder to granule conglomerate, arkose, arkosic siltite, arkosic argillite, and some impure carbonate beds. Clasts composed primarily of various Archean metamorphic, and igneous rocks; matrix light, olive gray mudstone. Type section in map area near LaHood Park (Alexander, 1955; McMannis, 1963). Clast size as much as 12 ft wide in local areas, but size decreases dramatically in lobate patterns that fan outward from the south. Clasts are angular to subround. Shale facies (Greyson Shale of Alexander, 1955): Black, brown, or purple, fissile, to nonfissile, carbonaceous or silty shale, interbedded with gray siltite and argillite, coarse- to fine-grained arkose, and thin carbonate beds. Carbonate facies (Newland Limestone of Alexander, 1955): Dark gray to light gray, thin-bedded to laminated limestone, and olive-gray dolomite; locally contains algal structures (Verrall, 1955). Aqfg Quartzofeldspathic gneiss—Includes plagioclase-microcline-quartz biotite (“granitic”) gneiss, plagioclase-quartz-biotite (“tonalitic”) gneiss, banded biotite gneiss, aluminous gneiss and schist, gedrite gneiss, and garnet gneiss. Plagioclase-microcline-quartz-biotite gneiss: Light-gray to light-pinkish gray, medium-grained, weakly to moderately foliated gneiss ranging from granodiorite to syenogranite. Plagioclase-quartz-biotite gneiss: Gray, medium-grained, inequigranular, weakly to moderately foliated, tonalitic gneiss. Includes some trondhjemitic and granodioritic gneiss. 17 Banded biotite gneiss: White, light gray, dark gray, and black, medium-grained, well-foliated, inequigranular, tonalitic to quartz-monzonitic gneiss, commonly migmatitic. Aluminous schist and gneiss: Gray to dark brownish-gray, medium-grained, inequigranular, generally well foliated, commonly micaceous gneiss and schist containing aluminosilicate minerals. Gedrite gneiss: Brown to grayish brown, moderately well-foliated, medium-grained, gedrite gneiss. Generally occurs in small lenses and concordant layers in other Archean rocks. Garnet gneiss: Highly garnetiferous assemblage of various colors that includes biotite-garnet schist, sillimanite-garnet schist, garnetiferous quartzite, quartzite, garnetiferous quartzofeldspathic gneiss, corundum gneiss, gedrite schist, cummingtonite schist, and garnetiferous amphibolite (Vitaliano and Cordua, 1979). Aamh Amphibolite and hornblende gneiss (Archean)—Gray to black, medium-grained, hypidiomorphic, equigranular, moderately foliated to well-foliated hornblende-plagioclase gneiss and amphibolite. Aum Ultramafic rock (Archean)—Includes mafic to intermediate gneiss, hornblende-plagioclase gneiss, amphibolite, granulite, and intrusive metabasite. Aqa Quartzite and amphibolite (Archean)—Interlayered white quartzite and amphibolite. Aq Quartzite (Archean)—White, gray, and brown, medium- to coarse-grained, inequigranular, moderately foliated to massive quartzite. Aif Banded iron formation (Archean)—Dark reddish-brown to orange-brown, massive to layered quartz- hematite rock locally containing abundant quartz veins; limonitic, especially along fractures. 20 CITED REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY BOZEMAN 30’x 60’ QUADRANGLE Achauer, C.W., 1959, Stratigraphy and microfossils of the Sappington Formation in southwestern Montana, in Hammond, C.R. and Trapp, H., Jr., eds., Sawtooth-Disturbed Belt area: Billings Geological Society 10th Annual Field Conference Guidebook, p. 41–49. Alexander, R.G., Jr., 1951, The geology of the Whitehall area, Montana: Princeton, Princeton University, Ph.D. dissertation, 150 p. Alexander, R.G., Jr., 1955, The geology of the Whitehall area, Montana: Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Association Contribution 195, 111 p. Andretta, D.B., and Alsup, S.A., 1960, Geology and Cenozoic history of the Norris-Elk Creek area, southwest Montana, in Campau, D.E., and Anisgard, H.W., eds., West Yellowstone—earthquake area: Billings Geological Society 11th Annual Field Conference Guidebook, p. 185–190. Angeloni, L.M., 1988, The role of water in the formation of granulite and amphibolite facies rocks, Tobacco Root Mountains, Montana: Missoula, University of Montana, M.S. thesis, 51 p. Aram, R.B., 1979, Cenozoic geomorphic history relating to Lewis and Clark Caverns, Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 150 p. Aram, R.B., 1981, Geologic history of Lewis and Clark Caverns, Montana, in Tucker, T.E., ed., Southwest Montana: Montana Geological Society Field Conference and Symposium Guidebook, p. 285–300. Archibald, F.W., 1940, The geology of the Limespur-Sappington area: Butte, Montana School of Mines*, B.S. thesis, 14 p. Axelrod, R.B., 1984, Tertiary sedimentary facies, depositional environments, and structure, Jefferson Basin, southwest Montana: Missoula, University of Montana, M.S. thesis, 64 p. Ballard, J.K., 1939, Geology report on field trip near Whitehall, Montana: Butte, Montana School of Mines*, B.S. thesis, 25 p. Barnes, J., 1954, Structural analysis of the northern end of the Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation, 194 p. Basu, Abhijit, Molinaroli, Emanuela, and Andersson, Steen, 1998, Diversity of physical and chemical properties of detrital zircons and garnets in Cenozoic sediments of southwestern Montana: The Mountain Geologist, v. 35, no. 1, p. 23–29. Bean, C.L., 1981, A geochemical study of the North Doherty intrusive complex, Jefferson County, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.S. thesis, 134 p. Berg, A.B., 1959, Geology of the northwestern corner of the Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana: St. Paul, University of Minnesota, M.S. thesis, 75 p. Berg, R.B., Lopez, D.A., and Lonn, J.D., 2000, Geologic map of the Livingston 30’x 60’ quadrangle, south-central Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report MBMG 406, 1:100,000 scale. [adjacent to this map] Berry, G.W., 1943, Stratigraphy and structure at Three Forks, Montana: Geological Society of America, v. 54, p. 1–30. Blake, O.D., 1959, Big Snowy stratigraphy in the area adjacent to the Rocky Mountain front [Montana], in Hammond, C.R., and Trapp, H., Jr., eds., Sawtooth-Disturbed Belt area: Billings Geological Society 10th Annual Field Conference Guidebook, p. 64–68. Blake, O.D., Hanson, A.M., and Hackett, O.M., 1953, Field Trip no. 1, Stratigraphy and structure in the Three Forks area, in Blake, O.M., ed., Guidebook of field excursions: Geological Society of America, Rocky Mountain section, 6th Annual Conference Guidebook, p. 19–30. Bole, G.R., 1962, The geology of part of the Manhattan quadrangle, Gallatin County, Montana: University of California, M.A. thesis, 82 p. Bonnet, A.T., 1979, Lithostratigraphy and depositional setting of the limestone-rich interval of the LaHood Formation (Belt Supergroup), southwestern Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 87 p. 21 Boyce, R., 1975, Depositional systems in the LaHood Formation, Belt Supergroup, Precambrian, southwest Montana: Austin, University of Texas, Ph.D. dissertation, 247 p. Boyd, W.D., 1968, Simulation via time-partitioned linear programming: a ground and surface water allocation model for the Gallatin Valley of Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 217 p. Brunsvold, L.D., 1989, A seismic reflection study of the Jefferson Basin, southwest Montana: Butte, Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology*, M.S. thesis, 45 p. Brustkern, R.L., 1977, The impact of land use change on the groundwater resources of the Bozeman, Montana area: Montana State University Joint Water Resources Center Report 88, 35 p. Burfiend, W.J., 1967, A gravity investigation of the Tobacco Root Mountains, Jefferson basin, Boulder Batholith, and adjacent areas of southwestern Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation, 146 p. Burton, B.R., Lageson, D.R., Schmidt, C.J., Ballard, D.W., and Warne, J.R., 1993, Large-magnitude shortening of the Lombard thrust system, Helena salient, Montana fold and thrust belt: implications for emplacement of the Boulder Batholith and reconstruction of the Belt Basin, in Berg, R.B., ed., Belt Symposium III: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 112, p. 229–243. Capozza, F.C., 1967, The geology of the Bone Basin and Perry Canyon intrusions, Madison County: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.A. thesis, 48 p. Carl, J.D., 1970, Block faulting and development of drainage, northern Madison Mountains, Montana: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 81, p. 2287–2298. Chadwick, R.A., 1981, Geologic Road Log—Livingston to Three Forks, in Tucker, T.E., ed., Southwest Montana: Montana Geological Society Field Conference and Symposium Guidebook, p. 380–387. Chadwick, R.A., 1969, The northern Gallatin Range, Montana: northwestern part of the Absaroka-Gallatin volcanic field: University of Wyoming Contributions to Geology, v. 8, p. 150–166. Christiansen, J.H., 1970, Gravity, magnetic, and electrical resistivity investigation of selected fault and stratigraphic contacts in southern Jefferson County and northern Madison County, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.A. thesis, 63 p. Clabaugh, S.E., 1952, Corundum deposits of Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 983, 100 p. Clabaugh, S.E., and Armstrong, F.C., 1950, Corundum deposits of Gallatin and Madison Counties, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 969-B, p. 29–53. Cooley, J.T., 1993, Fluvial systems of the upper Jurassic Morrison Formation, northern Beartooth and Gallatin Ranges, southwest Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 55 p. Condit, D.D., 1919, Oil shale in western Montana, southeastern Idaho, and adjacent parts of Wyoming and Utah, in White, David, and Ashley, G.H., Contributions to economic geology: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 711, p. 15–40. [includes information for Bozeman 30’x60’ quadrangle] Cordua, W.J., 1973, Precambrian geology of the southern Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation, 147 p. Craiglow, C.J., 1986, Tectonic significance of the Pass fault, central Bridger Range, southwest Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 37 p. Cressman, E.R., 1955, Physical stratigraphy of the Phosphoria Formation in part of southwestern Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1027-A, p. 1–31. Cressman, E.R., and Swanson, R.W., 1960, Permian rocks in the Madison, Gravelly, and Centennial Ranges, Montana: in Campau, D.E., and Anisgard, H.W., eds, West Yellowstone—Earthquake area: Billings Geological Society 11th Annual Field Conference Guidebook, p. 226–232. Cressman, E.R., 1964, Stratigraphy and petrology of the Permian rocks of southwestern Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 313-C, p. 275–569. 22 Congdon, C., 1935, The general geology of the Cardwell Mining District: Butte, Montana School of Mines*, B.S. thesis, 11 p. Cowen, M.T., 1958, The petrography of volcanic rocks of the Jefferson Island quadrangle, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.A. thesis, 57 p. Custer, S.G., 1995a, A walking tour of the geology of the southeastern Gallatin Valley, in Self-Guided Field Trips Near Bozeman: 47th Annual Meeting Rocky Mountain Section of the Geological Society of America, Guidebook, p. 1–10. Custer, S.G., 1995b, Paleozoic and Mesozoic stratigraphy of the Bridger Range, in Self-Guided Field Trips Near Bozeman: 47th Annual Meeting Rocky Mountain Section of the Geological Society of America, Guidebook, p. 35–48. Davis, W.E., Kinoshita, W.T., and Smedes, H.W., 1963, Bouguer gravity, aeromagnetic and generalized geologic map of the western part of the Three Forks Basin, Jefferson, Broadwater, Madison, and Gallatin Counties, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Geophysical Investigation Map GP-498, scale 1:62,500. Davis, W.E., Kinoshita, W.T., and Robinson, G.D., 1965, Bouguer gravity, aeromagnetic, and generalized geologic map of the eastern part of the Three Forks Basin, Broadwater, Madison, and Gallatin Counties, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Geophysical Investigations Map GP-497, scale 1:62,500. DeWitt, E., Foord, E.E., Pearson, R.C., and Foster, F., 1996, Chronology of Late Cretaceous igneous and hydrothermal events at the Golden Sunlight gold-silver breccia pipe, southwestern Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2155, 48 p. Dixon, R.M., 1998, Bedrock geology of the Elkhorn Mountains Volcanics in the southern Bull Mountain area, Jefferson County, Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report MBMG 374, scale 1:24,000. Donohue, D.A., 1989, Paleochannel aquifer potential at Montana State University—a test of hypotheses: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 94 p. Dorobek, S.L., and Smith, T.M., 1989, Cyclic sedimentation and dolomitization history of the Devonian Jefferson Formation, southwestern Montana: in French, D.E. and Grabb, R.F., eds., Geologic Resources of Montana: Montana Geological Society Field Conference Guidebook: Montana Centennial Edition, p. 31–46. Dorf, E. and Lochman, C., 1940, Upper Cambrian formations in southern Montana: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 51, p. 541–556. Dorr, J.A., 1954, Hypsoparia bozemanensis, a new genus and species of leptarctine mustelid from the late Miocene Madison Valley formation of Montana: Carnegie Museum Annals, v. 33, p. 179–184. Dorr, J.A., 1956, Anceney local mammal fauna, latest Miocene, Madison Valley formation, Montana: Journal of Paleontology, v. 30, p. 62–74. Douglass, E., 1899, Neocene lake beds of western Montana and descriptions of some new vertebrates from the Loup Fork: Missoula, University of Montana, M.S. thesis, 27 p. Douglass, E., 1901, Fossil Mammalia of the White River beds of Montana: American Philosophical Society Transactions, v. 21, p. 227–279. Douglass, E., 1903, New vertebrates from the Montana Tertiary: Carnegie Museum Annals, v. 2, p. 145–199. Douglass, E., 1907, Merycochoerus and a new genus of Merycoidodonts with some notes on other Agriochoeridae: Carnegie Museum Annals, v. 4, p. 84–98. Douglass, E., 1908, Rhinoceroses from the Oligocene and Miocene deposits of North Dakota and Montana: Carnegie Museum Annals, v. 4, p. 256–266. Douglass, E., 1909a, A description of a new species of Procamelus from the upper Miocene of Montana with notes upon Procamelus madisonius Douglass: Carnegie Museum Annals, v. 5, p. 159–165. Douglass, E., 1909b, Dromomeryx, a new genus of American ruminants: Carnegie Museum Annals, v. 5, p. 457–479. Dresser, H., 1996, A stereo picture guide to some of Montana’s thrust faults: Montana Tech, Butte, Montana, 76 p. Dresser, H., 1996, Faults, fans, and pediments of southwestern Montana: A stereo picture guide: Montana Tech, Butte, Montana, 57 p. 23 Dull, K., 1994, A gravity study of the North Boulder Basin in southwestern Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.S. thesis, 145 p. Dyman, T.S., Tysdal, R.G., Porter, K.W., and Thompson, G.A., 1996, Measured sections and correlations of mid-Cretaceous rocks near the Lombard Thrust of the Helena Salient in southwestern Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 95-841, 6 p. Eckerty, D.G., 1968, The geology of the Elkhorn Mountains Volcanics in southern Jefferson and northern Madison Counties, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.S. thesis, 180 p. Elliott, W.S., 1998a, Geologic map of the Harrison 7.5-minute quadrangle, Madison County, Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report MBMG 375, Part 1, scale 1:24,000. Elliott, W.S., 1998b, Geologic map of the Maltbys Mound 7.5-minute quadrangle, Madison, County, Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report MBMG 375, Part 2, scale 1:24,000. Elliott, W.S., 1998c, Tectono-stratigraphic control of Quaternary and Tertiary sediments and structure along the northeast flank of the Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.S. thesis, 113 p. Feichtinger, S.H., 1970, Geology of a portion of the Norris quadrangle, Madison and Gallatin Counties, Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 89 p. Fields, R.W., Tabrum, A.R., Rasmussen, D.L., and Nichols, R., 1985, Cenozoic rocks of the intermontane basins of western Montana and eastern Idaho: A summary, in Flores, R.M., and Kaplan, S.S., eds., Cenozoic Paleogeography of West- Central United States: Rocky Mountain Paleogeography Symposium 3, Rocky Mountain Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, p. 9–36. Fields, R.W., and Petkewick, R.M., 1967, Tertiary stratigraphy and geologic history of the upper Jefferson, Ruby, lower Beaverhead, and lower Big Hole Valleys, in Centennial Basin of southwestern Montana: Billings Geological Society 18th Annual Field Conference Guidebook, p. 71–78. Fix, P.F., 1940, Structure of Gallatin Valley, Montana: Boulder, University of Colorado, Ph.D. dissertation, 68 p. Foster, F., 1991, Geology and general overview of the Golden Sunlight Mine, Jefferson County, Montana, in Mineral Deposits of Montana: The Association of Exploration Geochemists, 15th International Geochemical Exploration, Symposium, Field Trip Guidebook, p. 26–36. Foster, F. and Chadwick, T., 1999, Some observations regarding formation, correlations, and regional paleogeography of the southern Helena Embayment, in Berg, R.B., ed., Belt Symposium III Abstracts, 1993: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report MBMG 381, p. 20–22. Foster, F., and Chadwick, T., 1990, Relationship of the Golden Sunlight Mine to the Great Falls Tectonic Zone, in Moye, F.J., ed., Geology and ore deposits of the Trans-Challis Fault System/Great Falls Tectonic Zone: Tobacco Root Geological Society, 15th Annual Field Conference Guidebook, p. 77–81. Foster, F., Chadwick, T., and Nilsen, T.H., 1999, Paleodepositional setting and synsedimentary mineralization in Belt Supergroup rocks of the Whitehall, Montana area, in Berg, R. B., ed., Belt Symposium III Abstracts, 1993: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report MBMG 381, p. 23–25. Foster, F., Cox, B., and Chadwick, T., 1993, Field Trip—Economic, environmental and “socioeconomic” geology of the Whitehall Valley, southwestern Montana, in Childs, J.F., and Lageson, D.R., eds., Economic and Regional Geology of the Tobacco Root-Boulder Batholith region, Montana: Tobacco Root Geological Society, 18th Annual Field Conference, Northwest Geology, v. 22, p. 79–102. Foster, F., and Smith, T., 1995, A summary of the geology and environmental programs at the Golden Sunlight Mine, Whitehall, Montana, in Mogk, D.W., ed., Field Guide to Geologic Excursions in southwest Montana: Geological Society of America, Rocky Mountain Section, Northwest Geology, v. 24, p. 77–83. Fountain, D.M., and Desmarais, N.R., 1980, The Wabowden Terrane of Manitoba and the Pre-Belt basement of southwestern Montana: a comparison: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 82, p. 35–46. 24 Fryxell, J.C., and Smith, D.L., 1986, Paleotectonic implications of arkose beds in Park Shale (Middle Cambrian), Bridger Range, south-central Montana, in Peterson, J.A., ed., Paleotectonics and sedimentation in the Rocky Mountain region, United States: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 41, p. 159–171. Gardner, L.S., 1959, Revision of Big Snowy Group in central Montana: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 43, p. 329–349. Garihan, J.M., Schmidt, C.J., Young, S.Y., and William, M.A., 1983, Geology and recurrent movement history of the Bismark- Spanish Peaks-Gardiner fault system, southwest Montana, in J.D. Lowell, ed., Rocky Mountain Foreland Basins and Uplifts: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 295–314. Gary, S.D., 1980, Quaternary geology and geophysics of the upper Madison valley, Madison County, Montana: Missoula, University of Montana, M.S. thesis, 61 p. Gehman, C., 1997, Interpretation of a Tertiary-fill basin in southwestern Montana through the use of geophysical techniques, in Proceedings: Tenth Keck Research Symposium in Geology, The College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, p. 298–301. Gillmeister, N.M., 1971, Petrology of Precambrian rocks in the central Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana: Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard, Ph.D. dissertation , 201 p. Gillmeister, N.M., 1972, Cherry Creek-Pony Group relationship in the central Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana: Northwest Geology, v. 1, p. 21–24. Glaman, L.R.B., 1991, The geology of Negro Hollow, Jefferson County, Montana: Butte, Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology*, M.S. thesis, 69 p. Glancy, P.S., 1964, Cenozoic geology of the southeastern part of the Gallatin Valley, Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 66 p. Graham, S.A., and Suttner, L.J., 1974, Occurrence of Cambrian islands in southwest Montana: The Mountain Geologist, v. 11, no. 2, p. 71–84. Grant, R.E., 1965, Faunas and stratigraphy of the Snowy Range Formation in southwestern Montana and northwestern Wyoming: Geological Society of America Memoir 96, 171 p. Griffith, E.F., 1982, Environmental geology of the southwest margin of the Gallatin Valley, Gallatin County, Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 106 p. Guthrie, G.A., 1984, Stratigraphy and depositional environment of the Upper Mississippian Big Snowy Group in the Bridger Range, southwest Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 105 p. Gutschick, R.C., Suttner, L.J., and Switek, M.J., 1962, Biostratigraphy of transitional Devonian-Mississippian Sappington Formation of southwest Montana, in Devonian System of Montana: Billings Geological Society 13th Annual Field Conference, p. 79–89. Hackett, O.M., Visher, F.N., McMurtrey, R.G., and Steinhilber, W.L., 1960, Geology and ground-water resources of the Gallatin Valley, Gallatin County, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1482, 28 p. Hall, R.D., and Heiney, J.S., 1983, Glacial and postglacial physical stratigraphy and chronology, North Willow Creek and Cataract Creek drainage basins, eastern Tobacco Root Range, southwestern Montana, U.S.A.: Arctic and Alpine Research, v. 15, p. 19–52. Hall, R.D., and Michaud, D., 1988, The use of hornblende etching, clast weathering, and soils to date alpine glacial and periglacial deposits: A study from southwestern Montana: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 100, p. 458– 467. Hallock, A.R., 1955, The geology of a portion of the Horseshoe Hills: Butte, Montana School of Mines*, M.S. thesis, 69 p. Hamilton, T.S., 1974, The petrology of the North Doherty mafic sill, Jefferson County, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.A. thesis, 117 p. Hanley, T.B., 1976, Stratigraphy and structure of the central fault block, northwestern Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana, in Lankston, M.M., ed., Tobacco Root Geological Society, Field Conference Guidebook: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 73, p. 7–14. 25 Hanley, T.B., 1975, Structure and petrology of northwestern Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation, 206 p. Hanneman, D.L., and Wideman, C.J., 1991, Sequence stratigraphy of Cenozoic continental rocks, southwestern Montana: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 103, p. 1335-1345. Hanson, A.M., 1952, Cambrian stratigraphy in southwestern Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Memoir 33, 46 p. Harlan, S.S., Snee, L.W., and Geissman, J.W., 1990, Paleomagnetic and 40Ar/ 39Ar results from mafic dikes and basement rocks, southwest Montana: EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 71, p. 1297. Harrison, J.E., Griggs, A.B., and Wells, J.D., 1974, Tectonic features of the Precambrian Belt Basin and their influence on post- Belt structures: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 866, 15 p. Hawley, D., Bonnet-Nicolaysen, A., and Coppinger, W., 1982, Stratigraphy, depositional environments, and paleotectonics of the LaHood Formation, in Smith, D.L., ed., Field Trip Guidebook, Rocky Mountain Section, Geological Society of America, 35th Annual meeting, 20 p. Hawley, D., and Schmidt, C., 1976, Some aspects of the LaHood Formation and structure in the Jefferson Canyon area, in Lankston, M.M., ed., Tobacco Root Geological Society, Field Conference Guidebook: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 73, p. 151–165. Hay, J.E., 1997, An investigation of groundwater recharge along the western flank of the southern Bridger Range: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 129 p. Haynes, W.P., 1916, The Lombard overthrust and related geological features: Journal of Geology, v. 24, p. 269–290. Hendrix, T.E., and Stellavato, N., 1976, Pervasive deformation of the Meagher oölitic limestone, North Boulder Valley, Montana, in Lankston, M.M., ed., Tobacco Root Geological Society, Field Conference Guidebook: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 73, p. 131–139. Hess, D.F., 1976, Road log and field guide—geology of Norris-McAllister area, in Lankston, M.M., ed., Tobacco Root Geological Society, Field Conference Guidebook: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 73, p. 131–90. Hewitt, C., and Olson, H.D., 1951, Geology of a postulated volcanic vent northeast of Whitehall, Montana: Butte, Montana School of Mines*, B.S. thesis, 22 p. Hill, C.L., 2001a, Late Pliocene and Pleistocene geology and paleontology in the Three Rivers Basin, Montana, in Nichols, R., ed., Cenozoic vertebrate paleontology and geology of southwestern Montana and adjacent areas, in Hill, C.L., ed., Mesozoic and Cenozoic paleontology in the western plains and Rocky Mountains: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 61st annual field trip guidebook, Museum of the Rockies Occasional Paper no. 3, p. 113–125. Hill, C.L., 2001b, Pleistocene mammals of Montana and their geologic context, in Nichols, R., ed., Cenozoic vertebrate paleontology and geology of southwestern Montana and adjacent areas, in Hill, C.L., ed., Mesozoic and Cenozoic paleontology in the western plains and Rocky Mountains: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 61st annual field trip guidebook, Museum of the Rockies Occasional Paper no. 3, p. 127–144. Hill, T.P., Werner, M.A., and Horton, M.J., 1967, Chemical composition of sedimentary rocks in Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 561, 241 p. [includes data from Bozeman 30’ x 60’ quadrangle] Hoh, A.M., 1997, Gravity survey of a Cenozoic basin in Madison County, Montana: in Proceedings: Tenth Keck Research Symposium in Geology: The College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, p. 306–309. Holland, F.D., Jr., 1952, Stratigraphic details of Lower Mississippian rocks of northeastern Utah and southwestern Montana: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 36, no. 9, p. 1697–1734. Hughes, G.C., 1980, Tertiary stratigraphy and depositional history of the Dry Creek Valley, Gallatin County, Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 147 p. Hughes, G.C., 1981, Tertiary stratigraphy and depositional history of the Cry [sic] Creek Valley, Montana, in Tucker, T.E., ed., Southwest Montana: Montana Geological Society, Field Conference and Symposium Guidebook, p. 111–119. 26 Immega, I.P., and Klein, C., Jr., 1975, Mineralogy and petrology of some metamorphic Precambrian iron-formations in southwestern Montana: American Mineralogist, v. 61, p. 1117–1144. James, H.L., and Hedge, C.E., 1980, Age of the basement rocks of southwest Montana: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 91, p. 11–15. James, W.C., 1977, Origin of nonmarine-marine transitional strata at the top of the Kootenai Formation, southwestern Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation, 433 p. Johns, W.M., Straw, T., Bergantino, R.N., Dresser, H.W., Hendrix, T.E., McClernan, H.G., Palmquist, J.C., and Schmidt, C.J., 1982, Neotectonic features of southern Montana east of 112030’ west longitude: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report MBMG 91, 79 p., 2 pls. Johns, W.M., 1961, Geology and ore deposits of the southern Tidal Wave mining district, Madison County, Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 24, 53 p. Johns, W.M., 1951, Description and geology of the Milligan Canyon area and the South Boulder section: Butte, Montana School of Mines*, B.S. thesis, 22 p. Johns, W.M., Berg R.B., and Dresser, H.W., 1981, Road Log—Three Forks to Twin Bridges via U.S. Highways 10 and 287 and State Highway 287, in Tucker, T.E., ed., Southwest Montana: Montana Geological Society, Field Conference and Symposium Guidebook, p. 388–391. Jones, N.A., 1949, The Livingston Formation of the South Boulder area: Butte, Montana School of Mines*, B.S. thesis, 16 p. Kavanagh, J., 1965, A study of selected igneous bodies of the Norris-Red Bluff area, Madison County, Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 60 p. Kellogg, K.S., 1994, Geologic map of the Norris quadrangle, Madison County, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-1738, scale 1:24,000. Kellogg, K.S., 1995, Geologic map of the Beartrap Creek quadrangle, Madison County, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map-1757, scale 1:24,000. Kellogg, K.S., Schmidt, C.J., and Young, S.W., 1995, Basement and cover-rock deformation during Laramide contraction in the northern Madison Range (Montana) and its influence on Cenozoic basin formation: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 79, n. 8, p. 1117–1137. Kellogg, K.S., and Vuke, S.M., 1996, Geologic map of the Willow Creek Reservoir and Norris NE quadrangles, Gallatin and Madison Counties, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 96-012, scale 1:24,000. Kellogg, K.S., and Williams, V.S., 2000, Geologic map of the Ennis 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, Madison and Gallatin Counties, Montana, and Park County, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Investigations Map I-2690, scale 1:100,000. Kendall, T.K., Miller, D.R., and Woodward, L.A., 1993, Field Trip—Mineral Hill Mining District Road Log, in Childs, J.F., and Lageson, D.R., eds., Economic and Regional Geology of the Tobacco Root-Boulder Batholith region, Montana: Tobacco Root Geological Society, 18th Annual Field Conference, Northwest Geology, v. 22, p. 119–129. Kinley, T.M., 1987, The occurrence and timing of gold mineralization at the Red Pine mine, western Tobacco Root Mountains, southwestern Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 129 p. Kittel, D.F., 1950, Basic sills in Cottonwood Creek Canyon, Jefferson County, Montana: Butte, Montana School of Mines*, B.S. thesis, 21 p.. Klemme, H.D., 1949, The geology of Sixteen Mile Creek area, Montana: Princeton, N.J., Princeton University, Ph.D. dissertation, 197 p. Klepper, M.R., Weeks, R.Z., and Ruppel, E.T., 1957, Geology of the southern Elkhorn Mountains, Jefferson and Broadwater Counties, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 292, 82 p. Koehler, S., 1976, Petrology of the diabase dikes of the Tobacco Root Mountains, Montana, in Lankston, M.M., ed., Tobacco Root Geological Society, Field Conference Guidebook: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 73, p. 27–35. 27 Kolodziejski, K.D., 1997, Gravity and seismic refraction survey of the contact between Cenozoic deposits and Archean bedrock in the Willow Creek watershed, Madison County, Montana, in Proceedings: Tenth Keck Research Symposium in Geology Proceedings, p. 310–313. Kozak, S.J., 1961, Structural geology of the Cherry Creek basin area, Madison County, Montana: Iowa City, Iowa University, Ph.D. dissertation, 136 p. Kulik, D.M., and Schmidt, C.J., 1988, Region of overlap and styles of interaction of cordilleran thrust belt and Rocky Mountain foreland, in Schmidt, C.J., and Perry, W.J., Interaction of the Rocky Mountain Foreland and the Cordilleran Thrust Belt: Geological Society of America Memoir 171, p. 75–98. Kuenzi, W.D., 1966, Tertiary stratigraphy in the Jefferson River Basin, Montana: Missoula, University of Montana, Ph.D. dissertation, 293 p. Kuenzi, W.D., and Fields, R.W., 1971, Tertiary stratigraphy, structure, and geologic history, Jefferson Basin, Montana: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 82, p. 3373–3394. Kuenzi, W.D., and Richard, B.H., 1969, Middle Tertiary unconformity, North Boulder and Jefferson Basins, southwest Montana: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 80, p. 315. Lageson, D.R., 1992, Structural analysis of the Horseshoe Hills transverse fold-thrust zone, Gallatin County, Montana: a preliminary report, in Elliott, J.E., ed., Guidebook for the Red Lodge-Beartooth Mountains-Stillwater Area: Tobacco Root Geological Society 17th Annual Field Conference Guidebook, Northwest Geology, v. 20/21, p. 117–124. Lageson, D.R., 1989, Reactivation of a Proterozoic continental margin, Bridger Range, southwestern Montana, in French, D.E., and Grabb, R.F., eds., Geological Resources of Montana, volume I: Montana Geological Society Field Conference Guidebook, Centennial Edition, p. 279–298. Lageson, D.R., and Montagne, J., 1981, Geologic road log—Dillon to Three Forks, Montana, in Tucker, T.E., ed., Southwest Montana: Montana Geological Society Field Conference and Symposium Guidebook, p. 399–406. Lageson, D.R., Schmidt, C.J., Dresser, H.W., Welker, M., Berg, R.B., and James, H.L., 1983, Road Log—Helena to Bozeman via MacDonald Pass, Garrison, Deer Lodge, Butte, Homestake Pass, Jefferson Canyon, and Three Forks, in Smith, D.L., ed., Guidebook of the Fold and Thrust Belt, west-central Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 86, p. 33–82. Lamberton, H.M., III, 1948, Structure and stratigraphy near Whitehall, Montana: Princeton, Princeton University, B.S. thesis, 83 p. Lange, I.M., Fields, R.W., Fountain, D.M., Moore, J.N., Qamar, A.I., Silverman, A.J., Thompson, G.R., Chadwick, R.A., Custer, S.G., and Smith, D.L., 1980, Uranium resource evaluation, Bozeman quadrangle, Montana: U.S. Dept. of Energy, Grand Junction, Colorado. Lillegraven, J.A., and Tabrum, A.R., 1983, A new species of Centetodon (Mammalia, Insectivora, Geolabididae) from southwestern Montana and its biogeographical implications: Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, v. 22, no. 1, p. 57–73. Lillis, H.E., 1942, Geologic field mapping eight miles north of Three Forks, Montana: Butte, Montana School of Mines*, B.S. thesis, 14 p. Lindquist, A., 1966, Structure and mineralization of the Whitehall mining district, Jefferson County, Montana: Butte, Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology*, M.S. thesis, 104 p. Lofgren, D.L., 1983, Tertiary vertebrate paleontology, stratigraphy, and structure, North Boulder River Basin, Jefferson County, Montana: Missoula, University of Montana, M.S. thesis, 113 p. Lonn, J., 1993, Phanerozoic mineralization in the Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana: a review, in Childs, J.F., and Lageson, D.R., eds., Economic and Regional Geology of the Tobacco Root-Boulder Batholith region, Montana: 18th Annual Field Conference, Tobacco Root Geological Society, Northwest Geology, v. 22, p. 5–7. Lonn, J.D., and English, A.R., 2002, Preliminary geologic map of the eastern part of the Gallatin Valley, Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report MBMG 457, scale 1:48,000. 28 Ludman, A., 1965, Geology of the Doherty igneous complex, Jefferson County, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.A. thesis, 48 p. Marvin, R.F., 1952, Description and geologic history of selected areas in the vicinity of Gallatin Canyon, Gallatin County, Montana: Butte, Montana School of Mines*, M.S. thesis, 68 p. Maughan, E.K., and Roberts, A.E., 1967, Big Snowy and Amsden Groups and the Mississippian-Pennsylvanian boundary in Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 554-B, 27 p. May, K.A., 1985, Archean geology of a part of the northern Gallatin Range, southwest Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 91 p. McClane, M.J., 1971, Phanerozoic detrital rocks at the north end of the Tobacco Root Mountains, southwestern Montana: a vertical profile: Bloomington, Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation, 253 p. McMannis, W.J., 1952, Geology of the Bridger Range: Princeton, N.J., Princeton University, Ph.D. Dissertation, 172 p. McMannis, W.J., 1955, Geology of the Bridger Range, Montana: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 66, p. 1385–1430. McMannis, W.J., 1960, Exit geologic road log: Ennis to Bozeman: in Campau, D.E. and Anisgard, H.W., eds, West Yellowstone—Earthquake area: Billings Geological Society 11th Annual Field Conference Guidebook, p. 312–313. McMannis, W.J., 1962, Devonian stratigraphy between Three Forks, Montana and Yellowstone Park, in Billings Geological Society Guidebook, 13th Annual field Conference, p. 4–12. McMannis, W.J., 1963, LaHood Formation—a coarse facies of the Belt Series in southwestern Montana: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 74, p. 407–436. McMannis, W.J., 1965, Resumé of depositional and structural history of western Montana: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 49, n. 11, p. 1802–1823. McNamee, R.C., 1938, Study and correlation of Belt and Cambrian arkoses near Limespur, Montana: Butte, Montana School of Mines*, B.S. thesis, 14 p. McThenia, A.W., Jr., 1960, Geology of the Madison River Canyon area north of Ennis, Montana: in Campau, D.E., and Anisgard, H.W., eds., West Yellowstone—earthquake area: Billings Geological Society, 11th Annual Field Conference Guidebook, p. 155–164. Meyers, J.H., 1980, Tidal-flat carbonates of the Maywood Formation (Frasnian) and the Cambrian-Devonian unconformity, southwestern Montana, in Fouch, T.D., and Magathan, E.R., eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography of the west-central United States, Rocky Mountain Paleogeography Symposium 1: Rocky Mountain Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, p. 39–54. Meyers, J.H., 1981, Carbonate sedimentation in the Ellis Group (Jurassic) on the southern flank of Belt Island, southwestern Montana: in Tucker, T.E., ed., Southwest Montana: Montana Geological Society, Field Conference and Symposium Guidebook, p. 83–91. Mifflin, M.D., 1963, Geology of a part of the southern margin of the Gallatin Valley, southwestern Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 111 p. Miller, E.W.B., 1987, Laramide basement deformation in the northern Gallatin Range and southern Bridger Range, southwest Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 78 p. Miller, E.W, and Lageson, D.R., 1993, Influence of basement foliation attitude on geometry of Laramide basement deformation, southern Bridger Range and northern Gallatin Range, Montana: Geological Society of America Special Paper 280, p. 73–88. Mitchell, M.M., 1987, Geometric and mesofabric analysis of the Hossfeldt Anticline-Eustis Syncline and the Lombard thrust zone near Three Forks, southwestern Montana: Knoxville, University of Tennessee, M.S. thesis, 160 p. Mitchell, M.M., and Woodward, N.B., 1988, Kink detachment fold in the southwest Montana fold and thrust belt: Geology, v. 16, p. 162–165. 29 Mogk, D.W., and Hanry, D.J., 1988, Metamorphic petrology of the northern Archean Wyoming province, southwestern Montana: evidence for Archean collisional tectonics, in Ernst, W.G., ed., Metamorphism and crustal evolution of the western United States (Rubey Volume VII): Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, p. 362–382. Montagne, J.M., and Chadwick, R.A., 1976, Road log from Bozeman to Specimen Creek via Gallatin Canyon and U.S. 191, in Lankston, M.M., ed., Tobacco Root Geological Society, Field Conference Guidebook: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 73, p. 38–52. de la Montagne, J., 1960, Geomorphic problems in the Madison Valley, Madison County, Montana: an introduction and synthesis, in Campau, D.E., and Anisgard, H. W., West Yellowstone—Earthquake area: Billings Geological Society 11th Annual Field Conference Guidebook, p. 165–169. de la Montagne, J., and six others, 1960, Preliminary geomorphic map of the Madison Valley, Montana (showing Recent tectonic features), in Campau, D.E., and Anisgard, H.W., West Yellowstone—earthquake area: Billings Geological Society, 11th Annual Field Conference Guidebook, Plate 1 Moore, B.K., 1984, Controls on ground-water availability and quality in the Bridger Canyon area: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 187 p. Moore, G.T., 1954, Intrusions in the Middle Cambrian formations, Cottonwood Canyon, Jefferson County, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.A. thesis, 45 p. Morgan, W.T., and Hall, R.D., 1982, Pediments in the North Boulder River Basin, southwestern Montana: American Quaternary Association program and Abstracts, University of Washington, Seattle, p. 143. Moritz, C.A., 1951, Triassic and Jurassic stratigraphy of southwestern Montana: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 35, p. 1781–1814. Mueller, P.A., Heatherington, A.L., D’Arcy, K.A., Wooden, J.L., and Nutman, A.P., 1996, Contrasts between Sm-Nd whole-rock and U-Pb zircon systematics in the Tobacco Root Batholith, Montana: implications for the determination of crustal age provinces: Tectonophysics, v. 265, p. 169–179. Neibaur, H., 1940, A geological report on an area five miles southeast of Renova, Montana, and on an area seven miles south of Jefferson Island, Montana: Butte, Montana School of Mines*, M.S. thesis, 25 p. Nelson, W.L., 1962, A seismic study of North Boulder Valley and other selected areas, Jefferson and Madison Counties, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.S. thesis, 32 p. Nichols, R., Tabrum, A.R., and Hill, C.L., 2001, Introduction: Cenozoic mammals, southwest Montana, in Nichols, R., ed., Cenozoic vertebrate paleontology and geology of southwestern Montana and adjacent areas, in Hill, C.L., ed., Mesozoic and Cenozoic paleontology in the western plains and Rocky Mountains: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 61st annual field trip guidebook, Museum of the Rockies Occasional Paper no. 3, p. 79–81. Nichols, T.L., 1989, Resistivity and seismic refraction exploration for ground water near Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana: Butte, Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology*, M.S. thesis, 104 p. O’Neill, J.M., 1993, The Great Falls tectonic zone, Montana-Idaho: an Early Proterozoic collisional orogen beneath and south of the Belt Basin, in Berg, R.B., ed., Belt Symposium III: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 112, p. 222–228. O’Neill, J.M., 1983, Geologic map of the Middle Mountain-Tobacco Root Roadless Area, Madison County, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Map MF-1590-A, scale 1:500,000. O’Neill, J.M., and Cather, E.E., 1984, Middle Mountain-Tobacco Root Roadless Area, Montana, in Marsh, S.P., Kropschot, S.J., and Dickinson, R.J., Wilderness mineral potential, assessment of mineral-resource potential in U.S. Forest Service lands studied 1964-1984, v. 2, p. 721–723. O’Neill, J.M., Schmidt, C.J., and Genovese, P.W., 1990, Dillon cutoff—basement-involved tectonic link between the disturbed belt of west-central Montana and the overthrust belt of extreme southwestern Montana: Geology, v. 18, p. 1107–1110. Orr, J.B., 1958, The Tertiary of western Montana, in 8th Annual Field Conference Guidebook: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, , p. 25–33. 30 Paine, M.H., 1970, A reconnaissance study of the gastropod limestone (Lower Cretaceous) in southwest Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.A. thesis, 124 p. Pardee, J.T., 1950, Late Cenozoic block faulting in western Montana: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 61, p. 356–406. Parker, J.S., 1961, A preliminary seismic investigation of Tertiary basin fill in the Jefferson Island quadrangle, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.S. thesis, 35 p. Paull, R.A., Paull, R.K., and Kraemer, B.R., 1989, Depositional environments of Lower Triassic rocks in southwestern Montana and adjacent parts of Wyoming and Idaho: in French, D.E., and Grabb, R.F., eds., Geologic Resources of Montana: Montana Geological Society, Field Conference Guidebook: Montana Centennial Edition, p. 69–90. . Peale, A.C., 1896, U.S. Geological Survey Atlas, Three Forks Folio, no. 24. Peale, A.C., and Merrill, G.P, 1893, The Paleozoic section in the vicinity of Three Forks, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 110, 56 p. Perry, E.S., 1950, Highlights of geology between Three Forks and Whitehall: Billings Geological Society, 1st Annual Field Conference Guidebook, p. 56–59. Peterson, J.A., 1972, Permian sedimentary facies, southwestern Montana, in Lynn, J., Balster, C., and Warne, J., eds., Crazy Mountains Basin: Montana Geological Society, 21st Annual Field Conference Guidebook, p. 69–74. Petricca, Ann M., 1985, Sedimentology and diagenesis of the interbedded carbonate and siliciclastic rocks of the Big Snowy, Amsden, and Quadrant Formations, Tobacco Root Mountains region, southwestern Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.S. thesis, 160 p. Peugh, S., 1997, Gravity and seismic refraction survey of Cenozoic deposits in the Willow Creek watershed and the region surrounding Harrison, southwest Montana, in Proceedings: Tenth Keck Research Symposium in Geology, Colorado Springs, The Colorado College, p. 318–321. Porter, E.W., and Ripley, E., 1985, Petrologic and stable isotope study of the gold-bearing breccia pipe at the Golden Sunlight deposit, Montana: Economic Geology, v. 80, p. 1689–1706. Precht, W.F., and Shepard, W.W., 1989, Waulsortian carbonate buildups of Mississippian age from Montana and relations to rifting, in French, D.E., and Grabb, R.F., eds., Geologic Resources of Montana: Montana Geological Society Field Conference Guidebook: Centennial Edition, p. 65–68. Rambosek, A.F., 1946, Geology and ore deposits of the Golden Sunlight mine and vicinity: Butte, Montana School of Mines, M.S. thesis, 28 p. Reid, R.R., 1957, Bedrock geology of the north end of the Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Memoir 36, 68 p. Reid, S.K., and Dorobek, S.L., 1989, Application of sequence stratigraphy in the Mississippian Mission Canyon Formation and stratigraphic equivalents, southwestern Montana and east-central Idaho, in French, D.E., and Grabb, R.F., eds., Geologic Resources of Montana: Montana Geological Society Field Conference Guidebook: Centennial Edition, p. 47–53. Reiter, F.H., 1962, The geology of a portion of the Manhattan quadrangle, the Horseshoe Hills area, Gallatin County, Montana: Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, M.S. thesis, 46 p. Reshkin, M., 1963, Geomorphic history of the Jefferson Basin, Jefferson, Madison, Silver Bow Counties, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation, 146 p. Reyner, M.L., 1947, Geology of the Tidal Wave district, Madison County, Montana: Butte, Montana School of Mines*, M.S. thesis, 27 p. Richard, B.H., 1966, Geologic history of the intermontane basins of the Jefferson Island quadrangle, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation, 121 p. Robinson, G.D., 1960, Middle Tertiary unconformity in southwestern Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 400- B, Article 101, p. B227–B228. 31 Robinson, G.D, 1961, Origin and development of the Three Forks basin, Montana: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 72, p. 1003–1014. Robinson, G.D., 1963, Geology of the Three Forks quadrangle, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 370, 143 p. Robinson, G.D., 1967, Geologic map of the Toston quadrangle, southwestern Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-486, scale 1:24,000. Robinson, G.D., Klepper, G.C., and Obradovich, J.D., 1968, Overlapping plutonism, volcanism, and tectonism in the Boulder Batholith region, western Montana, in Coats, R.R., Hay, R.L., and Anderson, C.A., eds., Studies in volcanology: Geological Society of America Memoir 116 p. 557–576. Robinson, G.D., and Marvin, R.F., 1967, Upper Cretaceous volcanic glass from western Montana: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 78, p. 601–608. Root, F., 1965, Structure, petrology and mineralogy of pre-Beltian metamorphic rocks of the Pony-Sappington area, Madison County, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation, 230 p. Roy, W.R., 1980, Glacial geology of the South Boulder Valley, Tobacco Root Range, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.S. thesis, 163 p. Roy, W.R., and Hall, R.D., 1981, Glacial geology of the South Boulder Valley, Tobacco Root Range, Montana: in Tucker, T.E., ed., Southwest Montana: Montana Geological Society Field Conference and Symposium Guidebook, p. 125–132. Ruppel, E.T., 1982, Cenozoic block uplifts in southwest Montana and east-central Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1224, 24 p. Ruppel, E.T., 1993, Cenozoic tectonic evolution of southwest Montana and east-central Idaho: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Memoir 65, 62 p. Rutland, C., 1985, Geochemistry of the Elkhorn Mountains Volcanics, southwestern Montana: East Lansing, Michigan State University, Ph.D. dissertation, 96 p. Sagar, J., and Childs, J., 1993, Field Trip—Maltby’s Mound, in Childs, J.F., and Lageson, D.R., eds., Economic and Regional Geology of the Tobacco Root-Boulder Batholith region, Montana: Tobacco Root Geological Society, 18th Annual Field Conference: Northwest Geology, v. 22, p. 103–116. Sahinen, U.M., 1939, Geology and ore deposits of the Rochester and adjacent mining districts, Madison County, Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Memoir 19, 53 p. Salt, K.J., 1987, Archean geology of the Spanish Peaks area, southwestern Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 81 p. Samuelson, K.J., and Schmidt, C.J., 1981, Structural geology of the western Tobacco Root Mountains, southwestern Montana, in Tucker, T.E., ed., Southwest Montana: Montana Geological Society, Field Conference and Symposium Guidebook, p. 191–199. Sandberg, C.A., 1962, Stratigraphic section of type Three Forks and Jefferson Formations at Logan, Montana, in Billings Geological Society Guidebook, 13th Annual Field Conference, p. 47–50. Sandberg, C.A., 1965, Nomenclature and correlation of lithologic subdivisions of the Jefferson and Three Forks Formations of southern Montana and northern Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 199, p. N1–N18. Sandberg, C.A., and McMannis, W.J., 1964, Occurrence and paleogeographic significance of the Maywood Formation of Late Devonian age in the Gallatin Range, southwestern Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 501-C, p. C50–C54. Sando, W.J., 1990, HUM Lithosome: An example of regional stratigraphic synthesis in the Mississippian of the Western Interior of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1881, p. E1–E17. Sando, W.J, and Dutro, J.T., Jr., 1960, Stratigraphy and coral zonation of the Madison Group and Brazer Dolomite in northeastern Utah, western Wyoming, and southwestern Montana, in Wyoming Geological Association 15th Annual Field Conference Guidebook, p. 117–126. 32 Sando, W.J., Sandberg, C.A., and Perry, W.J., Jr., 1985, Revision of Mississippian stratigraphy, northern Tendoy Mountains, southwest Montana, in Sando, W.J., ed., Mississippian and Pennsylvanian Stratigraphy in southwest Montana and adjacent Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1656, p. A1–A5. Saterdal, A., 1945, Vermiculite, occurrence, character, and concentration of mineralS from the Pony District, Madison County, Montana: Butte, Montana School of Mines*, B.S. thesis, 5 p. Sayers, F.E., 1962, The geology of a portion of the Manhattan quadrangle, the Horseshoe Hills area, Gallatin County, Montana: Santa Barbara, University of California, M.S. thesis, 61 p. Schmidt, C.J., 1975, An analysis of folding and faulting in the northern Tobacco Root Mountains, southwest Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation, 480 p. Schmidt, C.J., 1976, Structural development of the Lewis and Clark Cavern State Park area, southwest Montana, in Lankson, M.M., ed., Tobacco Root Geological Society, Field Conference Guidebook: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 73, p. 141–150. Schmidt, C.J., 1979, Discussion of origin of west-directed thrusts on the east flank of the Negro Hollow syncline, Jefferson County, Montana, in Suttner, L.J., ed., Near Surface batholiths, related volcanism, tectonism, sedimentation, and mineral deposition: Geological Society of America, Granite II Penrose Conference Guidebook, p. 84–91. Schmidt, C.J., 1988, Comment and reply on “Kink detachment fold in the southwest Montana fold and thrust belt”: Geology, v. 16, p. 1052–1055. Schmidt, C.J., Aram, R., and Hawley, D., 1987, The Jefferson River Canyon area, southwestern Montana, in Beus, S., ed.: Geological Society of America, Centennial Field Guide-Rocky Mountain Section, p. 63–68. Schmidt, C.J., Evans, J.P., and Douglas, B., 1991, Pull apart origin for the Tobacco Root Batholith, southwestern Montana: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, Rocky Mountain Section, v. 23, no. 4, p. 90. Schmidt, C.J., and Garihan, J.M., 1983, Role of recurrent movement of northwest-trending basement faults in the tectonic evolution of southwestern Montana, in Lowell, J., ed., Rocky Mountain foreland basins and uplifts: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 271–294. Schmidt, C.J., and Garihan, J.M., 1986a, Middle Proterozoic and Laramide tectonic activity along the southern margin of the Belt Basin, in Roberts, S.M., ed., Belt Supergroup—A guide to Proterozoic rocks of western Montana and adjacent areas: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 94, p. 217–235. Schmidt, C.J., and Garihan, J.M., 1986b, Role of recurrent movement of northwest-trending basement faults in the tectonic evolution of southwestern Montana, in Alderich, M.J., and Laughlin, R., eds.: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Basement Tectonics, p. 1–15. Schmidt, C.J., and Geiger, B., 1985, Nature of deformation in foreland anticlines and impinging thrust belt: Tobacco Root and southern Highland Mountains, Montana: Tobacco Root Geological Society, 10th Annual Field Conference Guidebook, p. 41–65. Schmidt, C.J., Genovese, P., and Foster, F., 1989, Road Log—Structure and economic geology along the transverse thrust zone of southwestern Montana, in French, D.E., and Grabb, R.F., eds., Geologic Resources of Montana: Montana Geological Society Field Conference Guidebook: Centennial Edition, p. 482–501. Schmidt, C.J, and Hendrix, T.E., 1981, Tectonic controls for thrust Belt and Rocky Mountain foreland structures in the northern Tobacco Root Mountains–Jefferson Canyon area, southwestern Montana, in Tucker, T.E., ed., Southwest Montana: Montana Geological Society, Field Conference and Symposium Guidebook: p. 167–180. Schmidt, C.J., James, C., and Shearer, J., 1981, Estimate of displacement in major zone of tear-thrusting in fold and thrust belt, southwest Montana: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 65, p. 986–987. Schmidt, C.J., and O’Neill, J.M., 1982, Structural evolution of the Southwest Montana Transverse Zone, in Blake, R., ed., Geologic Studies of the Cordilleran Thrust Belt, v. 1: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologist, Field Guidebook v. 1, p. 193–218. 33 Schmidt, C.J., O’Neill, J.M., and Brandon, W.C., 1988, Influence of Rocky Mountain foreland uplifts on the development of the frontal fold and thrust belt, southwestern Montana, in Schmidt, C.J., and Perry, W.J., Jr., eds., Interaction of the Rocky Mountain foreland and the Cordilleran thrust belt: Geological Society of America Memoir 171, p. 171–201. Schmidt, C.J., Smedes, H.W., and O’Neill, J.M., 1990, Syncompressional emplacement of the Boulder and Tobacco Root Batholiths (Montana–USA) by pull-apart along old fault zones: Geological Journal, v. 25, p. 305–318. Schmitt, J.G., 1988, Sedimentation and tectonic setting of the middle Proterozoic LaHood Formation, Belt Supergroup, southwestern Montana, in Lewis, S.E., and Berg, R.B., eds., Precambrian and Mesozoic Plate Margins: Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 96, p. 89–96. Schmitt, J.G., Haley, J.C., Lageson, D.R., Horton, B.K., Azevedo, P.A., 1995, Sedimentology and tectonics of the Bannack- McKnight Canyon-Red Butte area, southwest Montana: new perspectives on the Beaverhead Group and Sevier Orogenic Belt, [includes road logs—Bozeman to Three Forks, and Three Forks to Whitehall], in Mogk, D.W., ed., Field Guide to Geologic Excursions in southwest Montana: Northwest Geology, v. 24, p. 245–313. Schneider, G.B., 1970, Cenozoic geology of the Madison Bluffs area, Gallatin County, Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 56 p. Scholten, R., and Hait, M.H., Jr., 1962, Devonian System from shelf edge to geosyncline, southwestern Montana-central Idaho, in Montana Geological Society 13th Annual Field Conference Guidebook, p 13–22. Schwartz, R.K., 1972, Stratigraphic and petrographic analysis of the Lower Cretaceous Blackleaf Formation, southwestern Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation, 268 p. Schwartz, R.K., 1982, Broken Early Cretaceous foreland basin in southwestern Montana: sedimentation related to tectonism, in Blake, R., ed., Geologic Studies of the Cordilleran Thrust Belt: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, Field Guidebook v. 1, p. 159–183. Skeels, D.C., 1939, Structural geology of the Trail Creek-Canyon Mountain area, Montana: Journal of Geology, v. 47, p. 816– 840. Skipp, B., Lageson, D.R., and McMannis, W.J., 1999, Geologic map of the Sedan quadrangle, Gallatin and Park Counties, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Investigation Map I-2634, version 2.0, scale 1:48,000. [adjacent to this map] Skipp, B., and Peterson, A.D., 1965, Geologic map of the Maudlow quadrangle, southwestern Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-452, scale 1:24, 000. [adjacent to Bozeman 30’x60’ quadrangle] Sloss, L.L., and Hamblin, R.H., 1942, Stratigraphy and insoluble residues of the Madison Group (Mississippian) of Montana: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, v. 26, p. 305–335. Sloss, L.L., and Laird, W.M., 1947, Devonian System in central and northwestern Montana: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 31, no. 8, p. 1404–1430. Sloss, L.L., and Moritz, C.A., 1951, Paleozoic stratigraphy of southwestern Montana: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 35, p. 2135–2169. Smedes, H.W., 1966, Geology and igneous petrology of the northern Elkhorn Mountains, Jefferson and Broadwater Counties, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 510, 116 p. Smith, D., Welker, M., and students, 1995, Driving tour of the geology of the southeastern Gallatin Valley, Bridger Range, and western margin of the Crazy Mountains Basin, in Self-Guided Field Trips Near Bozeman: Geological Society of America-Rocky Mountain Section, 47th Annual Meeting Guidebook, p. 12–34. Smith, J.L., 1970, Petrology, mineralogy, and chemistry of the Tobacco Root Batholith, Madison County, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, Ph.D. dissertation, 198 p. Spahn, R.A., Jr. 1967, Geology of the southwestern Horseshoe Hills area, Gallatin County, Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, 95 p. Spry, P.G., Paredes, M.M., Foster, F., Truckle, J., and Chadwick, T., 1996, A genetic link between gold-silver telluride and porphyry molybdenum mineralization at the Golden Sunlight deposit, Whitehall, Montana: Fluid inclusion and stable isotope studies: Economic Geology, v. 91, p. 507–526. 34 Spry, P.G., Foster, F., and Chadwick, T.H., 1997, The mineralogy of the Golden Sunlight gold-silver telluride deposit, Montana, USA: Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 59, p 143–164. Sonderegger, J.L., and Ohguchi, T., 1988, Irrigation related arsenic contamination of a thin, alluvial aquifer, Madison River Valley, Montana, U.S.A.: Springer Verlag, Environmental Geology and Water Science, v. 11, no. 2, p. 153–161. Stickney, M.C., 1997, Seismic source zones in southwest Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File Report MBMG 366, 51 p. Stickney, M.C., 1993, Seismicity of the Tobacco Root Mountains and surrounding region, Montana, in Childs, J.F. and Lageson, D.R., eds., Economic and Regional Geology of the Tobacco Root-Boulder Batholith region, Montana: Tobacco Root Geological Society, 18th Annual Field Conference, Northwest Geology, v. 22, p. 49–54. Stickney, M.C., and Bartholomew, M.J., 1987, Seismicity and Quaternary faulting of the northern Basin and Range province, Montana and Idaho: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 77, p. 1602–1625. Stickney, M.C., and Lageson, D.R., 1999, The Nov. 6, 1997 M 3.7 Belgrade, MT earthquake: Unusual aspects and their implications to regional seismicity: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 31, no. 4, p. A-57. Streeter, M.E., 1983, The geology of the southern Bull Mountain area, Jefferson County, Montana: Kalamazoo, Western Michigan University, M.S. thesis, 88 p. Suttner, L.J., 1968a, Clay minerals in the Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous Morrison and Kootenai Formations, southwestern Montana: Earth Science Bulletin, v. 1, p. 1–14. Suttner, L.J., 1968b, Stratigraphic and petrographic analysis of Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous Morrison and Kootenai Formations, southwest Montana: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 53, p. 1391–1410. Suttner, L.J., Schwartz, R.K., and James, W.C., 1981, Late Mesozoic to Early Cenozoic foreland sedimentation in southwest Montana, in Tucker, T.E., ed., Southwest Montana: Montana Geological Society, Field Conference and Symposium Guidebook, p. 93–103. Sutton, J.F., 1977, Mammals of the Anceney local fauna (Late Miocene) of Montana: Lubbock, Texas Tech University, Ph.D. dissertation, 241 p. Tabrum, A.R., and Nichols, R., 2001, Tertiary paleontology of southwest Montana and adjacent Idaho, in Nichols, R., ed., Cenozoic vertebrate paleontology and geology of southwestern Montana and adjacent areas, in Hill, C.L., ed., Mesozoic and Cenozoic paleontology in the western plains and Rocky Mountains: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 61st annual field trip guidebook, Museum of the Rockies Occasional Paper no. 3, p. 88–112. Talpt, Arthur, 1938, The Jefferson Canyon gypsum deposit: Butte, Montana School of Mines*, B.S. thesis, 22 p. Tansley, W., Schafer, P.A., and Hart, L.H., 1933, A geological reconnaissance of the Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Memoir 9, 57 p. Tendall, B.A., 1978, Mineralogy and petrology of Precambrian ultramafic bodies from the Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.S. thesis, 126 p. Thomas, R.C., 1995, Cambrian mass extinction (“biomere”) boundaries: a summary of thirty years of research, in Mogk, D.W., ed., Field guide to geologic excursions in southwest Montana: Rocky Mountain section, Geological Society of America Meeting, Northwest Geology, v. 24, p. 67–75. Thomas, W.A., Allen, J.L., Mars, J.C., McDowell, R.J., Azevedo, P.A., Buck, B.J., Corner, H.J., and Dodd, J.R., 1996, Willow Creek basement fault zone beneath the southwest Montana transverse zone: dormant during Cambrian-Devonian time: Mountain Geologist, v. 33, n. 4, p. 115–124. Thomas, W.A., 1990, Controls on locations of transverse zones in thrust belts: Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae, v. 83, p. 727–744. Thompson, G.R., Fields, R.W., and Alt, D., 1982, Land-based evidence for Tertiary climatic variations: northern Rockies: Geology, v. 10, p. 413–447. 35 Thompson, G.R., Fields, R.W., and Alt, D., 1981, Tertiary paleoclimates, sedimentation patterns, and uranium distribution in southwestern Montana: in Tucker, T.E., ed., Southwest Montana: Montana Geological Society, Field Conference and Symposium Guidebook, p. 105–109. Tilley, C.W., 1976, Geology of the Spanish Creek area, Madison and Gallatin Counties, Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University M.S. thesis, 111 p. Tuck, L.K., Dutton, D.M., and Nimick, D.A., 1997, Hydrologic and water-quality data related to the occurrence of arsenic for areas along the Madison and Upper Missouri Rivers, southwestern and west-central Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-203, 124 p. Tysdal, R.G., 1966, Geology of a part of the north end of the Gallatin Range, Gallatin County, Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 92 p. Tysdal, R.G., 1986, Thrust faults and back thrusts in the Madison Range of southwestern Montana foreland: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 70, p. 360–376. Tysdal, R.G., and Simons, F.S., 1985, Geologic map of the Madison roadless area, Gallatin and Madison Counties, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Map MF-1605-B, scale 1:96,000. Verrall, P., 1955, Geology of the Horseshoe Hills area, Montana: Princeton, Princeton University, Ph.D. dissertation, 371 p. Vitaliano, C.J., and Cordua W.S., 1979, Geologic map of the southern Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana: Geological Society of America Map and Chart Series MC-31, scale 1:62,500. Vitaliano, C.J., Kish, S.A., and Towell, D.G., 1976, K-Ar dates and Sr isotopic values for rocks of the Tobacco Root Batholith, southwestern Montana: Isochron/West, n. 28, p.13–15. Vuke, S.M., 2003, Geologic map of western and northern Gallatin Valley, southwestern Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 481, scale 1:100,000. Vuke, S.M., Berg, R. B., Lonn, J.D., and Kellogg, K.S., 1995, Preliminary geologic map of the Bozeman 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report MBMG 334, 1:100,000 scale. [superseded]. Wagner, S.L., 1963, Effect of Laramide folding on previously folded Precambrian metamorphic rocks, Madison County, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.S. thesis, 27 p. Wantland, D., 1951, Seismic investigations in connection with U.S. Geological Survey groundwater studies in the Gallatin River Valley, Montana: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Geology Report no. G-115, 8 p. Wardlaw, B.R., and Pecora, W.C., 1985, New Mississippian-Pennsylvanian stratigraphic units in southwest Montana and adjacent Idaho: U.S. Geological Society Bulletin 1656, p. B1–9. Warne, J.R., Sterne, E.J., and Thompson, G.G., 1997, Road Log—From Livingston to Helena via Bridger Range, Lombard Thrust, Jefferson Canyon, Devils Fence Anticline, and Gates of the Mountains marina, in Sterne, E.J. and Warne, J.R., eds., Thrust Systems of the Helena Salient-Montana Thrust Belt: Montana Geological Society and Tobacco Root Geological Society Joint Field Conference Guidebook p. 13–35. Weber, W.M., 1965, General geology and geomorphology of the Middle Creek area, Gallatin County, Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University M.S. thesis, 86 p. Werkema, M., Hendrix, T.E., and Schmidt, C., 1981, Analysis of the Sappington fault in the “J” structure, Jefferson County, Montana, in Tucker, T.E., ed., Southwest Montana: Montana Geological Society, Field Conference and Symposium Guidebook, p. 93–103. Werner, A.V., 1994, Sedimentology of alpine debris-flow and talus deposits in Sacajawea Cirque, Bridger Range, Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, M.S. thesis, 92 p. Wilson, A.B., and Elliott, J.E., 1977, Geologic map of the western and northern parts of the Gallatin National Forest, south- central Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Investigation Map I-2584, scale 1:126,270. Wilson, D.A., 1962, A seismic and gravity investigation of the North Boulder River and Jefferson River Valleys, Madison and Jefferson Counties, Montana: Bloomington, Indiana University, M.S. thesis, 43 p. 36 Wilson, M.C., and Davis, L.B., 1994, Late Quaternary stratigraphy, paleontology, and archaeology of the Sheep Rock Spring Site (24JF292), Jefferson County, Montana: Current Research in the Pleistocene, v. 11, p. 100–102. Wilson, T.L., 1948, Karst Kamp asbestos deposits, Gallatin County, Montana: Butte, Montana School of Mines*, B.S. thesis, 17 p. Winston, D., 1986, Middle Proterozoic tectonics of the Belt Basin, western Montana and northern Idaho, in Roberts, S.M., ed, Belt Supergroup: a guide to Proterozoic rocks of western Montana and adjacent areas: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 94, p. 245–257. Wood, H.E., Jr., 1933, A fossil rhinoceros (Diceratherium armatum) from Gallatin County, Montana: U.S. National Museum Proceedings, v. 82, p. 1–4. Wooden, J.L., Vitaliano, C.J., Koehler, S.W., and Ragland, P.C., 1978, The Late Precambrian mafic dikes of the southern Tobacco Root Mountains, Montana: Geochemistry, Rb-Sr geochronology, and relationship to Belt tectonics: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 15, p. 467–473. Woodward, L.A., 1983, Structural geology of the Helena salient: a synopsis, in Smith, D.L., Guidebook of the Fold and Thrust Belt, west-central Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 86, p. 883–82. Woodward, L.A., Miller, D.R., and Kendall, T.K., 1993, Geology and ore deposits of the Mineral Hill Mining District, Madison County, Montana, in Childs, J.F., and Lageson, D.R., eds., Economic and Regional Geology of the Tobacco Root- Boulder Batholith region, Montana: Tobacco Root Geological Society, 18th Annual Field Conference, Northwest Geology, v. 22, p. 9–17. Young, S.W., 1985, Structural history of the Jordan Creek area, northern Madison Range, Madison County, Montana: Austin, University of Texas, M.S. thesis, 112 p. Zen, E., 1977, Fault connections in southwestern Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1050, p. 66–67. Zietz, I., 1960, Configuration of the 10N Pluton, Three Forks, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 400-B, p. B229–230. *Current name: Montana Tech of the University of Montana Appendix E.3 Watershed Boundaries of Gallatin River and Tributaries Appendix E.4 Soils Map via Natural Resources Conservation Service 6RLO0DS²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²1RY7KHRUWKRSKRWRRURWKHUEDVHPDSRQZKLFKWKHVRLOOLQHVZHUHFRPSLOHGDQGGLJLWL]HGSUREDEO\GLIIHUVIURPWKHEDFNJURXQGLPDJHU\GLVSOD\HGRQWKHVHPDSV$VDUHVXOWVRPHPLQRUVKLIWLQJRIPDSXQLWERXQGDULHVPD\EHHYLGHQW6RLO0DS²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²*DOODWLQ&RXQW\$UHD0RQWDQD /RJDQ([SDQVLRQ 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV &RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH :HE6RLO6XUYH\ 1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\ 3DJHRI Appendix E.5 Water Well Logs Summary Table and Map Data from MBMG Database Montana Bureau of Mines and GeologyNatural Resources Building1300 West Park Street Butte, MT 59701Mapper Main| Proppant| Quakes| Swamp| WellsWelcomeWelcome to the online web mapping application of the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology.LayersBasemap Layers Basemaps Current Basemap:TopographicMap LayersGWIC WellsMBMG GWAAMONNetwork HUC BoundaryStreamsLegend/ToolsGeology: The geology portrayed in the mapper is the 1:500,000 scale geologic geodatabase maintained by the MBMG. Click hereto download a free copy of GM 62D, an information booklet that explains formation names and codes portrayed in the mapper. Note: The geologic map was originally drawn to match different base maps than those currently served on the MBMG mappers. Therefore disagreements between the geologic map and landforms will become apparent at scales larger than 1:500,000.Geology TransparencyGWIC WellsMBMG GWAAMONNetworkStreamBureau of Land Management, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, METI/N…+–0 0.5 1miLon: -111.439237 Lat: 45.874460 Scale: 1:72,224Page 1 of1MBMG Web MappingApplication12/31/2018http://data.mbmg.mtech.edu/mapper/mapper.asp?view=Wells&Illustrates the approximate location of Logan landfill and expansion area (for geographic reference).Approximate 1-mile boundary for MBMG well search around expansion area footprint (excludes the site characterization wells which are summarized in Table 1 of report).Note: the majority of the Logan well logs are mapped incorrectly from the MBMG database above. Refer to report figures for actual locations of on-site wells installed as part of site-characterization efforts and groundwater monitoring data. Appendix E.5Water Well Records from MBMG Database in Vicinity of Project AreaGWIC Record Name Location (T/R Section)Well Location Relative of Project Study AreaDateWell Depth (ft bgs)Type226792 Logan Landfill - Admin. Bldg T2N/R2E Section 36 Northwest 5/30/2006 116 Facility water supply9354 Logan Landfill - Old Shop T1N/R3E Section 6 Northwest 9/6/1984 118 Facility water supply9355 Logan Landfill - New Shop T1N/R3E Section 6 Northwest 12/12/2008 90 Facility water supply254945Montana Rail LinkT2N/R2E Section 36West2009258Domestic176957Victory RobertT1N/R2E Section 2West199918.5Domestic9289Western, T. & D.T1N/R2E Section 1West198580Stockwater199350Bosway HolstiensT1N/R3E Section 7South2002204Domestic199351Bosway HolstiensT1N/R3E Section 8South2002388Domestic9356Zimmerman, JoeT1N/R3E Section 7South1947135Domestic177250Worman, ClintT1N/R3E Section 35South199950Domestic9357Kelsey-Vallee RanchesT1N/R3E Section 7South1981460Unknown288804Miller, AllenT1N/R3E Section 7South2016300Domestic299255Chaffins, LucasT1N/R3E Section 7South2018300Domestic199352Bosways HolstiensT1N/R3E Section 7South2002620Stockwater304243Connerton, CrisT1N/R3E Section 7South2019380Domestic12724Wytana Livestock Co.T2N/R3E Section 32Northeast1955165Domestic & Stockwater191969Pilati, KnoxT2N/R3E Section 32Northeast2001100Domestic249386Martin, JoAnneT2N/R3E Section 32Northeast200982Domestic192772King, BrianT2N/R3E Section 32Northeast200180Domestic12726Flikkema, MaynardT2N/R3E Section 32Northeast197655Domestic12725Glisan, RusselT2N/R3E Section 32Northeast191139Domestic & Stockwater12712Gruenendal, JimT2N/R2E Section 36Northwest1988114Domestic301629Goss, LymanT2N/R2E Section 36Northwest2018100Domestic134818Geer, Joel and DebbieT2N/R2E Section 36Northwest199382Domestic12703Walbert, Sheley W.T2N/R2E Section 36Northwest1940120Domestic12710Northern Pacific Railway CoT2N/R2E Section 36Northwest1940129Domestic & Fire Protection268866Andrus, DavidT2N/R2E Section 36Northwest2012100Domestic299083Chamberlain, Don & JoiceT2N/R2E Section 36Northwest2018320Domestic243620UnifeedT2N/R2E Section 36Northwest2008100Domestic12708Hupka, JosephT2N/R2E Section 36Northwest192340Domestic12699Burrell, Lester W.T2N/R2E Section 36Northwest1950145Domestic12702Karlstrom, DelbertT2N/R2E Section 36Northwest190065DomesticNotes:1. Well records from Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology via http://data.mbmg.mtech.edu/mapper.2. Wells tabulated above are within an approxmately 1 mile buffer zone from perimeter extent of Section 6 T1N/R3E Project Area.3. Wells within Section 6 T1N/R3E Project Area are all installed by Gallatin Solid Waste District used for landfill environmental monitoring. Attachment 8 Groundwater Monitoring Plan Attachment 8. Groundwater Monitoring Plan The new groundwater monitoring system will require two downgradient wells in the approximate locations shown on the attached figure. After the Department’s review and approval of the well locations, the new wells will be installed and then incorporated into the monitoring network. These wells will be used in the background monitoring. Groundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Logan Class II Landfill – Expansion Area June 2020 Prepared for: Gallatin Solid Waste Management District, Montana Department of Environmental Quality Prepared by: Great West Engineering GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan i Forward This Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) presents the objectives for environmental groundwater monitoring and the procedures to be followed to achieve those objectives. This SAP is a documented product of the systematic planning process by which the problem to be studied and/or the decision to be made is identified; project’s objectives are defined; the type, quantity, and quality of information needed is determined; the technical and quality control activities are specified; and the evaluations that will be conducted to assure the project goals are met. A SAP is a product of logical steps and includes the following: Systematic Planning  Implementation  Assessment The overall process includes the following elements: • Lists the goals and objectives of a study • Identifies the type and quality of data needed • Describes the sampling and measurement procedures needed to acquire those data • Describes the quality control and assessment procedures needed to make sure that the study objectives are met The content of this SAP substantively follows the substantive intent of guidance presented by EPA in their Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objective Process (EPA 2006) and from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) in their latest guidance in Groundwater Sampling Guidance (MDEQ, 2018). This SAP includes the following: • Table of Contents • Title Page with Plan Approvals • Distribution List • Background • Project Description • Organization and Schedule • Data Quality Objectives • Sampling Process Design • Sampling Procedures • Measurement Procedures • Quality Control • Data Management and Reporting Procedures • Works Cited GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan ii Title Page with Plan Approvals Groundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Logan Class II Landfill –Expansion Area The undersigned representatives concur that using the Groundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for the Logan Class II Landfill – Expansion Area is appropriate for satisfying the requirements of Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) Chapter 17.50.1305, Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Requirements. This Groundwater Monitoring SAP is considered effective from the date of signatures (below) until amended or discontinued as determined by MDEQ. Permit Administrator: Montana Department of Environmental Quality Date Site Owner: Gallatin Solid Waste Management District Date GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan iii Distribution List Contact / Entity / Primary Role Address & Contact Information Rick Thompson Montana Department of Environmental Quality – Solid Waste Section Supervisor Permit Administrator Montana Department of Environmental Quality 1520 E. 6th Avenue Helena, Montana 59601 Phone: 406-444-5345 Email: rthompson@mt.gov Tim Stepp Montana Department of Environmental Quality – Waste and Underground Tank Management Bureau Hydrogeologist Montana Department of Environmental Quality 1520 E. 6th Avenue Helena, Montana 59601 Phone: 406-444-4725 Email: tstepp@mt.gov Mike Eder Montana Department of Environmental Quality – Waste and Underground Tank Management Bureau Hydrogeologist Montana Department of Environmental Quality 1520 E. 6th Avenue Helena, Montana 59601 Phone: 406-444-1434 Email: Mike.Eder@mt.gov Jim Simon Gallatin County Solid Waste Management District – Solid Waste Manager Site Owner/Operator Logan Landfill Solid Waste Manager 10585 Two Dog Road Three Forks, Montana 59752 Phone: 406-922-5318 Email: Jim.Simon@gallatin.mt.gov Wanda Johnson Laboratory Manager Gallatin County Subcontractor for Laboratory Services Energies Laboratories, Inc. 3161 E Lyndale Ave Helena, Montana 59601 Phone: 406-442-0711 Email: wjohnson@energylab.com GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan iv Contents 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Objectives ............................................................................................ 1 1.2 Site Description ......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Site Conditions .......................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Project Organization .................................................................................................. 2 2.0 Sampling & Analysis Plan .............................................................. 4 2.1 Data Quality Objectives ............................................................................................. 4 2.2 Sampling and Analysis Plan ...................................................................................... 5 2.3 Groundwater Sampling Procedures ......................................................................... 5 2.4 Well Inspection .......................................................................................................... 6 2.5 Static Depth to Water ................................................................................................ 6 2.6 Well Purging and Field Parameters .......................................................................... 6 2.7 Collection of Groundwater Quality Sample .............................................................. 7 2.8 Quality Control Sampling .......................................................................................... 8 2.9 Health and Safety ...................................................................................................... 8 3.0 Field and Laboratory Quality Control............................................ 9 3.1 Sample Identification ................................................................................................ 9 3.2 Sample Documentation ............................................................................................ 9 3.3 Sample Handling ..................................................................................................... 10 3.4 Calibration of Field Equipment ............................................................................... 12 3.5 Decontamination of Sampling Equipment ............................................................. 12 3.6 Management of Investigation-Derived Waste ....................................................... 12 3.7 Laboratory Quality Control Procedures .................................................................. 13 4.0 Data Management, Analysis, and Reporting ............................. 14 4.1 Data Management .................................................................................................. 14 4.2 Data Quality Assessment ........................................................................................ 15 4.3 Reporting ................................................................................................................. 15 5.0 References .................................................................................... 17 GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan v TABLES 1 Groundwater Monitoring Network 2 Parameters, Reporting Limits, and Water Quality Criteria 3 Measurement Performance Criteria for Field Measured Parameters 4 Sample Containers, Preservatives, and Hold Times 5 Monitoring Program Summary FIGURES 1 Location Map 2 Groundwater Monitoring Network and Site Features APPENDICES A Boring Logs, Well Completion Diagrams, and Groundwater Flow Map B Data Needs/Uses, Data Quality Objectives, and Data Quality Assessment Appendix B-1 Data Needs and Uses Appendix B-2 Data Quality Objectives Appendix B-3 Measurement Performance Criteria for Field Measured Parameters Appendix B-4 Sample Containers, Preservatives, and Hold Times C Groundwater Sampling Field Procedures - EPA’s Low-Flow Guidelines D Field Sampling Forms GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan vi Acronyms and Abbreviations ARM bgs Administrative Rule of Montana below ground surface C Celsius cm/sec centimeter per second COC constituent of concern CSM conceptual site model DQO data quality objective DTW depth to water FD field duplicate HDPE high-density polyethylene MCL maximum contaminant level MS MDEQ matrix spike Montana Department of Environmental Quality MSW municipal solid waste MSD matrix spike duplicate PD percent difference PVC polyvinyl chloride QA quality assurance QC quality control SC specific conductance TDS total dissolved solids TOC total organic carbon USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this Groundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis Plan (hereafter SAP) is to describe the proposed monitoring program, sampling procedures, quality control (QC), and reporting requirements for the expansion area at the Logan Class II Landfill, near Logan Montana. This SAP follows the requirements of ARM 17.50.1305, Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Requirements, and ARM 17.50.1304, Groundwater Monitoring Systems. The hydrogeologic conditions and the detection groundwater monitoring network are based on the technical data and groundwater flow characteristics as presented to MDEQ in the Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Expansion (Great West 2020) which was prepared in accordance with ARM Chapter 50, Subchapter 17.50.13.11, Hydrogeologic and Soils Characterization. Groundwater data generated in accordance with this SAP will be evaluated by Gallatin Solid Waste Management District or their designated consultants following each sampling event and the reports will be submitted to the MDEQ within 90 days of completing the sampling event. In accordance with ARM reporting requirements and per MDEQ guidance, the groundwater monitoring program for expansion area is effectively in detection-phase monitoring with the primary objective to determine if there has been a statistically-significant change of condition over background. Section 4 provides details on the initial phase of monitoring to characterize background conditions, followed by a second phase of monitoring and reporting to comply with detection monitoring requirements. Details on the site soils and hydrogeologic conditions are summarized in the Hydrogeologic and Soils Characterization Report for Logan Landfill Expansion (Great West 2020). Appendix A includes boring logs, well completion diagrams, and a groundwater flow map from the hydrogeology report. Appendix B includes details regarding the monitoring objectives as summarized in Section 2. Subsequent sections of this SAP describe the procedures to support these objectives, including the Groundwater Monitoring SAP (Section 2), Field and Laboratory Quality Control (Section 3), and the Data Management, Analysis, and Reporting (Section 4). This SAP is specific to the background data development and subsequent detection-phase monitoring for the new expansion Phase 5. 1.2 Site Description Figure 1 shows the location of the Logan Landfill and outlines the site licensed and licensed expansion property boundaries. Figure 2 shows the site features, the expansion area, surface topography, and the groundwater monitoring well network. The expansion area is located within Township 1 North, Range 3 East, Section 6; approximately 2 miles southeast of Logan and within Gallatin County, Montana. The address to the landfill is 10585 Two Dog GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 2 Road, Three Forks, Montana, 59752. The landfill expansion area boundaries encompass a total of 535 acres, which is portions of Section 6 (T1N, R3E) excluding the northwest corner and northeast corner. The existing 8.8-acre scale facility is included in the license application but will not be used for disposal activities. The area specific to MSW and Class IV waste placement for expansion area is anticipated to cover an area of 300 acres, and a 9- acre area for asbestos, as shown in Figure 2. The older/existing and currently active Class II landfill is in the northwest corner, and has been active/operated since the early 1970’s. 1.3 Site Conditions The 2020 permit application for the expansion area includes the Hydrogeologic and Soils Characterization Report for the Logan Landfill Expansion (Great West 2020). As described in this report, the predominant uppermost soil types are silty to poorly graded sand and/or weathered sandstone, with secondary soil types consisting of silt, siltstone, and occasional zones of clean coarse sand. The overall heterogeneity and variety of different soil types and relatively thin lenses suggests a relatively complex and active depositional history, as described in more detail in the hydrogeologic characterization report. The depth to uppermost groundwater beneath the expansion area generally ranges from 65 to 180 ft bgs, except in the northwest corner of the expansion area where the depth to groundwater is relatively shallow at approximately 30 ft bgs. The saturated zones and uppermost groundwater occur in the more permeable clean sand zones, typically 10 to 20 ft thick. The confining layers above and below these saturated zones are typically dry to slightly moist, and consist of finer-grained silt, or relatively low-permeability consolidated sandstone or siltstone. The groundwater flow direction beneath the landfill expansion area is generally to the northwest, with a hydraulic gradient in the range of 0.004 to 0.05 ft/day. The uppermost saturated zones (groundwater) were correlated with relatively clean sand zones with an average hydraulic conductivity of 31 ft per day (equivalent to 1.08x10-2 cm/sec). Near the currently active landfill, which was permitted in 1975 along with the onset of detection-monitoring in the early 1990’s, the groundwater flow direction is more northerly, and toward the Gallatin River to the north (see groundwater flow map from the 2020 permit application package, provided in Appendix A). Groundwater beneath the active cell has been monitored since the early 1990’s as part of the detection monitoring requirements for a Class II landfill. The groundwater beneath the expansion area is upgradient of and contiguous with the groundwater that flows northward beneath the existing landfill. 1.4 Project Organization The Project Distribution List (located at the front of this document) shows the project organization and key points of contact for the Logan Landfill expansion area monitoring program. The Gallatin Solid Waste Management District (hereafter the District) is the site owner/operator and is responsible for making sure that the groundwater monitoring and reporting activities are conducted in accordance with the ARM requirements for detection monitoring and in accordance with the MDEQ-approved SAP. MDEQ is responsible to make sure that monitoring and reporting activities are submitted to MDEQ in accordance with ARM GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 3 regulations and the site-specific plan as outlined in this SAP. The District administers the financial and technical aspects of the site monitoring and reporting activities and is responsible for making sure the groundwater sampling and reporting is completed as outlined in this SAP. At the direction of the District, groundwater sampling and reporting activities are subcontracted out to designated consultants whom have experience in environmental sampling, data management, and reporting of groundwater data. Groundwater samples are submitted to and tested by Energy Testing Laboratory, Inc. in Helena, Montana, whom is accredited by the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) since 2001, along with certification by Montana and USEPA for Drinking Water Standards. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 4 2.0 Sampling & Analysis Plan This section describes the data quality objectives (DQOs), groundwater monitoring design, field procedures, and laboratory methods; these items effectively constitute the groundwater monitoring SAP. 2.1 Data Quality Objectives The DQO process is a series of steps developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) that helps guide facility managers and regulators to plan for the most resource-effective acquisition of environmental data (EPA QA/G 4, 2006). The DQO process is used to establish performance and acceptance criteria that serve as the basis for designing a plan for collecting data of sufficient quality and quantity to support the goals and objectives of environmental monitoring plans. Per ARM 17.50.1305, the site owner is required to develop a SAP with appropriate quality assurance and quality control. The DQO process was used as a guide to select the type and quality of data needed for this SAP as described in the following text. Appendix B summarizes the DQOs specific to performing detection monitoring for the Logan expansion area, which were selected through consideration of specific data needs, uses, and regulatory requirements. Appendix B-1 summarizes the data needs and uses. Appendix B-2 summarizes the DQOs for each of the groundwater field and analytical parameters, which were selected based on the requirements ARM 17.50.1305. Analytical test methods were selected in accordance with Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (EPA 2008) in collaboration with the latest test methods used by the accredited testing laboratory (Energy Testing Laboratories). Target detection limits for all the required analytes were reviewed and found to be consistent with comparing the monitoring results to maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) established under Circular 7, Montana Numeric Water Quality Standards (MDEQ 2019). Appendix B-3 summarizes the field measurement performance criteria for onsite measurements, which were selected in support of the “low-flow” sampling method (as described in Section 2.3). Appendix B-4 summarizes the sample containers, preservatives, and hold time requirements for each program. The primary information as developed in these tables (B-1, B-3 and B-4) were carried forward into the main-body of the report as Tables 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The groundwater monitoring network was selected based on the uppermost groundwater conditions as described in the Hydrogeologic and Soils Characterization Report for Logan Landfill Expansion (Great West 2020). A flow map and the boring logs for the wells selected for detection monitoring is included in Appendix A. The frequency of data collection during the background monitoring period will be quarterly for at least an initial 2-year period whereby the first quarter assumes the months of January, February, or March; the second quarter is during the months of April, May, or June; third quarter is July, August, or September; and fourth quarter is October, November, or December. After the background monitoring data is collected, which will consist of at least 8 monitoring events at all wells prior to construction disturbances associated with construction of the landfill, the frequency will be re-evaluated and may transition to semi-annual detection-phase monitoring, with GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 5 approval from MDEQ. The rationale for quarterly sampling over a 2-year interval is to obtain at least 8 separate background monitoring observations, to assist with characterization of background conditions and selection of a suitable detection monitoring test method to determine if there has been a statistically-significant change of condition over background. Collection of a minimum of 8 observations to characterize background conditions is consistent with the procedures by EPA Unified Guidance (EPA 2009) to select an appropriate detection monitoring test, as required under ARM 17.50.1305(8) regarding selection of statistical method. 2.2 Sampling and Analysis Plan Figure 2 illustrates the expansion area waste unit boundaries and the respective groundwater monitoring network. Table 1 is a summary of well construction details for the detection groundwater monitoring network. Table 2 summarizes the parameters, analytical methods, reporting limits, and MCLs. Table 3 summarizes the field-measured parameters to support the low-flow sampling method (see the low-flow sampling guidance in Appendix C). Table 4 summarizes the laboratory-supplied sample containers, preservatives, and hold times for the specific test methods. As noted above, the initial sampling frequency will be quarterly during at least a 2-year period to establish a minimum of 8 background samples at each monitoring well. The background period assumes conditions prior to cell disturbances associated with cell construction (such as disturbances associated with earthwork activities). Once the background data are compiled and evaluated to assess representativeness, and characterize the spatial and temporal variability, the District will propose a specific detection monitoring test method for MDEQ approval, as specified under ARM 17.50.1305(8). Following the background monitoring period, this SAP will be amended to include procedures for any adjustments to wells, monitoring frequency, and the statistical methods, with MDEQ approvals. 2.3 Groundwater Sampling Procedures This section is a description of the groundwater sampling procedures. Groundwater sampling consists of the following procedures at a given well: (1) well inspection, (2) measurement of the static depth-to-water, (3) well purging and measurement of field parameters, and (4) collection of the groundwater quality sample(s). Appendix C provides details on the ‘low-flow’ purging (sampling) method as described in Ground-Water Sampling Guidelines for Superfund and RCRA Project Managers (EPA, 2002a). Low-flow sampling is the preferred method for groundwater sampling as described by MDEQ in their Groundwater Sampling Guidance (MDEQ 2018). The District plans to install and maintain dedicated tubing and bladder pump systems for each well that purge at a low flow rate that is deemed suitable to satisfy the substantive intent of low-flow methods as described in Appendix C. Field forms to document field-measured parameters collected during low-flow sampling are provided in Appendix D. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 6 Procedures for low-flow groundwater sampling method are summarized in the following text and should be performed in the sequence as presented herein. The typical sequence of sampling activities for a given monitoring event should commence with upgradient wells, and then proceed to cross-gradient, and then downgradient wells. 2.4 Well Inspection Upon arrival at each well prior to sampling, each well will be visually inspected upon arrival for any signs of damage or tampering of the outer protective monuments, well casing, and the well cap or seal. Visual evidence of damage or tampering will be recorded on the field sampling forms (Appendix D). The field sampling forms will also be used at each well to record the purging and sampling data (described in steps that follow). If the surface completion stick-up or well casing is found to be damaged or broken, the conditions will be reported to the District Solid Waste Manager, along with a summary of the conditions in the respective groundwater monitoring report submitted to MDEQ. If needed and in coordination with MDEQ, the District will repair or replace any suspect or damaged wells to maintain a functional and representative groundwater monitoring network as prescribed herein. 2.5 Static Depth to Water The static depth-to-water (DTW) is measured in each well prior to the well purging activities. The static DTW is converted to groundwater elevation and used for reporting requirements as described in Section 4. Procedures for static DTW measurement are provided in the following text. The well cap (or protective cap) will be removed and static depth-to-water DTW measured before purging. Measurements will be read to the nearest hundredth of a foot (i.e., +/- 0.01 foot) using a clean and previously decontaminated electronic water level indicator probe (described below). The DTW will be measured from known datum (top of polyvinyl chloride [PVC] casing) and compared to the expected DTW range from previous/historic measurements. If the two measurements vary considerably (i.e., greater than 3 feet), the static DTW level will be measured again for verification. The verified or final DTW level will be recorded as “static” on the dedicated field sampling forms. Groundwater level indicator probes will be decontaminated before and after measuring each monitoring well by spraying them with a solution of Alconox detergent and potable (clean), water rinse, and then wiping dry with a clean paper towel. To prevent potential cross- contamination from the water-level indicator, the typical sampling sequence will start at the upgradient well location(s) and progress to downgradient wells. 2.6 Well Purging and Field Parameters Each monitoring well will be purged before sampling to ensure that sampled groundwater is representative. The goal of groundwater sampling is to collect samples that are GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 7 representative of in-situ groundwater conditions and to minimize changes in groundwater chemistry during sample collection and handling. Groundwater sampling procedures will follow the low-flow (low-stress) method as described in Ground-Water Sampling Guidelines for Superfund and RCRA Project Managers (EPA, 2002a) and provided in Appendix C. Low-flow purging procedures consist of purging a well with a low-flow pump typically at a low- flow rate (typically less than 0.15 liter per minute) while measuring field-parameters to assess groundwater stability (or stabilization). The groundwater level will be monitored during the purging cycle, and the pumping rate will be adjusted (reduced) to a point where the flow rate matches the well recharge rate (as indicated by a stabilized groundwater level during the active purge process). Once the purge cycle begins, field measured parameters consisting of temperature, pH, and specific conductance (SC) will be measured at approximately 3- to 5-minute intervals using a calibrated multi-parameter monitoring probe to obtain readings of temperature, pH, and conductance. Table 3 presents the field parameters and groundwater stabilization criteria. Field measurements and water levels will be recorded on a dedicated field sampling form and retained for the permanent sampling record. Following at least the third consecutive set of field readings, and when pH and SC indicator parameters have stabilized to within ± 0.1 for pH and ± 3 percent for SC, the groundwater quality sample collection process will begin (details of collecting groundwater samples provided in following text). If purge time reaches 1 hour and the field criteria have not been met, a sample may be collected and details of the purge process will be recorded on the field sampling sheets. 2.7 Collection of Groundwater Quality Sample Groundwater samples will be collected in laboratory-supplied sampling containers after the low-flow purge criteria have been satisfied (described above). Table 2 summarizes the detection monitoring parameters; Table 3 summarizes the bottle containers, preservatives, and hold times. Samples will be collected directly from the dedicated discharge tubing into the laboratory supplied containers being filled using a low-flow rate of approximately 0.1 liter per minute. To the extent possible, samples will be collected to limit the atmospheric contact between the discharge water and the sampling container. Disposable latex (or nitrile) gloves will be worn by field samplers while handling sampling containers and while collecting the water- quality sample. Sampling gloves will be discarded after each sampling location and treated as municipal solid waste. New gloves will be used at each new sampling location. The unique sample identification and time will be recorded on the sampling bottles, field forms, and transferred onto the chain-of-custody (COC) forms. Details regarding sample documentation, handling, and quality control are provided in Section 3. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 8 2.8 Quality Control Sampling QC samples will be collected during each sampling event to assist in determining data quality and reliability. QC samples include field duplicates (FDs) and laboratory QC procedures performed by the laboratory (such as matrix spike [MS] and matrix spike duplicate [MSD] analyses). Assessment of QC samples is described in Section 4. FD samples will be collected at a minimum frequency of one FD per each sampling event. A FD is an independent sample collected as close as possible to the original sample from the same source and is used to assess sampling precision. FDs will be labeled and packaged in the same manner as normal samples so that the laboratory cannot distinguish between normal samples and duplicates. Each FD will be taken using the same sampling and preservation method as other samples. Laboratory QC checks will be performed from MS/MSD samples at a frequency of one MS/MSD per sample event. An MS is an aliquot of a sample spiked with a known concentration of target analyte(s). An MS analysis provides a measure of the method accuracy. The MSD is a laboratory split sample of the MS and is used to determine the precision of the method. Additional detail on laboratory quality assurance is presented in Section 3.7. 2.9 Health and Safety Sampling will be performed by experienced staff appointed by the District whom are familiar with environmental sampling, site-specific conditions, and potential hazards at the Logan facility. Training will be provided to all project personnel as-needed by the District to ensure compliance with the site-specific health and safety plan and technical competence in performing environmental monitoring. Field staff will conform to all site safety instructions and wear the proper personal protective equipment when collecting and handling groundwater samples. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 9 3.0 Field and Laboratory Quality Control This section is a summary of the field and laboratory QC specific to groundwater monitoring performed under this SAP at the Logan facility. 3.1 Sample Identification Sample labels will be affixed to containers in the field immediately prior to sample collection. Samples will be labeled with the following system unique to each sampling event: “SITE-WELL-DATE” for groundwater quality samples Where: SITE = “Logan” for site. WELL = unique well ID (for example; well LMW-102 would be “LMW102”) MMDDYY = unique six-digit sampling date where MM is month, DD is day of month, and YY is last 2 digits of year. For example, the unique sample identification for sampling completed on June 30, 2020, at well LMW-102 would be “LOGAN-LMW102-063020.” The FD sample will be labeled as “FD” with the unique date—for example a field duplicate for the above example would be “LOGAN- FD-063020”. The sample location for the FD will be recorded on the field forms and retained for permanent record to distinguish the location in which the sample was collected. A fictitious sample time will be recorded on the field sheet and on the sample bottle for FD samples. All sample labels will have additional information such as date and sample time to complete the singularity and uniqueness for a given sample event. 3.2 Sample Documentation Specific information and observations will be recorded on dedicated groundwater sampling field sampling forms during sampling. The most important information to be documented is as follows: • Sampling team personnel • Monitoring well purging data (including purge method, rate, total volume removed during purging, water levels at the beginning, during, and end of the purging process) • Field parameters (temperature, pH, and SC) collected during monitoring well purging, including field meter used to collect parameters • Sample identification and time on each bottle • Management of purge water (discharge onto ground) GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 10 • Miscellaneous observations regarding well integrity, other nearby field activities and equipment problems/troubleshooting measures, if needed Dedicated field sampling forms (provided in Appendix D) provide a convenient format for recording the information listed above for groundwater sampling. 3.3 Sample Handling Specific procedures for sample packaging and shipping will be followed to ensure sample quality and minimize breakage during transport to the analytical testing laboratory. Sample handling includes sample preservation, sample custody, sample packaging, and sample shipment procedures as described in the following sections. Sample Preservation Table 4 summarizes the sample containers, preservatives (if needed), and hold times. Some sample types require preservation to retard biological action, slow hydrolysis, and reduce sorption effects. Preservation methods generally consist of pH control through chemical addition (for example, sulfuric acid or nitric acid), refrigeration (chill to 4°C), and protection from light. Samples will be placed in a cooler containing ice immediately after collection and held under direct custody of the field sampler until samples are ready for transport (or shipment) to the testing laboratory. When a chemical preservative is needed for selected parameters, the laboratory will provide bottles with appropriate preservatives (for example, sulfuric acid or nitric acid). Bottles prepared with preservation will be pre-labeled and identified as ”preserved” in order to distinguish them from unpreserved bottles. Sample Custody (COC Record) Field personnel will maintain custody records on-site for all samples collected as part of the monitoring program. A COC record will be completed for each container (cooler) or batch of samples relinquished to the testing laboratory and include the following information at a minimum: • Date and time of sample collection • Place of collection • Type of sample • Sample identification number • Type of container(s) • Analytical test methods (in accordance with the methods listed in Table 2) • Signature of sampler • Signature of receiver Sample containers will be labeled at the time of collection with the unique sample number, date, and time collected. Sample numbers will be recorded on the COC form along with the time the sample was collected. COC forms will be signed and filled out for each cooler or batch of samples to be relinquished to the laboratory. If coolers are shipped, the COC form GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 11 will be sealed in a clear plastic bag and placed in the cooler (typically taped to the inside lid of the cooler). The COC forms will be kept onsite (or on file) as part of the permanent sampling record. Sample Packaging Since the laboratory (Energy Testing Laboratory, Helena) is reasonably close to the Logan landfill, samples may be (1) directly relinquished from field sample lead to the laboratory, (2) transported via courier service directly to the laboratory same day of sampling, or (3) shipped (see below). If possible, direct transport is preferred method of packaging and delivery to lab. The samples are maintained in full custody by the sampling lead or courier from the time of sampling until they are delivered and relinquished to the laboratory. During sampling and transport, the samples are placed in coolers containing ice to maintain target temperature of 4° ± 2°C and to protect bottles from breaking. If shipping is necessary, samples will be handled and packaged appropriately to maintain complete COC records and prevent damage during transit or shipment. Coolers, provided by the contract laboratory, will be used for shipping sample containers. Bubble wrap will be used to pack and cushion the sample containers in the cooler (if shipped or mailed by a third-party courier such as Fed-Ex). The COC form will be placed in a sealed (zip-lock) plastic bag and attached to inside of the cooler lid. COC seals will be attached at both the front and back of container. The name and address of the receiving laboratory will be placed in a position clearly visible on the outside of the cooler, and the lid will be secured with strapping tape. Sample Transport or Shipment Samples will be packaged as described previously and transported by field team leader or via courier from the site directly to the testing facility. Samples will be delivered to the laboratory within the specified hold times (see Table 4). If shipment of samples is necessary, samples will be shipped in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) approved procedures for hazardous substances. Samples will be shipped to the contracted laboratory for analysis via courier that can deliver the samples to meet the shortest holding time requirement (for example, Fed-Ex). The following will be followed when shipping the cooler: • If shipping is needed, coolers will be shipped to the appropriate laboratory by Fed-Ex or other reliable courier. All samples will be shipped as soon as possible after collection and conform to applicable hold times. • Groundwater quality samples will be shipped directly to a certified laboratory. Appendix D includes an example COC to be used as a guide or field reference to support complete analysis of the required ARM parameters as described in this SAP. After the samples have been delivered or shipped, the field sampler will verify samples were received by the laboratory and troubleshoot if necessary. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 12 3.4 Calibration of Field Equipment The following field equipment will be used to support the groundwater sampling activities: • Electronic water level indicator (graduated to 0.01-foot increments and capable of recording measurements to the bottom of each well) • Multi-parameter field water-quality probe, capable of measuring temperature, pH, and specific conductivity. Table 3 (developed in B-3 of Appendix B as per the DQO process) lists the field meter accuracy and range for each parameter. Calibration will be performed prior to each sampling event or in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. The field meter will be recalibrated if inconsistent or suspect readings are obtained. If the meter fails to calibrate to within the manufacturer’s guidelines, the unit will be evaluated for probe replacement and/or shipped to a certified vendor for repair. 3.5 Decontamination of Sampling Equipment To the extent practicable and possible, the sampling equipment used for water sampling is either dedicated (for example, dedicated polyethylene tubing connected to the purge pumps) or is used new and consumed during each sampling event. Sample containers with preservative (when needed) are provided by the contract laboratory for each sampling event and are discarded after use. Field meters and probes inserted into well casings will be cleaned and rinsed with water between sample locations and at the end of each sampling event. All nondedicated field equipment used during sampling activities will be decontaminated using the following procedure: • Wash with non-phosphate detergent • Rinse with clean potable water • Air dry (or dried with clean paper towel) The decontamination procedure will be performed prior to sampling at each location to avoid cross-contamination. Excess decontamination water is expected to be minimal and will be managed as described in Section 3.6. 3.6 Management of Investigation-Derived Waste Investigation-derived waste developed from the sampling activities may consist of minor quantities of decontamination water (as described in Section 3.5), excess purge water during groundwater sampling, and consumable sampling supplies (such as discarded nitrile gloves, paper towels, etc). Protocol for handling these wastes is described in the following text. Decontamination water and excess purge water from groundwater sampling will be temporarily containerized at each location and discharged onto ground surface at each site. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 13 The excess purge volume from low-flow sampling is typically less than 0.5 gallon per well for a given sampling event. Consumable sampling supplies (for example, paper towels, nitrile gloves, sample tubing, and packaging supplies) will be containerized in plastic trash bags and treated as typical municipal solid waste. 3.7 Laboratory Quality Control Procedures Samples will be transported in coolers packed with ice to preserve them at the target temperature of 4° ± 2°C. Upon receipt of the samples, the laboratory uses an infrared temperature probe to determine the internal temperature of the cooler. If the temperature of samples upon receipt exceeds temperature requirements, the exceedance will be documented in the laboratory report and communicated to the sample coordinator. Given the short time interval between sample collection and delivery to the laboratory, it is common to have the ‘as-received’ temperature above the target transport temperature, which is not considered a deviation in protocol or outside the quality control guidelines. Once samples reach the laboratory, they will be checked against information on the COC form for anomalies. The condition, temperature, and appropriate preservation of samples will be checked and documented on the COC form. The occurrence of any anomalies in the received samples and their resolution will be documented in laboratory records. All sample information will then be entered into a tracking system, and unique analytical sample identifiers will be assigned. A copy of this information will be reviewed by the laboratory chemist for accuracy. Sample holding time tracking begins with the collection of samples and continues until the analysis is complete. Procedures ensuring internal laboratory COC will also be implemented and documented by the laboratory. Specific instructions concerning the analysis specified for each sample will be communicated to the analysts. Analytical batches will be created, and laboratory QC samples will be introduced into each batch. Once at the laboratory, samples will be stored in limited-access, temperature-controlled areas. Refrigerators and coolers will be monitored routinely. Acceptance criterion for refrigerators and coolers temperatures is 4° ± 2°C. All cold storage areas will be monitored by thermometers that have been calibrated with a National Institute of Standards and Technology-traceable thermometer. As indicated by the findings of calibration, correction factors will be applied to each thermometer. Records that include acceptance criteria will be maintained. Samples will be stored after analysis until disposed of as applicable under local, state and federal regulations. Disposal records will be maintained by the laboratory. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 14 4.0 Data Management, Analysis, and Reporting This section presents a summary of the data management, analysis, and reporting specific to the expansion area monitoring program in detection-phase status at the Logan landfill. 4.1 Data Management The following subsections describe data management procedures. Data Recording Field observations and field-measured data will be recorded on dedicated field forms (or in a field log) to provide a record of field activities. A check for completeness of field records (log books, field forms, databases, and electronic spreadsheets) and samples will be conducted by the field team leader to ensure that all requirements for field activities have been fulfilled, complete records exist for each activity, and the procedures specified in this plan have been implemented. Field documentation will provide sufficient technical information to confirm the data for a given event is complete. Data Reduction Data collected under this SAP will be reviewed by the field sampling leader to determine if the sampling objectives have been completed for each sampling event. In general, the review will be accomplished by comparing the COC and field log entries with the sampling activities and requirements specified in this SAP. Upon receipt of the laboratory reports and the electronic data from the laboratory, the data files will be reviewed by the District (or designated consultants) prior to uploading to the electronic project database. Groundwater data for each sampling event will be uploaded into the master database. Each successive round of monitoring data will be compared against historical conditions. If the reported concentrations of a given sample from a specific location are grossly inconsistent with historical data, then efforts will be made to determine (1) if the data reflect an actual change in environmental conditions at that sampling point, or (2) if the integrity of the sample was potentially compromised during collection, preservation, shipping, or analysis. Conversely, if some level of analyte historically present in samples from a specific location is no longer present, then similar efforts will be made to confirm that change in concentration. If needed, if the data do not meet project goals, then the need for additional sampling will be discussed with MDEQ and resolved accordingly. Data Storage and Archives Data generated as part of this SAP will be handled and reviewed in accordance with the procedures outlined in the previous text. All collected data for all parameters will undergo the following stages of review: 1. In the field by the field team leader during and immediately after sample collection with the methods and procedures described in Section 2 (sampling procedures) and in Section 3 (field and laboratory QC). GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 15 2. At the laboratory by the project chemist (Energy Testing Labs)) according to their own QA procedures. 3. Outside the laboratory by the District designated data manager (or designated consultants) via the data assessment criteria described in Section 4.2 below. Electronic copies of the original analytical data reports for each sampling event will be submitted to MDEQ along with each report. 4.2 Data Quality Assessment Prior to reporting results or performing statistical analyses as part of the detection monitoring requirements, the data quality will be evaluated with the following methods: • Per the laboratory QA procedures as described in Section 3.7 (and as summarized in the laboratory reports submitted with each report), • Calculation and assessment of the percent difference between the parent sample and the respective field duplicate (procedures provided below), Percent Difference: Data quality is assessed each quarter by the percent difference (PD) between the parent sample and the duplicate sample results. The PD calculation is as follows from Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater (American Public Health Association, 1995): Percent Difference (PD) = 100 * [(P1 – FD1) / (P1 + FD1)] Note: the PD calculation is expressed as a percentage in absolute value; the calculation is not performed if the parent sample result is non-detect. The ARM rule does not have an established threshold for PD, but as a general guideline, PD results within 20 percent are considered reasonable. If there are issues identified from the above data quality review checks, data quality may also be evaluated as directed by the District relative to representativeness, comparability, precision, accuracy, and completeness. Procedures to evaluate these are detailed in National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic/Organic Data Review (EPA, 1994; EPA, 1999; EPA, 2002b). Appendix B provides definitions of these parameters and methods in which to quantify accuracy, precision, and completeness. 4.3 Reporting This section presents the reporting requirements and related guidance on reporting of groundwater monitoring results to meet the requirements of detection-phase monitoring, as specified under ARM 15.50.1306. As described in Section 2, the initial sampling frequency will be quarterly for a minimum of 8 sampling events to establish background conditions for each well and for all the parameters listed in Table 2. The background monitoring will be conducted prior to disturbances GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 16 associated with cell construction and/or waste placement activities. Development of background conditions is critical to assess spatial and temporal variability for selection of an appropriate statistical method. A minimum of 8 background monitoring events is the minimum number as described by Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities, Unified Guidance (USEPA 2009) to perform an exploratory analysis, to assist with selection of a suitable detection monitoring test as listed under ARM 17.50.1305(8), such as ANOVA, tolerance interval, prediction interval, control chart, or another suitable method as approved by MDEQ. Table 5 presents a summary of the monitoring approach for the initial background monitoring phase. The background monitoring frequency will be quarterly for the initial two- year period to obtain the minimum of 8 sampling events. During the initial background monitoring period, the District will prepare annual data summary reports submitted to MDEQ. These annual reports will support with the exploratory analysis, which will summarize the spatial and temporal variability of data from the initial background monitoring. The exploratory analysis will include, but not be limited to, an assessment of outliers, descriptive statistics, distribution of the data (such as normal or non-normal distributions), and trend analysis in general accordance with the substantive intent of Chapter 6 of EPA’s Guidance regarding the approach for detection monitoring program design. The exploratory analyses and rationale for proposed statistical method will be presented to MDEQ for approval prior to initiation of formal detection monitoring and reporting. As presented in Table 5 and as coordinated with MDEQ, this SAP will need to be updated to reflect changes for the detection monitoring phase with respect to parameters, wells, and monitoring frequency. Submittal Deadlines and Notifications For the initial background monitoring phase, the District will prepare and submit annual data summary reports to MDEQ within 90 days of completing the fourth quarter sampling event for the year. These initial annual reports will summarize details of groundwater monitoring activities, assessment of data quality, groundwater levels/elevations, and a compilation of groundwater quality data. These annual reports will support the exploratory analysis for selection of statistical method, and are not intended to determine if there is a statistically- significant change of condition over background. The exploratory analysis report and recommendation of statistical test method will be submitted to MDEQ within 90 days of completing the 8th background monitoring event. Once the monitoring program transitions to detection phase monitoring and reporting, formal detection-phase reports will be submitted to MDEQ within 90 days of completing each detection monitoring event. The objective of these detection-phase reports is to determine if there is a statistically-significant change of condition over background. Reports submitted to MDEQ under this SAP shall be prepared by a qualified groundwater scientist, as defined under ARM 17.50.1302(18). GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Groundwater Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 17 5.0 References American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation. 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater. Fetter, C. W. 1994. Applied Hydrogeology. Third Edition. Macmillan College Publishing Company, New York. Great West Engineering, 2020. Hydrogeology and Soils Characterization Report for Logan Expansion Landfill. Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), 2018. Guidance on Groundwater Monitoring. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994. National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic/Organic Data Review. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic/Organic Data Review. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002a. Ground-Water Sampling Guidelines for Superfund and RCRA Project Managers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002b. National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic/Organic Data Review. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency QA/G 4, 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objective Process. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods. EPA Publication SW-846. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities (Unified Guidance), EPA 530/R-09-007, March 2009. Tables Table 1. Groundwater Monitoring Well NetworkGroundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis PlanGallatin Solid Waste Management District - Logan Landfill Cell 4 ExpansionBoring DepthGround ElevationElevation, Top-of-CasingScreen Length Screen Top Screen Bott. Screen Top Screen Bott. Latitude Longitude(ft bgs) (ft msl) (ft toc) (ft) (ft bgs) (ft bgs) (ft Elev.) (ft Elev.)LMW-10045 51 36.832340 N111 24 23.599453 W7/31/20191804318.364320.02201491694169.364149.36Up or cross-gradient, southwest perimeter.LMW-10145 51 37.214519 N111 24 05.032299 W7/26/20192004346.484348.14201791994167.484147.48Upgradient, south perimeter.LMW-10245 51 37.662360 N111 23 43.411759 W10/2/2019804298.994300.431069794229.994219.99Upgradient, southeast perimeter.LMW-10545 51 59.471649 N111 23 33.789149 W10/3/20191004267.284268.751584994183.284168.28Upgradient, eastern perimeter.LMW-10345 51 57.432132 N111 24 01.099168 W8/2/20191404304.824306.35101281384176.824166.82Center/middle of expansion area.LMW-10445 52 20.451369 N111 23 51.441453 W8/5/20191204267.044268.6115991144168.044153.04Downgradient, north perimeter.LMW-10645 51 52.000158 N111 24 30.567967 W10/8/2019804234.294236.011064744170.294160.29Downgradient, northwest perimeter.LMW-145 52 02.367529 N111 24 27.729585 W --1344218.574221.633045754173.574143.57Downgradient of expansion cellLMW-107*TBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDDowngradient of expansion cellLMW-108*TBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDTBDDowngradient of expansion cellNotes:*Wells LMW-107 and LMW-108 shown on Figure 2 are proposed downgradient wells to complete the detection groundwater monitoring network to be installed prior to initiating background monitoring.TBD = to be determined (wells are proposed, have not been drilled yet)."--" Not available and/or not measured."ft" = feet ft bgs = feet below ground surface ft TOC = feet below top of casing (surveyed reference point) ft Elev. = feet ElevationComments:Location IDPositional CoordinatesCompletedPage 1 of 1 Table 2. Parameters, Reporting Limits, and Water Quality CriteriaGroundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis PlanGallatin Solid Waste Management District - Logan Landfill Cell 4 ExpansionRef. No. Constituent Reporting LimitWater Quality Standard(MCL)--Temperature0.1 Celcius----pH0.01 Units6.5 - 8.5--Specific Conductance1 umhos/cm----Static depth to groundwater0.01 ft--1Antimony0.00050.0062Arsenic0.0010.013Barium0.00314Beryllium0.00080.0045Cadmium0.000030.0056Chromium0.010.17Cobalt0.01--8Copper0.0021.39Lead0.00030.01510Nickel0.0020.111Selenium0.0010.0512Silver0.00020.113Thallium0.00020.00214Vanadium0.1--15Zinc0.008216Acetone20.0--17Acrylonitrile3.00.6118Benzene0.5519Bromochloromethane0.5--20Bromodichloromethane0.51021Bromoform; Tribromomethane0.58022Carbon Disulfide1.0--23Carbon Tetrachloride0.5324Chlorobenzene0.510025Chloroethane; Ethyl Chloride0.5--26Chloroform; Trichloromethane0.57027Dibromochloromethane; Chlorodibromomethane0.58Field ParametersMetals/InorganicsOrganic ConstituentsPage 1 of 3 Table 2. Parameters, Reporting Limits, and Water Quality CriteriaGroundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis PlanGallatin Solid Waste Management District - Logan Landfill Cell 4 ExpansionRef. No. Constituent Reporting LimitWater Quality Standard(MCL)281,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP0.50.2291,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene Dibromide; EDB0.50.01730o-Dichlorobenzene; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene0.560031p-Dichlorobenzene; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene0.57532trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene1.0--331,1-Dichloroethane; Ethylidene Chloride0.5--341,2-Dichloroethane; Ethylene Dichloride0.54351,1-Dichloroethylene; 1,1-Dichloroethene; Vinylidene 0.5736cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene; cis-1,2-Dichloroethene0.57037trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene; trans-1,2-Dichloroethene0.5100381,2-Dichloropropane; Propylene dichloride0.5539cis-1,3-Dichloropropene0.3440trans-1,3-Dichloropropene0.3241Ethylbenzene0.5700422-Hexanone; Methyl butyl ketone20.0--43Methyl bromide; Bromomethane0.51044Methyl chloride; Chloromethane0.560045Methylene bromide; Dibromomethane0.5--46Methylene chloride; Dichloromethane0.5547Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2-Butanone20.0--48Methyl iodide; Idomethane1.0--494-Methyl-2-pentanone; Methyl isobutyl ketone20.0--50Styrene0.5100511,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane0.5--521,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane0.5253Tetrachloroethylene; Tetrachloroethene; Perchloroethylene0.5554Toluene0.51000551,1,1-Trichloroethane; Methylchloroform0.5200561,1,2-Trichloroethane0.5357Trichloroethylene; Trichloroethene0.5558Trichlorofluoromethane; CFC-110.52000591,2,3-Trichloropropane0.5--60Vinyl acetate1.0--61Vinyl chloride0.40.2Page 2 of 3 Table 2. Parameters, Reporting Limits, and Water Quality CriteriaGroundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis PlanGallatin Solid Waste Management District - Logan Landfill Cell 4 ExpansionRef. No. Constituent Reporting LimitWater Quality Standard(MCL)62Xylenes1.5100001 Alkalinity4 --2 Bicarbonate4 --3Calcium (dissolved)1--4Iron (dissolved)0.020.3*5Magnesium (dissolved)1--6Manganese (dissolved)0.0010.05*7Potassium (dissolved)1--8Sodium (dissolved)1--9Chloride1250*10Sulfate1250*NOTE:General Chemistry (only required during background monitoring period- not required for detection-phase monitoring)*This MCL is one of the drinking water limits, based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) primary and secondary standards for public water supplies.Page 3 of 3 Table 3. Measurement Performance Criteria for Field Measured ParametersGroundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis PlanGallatin Solid Waste Management District - Logan Landfill Cell 4 ExpansionMatrix Parameter Method UnitsStabilizationCriteria1Accuracy Detection LimitsGroundwater (Water Quality)pH Hand-held multi-parameter probe Unitless +/- 0.1 +/- 0.1 0 to 14Groundwater (Water Quality)Temperature Hand-held multi-parameter probe Deg. Celcius NA +/- 1.0 0 to 55Groundwater (Water Quality)Specific ConductanceHand-held multi-parameter probe uS/cm +/-3% +/-3% 0 to 9,999uS/cmNotes:1. Stabilization criteria only applicable to groundwater sampling via 'low-flow' method as described in Section 2 (details provided in Appendix C).Page 1 of 1 Table 4. Sample Containers, Preservatives, and Hold TimesGroundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis PlanGallatin Solid Waste Management District - Logan Landfill Cell 4 ExpansionMatrix Parameter Method Container Preservation Analytical Holding TimeWaterAnionsE300.028 daysWaterpHA4500-H B0.25 hoursWaterConductivityA2510 B28 daysWater Dissolved Metals E200.7_8 1 x 250 mL PlasticHNO3, 4°C180 daysWaterVOCsSW8260B3 x 40 mL Clear Glass VOAHCL, 4°C14 daysWaterVOCs (Trip Blank)SW8260B1 x 40 mL Clear Glass VOAHCL, 4°C14 days1x 500 mL PlasticUnpreserved, 4°CPage 1 of 1 Phase of Monitoring Program Wells Analytes Monitoring Frequency Duration or Schedule Reporting Objectives & DeadlinesBackground Characterization. Performed prior to cell construction and waste placement activities to establish background groundwater quality at all wells.Total of 10 wells as shown in Table 1, and in Figure 2. Well network includes 4upgradient, 1 cross- gradient (center of landfill footprint), and 5 downgradient wells.Minimum detection monitoring suite per ARM 17.50.1305(3) of Appendix I and II, 40 CFR Part 258; plus additional set of general chemistry parameters for geochemical diagrams.See Table 2 for complete list.Quarterly for background characterization period.Minimum of 2-year period to achieve 8 separate observations per well for background characterization.Annual data summary reports, including groundwater levels/elevations, flow maps, and summary of groundwater quality data for the year.Reports prepared by qualified groundwater scientist submitted to MDEQ within 90-days of completing the fourth quarter event for the year.Detection Phase Monitoring and Reporting. (see note)Performed in parallel with cell construction, throughout active waste placement, and during post-closure period to determine if a statistically- significant change over background has occurred.To-be-determined and formalized with MDEQ approval following background monitoring.Minimum detection monitoring suite per ARM 17.50.1305(3) as listed in Appendix I and II of 40 CFR Part 258.Analytes to be finalized following background monitoring period with MDEQ approval.Anticipated to be semi-annual frequency. To-be-determined and established with MDEQ approval following background monitoring.Frequency can be re-evaluated periodically with approvals by MDEQ.Consistent monitoring and reporting throughout the active life and during post-closure period in detection phase status.Based on current life-cycle analysis, the active life is expected at years, and another 30-years for post-closure monitoring period.Detection-phase reports to satisfy the objectives of ARM 17.50.1305(10) to determine if a statistically- significant change of condition over background has occurred. If a statistically-significant change is identified, the owner will assess if the change is due to field or laboratory error, or if the change is attributed to the landfill.Reports prepared by a qualified groundwater scientist and submitted to MDEQ within 90-days of completing the respective detection-phase event.Table 5. Monitoring Program SummaryGroundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis PlanGallatin Solid Waste Management District - Logan Landfill Cell 4 ExpansionNote: final selection of wells, analytes, and monitoring frequency for Detection Phase will be determined following exploratory analysis during background characterization. Figures Project Location Figure 1 LOCATION MAP GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONengineeringRNORTHLICENSE EXPANSION PROPERTY BOUNDARY APPROXIMATE 535 ACRES APPROXIMATE LICENSE EXPANSION FINAL WASTE BOUNDARY 300 ACRES 127 ACRE LICENSED LANDFILL AREA TWO D O G R O A D I-90 I-90 8.8 ACRE OFFICE AND SCALE SITE TO BE INCLUDED IN LICENSE EXPANSION ASBESTOS DISPOSAL BOUNDARY COMPOST AREA BOUNDARY TTTCOHVTB-3HVTB-1HVTB-6HVTB-5HVTB-4HVTB-7HVTB-2TB-103TB-110TB-102TB-100TB-101TB-108TB-105TB-106TB-104TB-107LMW-100LMW-101LMW-102LMW-103LMW-105LMW-104LMW-106LMW-5LMW-4LMW-2LMW-13LMW-12LMW-14LMW-11LMW-15LMW-10LMW-9LMW-6LMW-7LMW-1LMW-107LMW-1086GROUNDWATER FLOW MAP CDS BAA SMB CDS 1-05119 DECEMBER 2019NORTHLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSION GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PROJECT: DESIGNED: DRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: NO.DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTION FIGURE NO.engineering 2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601 (406)449-8627 R CDS BAA SMB CDS 1-05119 JUNE 2020 LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSION GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTLEGEND 4173.574170.144230.234183.154168.914173.804170.964167.934160.484157.184153.174160.254158.774162.184151.984158.294162.104162.024163.23415541604165.76416541704175418042204210420041904185PROPOSEDSTORMWATER PONDACCESS ROA D EXISTING LANDFILLPROPOSED WASTEBOUNDARYPROPOSEDSTORMWATER PONDPROPOSEDSTORMWATER PONDASBESTOSDISPOSALBOUNDARY Appendix A Groundwater Flow Map and Boring Logs 6GROUNDWATER FLOW MAPCDSBAASMBCDS1-05119DECEMBER 2019NORTHLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTPROJECT:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:APPROVED:DATE:NO. DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTIONFIGURE NO.engineering2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601(406)449-8627RCDSBAASMBCDS1-05119DECEMBER 2019LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTLEGEND4173.574170.144230.234183.154168.914173.804170.964167.934160.484157.184153.174160.254158.774162.184151.984158.294162.104162.024163.234155 4 1 6 0 4165.764 1 6 5 4170 4175418042204210420041904185 08-17-2006 c:\BLS\Logan\CMA\well logs\LMW-1.BOR LOG OF BORING LMW-1 (Page 1 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : Drilling Firm : Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : Schafer Depth in feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION silt loam silty sand, med-crs sand & gravel sand, v. fine, weakly consolidated sand and gravel sand, crs to fine sand and gravel sand, fn to crs, coarsening w/ depth sand and gravel, some sst stringers sand, fn to crs, some gravel sand and gravel sand, fn to med Surf. Elev. 4221 4220 4215 4210 4205 4200 4195 4190 4185 4180 4175 4170 4165 4160 4155 4150 Elev.: 4221 Well: LMW-1 bentonite seal Surface Casing Cover 2" PVC 2' PVC 20-slot 08-17-2006 c:\BLS\Logan\CMA\well logs\LMW-1.BOR LOG OF BORING LMW-1 (Page 2 of 2) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : Drilling Firm : Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : Schafer Depth in feet 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION sandstone & claystone sand, silty, fn sand and gravel, somewhat cemented sandstone, fine w/ interbedded claystone sandstone and claystone sandstone, clayey, siliceous, hard sandstone, brown, siliceous sandstone, v fn gr gravel and sand Surf. Elev. 4221 4145 4140 4135 4130 4125 4120 4115 4110 4105 4100 4095 4090 4085 4080 4075 Elev.: 4221 Well: LMW-1 2' PVC 20-slot SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 4 Boring ID:LMW-100 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:7/27/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:7/31/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 8" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,318.36 ft msl TOTAL DEPTH:180 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 40 10 20 30 Southwest perimeter NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)CommentsSoil Description soil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Graphic LogSample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). R-1 0-6' --3.5'R-1 0-1ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), brown, loose, dry, topsoil. R-1 1-6ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM), grey, dry, loose, estimated 5-8% fines. SPT-1 10- 11.5' 14, 50, 50/4"(100/ 10") SPT-1: Well graded SAND (SW-SM) with silt and 30% fine gravel, grey, dry, rounded gravel. - R-2 Poory Recovery ~10% of run. -Slow advancement.Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SAND1.0' R-2 6-10' --0.5'R-2: Same-as-above (SP-SM). R-3 10-13' --3'R-3: Same-as-above (SW-SM). R-4: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP), brown, dry, loose. R-5: Similar as above but gradational change to (SP-SM).R-6: Same-as-above (SP-SM). R-4 13-15' --2' R-5 15-17' --2' R-6 17-20' --2' R-7 20-25' --2'R-7: Same-as-above (SP-SM).Unconsolidated SILTR-5 25-30' --0.5'R-8: Poor recovery, assume same-as-above (SP-SM). SPT-2 30-31.5'27, 43, 46(N=89) 1.0'SPT-2: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP), grey-brown, very dense, loose, trace coarse sand. R-9 30-40' --10'R-9: SILT (ML) with fine sand, brown, cohesive, dry,estimated 30-40% very fine sand. -Archive 5-gallon bucket of SILT material for potential lab testing at 35-37 ft interval. R-10 30-40' --9'R-10: Same-as-above with occasional thin layers of silty fine SAND (SM) with 40% silt. Most of R-9 and R-10 material is SILT (ML). -Moderately easy advancement in SILT material. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 4 Boring ID:LMW-100 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:7/27/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:7/31/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 8" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,318.36 ft msl TOTAL DEPTH:180 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 90 80 60 70 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). Southwest perimeter NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments R-11 50-60' --9'R-11: Same-as-above (ML). .-Significant interval of SILT from 29 to 62 ft bgs.Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SILTR-12 60-70' --8.5'R-12 60-62ft: Same-as-above (ML). R-12 62-70ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), with trace coarse sand and fine gravel, brown, hard, dry. -Color change from brown to tan at 62 ft coinciding with change from SILT to SAND. -Fast advancement. R-13 70-80' --6.5'R-13: Poorly graded SAND (SP)with intervals of silty fine SAND (SM), tan, slightly moist, sandstone interval from 70 to 71 ft bgs. -Thin layer of sandstone 70-71 ft bgs. R-14 80-90' --5.5'R-14: Predominantly poorly graded SAND (SP) with zones ofsilty fine SAND (SM), tan and brown, dense, layered SP and SM. R-15 90-10' --4'R-15: Poorly graded SAND (SP) with gravel zones, grey, loose, estimated 20% fine-medium gravel. - Sample runs R-14 and R-15 are 'wet' but driller is adding water. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:3 OF 4 Boring ID:LMW-100 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:7/27/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:7/31/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 8" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,318.36 ft msl TOTAL DEPTH:180 ft bgs SWL: 100 150 140 130 110 120 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). Southwest perimeter NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments R-16 100-110' --5'R-16: Silty fine SAND (SM), with estimated 20-30% silt, brown, moist, dense, 50% recovery.-Driller is advancing with adding water sooutside 'core' is moist to wet but not inferred due to groundwater.Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SANDR-17 110-120' --10'R-17: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP),trace gravel, grey, loose, dry. -Driller switches to 'dry' advancement and doesn't add water at depths below 110 ft bgs. R-18 120-130' --10'R-18: Same-as-above (SP) with occassional zones of (SP-SM) and 5% rounded gravel, dry, grey, loose. -Samples from runs R-17 and R-18 completely dry. R-19 130-140' --10'R-19: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP-SM) with ~10% silt and ~10% fine gravel, dry, loose,, tan-brown. -Distinct change to tan-grey weathered SILTSTONE at 138 ft bgs.Consolidated SILTSTONER-20 140-150' --10'R-20: SILT (ML)with fine sand, tan, cohesive and compacted, estimated 30-40% fine sand, occassional fine sand lenses,weathered SILTSTONE. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:4 OF 4 Boring ID:LMW-100 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:7/27/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:7/31/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 8" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,318.36 ft msl TOTAL DEPTH:180 ft bgs SWL: 150 200 190 180 160 170 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). Southwest perimeter NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments R-21 150-160' --10'R-21: Silty fine SAND (SM) with zones of poorly graded fine SAND (SP-SM),brown, loose, SP zones are saturated-wet; SM material has 15-20% fines.Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SILTR-22 160-170' --10'R-22: Same-as-above (SM with SP-SM and SP zones); thin layer of SILT from 161 to 162 ft bgs. . R-23 170-180' --10'R-23: Predominantly SILT (ML) with fine sand with minorlenses of silty fine SAND (SM) with 30% fines, brown, hard, cohesive, slightly moist but not saturated. - First saturated zones/uppermost groundwater observed in sample run R-21 in SP zones. - Collected screen-zone grab samples for potential laboratory testing at 150-152 ft bgs and from 164-165 ft bgs. Total depth 180 ft bgs on 7/30/19 END OF LOG -SILT at 169 to 180 ft lower confining unit beneath upper saturated zone. -See Well Completion Diagram for Well Construction Details.Screen Interval149 to 169 ft bgs SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 4 Boring ID:LMW-101 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:7/24/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:7/26/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4346.48 ft TOTAL DEPTH:200 ft bgs SWL: 50 40 10 20 30 South perimeter, center ridge, inferred upgradient 171 ft bgs Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)CommentsSoil Description soil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Graphic LogSample ID column R=sonic sample ("run").Consolidated SANDSTONER-1 0-10' --1'R-1: Fine sandy SILT (ML), trace fine gravel, light tan, dry, soft, estimted 40% fine sand. SPT-1 10- 10.4'50/5" (R) 0.3'SPT-1: Fine sandy SILT (ML) or silty fine SAND (SM), trace fine gravel, light tan, dry, soft. R-2 10-12' --1' R-3 12-17' --2' R-4 17-20' --2' SPT-2 20- 21.5'17, 20, 26 (N=46) 1.5'SPT-2: Poorly graded fine SAND with silt (SP-SM), brown, dry, dense, cemented and weathered, estimated 10% fines. R-2, R-3, and R-4: Same as above. R-5 20-27' --5'R-5: Same as above (weathered sandstone). Poor recovery with R-1 (10%). Very hard slow advancement to 10 ft bgs. R-6 27-30' --2'R-6: Same as above (weathered sandstone). SPT-3 30- 30.4' 50/5" (R) 0.3'SPT-3: Same as above (weathered sandstone). R-7 30-40' --7.5'R-7: Same as above (weathered sandstone). Occassional zones of finer-grained material (inferred siltsone lenses witin the SPT-4 40- 41.5' 9, 16, 22 (N=38)SPT-3: Same as above (weathered sandstone).1.4'Driller starts adding water to ease advancement at 40 ft bgs; faster advancement rate at 40 ft. Dry sample runs, no evidense of saturated conditions to 50 ft bgs. R-8 40-50' --8'R-8: Same as above (weathered sandstone).Unconsolidated SANDTransition to weathered sandstone at 18-20 ft bgs _________ SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 4 Boring ID:LMW-101 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:7/24/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:7/26/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4346.48 ft TOTAL DEPTH:200 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 South perimeter, center ridge, inferred upgradient 171 ft bgs Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 80 60 70 90 Transition to unconsolidated sand at 74- 75 ft bgs.SANDSTONER-9 50-60' --8.5'R-9: Same as above (weathered sandstone) except interval of clean poorly graded unconsolidated sand (SP) from 52 to 54 ft bgs.SILTSTONESANDSTONER-10 60-68' --8'R-10: Fine sandy SILT (ML),brown, hard, dry, compacted and cemented, specimen crumbles in hand, estimated 30-40% fine sand (weathered siltstone). Transition to SILT or compacted siltstone at 60 ft bgs. R-11 68-73' --3.5'R-11 68-70ft:same as above (weathered siltstone). R-11 70-73ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), brown-tan, cemented- compacted, dry, estimated 30% fines (sandstone). R-12 73-80' --7'R-12 73-75ft:same as above (weathered sandstone). R-12 75-80ft: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP), unconsolidated, grey, dry, loose beach-sand appearance. R-13 80-90' --9.5'R-13: Same as above (SP). From 82 to 85 ft zone of sand with 15% sub-rounded gravel. Unconsolidated. Dry sample runs, no evidense of saturated conditions to 100 ft bgs. R-14 90-99' --7'R-14 90-98ft: Same as above (SP). Unconsolidated. R-14 98-99: Fine sandy SILT (ML), cemented-compacted, brown-tan, dry, very hard, estimated 30-40% fine sand (weathered siltstone).Unconsolidated SAND SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:3 OF 4 Boring ID:LMW-101 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:7/24/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:7/26/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4346.48 ft TOTAL DEPTH:200 ft bgs SWL: 100 150 South perimeter, center ridge, inferred upgradient 171 ft bgs Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 130 110 120 140 Unconsolidated SANDR-15 99-110' --10'R-15 99-103ft:same as above (weathered siltstone). R-15 103-110ft: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP), loose, dry, grey, unconsolidated-loose. R-16 110-120' --9'R-16:Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM) with trace gravel and estimated 10% fines, loose, grey, dry, unconsolidated. R-17 120-130' --10'R-17:Fine sandy SILT (ML), brown, cohesive with weaklycemented zones, dry, hard, estimated 30% fine sand. R-18 130-140' --9.5'R-18:Same as above, SILT (ML). R-19 140-150' --10'Unconsolidated SILTR-19 140-148ft:Same as above, SILT (ML). R-19 148-150ft:Silty fine SAND (SM), compacted, brown, estimated 20-30% silt (weathered sandstone). Dry sample runs, no evidense of saturated conditions to 150 ft bgs. Color change and transition to brown fine sandy SILT at 120 ft bgs. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:4 OF 4 Boring ID:LMW-101 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:7/24/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:7/26/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4346.48 ft TOTAL DEPTH:200 ft bgs SWL: 150 200 190 180 160 170 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). South perimeter, center ridge, inferred upgradient 171 ft bgs Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description (ASTM D-2488)Comments -See As-Built Well Diagram for well construction details.Screen Interval179 to 199 ft bgsR-20 150-160' --9'R-20:Silty fine SAND (SM), compacted, brown, estimated 20-30% silt, occasional zones of silt (weathered sandstone). -Faster/easier advancement rate after 140 ft bgs. -No evidense of saturated conditions to 160 ft bgs. R-21 160-170' --10'R-21:Fine sandy SILT (ML), brown, slightly moist, stiff- cohesive, estimated 30% fine sand, occasional zones of silty sand and clay lense from 164 to 165 ft bgs, trace fine gravel. R-22 170-180' --9.5'R-22 170-178ft: same as above, SILT (ML). R-22 178-180ft: Poorly graded clean SAND (SP), fine-medium grained, tan, loose, estimated 5% fines, wet zone.-First indication of saturated zone at 178 ft bgs in clean sand. R-23 180-190' --9.5'R-23: Same as above, SAND (SP). Bottom of Boring 200 ft bgs (total depth). R-24 190-200' --10'R-24: Same as above, SAND (SP). Poorly graded SAND with 20%gravel zone from 186 to 188 ft bgs; sub-rounded 3/4-1" gravel.-Archived lab samples from sonic run at intervals of 186-187 ft bgs; and 195 to 196 ft bgs for permeability testing. END OF LOG Unconsolidated SILTSANDSTONEUnconsolidated SAND SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 2 Boring ID:LMW-102 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:10/1/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:10/2/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing ELEVATION:TOTAL DEPTH:80 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 40 10 20 30 Southeast Corner; just north of the irrigation pond. NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)CommentsSoil Description soil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. 4298.99 ft (ground); 4300.43 ft (top-of-casing)Graphic LogSample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). R-1 0-8' --5'R-1 0-2ft: Topsoil,silty SAND (SM), brown, loose, dry. R-1 2-8ft: Silty fine SAND (SM),estimated 15% fines, 10%Unconsolidated SANDConsolidated SILTSTONE-Very difficult advancement at 6 ft bgs,driller started adding water to ease advancement.R-2 8-10' --2'R-2: Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM), estimated 10% fines, trace fine gravel, tan, loose, dry. R-3 10-16' --4.5'R-3 10-14ft: Same as above, (SP-SM). R-3 14-16ft: Fine sandy SILT (ML -SILTSTONE), est. 20% fine sand, dry, brown, very hard, compacted, weathered SILTSTONE. R-4 16-20' --4'R-4: Predominantly fine sandy SILT (ML-SILTSTONE), occassional lenses of silty fine sand (SM) consolidated, brown, dry, weathered SILTSTONE. R-5 20-28' --8'R-5 20-21ft: Same as above, (ML-SILTSTONE). R-5 21-26ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM), trace gravel, loose, brown, dry. R-5 26-28ft: Intermixed SILTSTONE and SANDSTONE lenses, consolidated, brown, dry, weathered. Unconsolidated SANDConsolidated SILTSTONER-6 28-30' --2'R-6: SILTSTONE with SANDSTONE lenses, similar to above. R-7 30-38' --8' -Zone from 26 to 46 ft depicted as consolidated SILTSTONE but has occassional thin lenses of SANDSTONE. R-7: Fine sandy SILT (ML-SILTSTONE), brown, dry, estimated 20% very fine sand, consolidated-cohesive. R-8 38-40' --2'R-8: Same as above,(ML-SILTSTONE). R-9 40-50' --10'R-9 40-46ft: Same as above,(ML-SILTSTONE). R-9 46-50ft: Silty fine SAND (SM-SANDSTONE), consolidated, tan, dry, weathered, estimated 20-30% fines and trace gravel.Consolidated SANDSTONE-Moderate advancement rate but difficult to extrude samples from sonic steel sampler. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 2 Boring ID:LMW-102 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:10/1/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:10/2/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing ELEVATION:TOTAL DEPTH:80 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 90 80 60 70 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). Southeast Corner; just north of the irrigation pond. NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments 4298.99 ft (ground); 4300.43 ft (top-of-casing) R-10 50-59' --9'R-10 50-58ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM/SP) with 5-10% fines, loose, dry, slightly moist. R-10 58-59ft: Fine sandy SILT (ML -SILTSTONE), dry, consolidated, tan.Consolidated SILTSTONEUnconsolidated SANDConsolidated SANDSTONER-11 59-69' --9.5'R-11 58-63ft: Same as above, (ML-SILTSTONE). R-11 63-68ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP), dry, brown-grey, loose, estimated 5% fines and trace fine gravel. R-12 69-80' --11'R-12 69-78ft: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP), brown,loose, wet, trace coarse sand. R-12 78-80 ft: Silty SAND (SM-SANDSTONE), dry, brown, cemented, estimated 20-30% fines. -First indication of saturated conditions in R-12 clean sand; had driller pull back casing to 74 ft bgs and measure borehole water at 70 ft bgs and slightly rising. -Collected grab samples of screen zone and underlying aquitard unit.Unconsolidated SANDScreen Interval68 to 78 ft bgsBottom of Boring 80 ft bgs (total depth).END OF LOG -See As-Built Well Diagramfor well construction details. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 3 Boring ID:LMW-103 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/1/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/1/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,304.82 ft msl TOTAL DEPTH:140 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 Graphic LogSample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 30 Center of expansion footprint NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)CommentsSoil Description soil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. 40 10 20 R-1 0-10' --1'R-1: Fine sandy SILT (ML), grey, dry, cohesive, stiff, estimated 30% fine sand. SPT-1 10- 11.5'9, 8,22(N=30) 1.5'SPT-1: 10-11' Same as above (SAA). SPT-1: 11.0-11.5' Poorly graded fine SAND (SP), grey, dry, dense. R-2 10-20' --0' SPT-2 20- 21.5'17, 30, 39 (N=69) 1.5' -Fast drilling advancement -No recovery with R-2 and R-3; sample washed out with driller adding water. SPT-3 30-31'0.3' R-4 30-40' --6.0'Unconsolidated SILTR-2: No recovery; inferred clean material. SPT-2: 20.0-21.5' Poorly graded fine SAND (SP), grey, dry, dense.Unconsolidated SANDR-3 20-30' --0'R-3: No recovery; inferred clean material. 18, 50, 50/1" (R) SPT-3: Poorly graded fine SAND (SP), grey, dry, dense, clean less than 5% fines. R-4: Alternating layers of silty fine SAND (SM) and poorly graded SAND (SP), grey, dense, wet due to driller adding water; SM is 20% fines. R-5 40-50' --2.0'R-5: Poor recovery; assume clean poorly graded SAND (SP) with SM zones; clean material washing out with driller adding water.Unconsolidated SAND-Poor recovery (20%). SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 3 Boring ID:LMW-103 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/1/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/1/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,304.82 ft msl TOTAL DEPTH:140 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 90 80 60 70 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). Center of expansion footprint NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments R-6 50-60' --5.5'R-6: Silty fine SAND (SM), brown with tan streaks, slightly cohesive, estimated 20% fines, occassional silt lenses. -Fast drilling advancement; driller addingwater so sample is wet.Unconsolidated SAND Consolidated SILTSTONEUnconsolidated SANDR-7 60-70' --7.0'R-7: 60-65' SAA (SM). R-7 65-70' SILT (ML)with sand, tan, dry, hard-crumbly,weakly cemented, estimated 20% fine sand. R-8 70-80' --7.5'R-8 SILT (ML)with sand, tan, dry, hard-crumbly, weakly cemented, estimated 40% fine sand. -Color change to tan hard crumbly SILT (weathered siltstone) at 65 ft bgs. R-9 80-90' --7.5'R-8 Transition at 81 ft to Silty fine SAND (SM), brown, dense, compacted, dry, sand content increases with depth (highly weathered sandstone). R-10 90-100' --6.0'R-10 Same-as-above to 94 ft bgs.R-10 94-96' Well graded GRAVEL (GW), rounded gravel, grey, dense, less than 5% fines.R-10 96-100' Silty find SAND (SM), light tan-grey, dry, hard, cohesive, estimated 30% fines - Thin gravel zone 73-75 ft bgs. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:3 OF 3 Boring ID:LMW-103 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/1/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/1/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4,304.82 ft msl TOTAL DEPTH:140 ft bgs SWL: 100 150 Center of expansion footprint NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 130 110 120 140 R-11 100-110' --7'R-11: Silty fine SAND (SM), color change to dark green, loose, estimated 15-20% fines.-Color change from tan-grey to dark green at 100 ft.Unconsolidated Consolidated SANDSTONER-12 110-120' --10'R-12: Transition/contact at 111 ft -Poorly graded fine- medium SAND (SP/SP-SM), grey, loose beach-sand, dry, predominatly SP but some zones of SP-SM. Trace fine gravel in interval from 117 to 120 ft. R-13 120-130' --10' -Driller stops adding water drilling dry at depths below 110 ft bgs to identify uppermost groundwater. -First indication of saturated conditions from 130 to 140 ft bgs. -Collected grab samples of saturated zone at 132 ft and 138 ft depths for permeability testing in saturated zone. R-13: Transition to silty fine SAND (SM) at 127 ft and weathered SANDSTONE (SM) at 128 ft bgs, dry, grey-tan,cemended and weathered sandstone. R-14 130-140' --10'R-14: Intermixed Poorly graded SAND (SP) and well graded SAND (SW) with gravel zones at 132 and 138 ft depths, wet, loose-clean material, dense.Unconsolidated SANDScreen Interval128 to 138 ft bgsBottom of Boring 140 ft bgs (total depth).END OF LOG -See As-Built Well Diagram for well construction details. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 3 Boring ID:LMW-104 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/5/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/5/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4267.04 ft TOTAL DEPTH:120 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 40 10 20 30 North perimeter, center NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)CommentsSoil Description soil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Graphic LogSample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). R-1 0-10' --4'R-1: Silty fine SAND (SM), trace fine gravel, moist, medium dense, brown and tan, estimated 30% fines. SPT-1 20- 21.5'14, 29, 36(N=65) SPT-1: 20-20.5' Same as above (SAA). SPT-1: 20.5-21.5' Poorly graded fine SAND (SP), grey, dry, dense, clean less than 5% fines. -Driller plans to drill wet adding water from 0-60 ft bgs, then switch to dry thereafter to identify uppermostsaturated conditions.Unconsolidated SAND1.5' R-2 10-20' --0'R-2: No recovery,assume sample was clean and washed out when driller was adding water for drilling advancement. Assume silty SAND (SM).-Slower advancement at 12 ft bgs.Unconsolidated SANDSILTR-3 20-30' --0'R-3: No recovery,assume sample was clean and washed outwhen driller was adding water for drilling advancement. Assume poorly graded SAND (SP). SPT-2 30- 31.5'18, 29, 38 (N=67) 1.5'SPT-2: Poorly graded SAND (SP), trace gravel, grey, moist, very dense. R-4 30-40' --3'R-4: Same-as-above, Poorly graded SAND (SP), trace gravel, grey, moist, very dense. 30% Recovery. -Poor recovery in sonic runs to 40 ft bgs due to clean material and driller adding water to ease advancement. R-5 40-50' --7'R-5 40-45ft: Same-as-above, Poorly graded SAND (SP). R-5 45-47ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), brown-tan, moist, hard.R-5 47-50ft: SILT (ML) with fine sand, tan, hard-cohesive, crumbly, dry, estimated 20% fine sand. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 3 Boring ID:LMW-104 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/5/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/5/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4267.04 ft TOTAL DEPTH:120 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 90 80 60 70 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). North perimeter, center NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments R-6 50-60' --8.5'R-6: SILT (ML)with fine sand, brown-tan, dry, cohesive- crumbly, estimated 20% fine sand.-Relatively fast-easy advancement to 50 ft bgs. -Archive lab sample of SILT material from55 to 56 ft bgs.Consolidated SILTSTONEUnconsolidated SANDR-7 60-70' --8'R-7 60-65ft: Same-as-above SILT (ML)with fine sand, brown- tan, dry, cohesive-crumbly, estimated 20% fine sand.R-7 65-70ft: SILT/SILTSTONE (ML), dry, hard, crumbly, tan, cemented weathered siltstone, estimated 10% fine sand.-Transition to advance without water to identify uppermost groundwater at 60 ftbgs. R-8 68-80' --12'R-8: Same as above, SILT/SILTSTONE (ML)dry, hard,crumbly, tan, cemented weathered siltstone, estimated 10% fine sand. Occasional zones of SANDSTONE.Unconsolidated SILTR-9 80-90' --10'R-9 80-84ft: Same-as-above (SILTSTONE). R-9 84-88ft: Silty fine SAND (SM) weathered SANDSTONE, hard, crumbly, brown-grey, dry, moderately competent. R-9 88-90ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), dry, dense, loose, estimated 20% fines.Consolidated SANDSTONER-10 90-99' --10'R-10 90-99ft: Same-as-above, silty SAND (SM). R-10 99-100ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP), tan-grey, looseclean sand, wet-saturated material. -Uppermost saturated zone identified at 99 ft bgs in clean SAND (SP). SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:3 OF 3 Boring ID:LMW-104 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:8/5/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:8/5/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing GROUND ELEVATION:4267.04 ft TOTAL DEPTH:120 ft bgs SWL: 100 150 140 130 110 120 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). North perimeter, center NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments R-11 100-110' --10'R-11: Predominantly poorly graded medium SAND (SP) with well graded SAND (SW) zones at 105-106 ft, trace gravel, wet, clean, loose sand. -Uppermost water-bearing zone from 99 to 114 ft bgs in clean SAND (SP).SILTUnconsolidated SANDR-12 110-120' --10'R-12 100-114ft: Same-as-above, SAND (SP). R-12 114-120ft: Borderline fine sandy SILT (ML)/silty fineSAND (SM), green-grey, slightly moist but not saturated, cohesive,estimated 50% fines. (ML/SM) -Material from 114 to 120 ft bgs is dry/not saturated and Bottom of Boring 120 ft bgs (total depth).END OF LOG - Archive lab samples at 102-103 and 105 ft zones for permeability testing of screen zone; archive sample of 115-116 ft of SILT for lab testing of underlying confining unit. -See As-Built Well Diagram for well construction details.Screen Interval99 to 114 ft bgs SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 2 Boring ID:LMW-105 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:10/2/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:10/3/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing ELEVATION:TOTAL DEPTH:100 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 40 30 10 20 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). East perimeter just west of drainage creek/canal NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments 4267.28 ft (ground); 4268.75 ft (top-of-casing) R-1 0-5' --3.5'Unconsildated SILTUnconsolidated SANDConsolidated SANDSTONE-Topsoil 0-2.5ft R-1 0-2.5ft: Silty SAND (SM), dark brown, loose, moist, topsoil. R-1 2.5-5ft: Well graded SAND (SW-SM), brown, loose, dry, estimated 30% rounded gravel. R-2 5-10' --5'R-2 5-7ft: Same as above, (SW-SM). R-7-10ft: Fine sandy SILT (ML-SILTSTONE), tan, dry, compacted-cemented, trace fine gravel, estimated 20% R-3 10-18' --8'R-3 Borderline fine sandy SILT or silty fine SAND (ML/SM), tan, cohesive, dry, very slow drilling. -Rougher/slow advancement at 7 ft bgs; very slow at 10 ft bgs. R-4 18-20' --2'R-4 Same as above, (ML/SM). R-5 20-30' --6'R-5 Same as above to 21 ft. R-5 21-25ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP), grey, dry,loose, clean sand. R-5 25-30ft: Fine sandy SILT (ML), tan-brown, dry, cohesive,estimated 30% very fine sand. Unconsolidated SANDConsolidated SILTSTONEUnconsolidated SANDConsolidated SANDSTONE-Relatively easy drilling R- 7 to 50 ft bgs. No evidense of saturated zones to 50 ft R-6 30-40' --10'R-6 30-33ft: SILT (ML-SILTSTONE), compacted, dry, tan- grey, estimate 20% fine sand. R-6 33-35 ft: Silty SAND (SM-SANDSTONE),highly weathered, tan-grey, dry, cemented and consolidated. R-6 35-40ft: same as 30-33ft interval, (ML-SILTSTONE). R-7 40-50' --9'R-7 40-45ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM), brown, loose, dry, estimated 5-8% fines. R-7 45-50ft: Silty SAND (SM-SANDSTONE), grey, dry, cemented-pulverized SANDSTONE. Gradational contact at 45 ft. (Continued)(Continued) SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 2 Boring ID:LMW-105 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:10/2/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:10/3/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing ELEVATION:TOTAL DEPTH:100 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 East perimeter just west of drainage creek/canal 4267.28 ft (ground); 4268.75 ft (top-of-casing)NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 80 60 70 90 R-8 50-60' --10'UnconsildatedSILTUnconsolidated SANDR-8 50-53ft: Well graded SAND (SW) with trace fine gravel, loose, grey, dry. R-8 53-56ft: SILT (ML), trace fine sand, tan, slightlymoist, dry, cohesive. R-8 56-60ft: Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM)with estimated 5-8% fines, brown, loose, dry. -Relatively easy drilling advancement.SANDConsolidated SANDSTONE SILTSTONER-9 60-67' --7'R-9 60-53ft: Same as above, (SP-SM). Dry. R-9 63-67ft: Fine sandy SILT (ML -SILTSTONE), cohesive,cemented, tan, dry, estimated 20% fine sand. R-10 67-70' --7'R-10 67-70ft: Silty SAND (SM-SANDSTONE), cemented, consolidated, fairly competent rock, grey-white, dry. R-11 70-80' --10'R-11 Silty fine SAND (SM), estimated 30% fines, grey- green, loose but semi-cohesive, first indication of saturation at 75-77 ft bgs, unconsolidated. -First indication of uppermost saturated or moist soil from 75-77 ft bgs.UnconsildatedSANDUnconsolidatedSILTUnconsildatedSILTUnconsildatedSANDR-12 80-90' --10'R-12 80-85ft:SILT (ML), cohesive, massive, moist, light grey to white, estimated 10-20% fine sand, soft material cuts with knife to smooth surface.R-12 85-89.5ft: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP), trace fine gravel, brown, wet, less than 5% fines, grey-brown. R-12 90-100' --10' R-12 90-92ft:Alternating thin lenses of SANDSTONE and SILTSTONE, mosit, consolidated-cemented. R-12 92-98ft: Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP-SM), grey, loose, wet. R-12 98-100ft: SILT (ML) with estimated 40% very fine sand, tan-grey, moist, cohesive and crumbly. Bottom of Boring 80 ft bgs (total depth).END OF LOG Screen Interval84 to 99 ft -See As-Built Well Diagram for well construction details. -Thin lenses of weathered sandstone-siltstone from 90- 92 ft bgs. -Collected lab samples of screen interval and underlying confining unit. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:1 OF 2 Boring ID:LMW-106 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:10/7/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:10/8/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing ELEVATION:TOTAL DEPTH:80 ft bgs SWL: 0 50 40 30 10 20 Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). Northeast corner near drainage creek NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments 4234.29 ft (ground); 4236.01 ft (top-of-casing) R-1 0-10' --6'Consolidated SANDSTONE-Topsoil 0-1ft . -Very easy fast advancement for R-1.R-1 0-2.5ft: Silty fine SAND (SM), brown, loose, dry,dense, loose, estimated 20% fines, 5% fine gravel.Unconsolidated SAND(Continued)(Continued) R-2 10-14' --3.5'R-2 Poorly graded SAND (SP-SM), brown, loose, dry, estimated 10% fines, 5% subrounded gravel. R-3 14-17' --3'R-3 14-15ft: Same as above, (SP-SM). R-3 15-17ft: Fine sandy SILT (ML -SILSTONE), tan, hard,cohesive, estimated 10-15% fine sand. R-4 17-18' --1'R-4 Silty fine SAND (SM-SANDSTONE), tan-brown, dry,cemented. Occassional lenses of SILTSTONE. R-5 18-20' --1.5'R-5 Same as above (SM-SANDSTONE). R-6 20-30' --10'R-6 Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP-SM), loose,grey-brown, dry, estimatedd 5-12% fines.Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SANDR-7 30-40' --9.5'R-7 30-35ft: Same as above, (SP-SM). Dry. R-7 35-40ft: Well graded SAND (SW-SM) with ~10% fine rounded gravel and 5-10% fines, dry, brown, loose, alluvium sand. -Fast advancement with R-7. -Increasing gravel with depth from35to 40 ft bgs. R-8 40-50' --10'R-8 Poorly graded fine-medium SAND (SP-SM), brown- grey, loose, dry, estimated 5-15% fines variable lenses. -Color change brown to light grey at 45 ft but same material. SOIL BORING LOG PAGE:2 OF 2 Boring ID:LMW-106 (monitoring well) PROJECT NUMBER:1-05119 START DATE:10/7/2019 PROJECT NAME:Logan Landfill Expansion END DATE:10/8/2019 LOCATION:LOGGER:C. Sauer DRILLING CONTRACTOR:Okeefe (driller is Larry Phillips)DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Geoprobe Track Rig; Model 8150LS DRILLING METHOD:Sonic dual-casing; SPT 140# Auto-Hammer BORING DIAMETER:4" inner tube sampler; 6" diam. Outer casing ELEVATION:TOTAL DEPTH:80 ft bgs SWL: 50 100 Northeast corner near drainage creek 4234.29 ft (ground); 4236.01 ft (top-of-casing)NA Depth (ft)Sample ID/ TYPESample Interval (ft)SPTblows per 6"Recovery (ft)Soil Description Comments Graphic Logsoil name, USCS group symbol, color, density or consistency, structure, mineralogy, grain size, grading, and moisture content. Sample ID column R=sonic sample ("run"). 80 60 70 90 R-9 50-60' --10'Consolidated SANDSTONE-Contact to SANDSTONE at 53 ft. R-9 50-53ft: Same as above, (SP-SM). Dry. R-9 53-60ft: Silty SAND (SM-SANDSTONE), light grey,dry, estimated 30% fines, cemented but highly weathered.Unconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SANDUnconsolidated SILTR-10 60-70' --10'R-10 Poorly graded SAND (SP), fine-medium grained, loose, brown, wet. Occasional well graded SAND zones. Clean less than 5% fines. -Encounter uppermost saturated zone entire 10ft run wet/saturated from 60to 70 ft bgs. R-11 70-80' --10'R-11 70-73ft: Same as above, (SP), wet. R-11 73-80ft: Borderline sandy SILT or silty fine SAND (ML/SM),tan-brown, moist, cohesive, hard, unconsolidated. Estimated 40-60% fines. Bottom of Boring 80 ft bgs (total depth).END OF LOG -Collect grab permeability samples forscreen zone and underlying confining unit.Screen Interval33 to 73 ft -See As-Built Well Diagramfor well construction details. Appendix B Detection Monitoring Program Data Needs/Uses, Data Quality Objectives, and Data Quality Assessment Appendix B-1. Data Needs and UsesGroundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis PlanGallatin Solid Waste Management District - Logan Landfill Cell 4 ExpansionRef. No. ConstituentData Needs Data User Method UnitsReporting LimitWater Quality Standard(MCL)--TemperatureRequired for detection monitoring; field parameteField samplersField ProbeCelcius0.1 Celcius----pHRequired for detection monitoring; stabilization parameterField samplersField ProbeUnitless0.01 Units6.5 - 8.5--Specific ConductanceRequired for detection monitoring; stabilization parameterField samplersField Probeumhos/c1 umhos/cm----Static depth to groundwaterNeeded for groundwater flow map and estiamte seepage Hydrogeologists, regulatorsField Probefeet0.01 ft--1AntimonyDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L0.00050.0062ArsenicDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L0.0010.013BariumDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L0.00314BerylliumDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L0.00080.0045CadmiumDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L0.000030.0056ChromiumDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L0.010.17CobaltDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L0.01--8CopperDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L0.0021.39LeadDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L0.00030.01510NickelDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L0.0020.111SeleniumDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L0.0010.0512SilverDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L0.00020.113ThalliumDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L0.00020.00214VanadiumDetection monitoring parameterHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L0.1--15ZincDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L0.008216AcetoneDetection monitoring parameterHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L20.0--17AcrylonitrileDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L3.00.6118BenzeneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5519BromochloromethaneDetection monitoring parameterHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5--20BromodichloromethaneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.51021Bromoform; TribromomethaneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.58022Carbon DisulfideDetection monitoring parameterHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L1.0--23Carbon TetrachlorideDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5324ChlorobenzeneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.510025Chloroethane; Ethyl ChlorideDetection monitoring parameterHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5--26Chloroform; TrichloromethaneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.57027Dibromochloromethane; ChlorodibromomethaneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.58281,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCPDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.50.2291,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene Dibromide; EDBDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.50.01730o-Dichlorobenzene; 1,2-DichlorobenzeneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.560031p-Dichlorobenzene; 1,4-DichlorobenzeneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.57532trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-buteneDetection monitoring parameterHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L1.0--331,1-Dichloroethane; Ethylidene ChlorideDetection monitoring parameterHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5--341,2-Dichloroethane; Ethylene DichlorideDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.54351,1-Dichloroethylene; 1,1-Dichloroethene; Vinylidene Detection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5736cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene; cis-1,2-DichloroetheneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.570Field ParametersMetals/InorganicsOrganic ConstituentsPage 1 of 2 Appendix B-1. Data Needs and UsesGroundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis PlanGallatin Solid Waste Management District - Logan Landfill Cell 4 ExpansionRef. No. ConstituentData Needs Data User Method UnitsReporting LimitWater Quality Standard(MCL)37trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene; trans-1,2-DichloroetheneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5100381,2-Dichloropropane; Propylene dichlorideDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5539cis-1,3-DichloropropeneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.3440trans-1,3-DichloropropeneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.3241EthylbenzeneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5700422-Hexanone; Methyl butyl ketoneDetection monitoring parameterHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L20.0--43Methyl bromide; BromomethaneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.51044Methyl chloride; ChloromethaneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.560045Methylene bromide; DibromomethaneDetection monitoring parameterHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5--46Methylene chloride; DichloromethaneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5547Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2-ButanoneDetection monitoring parameterHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L20.0--48Methyl iodide; IdomethaneDetection monitoring parameterHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L1.0--494-Methyl-2-pentanone; Methyl isobutyl ketoneDetection monitoring parameterHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L20.0--50StyreneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5100511,1,1,2-TetrachloroethaneDetection monitoring parameterHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5--521,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5253Tetrachloroethylene; Tetrachloroethene; PerchloroethyleneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5554TolueneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.51000551,1,1-Trichloroethane; MethylchloroformDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5200561,1,2-TrichloroethaneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5357Trichloroethylene; TrichloroetheneDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5558Trichlorofluoromethane; CFC-11Detection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.52000591,2,3-TrichloropropaneDetection monitoring parameterHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.5--60Vinyl acetateDetection monitoring parameterHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L1.0--61Vinyl chlorideDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L0.40.262XylenesDetection monitoring parameter; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsSW8260Bug/L1.5100001 AlkalinityBackground characterization; ion balance & trilinear diagram Hydrogeologists, regulators A2320 B mg/L 4 --2 BicarbonateBackground characterization; ion balance & trilinear diagram Hydrogeologists, regulators A2320 B mg/L 4 --3Calcium (dissolved)Background characterization; ion balance & trilinear diagramHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L1--4Iron (dissolved)Background characterization; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L0.020.3*5Magnesium (dissolved)Background characterization; ion balance & trilinear diagramHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L1--6Manganese (dissolved)Background characterization; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L0.0010.05*7Potassium (dissolved)Background characterization; ion balance & trilinear diagramHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L1--8Sodium (dissolved)Background characterization; ion balance & trilinear diagramHydrogeologists, regulatorsEPA 200.7/200.8mg/L1--9ChlorideBackground characterization; ion balance; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsE300.0mg/L1250*10SulfateBackground characterization; ion balance; compare to MCLsHydrogeologists, regulatorsE300.0mg/L1250*NOTE:*This MCL is one of the drinking water limits, based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) primary and secondary standards for public water supplies.General Chemistry (only required during background monitoring period- not required for detection-phase monitoring)Page 2 of 2 Appendix B-2. Data Quality ObjectivesGroundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis PlanGallatin Soild Waste Management District - Logan Landfill Cell 4 ExpansionRef. No. ConstituentTarget Reporting LimitUnitsWater Quality Standard(MCL)MethodMatrix SpikePrecision (RPD)Matrix SpikeAccuracy(%R)Laboratory ControlSample Accuracy(%R)Completeness(Percent)Metals/Inorganics1Antimony0.0005mg/L0.006E200.7/200.820%70-13085-115100%2Arsenic0.001mg/L0.01E200.7/200.820%70-13085-115100%3Barium0.003mg/L1E200.7/200.820%70-13085-115100%4Beryllium0.0008mg/L0.004E200.7/200.820%70-13085-115100%5Cadmium0.00003mg/L0.005E200.7/200.820%70-13085-115100%6Chromium0.01mg/L0.1E200.7/200.820%70-13085-115100%7Cobalt0.01mg/L--E200.7/200.820%70-13085-115100%8Copper0.002mg/L1.3E200.7/200.820%70-13085-115100%9Lead0.0003mg/L0.015E200.7/200.820%70-13085-115100%10Nickel0.002mg/L0.1E200.7/200.820%70-13085-115100%11Selenium0.001mg/L0.05E200.7/200.820%70-13085-115100%12Silver0.0002mg/L0.1E200.7/200.820%70-13085-115100%13Thallium0.0002mg/L0.002E200.7/200.820%70-13085-115100%14Vanadium0.1mg/L--E200.7/200.820%70-13085-115100%15Zinc0.008mg/L2E200.7/200.820%70-13085-115100%Organic Constituents16Acetone20.0µg/L--SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%17Acrylonitrile3.0µg/L0.61SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%18Benzene0.5µg/L5SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%19Bromochloromethane0.5µg/L--SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%20Bromodichloromethane0.5µg/L10.0SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%21Bromoform; Tribromomethane0.5µg/L80SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%22Carbon Disulfide1.0µg/L--SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%23Carbon Tetrachloride0.5µg/L3.0SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%24Chlorobenzene0.5µg/L100SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%25Chloroethane; Ethyl Chloride0.5µg/L--SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%26Chloroform; Trichloromethane0.5µg/L70SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%27Dibromochloromethane; Chlorodibromomethane0.5µg/L8SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%281,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP0.5µg/L0.2SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%291,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene Dibromide; EDB0.5µg/L0.017SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%30o-Dichlorobenzene; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene0.5µg/L600SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%31p-Dichlorobenzene; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene0.5µg/L75SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%32trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene1.0µg/L--SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%331,1-Dichloroethane; Ethylidene Chloride0.5µg/L--SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%341,2-Dichloroethane; Ethylene Dichloride0.5µg/L4.0SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%351,1-Dichloroethylene; 1,1-Dichloroethene; Vinylidene 0.5µg/L7SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%36cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene; cis-1,2-Dichloroethene0.5µg/L70SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%37trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene; trans-1,2-Dichloroethene0.5µg/L100SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%381,2-Dichloropropane; Propylene dichloride0.5µg/L5SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%39cis-1,3-Dichloropropene0.3µg/L4SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%40trans-1,3-Dichloropropene0.3µg/L2SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%41Ethylbenzene0.5µg/L700SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%422-Hexanone; Methyl butyl ketone20.0µg/L--SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%43Methyl bromide; Bromomethane0.5µg/L10SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%Page 1 of 2 Appendix B-2. Data Quality ObjectivesGroundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis PlanGallatin Soild Waste Management District - Logan Landfill Cell 4 ExpansionRef. No. ConstituentTarget Reporting LimitUnitsWater Quality Standard(MCL)MethodMatrix SpikePrecision (RPD)Matrix SpikeAccuracy(%R)Laboratory ControlSample Accuracy(%R)Completeness(Percent)44Methyl chloride; Chloromethane0.5µg/L600SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%45Methylene bromide; Dibromomethane0.5µg/L--SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%46Methylene chloride; Dichloromethane0.5µg/L5SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%47Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2-Butanone20.0µg/L--SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%48Methyl iodide; Idomethane1.0µg/L--SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%494-Methyl-2-pentanone; Methyl isobutyl ketone20.0µg/L--SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%50Styrene0.5µg/L100SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%511,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane0.5µg/L--SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%521,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane0.5µg/L2SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%53Tetrachloroethylene; Tetrachloroethene; Perchloroethylene0.5µg/L5.0SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%54Toluene0.5µg/L1000SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%551,1,1-Trichloroethane; Methylchloroform0.5µg/L200SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%561,1,2-Trichloroethane0.5µg/L3SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%57Trichloroethylene; Trichloroethene0.5µg/L5SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%58Trichlorofluoromethane; CFC-110.5µg/L2000SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%591,2,3-Trichloropropane0.5µg/L--SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%60Vinyl acetate1.0µg/L--SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%61Vinyl chloride0.4µg/L0.20SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%62Xylenes1.5µg/L10000SW8260B20%70-130*70-130*100%General Chemistry (only required during background monitoring period- not required for detection-phase monitoring)1 Alkalinity4 mg/L --A2320B 10 N/A 90-110100%2 Bicarbonate4 mg/L --A2320B 10 N/A 90-110100%3 Calcium (dissolved)1 mg/L --200.7.820% 70-130 85-115 100%4 Iron (dissolved)0.02 mg/L0.3†200.7.820% 70-130 85-115 100%5 Magnesium (dissolved)1 mg/L --200.7.820% 70-130 85-115 100%6 Manganese (dissolved)0.001 mg/L0.05†200.7.820% 70-130 85-115 100%7 Potassium (dissolved)1 mg/L --200.7.820% 70-130 85-115 100%8 Sodium (dissolved)1 mg/L --200.7.820% 70-130 85-115 100%9Chloride1mg/L250†E300.020%90-110 90-110100%10Sulfate1mg/L250†E300.020%90-110 90-110100%NOTE:*Default method limits for 8260B are 70-130; however method recommends statistical limits based on performance. Limits may be statistically set and re-evaluated on an on-going basis.†This MCL is one of the drinking water limits, based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) primary and secondary standards for public water supplies.Page 2 of 2 Appendix B-3. Measurement Performance Criteria for Field Measured ParametersGroundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis PlanGallatin Solid Waste Management District - Logan Landfill Cell 4 ExpansionMatrix Parameter Method UnitsStabilizationCriteria1Accuracy Detection LimitsGroundwater (Water Quality)pH Hand-held multi-parameter probe Unitless +/- 0.1 +/- 0.1 0 to 14Groundwater (Water Quality)Temperature Hand-held multi-parameter probe Deg. Celcius NA +/- 1.0 0 to 55Groundwater (Water Quality)Specific ConductanceHand-held multi-parameter probe uS/cm +/-3% +/-3% 0 to 9,999uS/cmNotes:1. Stabilization criteria only applicable to groundwater sampling via 'low-flow' method as described in Section 2 (details provided in Appendix C).Page 1 of 1 Appendix B-4. Sample Containers, Preservatives, and Hold TimesGroundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis PlanGallatin Solid Waste Management District - Logan Landfill Cell 4 ExpansionMatrix Parameter Method Container Preservation Analytical Holding TimeWaterAnionsE300.028 daysWaterpHA4500-H B0.25 hoursWaterConductivityA2510 B28 daysWater Dissolved Metals E200.7_8 1 x 250 mL PlasticHNO3, 4°C180 daysWaterVOCsSW8260B3 x 40 mL Clear Glass VOAHCL, 4°C14 daysWaterVOCs (Trip Blank)SW8260B1 x 40 mL Clear Glass VOAHCL, 4°C14 days1x 500 mL PlasticUnpreserved, 4°CPage 1 of 1 Appendix C Groundwater Sampling Field Procedures (EPA’s Low-Flow Guidelines) 1 EPA/540/S-95/504 April 1996 United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Office of Research and Development LOW-FLOW (MINIMAL DRAWDOWN) GROUND-WATER SAMPLING PROCEDURES by Robert W. Puls1 and Michael J. Barcelona2 Technology Innovation Office Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, US EPA, Washington, DC Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D. Director Ground Water Issue National Risk Management Research Laboratory Subsurface Protection and Remediation Division Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center Ada, Oklahoma Superfund Technology Support Center for Ground Water Background The Regional Superfund Ground Water Forum is a group of ground-water scientists, representing EPA’s Regional Superfund Offices, organized to exchange information related to ground-water remediation at Superfund sites. One of the major concerns of the Forum is the sampling of ground water to support site assessment and remedial performance monitoring objectives. This paper is intended to provide background information on the development of low-flow sampling procedures and its application under a variety of hydrogeologic settings. It is hoped that the paper will support the production of standard operating procedures for use by EPA Regional personnel and other environmental professionals engaged in ground-water sampling. For further information contact: Robert Puls, 405-436-8543, Subsurface Remediation and Protection Division, NRMRL, Ada, Oklahoma. I. Introduction The methods and objectives of ground-water sampling to assess water quality have evolved over time. Initially the emphasis was on the assessment of water quality of aquifers as sources of drinking water. Large water-bearing units were identified and sampled in keeping with that objective. These were highly productive aquifers that supplied drinking water via private wells or through public water supply systems. Gradually, with the increasing aware- ness of subsurface pollution of these water resources, the understanding of complex hydrogeochemical processes which govern the fate and transport of contaminants in the subsurface increased. This increase in understanding was also due to advances in a number of scientific disciplines and improvements in tools used for site characterization and ground-water sampling. Ground-water quality investigations where pollution was detected initially borrowed ideas, methods, and materials for site characterization from the water supply field and water analysis from public health practices. This included the materials and manner in which monitoring wells were installed and the way in which water was brought to the surface, treated, preserved and analyzed. The prevailing conceptual ideas included convenient generali- zations of ground-water resources in terms of large and relatively homogeneous hydrologic units. With time it became apparent that conventional water supply generalizations of homogeneity did not adequately represent field data regard- ing pollution of these subsurface resources. The important role of heterogeneity became increasingly clear not only in geologic terms, but also in terms of complex physical, 1National Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA 2University of Michigan 2 chemical and biological subsurface processes. With greater appreciation of the role of heterogeneity, it became evident that subsurface pollution was ubiquitous and encompassed the unsaturated zone to the deep subsurface and included unconsolidated sediments, fractured rock, and aquitards or low-yielding or impermeable formations. Small-scale pro- cesses and heterogeneities were shown to be important in identifying contaminant distributions and in controlling water and contaminant flow paths. It is beyond the scope of this paper to summarize all the advances in the field of ground-water quality investiga- tions and remediation, but two particular issues have bearing on ground-water sampling today: aquifer heterogeneity and colloidal transport. Aquifer heterogeneities affect contaminant flow paths and include variations in geology, geochemistry, hydrology and microbiology. As methods and the tools available for subsurface investigations have become increas- ingly sophisticated and understanding of the subsurface environment has advanced, there is an awareness that in most cases a primary concern for site investigations is characterization of contaminant flow paths rather than entire aquifers. In fact, in many cases, plume thickness can be less than well screen lengths (e.g., 3-6 m) typically installed at hazardous waste sites to detect and monitor plume movement over time. Small-scale differences have increasingly been shown to be important and there is a general trend toward smaller diameter wells and shorter screens. The hydrogeochemical significance of colloidal-size particles in subsurface systems has been realized during the past several years (Gschwend and Reynolds, 1987; McCarthy and Zachara, 1989; Puls, 1990; Ryan and Gschwend, 1990). This realization resulted from both field and laboratory studies that showed faster contaminant migration over greater distances and at higher concentrations than flow and trans- port model predictions would suggest (Buddemeier and Hunt, 1988; Enfield and Bengtsson, 1988; Penrose et al., 1990). Such models typically account for interaction between the mobile aqueous and immobile solid phases, but do not allow for a mobile, reactive solid phase. It is recognition of this third phase as a possible means of contaminant transport that has brought increasing attention to the manner in which samples are collected and processed for analysis (Puls et al., 1990; McCarthy and Degueldre, 1993; Backhus et al., 1993; U. S. EPA, 1995). If such a phase is present in sufficient mass, possesses high sorption reactivity, large surface area, and remains stable in suspension, it can serve as an important mechanism to facilitate contaminant transport in many types of subsurface systems. Colloids are particles that are sufficiently small so that the surface free energy of the particle dominates the bulk free energy. Typically, in ground water, this includes particles with diameters between 1 and 1000 nm. The most commonly observed mobile particles include: secondary clay minerals; hydrous iron, aluminum, and manganese oxides; dissolved and particulate organic materials, and viruses and bacteria. These reactive particles have been shown to be mobile under a variety of conditions in both field studies and laboratory column experiments, and as such need to be included in monitoring programs where identification of the total mobile contaminant loading (dissolved + naturally suspended particles) at a site is an objective. To that end, sampling methodologies must be used which do not artificially bias naturally suspended particle concentrations. Currently the most common ground-water purging and sampling methodology is to purge a well using bailers or high speed pumps to remove 3 to 5 casing volumes followed by sample collection. This method can cause adverse impacts on sample quality through collection of samples with high levels of turbidity. This results in the inclusion of otherwise immobile artifactual particles which produce an overestima- tion of certain analytes of interest (e.g., metals or hydrophobic organic compounds). Numerous documented problems associated with filtration (Danielsson, 1982; Laxen and Chandler, 1982; Horowitz et al., 1992) make this an undesir- able method of rectifying the turbidity problem, and include the removal of potentially mobile (contaminant-associated) particles during filtration, thus artificially biasing contaminant concentrations low. Sampling-induced turbidity problems can often be mitigated by using low-flow purging and sampling techniques. Current subsurface conceptual models have under- gone considerable refinement due to the recent development and increased use of field screening tools. So-called hydraulic push technologies (e.g., cone penetrometer, Geoprobe®, QED HydroPunch®) enable relatively fast screening site characterization which can then be used to design and install a monitoring well network. Indeed, alternatives to conventional monitoring wells are now being considered for some hydrogeologic settings. The ultimate design of any monitoring system should however be based upon adequate site characterization and be consistent with established monitoring objectives. If the sampling program objectives include accurate assessment of the magnitude and extent of subsurface contamination over time and/or accurate assessment of subsequent remedial performance, then some information regarding plume delineation in three-dimensional space is necessary prior to monitoring well network design and installation. This can be accomplished with a variety of different tools and equipment ranging from hand-operated augers to screening tools mentioned above and large drilling rigs. Detailed information on ground-water flow velocity, direction, and horizontal and vertical variability are essential baseline data requirements. Detailed soil and geologic data are required prior to and during the installation of sampling points. This includes historical as well as detailed soil and geologic logs which accumulate during the site investigation. The use of borehole geophysical techniques is also recom- mended. With this information (together with other site characterization data) and a clear understanding of sampling 3 objectives, then appropriate location, screen length, well diameter, slot size, etc. for the monitoring well network can be decided. This is especially critical for new in situ remedial approaches or natural attenuation assessments at hazardous waste sites. In general, the overall goal of any ground-water sampling program is to collect water samples with no alter- ation in water chemistry; analytical data thus obtained may be used for a variety of specific monitoring programs depending on the regulatory requirements. The sampling methodology described in this paper assumes that the monitoring goal is to sample monitoring wells for the presence of contaminants and it is applicable whether mobile colloids are a concern or not and whether the analytes of concern are metals (and metal- loids) or organic compounds. II. Monitoring Objectives and Design Considerations The following issues are important to consider prior to the design and implementation of any ground-water monitoring program, including those which anticipate using low-flow purging and sampling procedures. A. Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) Monitoring objectives include four main types: detection, assessment, corrective-action evaluation and resource evaluation, along with hybrid variations such as site- assessments for property transfers and water availability investigations. Monitoring objectives may change as contami- nation or water quality problems are discovered. However, there are a number of common components of monitoring programs which should be recognized as important regard- less of initial objectives. These components include: 1) Development of a conceptual model that incorporates elements of the regional geology to the local geologic framework. The conceptual model development also includes initial site characterization efforts to identify hydrostratigraphic units and likely flow-paths using a minimum number of borings and well completions; 2) Cost-effective and well documented collection of high quality data utilizing simple, accurate, and reproduc- ible techniques; and 3) Refinement of the conceptual model based on supplementary data collection and analysis. These fundamental components serve many types of monitor- ing programs and provide a basis for future efforts that evolve in complexity and level of spatial detail as purposes and objectives expand. High quality, reproducible data collection is a common goal regardless of program objectives. High quality data collection implies data of sufficient accuracy, precision, and completeness (i.e., ratio of valid analytical results to the minimum sample number called for by the program design) to meet the program objectives. Accu- racy depends on the correct choice of monitoring tools and procedures to minimize sample and subsurface disturbance from collection to analysis. Precision depends on the repeatability of sampling and analytical protocols. It can be assured or improved by replication of sample analyses including blanks, field/lab standards and reference standards. B. Sample Representativeness An important goal of any monitoring program is collection of data that is truly representative of conditions at the site. The term representativeness applies to chemical and hydrogeologic data collected via wells, borings, piezometers, geophysical and soil gas measurements, lysimeters, and temporary sampling points. It involves a recognition of the statistical variability of individual subsurface physical proper- ties, and contaminant or major ion concentration levels, while explaining extreme values. Subsurface temporal and spatial variability are facts. Good professional practice seeks to maximize representativeness by using proven accurate and reproducible techniques to define limits on the distribution of measurements collected at a site. However, measures of representativeness are dynamic and are controlled by evolving site characterization and monitoring objectives. An evolutionary site characterization model, as shown in Fig- ure 1, provides a systematic approach to the goal of consis- tent data collection. Figure 1. Evolutionary Site Characterization Model The model emphasizes a recognition of the causes of the variability (e.g., use of inappropriate technology such as using bailers to purge wells; imprecise or operator-dependent methods) and the need to control avoidable errors. 4 1) Questions of Scale A sampling plan designed to collect representative samples must take into account the potential scale of changes in site conditions through space and time as well as the chemical associations and behavior of the parameters that are targeted for investigation. In subsurface systems, physical (i.e., aquifer) and chemical properties over time or space are not statistically independent. In fact, samples taken in close proximity (i.e., within distances of a few meters) or within short time periods (i.e., more frequently than monthly) are highly auto-correlated. This means that designs employing high-sampling frequency (e.g., monthly) or dense spatial monitoring designs run the risk of redundant data collection and misleading inferences regarding trends in values that aren’t statistically valid. In practice, contaminant detection and assessment monitoring programs rarely suffer these over-sampling concerns. In corrective-action evaluation programs, it is also possible that too little data may be collected over space or time. In these cases, false interpreta- tion of the spatial extent of contamination or underestimation of temporal concentration variability may result. 2) Target Parameters Parameter selection in monitoring program design is most often dictated by the regulatory status of the site. However, background water quality constituents, purging indicator parameters, and contaminants, all represent targets for data collection programs. The tools and procedures used in these programs should be equally rigorous and applicable to all categories of data, since all may be needed to deter- mine or support regulatory action. C. Sampling Point Design and Construction Detailed site characterization is central to all decision-making purposes and the basis for this characteriza- tion resides in identification of the geologic framework and major hydro-stratigraphic units. Fundamental data for sample point location include: subsurface lithology, head-differences and background geochemical conditions. Each sampling point has a proper use or uses which should be documented at a level which is appropriate for the program’s data quality objectives. Individual sampling points may not always be able to fulfill multiple monitoring objectives (e.g., detection, assessment, corrective action). 1) Compatibility with Monitoring Program and Data Quality Objectives Specifics of sampling point location and design will be dictated by the complexity of subsurface lithology and variability in contaminant and/or geochemical conditions. It should be noted that, regardless of the ground-water sam- pling approach, few sampling points (e.g., wells, drive-points, screened augers) have zones of influence in excess of a few feet. Therefore, the spatial frequency of sampling points should be carefully selected and designed. 2) Flexibility of Sampling Point Design In most cases well-point diameters in excess of 1 7/8 inches will permit the use of most types of submersible pumping devices for low-flow (minimal drawdown) sampling. It is suggested that short (e.g., less than 1.6 m) screens be incorporated into the monitoring design where possible so that comparable results from one device to another might be expected.Short, of course, is relative to the degree of vertical water quality variability expected at a site. 3) Equilibration of Sampling Point Time should be allowed for equilibration of the well or sampling point with the formation after installation. Place- ment of well or sampling points in the subsurface produces some disturbance of ambient conditions. Drilling techniques (e.g., auger, rotary, etc.) are generally considered to cause more disturbance than direct-push technologies. In either case, there may be a period (i.e., days to months) during which water quality near the point may be distinctly different from that in the formation. Proper development of the sam- pling point and adjacent formation to remove fines created during emplacement will shorten this water quality recovery period. III. Definition of Low-Flow Purging and Sampling It is generally accepted that water in the well casing is non-representative of the formation water and needs to be purged prior to collection of ground-water samples. However, the water in the screened interval may indeed be representa- tive of the formation, depending upon well construction and site hydrogeology. Wells are purged to some extent for the following reasons: the presence of the air interface at the top of the water column resulting in an oxygen concentration gradient with depth, loss of volatiles up the water column, leaching from or sorption to the casing or filter pack, chemical changes due to clay seals or backfill, and surface infiltration. Low-flow purging, whether using portable or dedi- cated systems, should be done using pump-intake located in the middle or slightly above the middle of the screened interval. Placement of the pump too close to the bottom of the well will cause increased entrainment of solids which have collected in the well over time. These particles are present as a result of well development, prior purging and sampling events, and natural colloidal transport and deposition. Therefore, placement of the pump in the middle or toward the top of the screened interval is suggested. Placement of the pump at the top of the water column for sampling is only recommended in unconfined aquifers, screened across the water table, where this is the desired sampling point. Low- 5 flow purging has the advantage of minimizing mixing between the overlying stagnant casing water and water within the screened interval. A. Low-Flow Purging and Sampling Low-flow refers to the velocity with which water enters the pump intake and that is imparted to the formation pore water in the immediate vicinity of the well screen. It does not necessarily refer to the flow rate of water discharged at the surface which can be affected by flow regulators or restrictions. Water level drawdown provides the best indica- tion of the stress imparted by a given flow-rate for a given hydrological situation. The objective is to pump in a manner that minimizes stress (drawdown) to the system to the extent practical taking into account established site sampling objectives. Typically, flow rates on the order of 0.1 - 0.5 L/min are used, however this is dependent on site-specific hydrogeology. Some extremely coarse-textured formations have been successfully sampled in this manner at flow rates to 1 L/min. The effectiveness of using low-flow purging is intimately linked with proper screen location, screen length, and well construction and development techniques. The reestablishment of natural flow paths in both the vertical and horizontal directions is important for correct interpretation of the data. For high resolution sampling needs, screens less than 1 m should be used. Most of the need for purging has been found to be due to passing the sampling device through the overlying casing water which causes mixing of these stagnant waters and the dynamic waters within the screened interval. Additionally, there is disturbance to suspended sediment collected in the bottom of the casing and the displacement of water out into the formation immediately adjacent to the well screen. These disturbances and impacts can be avoided using dedicated sampling equipment, which precludes the need to insert the sampling device prior to purging and sampling. Isolation of the screened interval water from the overlying stagnant casing water may be accomplished using low-flow minimal drawdown techniques. If the pump intake is located within the screened interval, most of the water pumped will be drawn in directly from the formation with little mixing of casing water or disturbance to the sampling zone. However, if the wells are not constructed and developed properly, zones other than those intended may be sampled. At some sites where geologic heterogeneities are sufficiently different within the screened interval, higher conductivity zones may be preferentially sampled. This is another reason to use shorter screened intervals, especially where high spatial resolution is a sampling objective. B. Water Quality Indicator Parameters It is recommended that water quality indicator parameters be used to determine purging needs prior to sample collection in each well. Stabilization of parameters such as pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, oxida- tion-reduction potential, temperature and turbidity should be used to determine when formation water is accessed during purging. In general, the order of stabilization is pH, tempera- ture, and specific conductance, followed by oxidation- reduction potential, dissolved oxygen and turbidity. Tempera- ture and pH, while commonly used as purging indicators, are actually quite insensitive in distinguishing between formation water and stagnant casing water; nevertheless, these are important parameters for data interpretation purposes and should also be measured. Performance criteria for determi- nation of stabilization should be based on water-level draw- down, pumping rate and equipment specifications for measur- ing indicator parameters. Instruments are available which utilize in-line flow cells to continuously measure the above parameters. It is important to establish specific well stabilization criteria and then consistently follow the same methods thereafter, particularly with respect to drawdown, flow rate and sampling device. Generally, the time or purge volume required for parameter stabilization is independent of well depth or well volumes. Dependent variables are well diam- eter, sampling device, hydrogeochemistry, pump flow rate, and whether the devices are used in a portable or dedicated manner. If the sampling device is already in place (i.e., dedicated sampling systems), then the time and purge volume needed for stabilization is much shorter. Other advantages of dedicated equipment include less purge water for waste disposal, much less decontamination of equipment, less time spent in preparation of sampling as well as time in the field, and more consistency in the sampling approach which probably will translate into less variability in sampling results. The use of dedicated equipment is strongly recom- mended at wells which will undergo routine sampling over time. If parameter stabilization criteria are too stringent, then minor oscillations in indicator parameters may cause purging operations to become unnecessarily protracted. It should also be noted that turbidity is a very conservative parameter in terms of stabilization. Turbidity is always the last parameter to stabilize. Excessive purge times are invariably related to the establishment of too stringent turbidity stabilization criteria. It should be noted that natural turbidity levels in ground water may exceed 10 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). C. Advantages and Disadvantages of Low-Flow (Minimum Drawdown) Purging In general, the advantages of low-flow purging include: • samples which are representative of the mobile load of contaminants present (dissolved and colloid-associ- ated); • minimal disturbance of the sampling point thereby minimizing sampling artifacts; • less operator variability, greater operator control; 6 sampling, it is recommended that an in-line water quality measurement device (e.g., flow-through cell) be used to establish the stabilization time for several parameters (e.g. , pH, specific conductance, redox, dissolved oxygen, turbidity) on a well-specific basis. Data on pumping rate, drawdown, and volume required for parameter stabilization can be used as a guide for conducting subsequent sampling activities. The following are recommendations to be considered before, during and after sampling: • use low-flow rates (<0.5 L/min), during both purging and sampling to maintain minimal drawdown in the well; • maximize tubing wall thickness, minimize tubing length; • place the sampling device intake at the desired sampling point; • minimize disturbances of the stagnant water column above the screened interval during water level measurement and sampling device insertion; • make proper adjustments to stabilize the flow rate as soon as possible; • monitor water quality indicators during purging; • collect unfiltered samples to estimate contaminant loading and transport potential in the subsurface system. B. Equipment Calibration Prior to sampling, all sampling device and monitoring equipment should be calibrated according to manufacturer’s recommendations and the site Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and Field Sampling Plan (FSP). Calibration of pH should be performed with at least two buffers which bracket the expected range. Dissolved oxygen calibration must be corrected for local barometric pressure readings and eleva- tion. C. Water Level Measurement and Monitoring It is recommended that a device be used which will least disturb the water surface in the casing. Well depth should be obtained from the well logs. Measuring to the bottom of the well casing will only cause resuspension of settled solids from the formation and require longer purging times for turbidity equilibration. Measure well depth after sampling is completed. The water level measurement should be taken from a permanent reference point which is surveyed relative to ground elevation. D. Pump Type The use of low-flow (e.g., 0.1-0.5 L/min) pumps is suggested for purging and sampling all types of analytes. All pumps have some limitation and these should be investigated with respect to application at a particular site. Bailers are inappropriate devices for low-flow sampling. • reduced stress on the formation (minimal drawdown); • less mixing of stagnant casing water with formation water; • reduced need for filtration and, therefore, less time required for sampling; • smaller purging volume which decreases waste disposal costs and sampling time; • better sample consistency; reduced artificial sample variability. Some disadvantages of low-flow purging are: • higher initial capital costs, • greater set-up time in the field, • need to transport additional equipment to and from the site, • increased training needs, • resistance to change on the part of sampling practitio- ners, • concern that new data will indicate a change in conditions and trigger an action. IV. Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) SamplingProtocols The following ground-water sampling procedure has evolved over many years of experience in ground-water sampling for organic and inorganic compound determinations and as such summarizes the authors' (and others) experi- ences to date (Barcelona et al., 1984, 1994; Barcelona and Helfrich, 1986; Puls and Barcelona, 1989; Puls et. al. 1990, 1992; Puls and Powell, 1992; Puls and Paul, 1995). High- quality chemical data collection is essential in ground-water monitoring and site characterization. The primary limitations to the collection of representative ground-water samples include: mixing of the stagnant casing and fresh screen waters during insertion of the sampling device or ground- water level measurement device; disturbance and resuspension of settled solids at the bottom of the well when using high pumping rates or raising and lowering a pump or bailer; introduction of atmospheric gases or degassing from the water during sample handling and transfer, or inappropri- ate use of vacuum sampling device, etc. A. Sampling Recommendations Water samples should not be taken immediately following well development. Sufficient time should be allowed for the ground-water flow regime in the vicinity of the monitor- ing well to stabilize and to approach chemical equilibrium with the well construction materials. This lag time will depend on site conditions and methods of installation but often exceeds one week. Well purging is nearly always necessary to obtain samples of water flowing through the geologic formations in the screened interval. Rather than using a general but arbitrary guideline of purging three casing volumes prior to 7 1) General Considerations There are no unusual requirements for ground-water sampling devices when using low-flow, minimal drawdown techniques. The major concern is that the device give consistent results and minimal disturbance of the sample across a range of low flow rates (i.e., < 0.5 L/min). Clearly, pumping rates that cause minimal to no drawdown in one well could easily cause significant drawdown in another well finished in a less transmissive formation. In this sense, the pump should not cause undue pressure or temperature changes or physical disturbance on the water sample over a reasonable sampling range. Consistency in operation is critical to meet accuracy and precision goals. 2) Advantages and Disadvantages of Sampling Devices A variety of sampling devices are available for low- flow (minimal drawdown) purging and sampling and include peristaltic pumps, bladder pumps, electrical submersible pumps, and gas-driven pumps. Devices which lend them- selves to both dedication and consistent operation at defin- able low-flow rates are preferred. It is desirable that the pump be easily adjustable and operate reliably at these lower flow rates. The peristaltic pump is limited to shallow applications and can cause degassing resulting in alteration of pH, alkalinity, and some volatiles loss. Gas-driven pumps should be of a type that does not allow the gas to be in direct contact with the sampled fluid. Clearly, bailers and other grab type samplers are ill- suited for low-flow sampling since they will cause repeated disturbance and mixing of stagnant water in the casing and the dynamic water in the screened interval. Similarly, the use of inertial lift foot-valve type samplers may cause too much disturbance at the point of sampling. Use of these devices also tends to introduce uncontrolled and unacceptable operator variability. Summaries of advantages and disadvantages of various sampling devices are listed in Herzog et al. (1991), U. S. EPA (1992), Parker (1994) and Thurnblad (1994). E. Pump Installation Dedicated sampling devices (left in the well) capable of pumping and sampling are preferred over any other type of device. Any portable sampling device should be slowly and carefully lowered to the middle of the screened interval or slightly above the middle (e.g., 1-1.5 m below the top of a 3 m screen). This is to minimize excessive mixing of the stagnant water in the casing above the screen with the screened interval zone water, and to minimize resuspension of solids which will have collected at the bottom of the well. These two disturbance effects have been shown to directly affect the time required for purging. There also appears to be a direct correlation between size of portable sampling devices relative to the well bore and resulting purge volumes and times. The key is to minimize disturbance of water and solids in the well casing. F. Filtration Decisions to filter samples should be dictated by sampling objectives rather than as a fix for poor sampling practices, and field-filtering of certain constituents should not be the default. Consideration should be given as to what the application of field-filtration is trying to accomplish. For assessment of truly dissolved (as opposed to operationally dissolved [i.e., samples filtered with 0.45 μm filters]) concen- trations of major ions and trace metals, 0.1 μm filters are recommended although 0.45 μm filters are normally used for most regulatory programs. Alkalinity samples must also be filtered if significant particulate calcium carbonate is sus- pected, since this material is likely to impact alkalinity titration results (although filtration itself may alter the CO2 composition of the sample and, therefore, affect the results). Although filtration may be appropriate, filtration of a sample may cause a number of unintended changes to occur (e.g. oxidation, aeration) possibly leading to filtration-induced artifacts during sample analysis and uncertainty in the results. Some of these unintended changes may be unavoidable but the factors leading to them must be recognized. Deleterious effects can be minimized by consistent application of certain filtration guidelines. Guidelines should address selection of filter type, media, pore size, etc. in order to identify and minimize potential sources of uncertainty when filtering samples. In-line filtration is recommended because it provides better consistency through less sample handling, and minimizes sample exposure to the atmosphere. In-line filters are available in both disposable (barrel filters) and non- disposable (in-line filter holder, flat membrane filters) formats and various filter pore sizes (0.1-5.0 μm). Disposable filter cartridges have the advantage of greater sediment handling capacity when compared to traditional membrane filters. Filters must be pre-rinsed following manufacturer’s recom- mendations. If there are no recommendations for rinsing, pass through a minimum of 1 L of ground water following purging and prior to sampling. Once filtration has begun, a filter cake may develop as particles larger than the pore size accumulate on the filter membrane. The result is that the effective pore diameter of the membrane is reduced and particles smaller than the stated pore size are excluded from the filtrate. Possible corrective measures include prefiltering (with larger pore size filters), minimizing particle loads to begin with, and reducing sample volume. G. Monitoring of Water Level and Water Quality Indicator Parameters Check water level periodically to monitor drawdown in the well as a guide to flow rate adjustment. The goal is minimal drawdown (<0.1 m) during purging. This goal may be difficult to achieve under some circumstances due to geologic heterogeneities within the screened interval, and may require adjustment based on site-specific conditions and personal experience. In-line water quality indicator parameters should be continuously monitored during purging. The water quality 8 introducing field contaminants into a sample bottle while adding the preservatives. The preservatives should be transferred from the chemical bottle to the sample container using a disposable polyethylene pipet and the disposable pipet should be used only once and then discarded. After a sample container has been filled with ground water, a Teflon™ (or tin)-lined cap is screwed on tightly to prevent the container from leaking. A sample label is filled out as specified in the FSP. The samples should be stored inverted at 4oC. Specific decontamination protocols for sampling devices are dependent to some extent on the type of device used and the type of contaminants encountered. Refer to the site QAPP and FSP for specific requirements. I. Blanks The following blanks should be collected: (1) field blank: one field blank should be collected from each source water (distilled/deionized water) used for sampling equipment decontamination or for assisting well development procedures. (2) equipment blank: one equipment blank should be taken prior to the commencement of field work, from each set of sampling equipment to be used for that day. Refer to site QAPP or FSP for specific require- ments. (3) trip blank: a trip blank is required to accompany each volatile sample shipment. These blanks are prepared in the laboratory by filling a 40-mL volatile organic analysis (VOA) bottle with distilled/deionized water. V. Low-Permeability Formations and Fractured Rock The overall sampling program goals or sampling objectives will drive how the sampling points are located, installed, and choice of sampling device. Likewise, site- specific hydrogeologic factors will affect these decisions. Sites with very low permeability formations or fractures causing discrete flow channels may require a unique monitor- ing approach. Unlike water supply wells, wells installed for ground-water quality assessment and restoration programs are often installed in low water-yielding settings (e.g., clays, silts). Alternative types of sampling points and sampling methods are often needed in these types of environments, because low-permeability settings may require extremely low- flow purging (<0.1 L/min) and may be technology-limited. Where devices are not readily available to pump at such low flow rates, the primary consideration is to avoid dewatering of indicator parameters monitored can include pH, redox potential, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO) and turbidity. The last three parameters are often most sensitive. Pumping rate, drawdown, and the time or volume required to obtain stabilization of parameter readings can be used as a future guide to purge the well. Measurements should be taken every three to five minutes if the above suggested rates are used. Stabilization is achieved after all parameters have stabilized for three successive readings. In lieu of measuring all five parameters, a minimum subset would include pH, conductivity, and turbidity or DO. Three successive readings should be within ± 0.1 for pH, ± 3% for conductivity, ± 10 mv for redox potential, and ± 10% for turbidity and DO. Stabilized purge indicator parameter trends are generally obvious and follow either an exponential or asymptotic change to stable values during purging. Dissolved oxygen and turbidity usually require the longest time for stabilization. The above stabiliza- tion guidelines are provided for rough estimates based on experience. H. Sampling, Sample Containers, Preservation and Decontamination Upon parameter stabilization, sampling can be initiated. If an in-line device is used to monitor water quality parameters, it should be disconnected or bypassed during sample collection. Sampling flow rate may remain at estab- lished purge rate or may be adjusted slightly to minimize aeration, bubble formation, turbulent filling of sample bottles, or loss of volatiles due to extended residence time in tubing. Typically, flow rates less than 0.5 L/min are appropriate. The same device should be used for sampling as was used for purging. Sampling should occur in a progression from least to most contaminated well, if this is known. Generally, volatile (e.g., solvents and fuel constituents) and gas sensitive (e.g., Fe2+, CH4, H2S/HS-, alkalinity) parameters should be sampled first. The sequence in which samples for most inorganic parameters are collected is immaterial unless filtered (dis- solved) samples are desired. Filtering should be done last and in-line filters should be used as discussed above. During both well purging and sampling, proper protective clothing and equipment must be used based upon the type and level of contaminants present. The appropriate sample container will be prepared in advance of actual sample collection for the analytes of interest and include sample preservative where necessary. Water samples should be collected directly into this container from the pump tubing. Immediately after a sample bottle has been filled, it must be preserved as specified in the site (QAPP). Sample preservation requirements are based on the analyses being performed (use site QAPP, FSP, RCRA guidance document [U. S. EPA, 1992] or EPA SW-846 [U. S. EPA, 1982] ). It may be advisable to add preservatives to sample bottles in a controlled setting prior to entering the field in order to reduce the chances of improperly preserving sample bottles or 9 the well screen. This may require repeated recovery of the water during purging while leaving the pump in place within the well screen. Use of low-flow techniques may be impractical in these settings, depending upon the water recharge rates. The sampler and the end-user of data collected from such wells need to understand the limitations of the data collected; i.e., a strong potential for underestimation of actual contami- nant concentrations for volatile organics, potential false negatives for filtered metals and potential false positives for unfiltered metals. It is suggested that comparisons be made between samples recovered using low-flow purging tech- niques and samples recovered using passive sampling techniques (i.e., two sets of samples). Passive sample collection would essentially entail acquisition of the sample with no or very little purging using a dedicated sampling system installed within the screened interval or a passive sample collection device. A. Low-Permeability Formations (<0.1 L/min recharge) 1. Low-Flow Purging and Sampling with Pumps a. “portable or non-dedicated mode” - Lower the pump (one capable of pumping at <0.1 L/min) to mid-screen or slightly above and set in place for minimum of 48 hours (to lessen purge volume requirements). After 48 hours, use procedures listed in Part IV above regard- ing monitoring water quality parameters for stabiliza- tion, etc., but do not dewater the screen. If excessive drawdown and slow recovery is a problem, then alternate approaches such as those listed below may be better. b. “dedicated mode” - Set the pump as above at least a week prior to sampling; that is, operate in a dedicated pump mode. With this approach significant reductions in purge volume should be realized. Water quality parameters should stabilize quite rapidly due to less disturbance of the sampling zone. 2. Passive Sample Collection Passive sampling collection requires insertion of the device into the screened interval for a sufficient time period to allow flow and sample equilibration before extraction for analysis. Conceptually, the extraction of water from low yielding formations seems more akin to the collection of water from the unsaturated zone and passive sampling techniques may be more appropriate in terms of obtaining “representa- tive” samples. Satisfying usual sample volume requirements is typically a problem with this approach and some latitude will be needed on the part of regulatory entities to achieve sampling objectives. B. Fractured Rock In fractured rock formations, a low-flow to zero purging approach using pumps in conjunction with packers to isolate the sampling zone in the borehole is suggested. Passive multi-layer sampling devices may also provide the most “representative” samples. It is imperative in these settings to identify flow paths or water-producing fractures prior to sampling using tools such as borehole flowmeters and/or other geophysical tools. After identification of water-bearing fractures, install packer(s) and pump assembly for sample collection using low-flow sampling in “dedicated mode” or use a passive sampling device which can isolate the identified water-bearing fractures. VI. Documentation The usual practices for documenting the sampling event should be used for low-flow purging and sampling techniques. This should include, at a minimum: information on the conduct of purging operations (flow-rate, drawdown, water-quality parameter values, volumes extracted and times for measurements), field instrument calibration data, water sampling forms and chain of custody forms. See Figures 2 and 3 and “Ground Water Sampling Workshop -- A Workshop Summary” (U. S. EPA, 1995) for example forms and other documentation suggestions and information. This information coupled with laboratory analytical data and validation data are needed to judge the “useability” of the sampling data. VII. Notice The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development funded and managed the research described herein as part of its in-house research program and under Contract No. 68-C4-0031 to Dynamac Corporation. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommenda- tion for use. VIII. References Backhus, D,A., J.N. Ryan, D.M. Groher, J.K. McFarlane, and P.M. Gschwend. 1993. Sampling Colloids and Colloid- Associated Contaminants in Ground Water. Ground Water, 31(3):466-479. Barcelona, M.J., J.A. Helfrich, E.E. Garske, and J.P. Gibb. 1984. A laboratory evaluation of groundwater sampling mechanisms.Ground Water Monitoring Review, 4(2):32-41. 10 Barcelona, M.J. and J.A. Helfrich. 1986. Well construction and purging effects on ground-water samples. Environ. Sci. Technol., 20(11):1179-1184. Barcelona, M.J., H.A. Wehrmann, and M.D. Varljen. 1994. Reproducible well purging procedures and VOC stabilization criteria for ground-water sampling. Ground Water, 32(1):12- 22. Buddemeier, R.W. and J.R. Hunt. 1988. Transport of Colloidal Contaminants in Ground Water: Radionuclide Migration at the Nevada Test Site. Applied Geochemistry, 3: 535-548. Danielsson, L.G. 1982. On the Use of Filters for Distinguish- ing Between Dissolved and Particulate Fractions in Natural Waters.Water Research, 16:179. Enfield, C.G. and G. Bengtsson. 1988. Macromolecular Transport of Hydrophobic Contaminants in Aqueous Environ- ments.Ground Water, 26(1): 64-70. Gschwend, P.M. and M.D. Reynolds. 1987. Monodisperse Ferrous Phosphate Colloids in an Anoxic Groundwater Plume,J. of Contaminant Hydrol., 1: 309-327. Herzog, B., J. Pennino, and G. Nielsen. 1991. Ground-Water Sampling. In Practical Handbook of Ground-Water Moni- toring (D.M. Nielsen, ed.). Lewis Publ., Chelsea, MI, pp. 449- 499. Horowitz, A.J., K.A. Elrick, and M.R. Colberg. 1992. The effect of membrane filtration artifacts on dissolved trace element concentrations.Water Res., 26(6):753-763. Laxen, D.P.H. and I.M. Chandler. 1982. Comparison of Filtration Techniques for Size Distribution in Freshwaters. Analytical Chemistry, 54(8):1350. McCarthy, J.F. and J.M. Zachara. 1989. Subsurface Transport of Contaminants, Environ. Sci. Technol., 5(23):496-502. McCarthy, J.F. and C. Degueldre. 1993. Sampling and Characterization of Colloids and Ground Water for Studying Their Role in Contaminant Transport. In: Environmental Particles (J. Buffle and H.P. van Leeuwen, eds.), Lewis Publ., Chelsea, MI, pp. 247-315. Parker, L.V. 1994. The Effects of Ground Water Sampling Devices on Water Quality: A Literature Review.Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, 14(2):130-141. Penrose, W.R., W.L. Polzer, E.H. Essington, D.M. Nelson, and K.A. Orlandini. 1990. Mobility of Plutonium and Ameri- cium through a Shallow Aquifer in a Semiarid Region, Environ. Sci. Technol., 24:228-234. Puls, R.W. and M.J. Barcelona. 1989. Filtration of Ground Water Samples for Metals Analyses. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials, 6(4):385-393. Puls, R.W., J.H. Eychaner, and R.M. Powell. 1990. Colloidal- Facilitated Transport of Inorganic Contaminants in Ground Water: Part I. Sampling Considerations. EPA/600/M-90/023, NTIS PB 91-168419. Puls, R.W. 1990. Colloidal Considerations in Groundwater Sampling and Contaminant Transport Predictions. Nuclear Safety, 31(1):58-65. Puls, R.W. and R.M. Powell. 1992. Acquisition of Representa- tive Ground Water Quality Samples for Metals. Ground Water Monitoring Review, 12(3):167-176. Puls, R.W., D.A. Clark, B.Bledsoe, R.M. Powell, and C.J. Paul. 1992. Metals in Ground Water: Sampling Artifacts and Reproducibility.Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials, 9(2): 149-162. Puls, R.W. and C.J. Paul. 1995. Low-Flow Purging and Sampling of Ground-Water Monitoring Wells with Dedicated Systems.Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, 15(1):116-123. Ryan, J.N. and P.M. Gschwend. 1990. Colloid Mobilization in Two Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifers. Water Resour. Res., 26: 307-322. Thurnblad, T. 1994. Ground Water Sampling Guidance: Development of Sampling Plans, Sampling Protocols, and Sampling Reports. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. U. S. EPA. 1992. RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring: Draft Technical Guidance. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC EPA/530/R-93/001, NTIS PB 93-139350. U. S. EPA. 1995. Ground Water Sampling Workshop -- A Workshop Summary, Dallas, TX, November 30 - December 2, 1993. EPA/600/R-94/205, NTIS PB 95-193249, 126 pp. U. S. EPA. 1982. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA SW-846. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. 11 Figure 2.Ground Water Sampling Log Project _______________ Site _______________ Well No. _____________ Date _________________________ Well Depth ____________ Screen Length __________ Well Diameter _________ Casing Type ____________ Sampling Device _______________ Tubing type _____________________ Water Level __________________ Measuring Point ___________________ Other Infor ________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Sampling Personnel__________________________________________________________________________ Type of Samples Collected _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Information: 2 in = 617 ml/ft, 4 in = 2470 ml/ft: Volcyl = r2h, Volsphere = 4/3 r3 Time pH Temp Cond.Dis.O Turb.[ ]Conc Notes2 12 Figure 3.Ground Water Sampling Log (with automatic data logging for most water quality parameters) Project _______________ Site _______________ Well No. _____________ Date ________________________ Well Depth ____________ Screen Length __________ Well Diameter _________ Casing Type ___________ Sampling Device _______________ Tubing type _____________________ Water Level _________________ Measuring Point ___________________ Other Infor _______________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Sampling Personnel_________________________________________________________________________ Type of Samples Collected _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Information: 2 in = 617 ml/ft, 4 in = 2470 ml/ft: Volcyl = r2h, Volsphere = 4/3 r3 Time Pump Rate Turbidity Alkalinity [ ] Conc Notes Groundwater Sampling Guidance Montana Department of Environmental Quality Contaminated Site Cleanup Bureau i Department of Environmental Quality Waste Management and Remediation Division Guidance Document Number: DEQ-WMRD-GWM-1 Original Effect. Date: March 6, 2018 Revision No.: 0 Document Type: Technical Guidance Resource Contact: Bureau Chief Review Schedule: Triennial Originating Unit: Contaminated Site Cleanup Bureau Last Reviewed: March 6, 2018 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING GUIDANCE Purpose: The purpose of this document is to provide consistent guidance to individuals or entities that complete groundwater monitoring as part of corrective action overseen by the Contaminated Site Cleanup Bureau. Scope: This guidance applies to all groundwater actions taken for Contaminated Site Cleanup Bureau regulated projects. Revision Date Revision Description ii Executive Summary The Montana Department of Environmental Quality prepared this guidance to assist responsible parties, environmental professionals, and DEQ technical staff in performing appropriate groundwater sampling activities, including low flow sampling. DEQ uses analytical data in its decision-making processes. The purpose of this document is to ensure consistent collection of groundwater samples that accurately represent site conditions. Low-flow sampling is the Contaminated Site Cleanup Bureau’s preferred sampling methodology for groundwater. However, situations exist where low-flow sampling is either not possible or impractical. This guidance identifies those situations. As with any cleanup decision, DEQ recommends that the responsible party or its representative communicate regularly and openly with the DEQ-assigned project manager. This guidance document is organized into the following sections: Section 1.0 Preparing for Sampling Events: This section gives an overview of how to prepare for a sampling event, including required background information, equipment lists, and Sampling and Analysis Plan/Health and Safety Plan preparation. Section 2.0 Standard Sampling Procedures: This section describes standard sampling procedures that apply to all sampling events, regardless of pump type/purge method. Section 3.0 Low-Flow Sampling: This section describes additional sampling procedures specific to low-flow methods. This is DEQ’s preferred sampling method. Section 4.0 Multiple Volume Purge Sampling: This section briefly describes the method and its advantages and disadvantages. Section 5.0 No-Purge Sampling: This section briefly describes the method and its advantages and disadvantages. Section 6.0 Passive Sampling: This section briefly describes the method and its advantages and disadvantages. Section 7.0 Special Considerations: This section discusses specific sampling situations that may affect sample collection, including sampling groundwater when free product (LNAPL or DNAPL) is present in a well. Section 8.0 References: This section contains references cited in this document. iii Table of Contents 1.0 PREPARING FOR SAMPLING EVENTS ................................................................................... 6 1.1 SITE BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 6 1.2 SAMPING AND ANALYSIS PLAN ........................................................................................ 6 1.3 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN ............................................................................................... 7 1.4 EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES ................................................................................................ 7 1.4.1 Informational Materials ................................................................................................... 7 1.4.2 Pumping Device .............................................................................................................. 7 1.4.3 Tubing and Bladders ....................................................................................................... 9 1.4.4 Power Source ................................................................................................................. 10 1.4.5 Flow Measurement Supplies ......................................................................................... 10 1.4.6 Water Level Measuring Device ..................................................................................... 11 1.4.7 Multi-Parameter Water Quality Meter .......................................................................... 11 1.4.8 Flow-Through Cell ........................................................................................................ 11 1.4.9 Decontamination Supplies ............................................................................................. 11 1.4.10 Record Keeping Supplies ............................................................................................ 11 1.4.11 Sample Bottles/Labels/Preservatives .......................................................................... 12 1.4.12 Gloves .......................................................................................................................... 12 1.4.13 Miscellaneous Equipment ........................................................................................... 12 2.0 STANDARD SAMPLING PROCEDURES ................................................................................ 13 2.1 SAMPLING ORDER ............................................................................................................... 13 2.2 INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION ............................................................................................ 13 2.3 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS .................................................................................... 13 2.4 PUMP PLACEMENT IN THE WELL SCREEN .................................................................... 14 2.5 STABILIZATION PARAMETERS ........................................................................................ 15 2.6 SAMPLE COLLECTION ........................................................................................................ 16 2.7 DECONTAMINATION ........................................................................................................... 17 2.8 POST SAMPLING ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................ 17 3.0 LOW-FLOW SAMPLING ........................................................................................................... 18 3.1 LOW-FLOW SAMPLING PROCEDURE .............................................................................. 19 3.1.1 Installation of Low-Flow Pump .................................................................................... 19 3.1.2 Continued Water Level Measurement ........................................................................... 19 3.1.3 Purging the Monitoring Well ........................................................................................ 20 3.1.4 Monitoring Stabilization Parameters ............................................................................. 20 4.0 MULTIPLE VOLUME PURGE SAMPLING ............................................................................ 21 5.0 NO PURGE SAMPLING ............................................................................................................. 22 6.0 PASSIVE SAMPLING ................................................................................................................ 23 7.0 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................. 24 7.1 DIRECT PUSH TECHNOLOGY (DPT) WELLS .................................................................. 24 7.2 DPT ONE-TIME SAMPLE COLLECTION ........................................................................... 24 7.3 IRRIGATION WELLS ............................................................................................................ 25 7.4 DOMESTIC OR RESIDENTIAL WELLS .............................................................................. 25 7.5 SAMPLING WELLS WITH FREE PRODUCT ..................................................................... 26 7.5.1 Sampling Groundwater Below LNAPL ........................................................................ 26 7.5.2 Sampling Wells With DNAPL ...................................................................................... 28 8.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 29 iv Acronyms CSCB Contaminated Site Cleanup Bureau DEQ Department of Environmental Quality DNAPL Dense non-aqueous phase liquid DO Dissolved Oxygen DPT Direct Push Technology USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FAQ Frequently asked questions FID Flame ionization detector HASP Health and Safety Plan LNAPL Light non-aqueous phase liquid NTU Nephelometric turbidity units ORP Oxidation-reduction potential (redox potential) PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl PID Photoionization detector PVC Polyvinyl chloride SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan SI Site investigation SVOC Semi-volatile organic compounds VOC Volatile organic compounds 5 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx Guidance Overview and Purpose The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Contaminated Site Cleanup Bureau (CSCB) prepared this guidance to assist responsible parties, environmental professionals, and DEQ staff with the collection of defensible and reliable groundwater samples through the use of low-flow and other accepted groundwater monitoring techniques at DEQ CSCB regulated facilities. Data acquired from groundwater monitoring provides key information used in decision making processes. Therefore, sampling should be designed and implemented to maximize the representativeness of site conditions by using proven, accurate, and reproducible methods (Puls and Barcelona, 1996). Low-flow sampling is the preferred DEQ sampling method unless site-specific and contaminant- specific conditions require alternate protocols. If alternate protocols are necessary, a written technical justification for deviation from this guidance should be submitted to the appropriate DEQ technical contact for approval prior to the sampling event. If this guidance is not clear or does not answer a specific question, please consult the appropriate DEQ technical contact or visit DEQ CSCB’s frequently asked questions (FAQ). DEQ encourages the use of this guidance in the preparation of sampling plans submitted to DEQ. DEQ has developed this guidance using its scientific and technical expertise, and relevant Montana- specific information, as well as technical documents. DEQ encourages parties to contact DEQ with any questions about this document, or if the party believes that DEQ has incorrectly characterized a particular process or recommendation. Environmental professionals can collect groundwater samples using several techniques. The four most commonly seen by DEQ for contaminated site cleanup are the following: x Low-Flow Sampling; x Multiple Volume Purge Sampling; x No Purge Sampling; and x Passive Sampling. Each method has inherent advantages and disadvantages. Based on the advantages described in this document, low-flow sampling is DEQ’s preferred method. Other methods may be approved based on site conditions. 6 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx 1.0 PREPARING FOR SAMPLING EVENTS Prior to any sampling event, research should be conducted to fully understand site characteristics, monitoring well construction, and equipment needed. The analytical requirements and sampling schedule should be clearly understood and communicated to all personnel involved including the analytical laboratory, project managers, consultants and property owners. This information should be generated in the preparation of a Sampling and Analysis Plan (refer to Section 1.2 for the information that should be included). A copy of the plan should be available while in the field. 1.1 SITE BACKGROUND A thorough site background should be compiled prior to the sampling event. Implementing any sampling method requires knowledge of the well construction and lithology surrounding the well and that the well is in good condition. Review well installation information including well depth, length of screen, and depth to top of well screen. If needed, collect well depth data the day before sampling begins (see Section 2.4 for further detail on measuring total depth). Review which wells are to be sampled and check well conditions in the field. The monitoring well screen should be located properly to intercept existing contaminant plumes and this information should be studied prior to sampling in the field to ensure proper pump placement for sampling. If installation information is unavailable, or screen silting/biofouling or other well construction issues have been observed, sampling the well might not be acceptable. Work directly with your DEQ technical contact for direction. Sampling should not be conducted immediately following well development; the time needed for an aquifer to equilibrate after well development will depend on site conditions and methods of installation, but generally exceeds one week. Formation lithology, permeability, transmissivity and location of expected contamination within the aquifer should all be known prior to initiating sampling (this helps determine the placement of the pump in the well screen as discussed in Section 2.4). 1.2 SAMPING AND ANALYSIS PLAN A Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) needs to be prepared prior to the initiation of the sampling event. The SAP is intended to document the procedural and analytical requirements for sampling events performed to collect groundwater samples. A basic SAP should include the following elements: x Introduction/Background: This section should include the site history and current status, location, hydrology and hydrogeology, previous environmental investigations, environmental and/or human impact, reporting, and schedule. x Project Data Quality Objectives: This section should include the data uses, expected data quality, data quality indicators, accuracy, precision, completeness, representativeness, comparability, lab data QA/QC, and reporting limits (which should be lower than the applicable screening levels). 7 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx x Sampling Design: The sampling design should include the number and location of wells sampled, the order the wells will be sampled, sampling methodology, standard operating procedures (SOPs) for all meters and equipment used, including details on the calibration method and frequency, laboratory analysis, groundwater sampling equipment checklist, chain of custody control, decontamination procedures, sample documentation and shipping, field quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples, and data validation procedures. 1.3 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN A site-specific health and safety plan (HASP), should be prepared prior to field activities. Field safety procedures, including safety equipment and clothing, hazard identification, and the location and route to the nearest hospital, will be included in the HASP. The HASP should be kept on site and available at all times to the personnel performing the sampling activities. Please follow the HASP with regard to activities and equipment required to mitigate personnel contact with physical, chemical, or biological hazards. 1.4 EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES Before every sampling event, a maintenance check of all instruments should be performed to ensure equipment is working properly before being used in the field. The following sections provide a list of equipment and supplies necessary for a low-flow sampling event. 1.4.1 Informational Materials These include health and safety plans (HASP), sampling and analysis plans/quality assurance project plans (SAP/QAPP), monitoring well construction data, location maps, field data from previous events, user manuals for relevant equipment. For detailed descriptions of these items, please refer to Sections 1.1 – 1.3 above. 1.4.2 Pumping Device Low-flow sampling is the preferred DEQ sampling method unless site-specific and/or contaminant-specific conditions require alternate protocols. An adjustable rate pump capable of achieving flow rates of 0.1 – 0.5 liters per minute (L/min) is typically necessary to conduct low-flow sampling; however, this is dependent on site specific hydrogeology (Puls and Barcelona, 1996; ASTM 2005, NJDEP, 2003). Some extremely coarse-textured formations have been successfully sampled at flow rates up to 1 L/min. Examples of appropriate pumps include bladder, submersible, gas driven, and in rare instances peristaltic (Puls and Barcelona, 1996). DEQ acceptance of the pump type should be obtained prior to the sampling event. The following sections provide a review of the most commonly used sampling pumps, and list the advantages and disadvantages associated with these pumps, which should be considered when selecting a sampling device. Bailers are also included to demonstrate why they are not suitable for low-flow sampling. The information below is based on Section 7.4 of the USEPA Region 8 Standard Operating Procedures for Groundwater Sampling (USEPA, 2017b). A. Bladder Pumps Bladder pumps are DEQ’s preferred method for low-flow sampling. 8 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx Advantages Disadvantages x Maintains sample integrity x Can sample from discrete locations within the well x Can sample down to depths greater than 200 feet below ground surface x Requires decontamination as non- disposable equipment is placed in the well x Requires air compressor or pressurized gas source and control box B. Other Submersible Pumps If a bladder pump cannot be used, other types of pumps such as gear-drive, helical-rotor, or submersible centrifugal may be used with DEQ approval or when specified in an approved SAP. Other submersible pumps have advantages and disadvantages similar to bladder pumps. C. Peristaltic Suction Pumps Suction pumps, such as peristaltic pumps, are typically inappropriate for collecting VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), volatile petroleum compounds and some (pH-dependent) metals because of the potential for degassing and associated potential pH changes (Parker, 1994). However, peristaltic pumps may be acceptable for VOC sampling if the sampling is being conducted in conditions where high levels of contamination are present, and where the results are not being used as closure samples. Peristaltic pumps may be appropriate for the collection of inorganic compound samples. However, peristaltic pumps may affect the stabilization of some water quality indicator parameters including dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP). Due to its effect on water quality parameters, a peristaltic pump should not be used when data will be used to evaluate monitored natural attenuation of groundwater (NJDEP, 2003). There may be situations where a peristaltic pump is the best alternative for sampling, such as very shallow wells where the water column is not long enough to sustain a submersible pump. If peristaltic pumps are used during the collection of VOCs, DEQ approval should be obtained and caution should be taken: ensure tubing is not pinched resulting in pressure changes that can cause volatilization; ensure tubing is completely filled with water prior to sampling; avoid sunlight on the exposed tube which could result in temperature changes leading to volatilization (USEPA, 2017a). These additional measures required to ensure appropriate data quality is attained may be difficult to demonstrate, making peristaltic pumps a less agreeable option. Advantages Disadvantages x Portable x Inexpensive x Readily available x Limited to depths of approximately 20 to 25 feet below ground surface x Vacuum can cause loss of dissolved gasses and volatile organics 9 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx x Tubing has the potential to absorb contaminants (see Section 1.4.3 for more detail) D. Bailers Bailers should never be used for low-flow sampling because they generate turbulence in the well (ASTM, 2005; Puls & Barcelona, 1996). It may be necessary to use a bailer if groundwater levels in the well are not conducive (minimal volume) to placing a low- flow pump. Bailing cords should be composed of either nylon or coated stainless steel. Use of bailers should be approved by DEQ prior to use in the field. Advantages Disadvantages x No power source needed x Portable x Inexpensive and readily available x Rapid, simple method for removing small volumes of purge water x Decontamination not required if the bailers are disposable x Not applicable to all sampling methods (e.g., not appropriate for low-flow sampling) x Improper use can cause aeration of sample and cause suspension of sediments x Time and labor intensive to purge deep wells or large water volumes x Transfer of samples to containers may cause aeration x Requires decontamination if bailers are not disposable E. Dedicated vs. Portable Pumps Dedicated pumps are preferable to portable pumps. Portable pumps may create disturbance in the water column during installation, and also require decontamination between wells. If a portable pump is used, new or dedicated tubing should be used at each sampling location, and the pump should be lowered gently into the well to minimize disturbance to the water column. While not required, dedicated equipment is ideal for monitoring wells undergoing frequent, routine sampling over extended periods of time. Dedicated equipment saves the sampler time by reducing the need for decontamination, reducing disturbances in the well casing interfering with parameter stabilization and sample collection, and reduces variability in sampling results. 1.4.3 Tubing and Bladders Pump tubing and bladders should be appropriate for the sampled analytes. Certain types of plastic tubing and bladders can either sorb contaminants from sample water or contribute contaminants to sample water as it flows through the tubing or bladders (Parker and Ranney, 1997; Parker and Ranney, 1998). Factors to consider when selecting tubing and bladders may 10 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx include data quality objectives, the well diameter, the type of pump to be used, the depth to groundwater, and the potential residence time the sample may have within the tubing. DEQ- acceptance of the tubing type should be obtained prior to the sampling event. x Teflon, Teflon-lined and steel tubing or bladders appear to have the least potential to bias samples collected for organic compounds including VOCs, SVOCs, petroleum, pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). If other tubing or bladders are used for these analytes, DEQ recommends that an equipment blank be used to check that contaminants are not being added to the water, and DEQ may require that a ‘spiked’ solution be run through the tubing to check for adsorption; contact the DEQ project manager for specific directions. x In addition to Teflon and Teflon-lined tubing and bladders, PVC, polypropylene or polyethylene tubing and bladders are also appropriate for metals sampling. Stainless steel tubing is not appropriate for collecting metals samples, although equipment blanks may demonstrate whether or not there is an effect. x Note that Teflon sampling equipment can interfere with the results when collecting samples for PFOA/PFOS compounds. If sampling for these compounds, please contact the DEQ project manager for specific directions. x The smaller the diameter of tubing used, the easier it will be to maintain low flows without getting air bubbles in the tubing. It is recommended to use ¼” or ⅜” (inside diameter) tubing to ensure that the tubing remains filled with groundwater when operating at very low pumping rates (USEPA, 2017a). x In order to minimize diffusion between the water in the tubing and the atmosphere, maximize tubing wall thickness and minimize tubing length. x Avoid sunlight on any exposed tubing, which could result in temperature changes leading to volatilization (USEPA, 2017a). x If a peristaltic pump is used for low-flow sampling, pharmaceutical grade (“pharmed”) tubing should be used around the rotor head of the pump to avoid diffusion to/from the atmosphere. 1.4.4 Power Source A power source for operating the pump will be necessary. If a petroleum powered generator is used, the power source should be located at least 30 feet downwind of the well and sampling apparatus so as not to interfere with sampling results (USEPA, 2017a). 1.4.5 Flow Measurement Supplies A graduated cylinder (or measuring cup), stopwatch, and bucket are appropriate for measuring flow. An in-line flow meter may also be used; however, if using a multi-meter for turbidity and flow rate, turbidity should be collected before the flow meter due to the potential for sediment buildup and interference with turbidity results (Yeskis and Zavala, 2002). 11 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx 1.4.6 Water Level Measuring Device An electronic water-level indicator or an electronic interface probe (when LNAPL is present or suspected) capable of measuring to the nearest one hundredth of a foot (0.01 ft) should be used for measuring water table depth ensuring as little disturbance to the water surface as possible. A pressure transducer placed above the pump may be used for tracking water levels during pumping; however, it needs to be calibrated at the start and end of sampling by comparing measurements to those from an interface probe. Procedures for collecting water level measurements are described in Section 2.3. 1.4.7 Multi-Parameter Water Quality Meter A multi-parameter water quality meter is preferred for monitoring stabilization parameters during sampling. If the multi-parameter water quality meter does not measure for turbidity, a “T” connecter will be necessary for obtaining turbidity readings prior to water entering the flow-through cell. Within the approved SAP (Section 1.2), the type of multi-meter used (if known prior to sampling), along with a list of parameters to be measured, should be specified with details on the calibration method and frequency. If a multi-parameter water quality meter is not available, individual water quality meters may be used for measuring the different stabilization parameters. The SAP should contain standard operating procedures (SOPs) for all meters used, including details on the calibration method and frequency. Field notes should contain records of all field calibrations performed during the sampling event. In general, meter calibrations should be performed at the beginning of each day and/or after field conditions change (change in barometric pressure or temperature). 1.4.8 Flow-Through Cell DEQ recommends using a flow-through cell during low-flow sampling activities. When collecting stabilization parameters, using multiple meters simultaneously to make repeated measurements can be a time-consuming and difficult task. Using a multi-parameter water quality meter with a water-tight seal inserted into a flow-through cell allows for multiple parameters to be recorded simultaneously. Post stabilization, field staff can disconnect the inflow tube to the flow-through cell to collect samples from the tube. 1.4.9 Decontamination Supplies Decontamination supplies including approved cleaning solutions, paper towels, brushes, etc. as outlined in the approved SAP should be on site during sampling. 1.4.10 Record Keeping Supplies Logbooks, chain of custody forms, equipment calibration forms, well monitoring forms, sample receipts, etc. will be necessary during sampling. 12 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx 1.4.11 Sample Bottles/Labels/Preservatives Sampling vials/bottles, labels, coolers filled with ice, zip-lock bags, and the appropriate preservatives (as outlined in the approved SAP and dictated by the chemical being sampled for and the analytical method) will be necessary during sampling. 1.4.12 Gloves Appropriate gloves should be worn during sample collection; gloves should be changed between samples and prior to decontamination of equipment. 1.4.13 Miscellaneous Equipment Supplies to aid in shading during hot weather and inhibit freezing of equipment in winter, drinking water supplies, first aid kit, tools for accessing wells (including keys for locks), well location maps, GPS, camera, cellphone, sunscreen, well construction information, calibration manuals, etc. as dictated by conditions and the nature of the work should be on hand during sampling. 13 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx 2.0 STANDARD SAMPLING PROCEDURES The following sections describe sampling procedures that apply to all sampling events, regardless of pump type/purge method. For details on additional procedures for specific pump types, including low-flow pumps, please refer to Sections 3.0 – 6.0. 2.1 SAMPLING ORDER When previous water quality data is available, begin with the least contaminated wells, and proceed to increasingly contaminated wells. When contaminant distribution is unknown, begin with wells upgradient of likely contaminant source(s), continue with downgradient wells, and finish with wells in or closest to suspected contaminant source(s). Collect any necessary quality control samples as outlined in the SAP, including any equipment blanks. 2.2 INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION Instruments should be calibrated at the beginning of each day. A calibration check is performed at the end of the day to ensure the instruments remained in calibration. All calibration procedures should be documented. 2.3 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS The measurement of water levels in monitoring wells provides critical data that can be used to determine groundwater flow direction and gradients, aquifer conditions relative to the well screen, and the effect that purging has on groundwater. Water level measurements should be taken in such a way as to minimize disturbance of the water surface and limit the potential to disturb sediments that may have collected within the well. Because water levels have the potential to be influenced by external factors such as barometric pressure, it is recommended that water level measurements be taken from all facility wells within a relatively short period of time to ensure the measurements are comparable. Depth to groundwater in the monitoring well should be measured prior to installing the pump and/or tubing (if the monitoring well does not have a dedicated pump). If the well is equipped with a dedicated pump then record the static water level prior to initiating purging. If measuring in an active domestic or irrigation well, ensure the water level is static by measuring at least twice. Record the initial water level to the nearest 0.01 ft in the field logbook or field sampling form. Ensure that the water level probe is decontaminated and wiped clean before measuring another well. Prior to beginning pumping, measure depth to groundwater again and record in the field logbook or field sampling form. If a pressure transducer is being used to document drawdown during sampling, install before pumping begins. Water level measurements should be collected to the nearest 0.01-foot as measured from a surveyed reference point. Once purging begins, water level measurements and pumping rate should be recorded every three to five minutes (along with stabilization parameters), and pump speeds should be adjusted to minimize drawdown. 14 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx Water level measurements should be taken continuously throughout the sampling event. Water level drawdown (Figure 1) provides the best indication of stress placed on the hydrologic system by a given flow-rate during sampling. 2.4 PUMP PLACEMENT IN THE WELL SCREEN Sampling devices should be lowered slowly and carefully into the well to avoid mixing of stagnant water in the casing above the screen. Sediment and particulates settled at the bottom of the casing can cause interference during sampling activities. Suspending this material will slow down the purge and sampling time and could cause false positives in water quality data. The goal is to minimize the disturbance of water and solids within the well (Figure 2). The measurement of the total depth of the well is used to help determine pump placement by assessing the well volume and potential interferences with the screen interval. Total depth is typically included on the well log; however, if changes are suspected due to sediment build-up, the total depth should be confirmed by measuring in the field. If well depth is to be measured, it may be measured the day before sampling or after the sampling event is complete to prevent sediments at the bottom of the well casing from becoming suspended in the water column and interfering with data quality and sample collection time. Placement of the pump within the well screen may be site or contaminant dependent. If a field specific change is required, ensure that the DEQ technical contact is notified verbally during field activities. Please consider the following field specific needs for pump placement: Figure 2: Disruption from device insertion (Powell & Assoc., 2016) Figure 1: Water level draw down in well (USGS 2016) 15 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx x For most sites, and at wells with screens 10 feet long or shorter, the pump intake/inlet should be located at approximately the midsection of the saturated screened interval. x For wells with screens longer than 10 feet, the primary flow zones and contaminant concentration intervals should be identified and the pump intake location should be determined in consultation with the DEQ technical contact. x For sites with intervals of different contaminant concentrations within the well screen, the pump intake should be located in the most contaminated interval. x For monitoring wells with LNAPLs, please see section 7.5.1. Care should be taken to ensure data quality is not affected either by small LNAPL globules in the sample or the inability to properly decontaminate the equipment between sampling locations. If low-flow sampling is proposed for a monitoring well where LNAPL is present, please consult the DEQ technical contact to ensure data quality objectives are being met. x For monitoring wells with dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs), it may be appropriate to locate the pump intake in the lower portion of the well; however, the pump should not be placed in the lower two feet of the well if possible, so as to avoid disturbing sediment. x For fractured bedrock sites and other sites with preferential contaminant flow pathways, the pump intake should be placed to sample the most hydraulically conductive interval, unless the sampling objective is to sample a different flow path. 2.5 STABILIZATION PARAMETERS Water quality indicator parameters should be monitored during purging. Common water quality indicator parameters used to determine stabilization include pH, oxidation/reduction potential (ORP), conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO), and turbidity. Temperature data can also be collected, but is not necessarily a required indicator of stabilization (Puls and Barcelona, 1996). Measurements should be taken every three to five minutes, and stabilization is considered achieved when three consecutive readings are within the following ranges for the stabilization parameters (NJDEP, 2003; USEPA, 2017a; Puls and Barcelona, 1996): Figure 3: Pump located midsection of well screen (GWSP, 2016) 16 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx Water Quality Indicator Parameter Stabilization Range pH ± 0.1 units Specific Conductance ± 3% Dissolved Oxygen (DO) ± 10% Turbidity ± 10% Oxidation/Reduction Potential (ORP) ± 10 millivolts Turbidity and DO will typically require the longest time for stabilization. It should also be noted that natural turbidity levels in groundwater may exceed 10 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU); therefore, turbidity can be considered stable when three consecutive readings are within 10% for values greater than 5 NTU and if three turbidity values are less than 5 NTU (USEPA, 2017a). For DO, if three consecutive values are less than 0.5 mg/L, consider the values as stabilized (USEPA, 2017a). Where a flow-through cell is used, complete exchange of water through the flow-through cell is necessary between measurements. If the cell volume cannot be replaced in a five-minute interval, then the time between measurements should be increased accordingly. Stabilization of the indicator parameters allows the sampler to know when formation water has been accessed and sample collection may begin. If the multi-parameter meter used during the sampling event does not have the capability of testing turbidity, turbidity samples should be collected before water enters the flow-through cell. Transparent flow-through cells can help field personnel monitor for particulate build-up, which can affect indicator field parameter values measured within the cell. If excessive turbidity is encountered during pump start-up, purging may need to continue until particulates settle to avoid build-up during parameter monitoring and sampling. Depending on facility conditions, parameters may not stabilize during pumping. If parameters do not stabilize, please proceed with one of the following: x Purge the well for a minimum of four hours prior to sampling if the static water level was stable prior to pumping, or x Purge three well volumes from the well prior to sampling, or x Discontinue purging and do not collect a sample. If a sample is collected, lack of stabilization of parameter values should be documented in the field logbook. Whether to allow sampling when parameter stabilization is unattainable is a site- specific and contaminant-specific decision to be discussed with the DEQ technical contact. 2.6 SAMPLE COLLECTION Samples should be collected once indicator parameters have stabilized as described in Section 2.5 above. When more than one sample contaminant type is to be collected from the well, samples should be collected in order from most volatile to least volatile analytes. The pump should not be turned off between purging and sampling although the pump rate may be decreased for sample collection in order to fill sample containers (often necessary to fill VOC sampling vials). 17 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx However, the rate may not be increased. Prior to collecting samples, disconnect tubing from the monitoring well from any inline-flow devices. Samples should be collected directly from the tube discharging from the monitoring well (unless an inline filter is required for the particular sample analysis). Immediately after a sample bottle has been filled it should be preserved according to the SAP, unless of course the sample container is pre-preserved by the laboratory. 2.7 DECONTAMINATION Specific decontamination procedures depend on the equipment being used and the contaminants being sampled. Procedures for decontamination should be included in the SAP and purge water should be handled in a manner consistent with DEQ requirements. In general, sampling devices should be decontaminated prior to sampling the first well and then following the sampling of each well. The use of dedicated pumps, bladders, and tubing will reduce the amount of time spent on decontamination. Disposable bladders and tubing should be used only once unless dedicated to the well. Water level probes should be decontaminated between each sampling point by wiping or scrubbing off soil or other foreign material, washing with a laboratory grade detergent (Liquinox or equivalent)/clean-water solution, and rinsing with tap water followed by a final rinse with distilled or deionized water. If the probe comes in contact with free product or highly contaminated groundwater, wash equipment using a desorbing agent (e.g. dilute solution of water and isopropanol or methanol) followed by a detergent wash, a thorough tap water rinse, and a final distilled or deionized water rinse. The interior and exterior of the pump, tubing, support cables, electrical wires, and any other equipment which was in contact with the well should be decontaminated in a similar manner as well. 2.8 POST SAMPLING ACTIVITIES After sampling, record the depth to groundwater again prior to ending the pumping event. If using dedicated pump tubing, hang it inside of the monitoring well or place within a dedicated container for storage until the next sampling event to avoid cross-contamination. Ensure the tubing is dry prior to long-term storage to avoid issues with mold. Secure the monitoring well. At the end of the sampling event, or end of day event, a calibration check of instruments should be performed and recorded. 18 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx 3.0 LOW-FLOW SAMPLING Low-flow sampling is when groundwater samples are collected with a pump set at a low flow rate. The measurement of water levels and stabilization parameters is used to determine when groundwater representative of the aquifer is being collected. This method minimizes disturbance of the well and formation water, and allows for groundwater sampling without purging multiple well volumes of water. The procedure and considerations for low-flow sampling are described in Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground-Water Sampling Procedures (Puls and Barcelona, 1996). Low-flow, also called “minimum drawdown” and “low stress” purging and sampling refers to the velocity with which water enters the pump intake; it does not necessarily refer to the flow rate of water discharged at the surface (Puls and Barcelona, 1996). Groundwater generally flows horizontally through a monitoring well screen with sufficient velocity to maintain an exchange with formation water surrounding the screen. When water is removed from a well at a rate minimizing vertical flow and the associated induced stress to the groundwater system, as measured by drawdown in the well, then the pumped water is more representative of the aquifer adjacent to the well screen (CalEPA, 2008). Conventional groundwater purging and sampling methods (e.g. bailers and high-speed pumps) not only cause hydrologic stress on the groundwater system, but also cause other adverse impacts including the collection of samples with high levels of turbidity (Puls and Barcelona, 1996). Suspended sediment at the bottom of the well casing can bias contaminant concentrations high and filtering samples can remove naturally mobile particles biasing contaminant concentrations low (Puls and Barcelona, 1996). Note, however, that analysis of dissolved metals in groundwater does require appropriate filtering. Field staff can ensure that low-flow conditions have been achieved and samples can be drawn from the well by following the procedures described in this document. Indicator field parameters (pH, redox potential (ORP), conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, and turbidity) and water level drawdown are measured during purging to determine when formation water has been accessed. It is important to establish stabilization prior to sample collection and consistently implement the same methods for each well sampled (stabilization criteria are discussed in Section 2.5). Consistently reproducing this methodology will improve data quality and help eliminate field errors that may cause DEQ to request sampling events to be repeated. Any deviations made in the field need to be documented in writing where the supporting and resulting data are discussed, for example in the site investigation (SI) report or monitoring report, and in the field log book or groundwater sampling log. The following materials provide a generalized how-to approach to low-flow sampling. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of the low-flow sampling process follow (ASTM, 2005; Puls and Barcelona, 1996): 19 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx Advantages Disadvantages x Generates less purge water than traditional purge methods, which decreases disposal costs x Less operator variability x Better sample consistency x Reduces adverse effects at the groundwater-well interface during sample collection by minimizing formation disturbance (e.g. mixing of stagnant casing water and settled sediment) adjacent to the screened interval x Minimal groundwater column drawdown and minimal disturbance of fines in the bottom of the well x Provides for sampling from discrete intervals in the well x Yields results representative of site contaminant conditions x Potentially greater set-up and/or sampling time in the field x Difficult to sample low-yield wells 3.1 LOW-FLOW SAMPLING PROCEDURE Please refer to Sections 2.1 – 2.8 for standard sampling procedures (instrument calibration, sample collection, decontamination, etc.). Details regarding procedures specific to low-flow sampling are described in the following sections. 3.1.1 Installation of Low-Flow Pump After attaching all necessary tubing and safety cables to the low-flow pump, lower the pump slowly into the monitoring well to the pre-determined depth. Pump tubing lengths outside of the monitoring well casing connected to flow-through cells and monitoring instruments should be kept as short as possible to minimize heating of the groundwater in the tubing by sunlight and ambient air temperatures. Heating of the groundwater in the tubing should be avoided as it may cause groundwater to degas, which can adversely affect data quality of samples for VOCs and dissolved gases. 3.1.2 Continued Water Level Measurement Depth to groundwater measurements should be taken during the entire low-flow pumping and sampling procedure to ensure that stress is not being placed on the hydrologic system by a high pumping rate. The objective is to pump in a manner that minimizes water level drawdown in the system (Figure 1). At the beginning, drawdown may exceed the goal of <0.1 meters (m) [0.3 feet {ft.}] during purging and then “recover” as pump rates are adjusted. Aquifers with particularly high conductivity may be able to sustain higher flow rates with laminar flow into the well and without excessive drawdown. The flow rate used to achieve a stable pumping level should be recorded and remain constant while monitoring the indicator 20 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx parameters. Recording of water quality indicator parameters begins once the depth to groundwater level has stabilized and enough water has been purged to fill the flow-through- cell and submerge all water quality meter sensors (USEPA, 2017a). 3.1.3 Purging the Monitoring Well Use previous sampling event data to assist in determining pump rate and pump settings. Flow rates of 0.1 – 0.5 L/min are necessary to conduct low-flow sampling; however, this is dependent on site specific hydrogeology (Puls and Barcelona, 1996; ASTM 2005, NJDEP, 2003). Some extremely coarse-textured formations have been successfully sampled at flow rates to 1 L/min. Start the pumping at a low rate (0.1 L/min is suggested). Once low-flow pumping begins, all purged water is collected in a graduated container to determine the total volume of purge water, which is recorded in the field logbook or field sampling form. Slowly increase flow rate until water level begins to drop. Reduce flow rate slightly until water level stabilizes. Water levels should not drop below 0.3 ft of the initial water level. Record pump settings at this time and calculate flow rate. Continue to collect water level measurements every three to five minutes until water level stabilizes. If groundwater is highly turbid, continue to purge groundwater until the water visually clears. Do not allow the water level to drop below the pump intake. 3.1.4 Monitoring Stabilization Parameters After the depth to groundwater has stabilized, ensure that the sample tubing and/or flow- through cell are free of gas bubbles. Begin collecting water quality field parameters (pH, ORP, conductivity, DO, and turbidity). Temperature data can also be collected, but is not a required indicator of stabilization (Puls and Barcelona, 1996). Collect water quality field parameters every three to five minutes until parameter stabilization is achieved. Note that a complete exchange of water through the flow-through cell is necessary between measurements; the flow cell volume should be recorded in the field book and flow should be monitored to confirm that complete exchange has occurred between parameter readings. If this is not achievable in five minutes, extend the sample time accordingly. See Section 2.5 of this Groundwater Sampling Guidance for more details on stabilization criteria. 21 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx 4.0 MULTIPLE VOLUME PURGE SAMPLING Multiple volume purge sampling is when groundwater samples are collected after a predetermined volume (generally three to five well volumes) of water has been removed from the well and field parameters have stabilized. Well volume is calculated by using the following equation: ܸൌߨݎଶ݄ሺ͹ǤͶͺሻ where: V = volume in gallons r = radius of monitoring well in feet h = height of the water column in feet (this may be determined by subtracting the depth to water from the total depth of the well as measured from the same reference point) 7.48 = conversion factor in gallons per cubic foot Wells are typically purged by bailer or a pump in an effort to remove stagnant well water prior to sample collection. In low yield wells, the well is generally purged dry and sampled after sufficient recovery has occurred. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of multiple volume purge sampling follow: Advantages Disadvantages x Easy to implement x Well yield does not limit the applicability of the sampling method except in low- yield wells that may be pumped dry. x High volumes of purge water that require treatment or disposal x Less sample consistency x Inadequate purging may cause stagnant well water to mix with formation water x High purge volumes can underestimate concentrations due to dilution. High purge rates can under- or over-estimate concentrations by pulling water from other vertical zones. x High purge rates can increase sample turbidity and may result in higher contaminant concentrations x In the case a low-yield well is pumped dry, sampling recovered water will likely result in underestimated VOCs due to cascading/aeration. 22 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx 5.0 NO PURGE SAMPLING No purge samples are generally collected by bailer or pump without purging the well. These samples are most commonly collected from temporary sampling points. The difficulties of sampling from temporary sampling points are discussed in Section 7.2. Although no purge samples can be useful as a screening tool, they are not typically used for groundwater monitoring. Bailers, pumps, or other sample collection devices may be used for no purge sampling. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of the no purge sampling process follow: Advantages Disadvantages x Easy to implement x Potentially no purge water generated x Minimal set-up and sample times x Less sample consistency x Potential for sample to contain sediment and/or stagnant well water x Uncertainties about representativeness x Depending upon the sampling method, low sample volumes may limit lab analyses 23 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx 6.0 PASSIVE SAMPLING Passive samplers collect groundwater samples from within the screened interval of a well without purging. Because purging is not required, there is minimal disturbance of the sampling point. Passive samplers may include more rapid samplers such as the HydrasleeveTM and Snap Sampler ®, or samplers that rely on sorption (GoreTM Module), or diffusion (passive diffusion bags). A thorough discussion of the use and considerations for passive samplers is provided in Protocol for Use of Five Passive Samplers to Sample for a Variety of Contaminants in Groundwater (ITRC, Feb. 2007). Some of the advantages and disadvantages of the passive sampling process follow: Advantages Disadvantages x Easy to implement x Generates no purge water x Provides for sampling from discrete intervals in the well x Less set-up and sample times x Method may require calibration with other sampling techniques to assess applicability x Requires equilibration with groundwater x Sorption or diffusion based sampling requires multiple mobilizations per sampling event x Sorption or diffusion based samplers are only applicable for certain constituents x Limited sample volume 24 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx 7.0 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS Different types of wells and borings may be available for DEQ and consultants to collect representative groundwater samples. The following are specific situations with examples to assist in quality groundwater sample collection. This may include instances where data collection from conventional monitoring wells is not possible, it is desirable to supplement groundwater data from conventional monitoring wells, or it may be important to determine the presence and concentration of contaminants in drinking water sources. 7.1 DIRECT PUSH TECHNOLOGY (DPT) WELLS If direct push technology (DPT) wells are installed with filter packs, they may allow for well development and lower sample turbidity. The speed and mobility of DPT sampling may allow for the installation of more sample points, which may provide a more complete assessment of groundwater quality than would be available with conventional wells. Commercially available screen lengths as short as one foot allow DPT wells to be installed in a vertically precise manner (i.e., avoiding excessive or inadequate screen lengths). Drill cuttings and purge water volumes are minimal due to the smaller well diameters. Several studies have been completed comparing DPT installed wells with conventionally installed wells (USEPA, 1998; Kram, Mark et. al., 2001). The studies found no significant difference in the quality of samples taken from properly installed and developed DPT wells as compared to conventionally installed wells. The limitations of DPT installed wells are a consequence of the small diameter of such wells. Specific limitations could include limited volumes of groundwater to obtain sufficient sample qualities. Also, USEPA specifically does not recommend DPT where telescoping wells are required to limit migration below confining layers (Ohio EPA, 2005). The inside diameter probe rods or temporary drive casings used for DPT wells range from 1 ½ to 3 ½ inches. The smaller diameters limit the choices of purging and sampling equipment. Several types of appropriate equipment are currently available, including small-diameter bladder pumps and small-diameter electric submersible pumps. If the DPT well is less than 2 inches, it may be necessary to use a peristaltic pump, although this is not the preferred method. In addition, due to the smaller well diameter, a smaller radius of the formation is impacted during well development, potentially resulting in a less developed well than a larger diameter well. As with all DPT applications, installation of wells with DPT is limited to unconsolidated sediments, and may be limited by depth or the presence of gravels or cobbles. These limitations should be considered in site sampling and analysis plans (Ohio EPA, 2005). 7.2 DPT ONE-TIME SAMPLE COLLECTION DPT one-time samplers do not allow for long-term groundwater monitoring; however, they can be very useful as screening tools. With respect to site screening investigations in which groundwater samples are not being collected for compliance purposes, DPT (closed screen, open screen, and groundwater profilers) may delineate contaminated groundwater plumes more quickly and efficiently than monitoring wells. Because they are easy to use and do not require well construction materials, DPT one-time samplers typically have a significant advantage over traditional monitoring wells as site screening tools. In addition, they often facilitate hydrogeological evaluation and plume mapping, and can be very helpful in optimizing the 25 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx location and construction of permanent monitoring wells. Conversely, with respect to obtaining representative groundwater samples that generate accurate and verifiable data, the use of DPT one-time samplers does present a few challenges. Correct placement of the screened interval is particularly important given the short screen and discrete sampling interval, so that contaminant layers are not missed. The short time frame of many DPT investigations is often insufficient for adequate well development and equilibration with the surrounding formation water. Because there is no filter pack installed around a DPT sampling tool fines may clog the well screen when sampling in fine-grained formations preventing groundwater from reaching the sampler. Also, the lack of a bentonite seal may allow volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to off-gas into the atmosphere from the groundwater zone if the vadose zone/surficial materials are relatively cohesive and the annular space has not collapsed. Clogging of the screen could cause samples to be biased lower than actual contaminant concentrations. Problems with turbidity may arise due to the inability to adequately develop the sampler. Finally, when sampling objectives include trend analysis and monitoring of remediation efforts, the one-time sampling inherent in samples taken with DPT tools is often not appropriate for these monitoring requirements (Ohio EPA, 2005). 7.3 IRRIGATION WELLS Construction and/or completion details about irrigation wells may be unknown or unreliable; therefore, before proposing use of irrigation wells for groundwater monitoring, DEQ advises considering several factors such as: whether the pumps are running continuously or intermittently and whether any storage/pressure tanks are located between the sampling point and the pump. The following considerations and procedures should be followed when purging wells with in-place plumbing. If the pump runs more or less continuously, no purge (other than opening a valve and allowing it to flush for a few minutes) is necessary. If a storage tank is present, a spigot, valve or other sampling point should be located between the pump and the storage tank. If not, locate the valve closest to the tank. Measurements of pH, specific conductance, DO, ORP, and turbidity are recorded at the time of sampling and compared to previous measurements to confirm that purging is complete. See Section 2.5 for parameter stabilization criteria. If the pump runs intermittently or infrequently, the sampling team’s best judgment, along with advice from DEQ, should be utilized to remove enough water from the plumbing to flush standing water from the piping and any storage tanks that might be present. Generally, under these conditions, 15 to 30 minutes will be adequate. Measurements of pH, specific conductance, DO, ORP, and turbidity should be made and recorded at intervals during the purge to determine when purging is complete, and the final field parameters measured at the time of sampling (USEPA, 2017a). Sampling through hoses or tubing should be avoided. Collecting groundwater samples from irrigation wells has limitations. Irrigation wells are commonly screened over a broad range of geological materials. Preferential flow paths in more hydraulically conductive units could influence or dilute evidence of chemicals of concern (Gosselin et al. 1994). 7.4 DOMESTIC OR RESIDENTIAL WELLS In some instances, samples will be acquired from residential wells. Several factors should be considered when collecting samples from a residential well. Obtain a copy of the well log from Montana’s Groundwater Information Center (GWIC) to determine the well depth, diameter, and estimated static water level so that the amount of water per well volume can be calculated for 26 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx purging. It should be determined if the residence is equipped with a water softener or other filtration system. Samples should be collected before any type of treatment system, if possible. Samples should also be collected from as close to the well influent as possible. Sampling through hoses or tubing should be avoided. The sample should be collected directly from spigots or faucets. In residences, the size of the holding tank should be determined. If it is not possible to collect a sample before the holding tank, then the volume of the holding tank should be purged before sample acquisition, if feasible. Water quality parameters should be collected during the purge to determine when purging is complete, and the final field parameters measured at the time of sampling. Sample analysis requirements are case specific. DEQ personnel or contractors should not open the wellhead. If depth-to-water is a critical parameter, it can be measured with a sonic depth-to-water meter. Using a tape or probe to measure depth-to-water in a drinking water well is not advisable because they can easily get entangled with the discharge piping or electrical wiring for the submersible pumps. If samples are being collected for bacteria, sterilize the spigot with bleach or 95% ethanol, then rinse with DI water prior to sample collection. Collecting groundwater samples from domestic wells has limitations. Domestic wells are commonly screened over a broad range of geological materials. Preferential flow paths in more hydraulically conductive units could influence or dilute evidence of chemicals of concern (Gosselin et al., 1994). However, the importance of sampling domestic or residential wells is usually to monitor a direct exposure route. 7.5 SAMPLING WELLS WITH FREE PRODUCT Sampling groundwater at wells with free product, light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) or dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL), is not a common occurrence and is not typically required. However, collecting groundwater samples beneath LNAPL may be necessary for determining the co-solvency effect upon dissolved-phase contaminant concentrations for product mixtures, evaluating coalescing contaminant plumes from multiple sources, designing groundwater treatment systems, and collecting natural attenuation parameters. If the collection of groundwater from a monitoring well where free product is observed is required at a facility, the following methods and procedures provide guidance for those activities. Alternative approaches will be considered if those methods can be shown to provide better or equivalent data quality. 7.5.1 Sampling Groundwater Below LNAPL LNAPL can be a persistent source of groundwater contamination, frequently contributing to chemical groundwater exceedances above screening or cleanup levels. Standard groundwater sampling methods are inappropriate for sample collection beneath LNAPLs because sampling implements become coated as they pass through LNAPL, thereby potentially cross- contaminating groundwater samples. Entrained product increases contaminant loading of groundwater samples, and may damage field instrumentation. Typically, groundwater in monitoring wells containing LNAPL is not sampled due to complexity and the special handling needed to collect representative samples. However, if a circumstance exists to warrant collection of groundwater samples from beneath LNAPLs, DEQ recommends using 27 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx one of the following procedures. Please consult with the DEQ technical contact for approval of alternative methods that can achieve reliable results. 7.5.1.1 Sealed Casing Method Water levels and LNAPL thickness is measured. A 1-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing sealed at the bottom with plastic sheeting (i.e., cling film, saran wrap) is lowered through the LNAPL layer and placed approximately one to two feet below the bottom of the LNAPL. The plastic sheeting is attached using a band clamp. A ½ -inch diameter pipe is lowered inside the 1-inch diameter casing and pushed through the plastic sheeting at the bottom. The ½ -inch diameter pipe is placed approximately one to two feet below the bottom of the outer casing. Disposable plastic tubing is connected to a peristaltic pump configured to discharge air through the tubing instead of drawing air into the tubing. The tubing is lowered inside the ½ -inch piping until the intake end of the tubing reaches below the ½ -inch diameter piping and into the underlying groundwater column. The peristaltic pump is turned off, and the intake end of the tubing is lowered to the desired sample acquisition depth (e.g. typically near the bottom of the well screen in the lower portion of the water column, but not in the lower two feet of the well, if possible). Prior to sampling the well, the peristaltic pump configuration is reversed to draw water into the tubing, and a small quantity of groundwater (e.g., 100 ml) is discharged from the tubing (Revised Supplemental Work Plan for Investigation of Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds and Petroleum Hydrocarbons (3rd Revision), Burlington Northern Facility Havre dated May 2006 by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. for BNSF Railway Company). 7.5.1.2 Ice-Coating Methods In this procedure, ice is used as a barrier to inhibit sampling equipment from becoming coated with product during sample collection. Ice should be made from laboratory distilled or deionized water. A detailed description of this procedure is available online (http://www.bioremediationgroup.org/BioReferences/Tier2Papers/collection.htm), but is also directly cited below. Ice is used as a temporary barrier to protect sampling implements from becoming product coated as they pass through LNAPLs within monitoring wells. Sampling implements are coated with approximately 0.1 to 0.3-inch-thick layer of ice (laboratory-grade distilled water) using simple molds fabricated from PVC pipe and end caps. Bench-scale testing of two different ice-coating procedures demonstrates that product initially coats the ice, but sloughs off within seconds as the ice begins to melt. The ice coating melts completely within a few minutes and the product-free implement is used to sample groundwater. Melting ice is expected to have a negligible effect on groundwater quality due to the minimal volume of ice relative to the storage capacity of most monitoring wells. If the impact of melting ice on groundwater quality is a concern, the standing water column could be purged or the well could be allowed to equilibrate prior to sampling. Note that this method does not prevent coating on the way back out of the well, so special care should still be taken to properly decontaminate the equipment. An example ice-coating 28 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx procedure is described below for sampling beneath LNAPLs. Ice-Coating Method: Conduit Procedure This procedure involves placing a silicon stopper in one end of a Schedule 40 PVC pipe and coating the end of the PVC pipe containing the stopper with ice. The ice-coated pipe is lowered through the LNAPL until the stoppered end of the PVC pipe extends at least three feet into groundwater. Following melting of the ice coating, a messenger rod is used to push the stopper from the end of the PVC pipe, creating a portal in the LNAPL through which sampling may be performed. A monofilament line attached to the stopper allows retrieval of the stopper from the well bore at the time the conduit is retrieved (Collection of Groundwater Samples from Beneath an LNAPL: An Ice-Coating Method, I. Richard Schafferner, JR., P.G., James M. Wieck, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.). 7.5.2 Sampling Wells With DNAPL DNAPLs are denser than water and have limited and varying solubilities in water (ITRC, 2015). The most common DNAPLs are chlorinated solvents such as trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), and carbon tetrachloride. Prior to sampling a groundwater well where DNAPL may be present, it is important to use an interface probe to monitor the total depth of the well and determine whether a DNAPL has accumulated at the bottom of the monitoring well. If the interface probe comes in contact with a DNAPL, immediate sampling should be delayed due to cross contamination on the interface probe moving through the water column as it is removed. When sampling groundwater at a site with DNAPL present, it may be appropriate to locate the pump intake in the lower portion of the well or screen; however, if possible, the pump should not be placed in proximity (less than 2 feet) to the DNAPL to avoid disturbance of the DNAPL. The use of an appropriate low-flow sampling technique to ensure that the DNAPL is not disturbed during the sampling is important to ensure the data quality of the sample. 29 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx 8.0 References ASTM International. (2005). Standard practice for environmental site assessments: Phase I environmental site assessment process. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). (2008). Representative Sampling of Groundwater for Hazardous Substances, Guidance Manual for Groundwater Investigations. California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control. Gosselin, D.C. et al. (1994). Modeling concentration variations in high-capacity wells: Implications for ground-water sampling. Water Resources Bulletin, 30(5), 613-622. Groundwater Well Sampling Pumps (GWSP). 2016. http://rimip.com/groundwater-well-sampling- pumps/. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC). April 2015. Types of DNAPLs and DNAPL Properties. http://www.itrcweb.org/DNAPL-ISC_tools- selection/Content/2%20Types%20of%20DNAPLS%20and%20DNAPL.htm Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Inc. (2006). Sealed Casing Method for Sampling Groundwater Below LNAPL. In Revised Supplemental Work Plan for Investigation of Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds and Petroleum Hydrocarbons (3rd Revision), Burlington Northern Facility Havre. Kram, Mark et. al. (2001). Performance Comparison: Direct Push Wells Versus Drilled Wells. Navel Facilities Engineering Service Center Technical Report. TR-2120-ENV, p.55. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). (2003). Low-Flow Purging and Sampling Guidance. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). (2005). Technical Guidance for Groundwater Investigations. Division of Drinking and Ground Waters, Columbus Ohio. Parker, L.V. (1994). The effects of ground water sampling devices on water quality: a literature review. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, 14(2), 130-141. Parker, L.V., and T.A. Ranney. (1997). Sampling Trace-Level Organic Solutes with Polymeric Tubing Part I. Static Studies. In Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 17(4), 115-124. Parker, L.V., and T.A. Ranney. (1998). Sampling Trace-Level Organic Solutes with Polymeric Tubing Part 2. Dynamic Studies. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 18(1), 148-155 Powell & Associates Science Services. (2016). http://www.powellassociates.com/PAServices/GWsampling/GWsampling.html 30 G:\HWC\GuidanceDocuments\GroundwaterSamplingGuidance\GWSamplingGuidance-FINAL.docx Puls, R.W. and M.J. Barcelona. (1996). Low-Flow (minimal drawdown) Ground-Water Sampling Procedures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Puls, R.W. and C.J. Paul. (1995). Low-Flow Purging and Sampling of Ground-water Monitoring Wells with Dedicated Systems. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 15(1), 116-123. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1998). Innovations in Site Characterization Case Study: Hanscom Air Force Base Operable Unit 1 (Sites 1, 2, and 3). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. EPA-542- R-98-006. USEPA, Region I. (2017a). Low Stress (low-flow) Purging and Sampling Procedures for the Collection of Groundwater Samples from Monitoring Wells. Quality Assurance Unit, North Chelmsford, MA. Revised September 19, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/eqasop-gw4.pdf USEPA, Region 4. (2017b). Standard Operating Procedures, Groundwater Sampling. Science and Ecosystem Support Division, Athens, GA. April 26, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017- 07/documents/groundwater_sampling301_af.r4.pdf United States Geological Survey. (2016). http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/gw_ruralhomeowner/ Yeskis, D. and B. Zavala. (2002). Ground-Water Sampling Guidelines for Superfund and RCRA Project Managers. In Groundwater Forum Issue Paper EPA (pp.1-53). Appendix D Field Forms and Example Chain-of-Custody Forms Well ID: Field Team:Arrival Time to Well:Date: Weather/Temp:Initial DTW (ft btc): Purge Method: Bladder Peristaltic Grab Other: _____________Pump Setting : Time 1 Purge Vol. (gal)pH Sp. Cond. (mS/cm) Temp (°C) Stabilization Criteria 3 -± 0.1 units ± 3%-- 1 Collect field parameters in consistent 3-5 minute intervals for Low-Flow method 2 DTW: If possible, drawdown should not exceed 0.33 ft for Low-Flow method3 Stabilization achieved once field parameters stabilize for 3 successive readings for Low-Flow method; minimum parameter subset: pH and Sp. Cond. Sample ID:Sample Time: QC SAMPLE : FD MS/MSD QC SAMPLE ID QC Time: Comments: Groundwater Purging and Sampling Form Field Parameters DTW 2 Time Pumping Begins - Note color, odor, etc. Attachment 9 Methane Monitoring Plan METHANE MONITORING PLAN FOR LICENSE EXPANSION Gallatin County Class II Sanitary Landfill at Logan Prepared by: ® June 2020 Methane Monitoring Plan for License Expansion Gallatin County Class II Sanitary Landfill at Logan June 2020 Prepared by: GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Methane Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan i Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................. 1 1.2. Location and History ........................................................................................... 2 1.3. Site Geology and Hydrology ................................................................................ 2 1.4. Existing Methane Monitoring Program .............................................................. 3 1.5. Proposed Methane Monitoring Program Expansion ......................................... 3 2. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES .................................................................. 3 2.1. Equipment ............................................................................................................ 3 2.2. Gas Detector Calibration and Operation ............................................................ 3 2.3. Sampling Locations ............................................................................................. 4 2.4. Sampling Protocol: .............................................................................................. 5 Facility Structures Monitoring: ....................................................................................... 5 The procedures for monitoring gas inside facility structures are outlined below. ..... 5 2.5. Sampling Field Records ...................................................................................... 7 3. REPORTING ............................................................................................................ 7 Tables Table 1. Explosive Gas Monitoring Allowable Concentrations ............................... 1 Table 2. Perimeter Gas MMW Purge Times ......................................................... 7 Exhibits Exhibit 1. Project Location Map ............................................................................ 2 Exhibit 2. Gas MMW Operation Setup Diagram (Example) .................................. 4 Figures Figure 1 – Methane Monitoring Well Locations (Site Plan) Figure 2 – Methane Monitoring Well Details and Installation Schedule Table Appendices Appendix A Existing MMW Completion Logs Appendix B QRAE Users Guide and Quick Start Manual Appendix C Methane Monitoring Field Form GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Methane Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Purpose and Scope Methane monitoring plans are required at Class II landfills in the State of Montana in accordance with the operation and maintenance planning requirements of ARM 17.50.509 (2)(h)(i). This Methane Monitoring Plan along with the Operations and Maintenance Plan must be reviewed an updated periodically. The purpose of this Methane Monitoring Sampling and Analysis Plan (hereafter SAP) is to describe the proposed monitoring program, sampling procedures, quality control (QC), and reporting requirements for the expansion area at the Logan Class II Landfill, near Logan Montana. The document is intended for field use by employees of Great West Engineering, or designated contractors. ARM 17.50.1106 outlines the requirements for methane monitoring at Class II facilities in the State of Montana. Methane concentrations are generally expressed for testing in terms of the lower explosive limit (LEL), parts per million (PPM), or percent (%) by volume. The LEL is the lowest percent by volume of a mixture of explosive gases, such as methane, in air that will propagate a flame at 25 degrees Celsius and atmospheric pressure. Table 1 shows the allowable concentrations at onsite facility structures and the property boundary (i.e., the compliance monitoring points provided by the perimeter methane monitoring wells). If concentrations are detected to be greater than those specified in the table, refer to Section 3 for remediation plan requirements. Table 1. Explosive Gas Monitoring Allowable Concentrations Location LEL PPM % by Volume Onsite Facility Structures 25% 12,500 1.25% Property Boundary 100% 50,000 5.00% A routine methane monitoring program has been implemented at the Logan Landfill for explosive gases. Monitoring occurs quarterly at each of the locations in accordance with the regulations. The sampling crew needs to be aware of the dangers associated with landfill gases and be properly trained. Landfill gas can present toxic or explosive atmospheres in unventilated spaces. Likewise, explosive conditions can exist next to the monitoring wells during testing. A QRAE 3 Four Gas Monitor is proposed for testing of methane concentrations at each of the methane monitoring wells (MMWs). The unit must be calibrated according to the manufacturer’s instructions. At a minimum, the unit must be “bump tested” (checking that the instrument is reading the calibration gas levels accurately) or certified that the unit was calibrated by the company supplying the meter rental before each quarterly testing event to ensure accuracy of the readings. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Methane Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 2 1.2. Location and History The Logan Landfill is located about five miles west of Manhattan, Montana (refer to Exhibit 1) and is operated under the jurisdiction of Gallatin County through the Gallatin Solid Waste Management District. Exhibit 1. Project Location Map. The Logan Landfill has been in continuous operation since the early 1970s. It consists of an unlined footprint on the northern end of the fill area and multiple lined units on the south. Portions of the lined and unlined landfill containing Class II waste have been closed. In the mid-2000s the facility added a new shop, administrative building, and scale house/scales. An additional building designed to manage electronic waste (e-waste) was completed in 2011. The original landfill licensed area is comprised of approximately 127 acres, with 26 acres north of the waste fill area being reserved for future remedial actions. The proposed expansion will increase the license property area to 670.8 acres. The landfill expansion area boundaries encompass a total of 535 acres of which, 300 acres are planned for landfilling of MSW and Class IV wastes. A 9-acre area is planned for the disposal of asbestos. The District will also license the existing 8.8 acre scale facilities as part of this license expansion. 1.3. Site Geology and Hydrology Predominant soil types at the site are silty to poorly graded sand and/or weathered sandstone. Secondary soil types consist of silt, siltstone, and occasional zones of clean coarse sand. The overall heterogeneity and variety of different soil types and relatively thin lenses suggests a relatively complex and active depositional history. For additional information concerning the site geology and hydrogeology, refer to the Hydrogeologic and Soils Report for the Logan Landfill Class II License Expansion (Great West Engineering, June 2020). GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Methane Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 3 1.4. Existing Methane Monitoring Program As part of the current methane monitoring program, there are eight MMWs located around the perimeter of the existing landfilling area (refer to Figure 1). Refer to Appendix A for the well completion logs for these existing eight MMWs. In the early 2000s, methane concentrations at one of the wells (MMW-7) was detected above the regulatory limits. For mitigation, the District installed passive vents in the western side of the unlined area, in the hopes that methane from the landfill would vent to the atmosphere before reaching the property boundary. Other methane monitoring wells have higher-than-normal carbon dioxide levels and/or lower-than-normal oxygen concentrations, but methane has occurred in only two instances since 2005. No methane or changes in carbon dioxide or oxygen concentrations have been detected in any of the facility’s buildings to date. 1.5. Proposed Methane Monitoring Program Expansion With the expansion of the landfill’s property and licensed boundaries, twelve additional MMWs are proposed for placement around the expansion area. All proposed MMWs are shown in Figure 1. The details for the proposed MMWs and the installation schedule table are shown in Figure 2. 2. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 2.1. Equipment For facility and property boundary monitoring, Great West Engineering, Inc. will use a QRAE 3 Four Gas Monitor or equivalent. Refer to Appendix B for the manual and user guide. If any other device is used, it must be capable of detecting methane, carbon dioxide and oxygen as percentage concentrations of the total sample. Specifically, the device needs to be able to monitor methane at low concentrations and provide accurate readings. Extra filters and spare tubing and fittings should be available during testing. In addition to the gas meter, the following equipment/tools will be necessary for sampling gas at MMWs: • Air Pump (ADJ, Dia-Vac; Model# R271-FT-EA1) • Pump flow meter (Dwyer VFB-69) • Valve regulator/tee • Sampling tubing • Methane Monitoring Field Form (refer to Appendix C) with pen or pencil 2.2. Gas Detector Calibration and Operation The QRAE 3 Four Gas Monitor must be calibrated according to the manufacturer’s instructions. At a minimum, the unit must be “bump tested” (checking that the instrument is reading the calibration gas levels accurately) or calibrated before each quarterly testing event to ensure accuracy of the readings. The following sections GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Methane Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 4 describe specific monitoring information for each of the explosive gas testing locations. The unit shall be turned on, outside in the open air, away from any sources of methane or carbon dioxide (such as idling vehicles). Care needs to be taken regarding temperature changes of the unit that might result in condensation. Moisture in the intake or exhaust system of the QRAE 3 can cause damage to the oxygen sensor. The extreme temperature variations in Montana need to be considered, and the unit should not be used in sub-freezing temperatures without taking precautions to avoid sudden and extreme changes in the air intake. An example of the setup for purging and sampling of gas at each MMW is displayed in Exhibit 2. Exhibit 2. MMW Testing Setup Diagram (Example). 2.3. Sampling Locations The monitoring locations include a total 20 MMWs, eight existing MMWs, twelve proposed MMWs, and five structures, listed below. These locations along with the following onsite structures are shown on Figure 2.: E-Waste Building; Shop (new); Shop (old); Administrative Building; and Scale House. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Methane Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 5 2.4. Sampling Protocol: Facility Structures Monitoring: The procedures for monitoring gas inside facility structures are outlined below. • Ambient Air Check – Prior to entering a building to be monitored, turn on and run the QRAE 3 Four Gas Monitor outside, with no exhaust, fumes, or other air pollutants present. The gas monitor unit must be checked for operation outside of the building, and care should be taken to avoid extreme temperature changes between outdoor and indoor air. If the monitor displays the following: 0% LEL, 0% H2S, 0% CO, and 20.8% O2, enter the building to proceed with monitoring. If it does not, troubleshoot the situation. The monitor may need to be recalibrated or repaired. • Sampling – The monitor continuously pumps air into the unit and updates the readings automatically. Take the monitor to all locations within the building, paying close attention to areas lower than the floor grade, such as drains, confined spaces such as cabinets, along walls, and in the corners. Take readings both low and high, as certain explosive gases are lighter than air (methane) and others are heavier (hydrogen sulfide). • Record –Write down the reading with the highest LEL in the Methane Monitoring Field Form (copy located in Appendix C) and note anything of importance or out of the ordinary. Additionally, write down the exact location in the notes, as well as any additional readings that were recorded. • Post Sampling - Regardless of where the samples are collected or the readings observed on the QRAE 3 unit, the pump should be allowed to purge in fresh air for at least one minute or longer after sampling. If levels are detected that indicated the presence of explosive gases, contact the project manager immediately and your site contact for any concerns and for reporting. Methane Monitoring Wells (Property Boundary) The procedures for monitoring gas at the MMWs are as follows: • Vehicle Parking – Park the vehicle with the gas generator at least 25 feet away from the MMW and downwind to avoid exhaust gases influencing the meter readings. • Unload Equipment – Unload all the necessary equipment from the vehicle, such as the gas meter and the pump. Place the equipment on a dry, flat area. Ensure that the electrical cord can reach from the pump to the generator and the tubing from the pump can reach the well. • Methane Monitoring Well– Expose the MMW by removing the vault cover. Ensure that the well tubing is connected properly and is free of debris and dirt If the well is covered in soil, due to burrowing animals, remove the soil, clean out the vault, and replace any tubing or the quick connects, if necessary. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Methane Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 6 • Sampling Line – Keep the sampling line clean and free of debris at all times. Place the exhaust tubing away from the sampling area for safety reasons, in case of high methane levels. • Purging – Once all the checks have been performed and the equipment is ready, open the valve on the test port and connect the inlet tubing to the MMW. Turn on the generator and plug-in the pump. Check the air flowrate. Before sampling, run the pump to allow for at least three air volume exchanges within the well. Refer to Table 2 for the minimum purge times for each well. While the pump is running, verify that it is operating at approximately 25 liters/minute, which was the parameter used to calculate the purge times in the table. If the pump is running noticeably slower, the purge time will need to be increased. • Ambient Air Check – Prior to monitoring at each well and after purging, turn on and run the QRAE 3 Four Gas Monitor, ensuring that there are no exhaust, fumes, or other air pollutants present. If the monitor displays the following: 0% LEL, 0% H2S, 0% CO, and 20.8% O2, proceed with monitoring. If it does not, troubleshoot the situation. The generator exhaust fumes may be affecting the reading, for instance. If so, pull the vehicle further away making sure first that there is enough cord to not pull on the air pump. • Crack Open the Valve - Crack open the valve on the valve regulator and verify that the sampling line exhausts a low enough flow to monitor. The QRAE 3 Four Gas Monitor samples at a flow rate of 0.2 to 0.45 L/min. In order not to overwhelm and damage the unit, the valve should only be opened enough to allow air flow to outlet from the sampling line and no more. • Sampling – Once the minimum purge time has been met, connect the QRAE 3 Four Gas Monitor to the sampling line and wait for the readings to stabilize. • Record – Record the stabilized readings on the Methane Monitoring Field Form (copy located in Appendix C) and note anything of importance or out of the ordinary. • Post Sampling - Regardless of where the samples are collected or the readings observed on the QRAE 3 unit, the pump should be allowed to purge in fresh air for at least one minute or longer after sampling any well, standpipe or structure. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Methane Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 7 Table 2. MMW Purge Times Notes: a. Purge volumes are three times the volume of the MMW, rounded up to the nearest minute. b. Standard purge rate is 25 L/min. Confirm purge rate and adjust time for actual pumping rate at each well. 2.5. Sampling Field Records Field data shall be recorded at the time of the monitoring, preferably on a copy of the data sheet, provided in Appendix C. Recorded information should include weather conditions, the condition of the well and any problems encountered, any procedural irregularities, and conditions in buildings. 3. REPORTING The results of the methane monitoring must be reported to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality in accordance with ARM 17.50.1106 (3). Upon detection of methane within a confined space or structure exceeding 1.25% in an oxygen atmosphere of 20.9 percent, (as defined by Table 1) the facility manager or safety MMW Well Diameter (inches) Well Depth (feet) Purge Volume (liters)(a) Min. Purge Time (at 25 L/min)(b) Existing MMWs: MMW-1 4 41.5 308 13 minutes MMW-2 4 40 297 12 minutes MMW-3 4 39 289 12 minutes MMW-5 4 39 289 12 minutes MMW-8 2 34 63 3 minutes MMW-9 2 20 37 2 minutes MMW-10 2 40 74 3 minutes MMW-11 2 40 74 3 minutes Proposed MMWs: MMW-12 2 60 111 5 minutes MMW-13 2 30 56 3 minutes MMW-14 2 65 120 5 minutes MMW-15 2 85 158 7 minutes MMW-16 2 97 180 8 minutes MMW-17 2 23 43 2 minutes MMW-18 2 24 44 2 minutes MMW-19 2 31 57 3 minutes MMW-20 2 45 83 4 minutes MMW-21 2 46 85 4 minutes MMW-22 2 45 83 4 minutes MMW-23 2 21 39 2 minutes GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Methane Monitoring Sampling & Analysis Plan 8 officer should be contacted immediately and all measures taken to protect the public health and safety. If methane gas levels exceed the limits specified in Table 1, the following must be done: • Immediately take all necessary steps to ensure protection of human health and notify the DEQ. • Within 7 days after detection, place in the operating record specification of the methane gas levels detected and a description of the steps taken to protect human health. • Within 60 days after detection, submit for DEQ approval, and implement, a Remediation Plan (see below) for controlling methane gas releases, place a copy of the plan in the operating record, and notify DEQ that the plan has been implemented. The Remediation Plan must include the following information: • Describe the nature and extent of the problem and the proposed remedy. • Provide design plans for the proposed remedy. • For construction of all methane gas control systems required in the rule, contain a submission for DEQ approval that includes plans, specifications, reports, and certifications. Great West Engineering will transfer the field data to an electronic database as a permanent record. FIGURES C T TT PFOFOFOCO SSS UGPUGPUGPFMFMWWC FMFMFMOF 21METHANE MONITERING WELLS- PLAN TP KP TP TP 1-05119 JUNE 2020 NORTHPLAN VIEW OF PROPOSED METHANE MONITORING WELLSLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSION GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SHEET NOTES:LEGENDEXISTING METHANE MONITORING WELLSPROPOSED METHANE MONITORINGWELLSPROJECT: DESIGNED: DRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: NO.DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTION FIGURE NO.engineering 2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601 (406)449-8627 R OF 22METHANE MONITORING WELL- DETAIL TP KP TP TP 1-05119 JUNE 2020 LOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSION GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN VIEW OF METHANEMONITORING WELLNOT TO SCALENOTES:METHANE MONITORING WELL DETAILGAS MONITORING ASSEMBLYPROJECT: DESIGNED: DRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: DATE: NO.DATEBYREVISION DESCRIPTION FIGURE NO.engineering 2501 BELT VIEW DRIVEHELENA, MT 59601 (406)449-8627 RMMW INSTALLATION SCHEDULE TABLE *METHANEMONITORING WELLSTOP ELEVATIONBOTTOM ELEVATIONBOREHOLE DEPTH(FT)BLANK LENGTH (FT)SCREEN LENGTH (FT)MMW-124270421060752MMW-134240421030722MMW-144295423065757MMW-154315423085777MMW-164342424597789MMW-174298427523715MMW-184274425024716MMW-194266423531723MMW-204265422045737MMW-214266422046738MMW-224265422045737MMW-234201418021713 Appendix A Existing MMW Well Completion Logs 05-05-2010 C:\bls\Logan\CH4\MMW-8.BOR LOG OF MMW-8 (Page 1 of 1) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 8/7/07 Drilling Firm : O'Keefe Drilling Drilling Method : 8" auger Geologist : B. Siegmund Gallatin County Solid Waste Management Dist. Logan Landfill 1-05119 Depth in feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION silty fine sand and gravel, light gray silty fine sand with minor scattered gravel, light brown fine to medium sand with small gravel; light brown to grey-green brown; slight increase in clay fraction with depth medium to fine gravel in silty sand, grey brown Surf. Elev. 4202 4200 4195 4190 4185 4180 4175 4170 4165 4160 4155 Elev.: 4210.6 Well: MMW-8 bentonite seal 3/8" washed gravel Cover 2" PVC 2" PVC 40-slot 05-05-2010 C:\bls\Logan\CH4\MMW-9.BOR LOG OF MMW-9 (Page 1 of 1) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 11/8/2010 Drilling Firm : Van Dyken Drilling Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : B. Siegmund Gallatin County Solid Waste Management Dist. Logan Landfill 1-05119 Depth in feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION silty fine sand and gravel, light gray. some clay bentonite Surf. Elev. 3974 3970 3965 3960 3955 3950 3945 3940 3935 3930 3925 Elev.: 3976 Well: MMW-9 bentonite seal 10/20 silica sand Cover 2" PVC 2" PVC 40-slot 05-21-2010 C:\BLS\Logan\CH4\MMW-10.BOR LOG OF MMW-10 (Page 1 of 1) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 4/16/2010 Drilling Firm : Van Dyken Drilling Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : B. Siegmund Gallatin County Solid Waste Management Dist. Logan Landfill 1-05119 Depth in feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION topsoil and rock silty clay coarse sand Surf. Elev. 4170 4170 4165 4160 4155 4150 4145 4140 4135 4130 4125 Elev.: 4170 Well: MMW-10 bentonite seal 10/20 silica sand Cover 2" PVC 2" PVC hand-sawn slots 05-21-2010 C:\BLS\Logan\CH4\MMW-11.BOR LOG OF MMW-11 (Page 1 of 1) Project Number : 1-05119 Date : 4/16/2010 Drilling Firm : Van Dyken Drilling Drilling Method : air rotary Geologist : B. Siegmund Gallatin County Solid Waste Management Dist. Logan Landfill 1-05119 Depth in feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION topsoil and rock silty clay Surf. Elev. 4150 4150 4145 4140 4135 4130 4125 4120 4115 4110 4105 Elev.: 4150 Well: MMW-11 bentonite seal 10/20 silica sand Cover 2" PVC 2" PVC hand-sawn slots Appendix B QRAE Quick Start Manual QRAE 3 Diffusion & Pumped QuickStart Guide WARNINGS Read Before Operating The QRAE 3 User’s Guide must be carefully read by all individuals who have or will have the responsibility of using, maintaining, or servicing this product. The product will perform as designed only if it is used, maintained, and serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. CAUTION! Never operate the monitor when the rear cover is re- moved. Remove rear cover, sensors, and/or battery only in an area known to be non-hazardous. Never use the instrument with the calibration adapter installed, as this can cause distorted readings, a potential safety threat. User Interface The QRAE 3’s user interface consists of the display and two keys, [MODE] and [Y/+]. The flippable LCD displays information such as monitored threats, real-time readings and measurement units, alarm type (when in alarm, including cal. overdue), battery status, datalog (if on), and radio and connection quality (if available). Charging The QRAE 3 (non-ATEX/IECEx) Always fully charge the battery before use. Contacts on the bottom of the QRAE 3 meet the Travel Charger’s contact pins, transferring power. Make sure the charger and QRAE 3 are firmly attached. Then connect the AC Adapter’s barrel plug to the charger, and plug its transformer into an AC outlet. While charging, the LED on the Travel Charger glows red. When the battery is fully charged, the LED glows green. Barrier Box For ATEX/IECEx Use For ATEX/IECEx applications, plug the cord from the Barrier Box (P/N M02-3011-000) into the Travel Charger, and then plug the power adapter into the Barrier Box. Turning The QRAE 3 On With the instrument turned off, press and hold the [MODE] key until the audible alarm stops, and then release. During startup, the battery, buzzer, vibra- tion alarm, and LEDs are tested, and then the QRAE 3 performs self-testing of its other func- tions. When the main measurement screen appears, the QRAE 3 is ready for calibration or use. Note: If the battery is completely empty, then the display briefly shows the message “Battery Discharged!” and the QRAE 3 shuts off. You should charge or replace the battery before turning it on again. Note: If “Zero At Start,” “Must Calibrate” or “Must Bump” is set, you will be prompted to perform the appropriate calibration before using the instrument. 2. 3. 5. 6. 4. Charging status LED Phone: 408-952-8200 Fax: 408-952-8480 Email: customerserv@raesystems.com www.raesystems.com RAE Systems by Honeywell 3775 N. First St. San Jose, CA 95134-1708 USA AC adapter barrel plug QRAE 3 Travel Charger Clip Travel Charger Onto QRAE 3 Non-ATEX/IECEx: Power supply plugged directly into Travel Charger. ATEX/IECEx: Barrier Box between power supply and Travel Charger. Turning The QRAE 3 Off Press and hold [MODE]. A 5-second countdown to shut- off begins. Continue pressing on the key for the entire shutoff process. Otherwise, the shutoff operation is canceled and the QRAE 3 continues normal operation. When the countdown ends and the screen displays “Unit Off!” release your finger from the [MODE] key. The QRAE 3 is now off. Testing The Alarm Under normal-operation mode and non-alarm condi- tions, the buzzer, vibration alarm, LED, and backlight can be tested anytime by pressing [Y/+] once. If any alarm does not respond, check the Alarm Settings in Programming Mode to make sure all alarms are enabled. If any alarms are enabled but are not functional, do not use the instrument. Calibration Make sure all sensors have warmed up before attempting any calibration. If a sensor’s reading shows “- -” on the display, the sensor is not ready. The QRAE 3 diffusion model requires a calibration adapter. Set it over the sensors, tighten the knob to secure it, and connect a hose from a calibration gas regulator. The pumped model requires a T calibration tube. Attach that to the instrument’s external filter and to the calibration gas regulator. Calibrate the QRAE 3 using a fixed-flow regulator (flow rate between 0.5 and 1.0 liters per minute): 1. To begin calibration, connect the zero air or calibration gas cylinder, flow regulator, and calibration adapter to the QRAE 3. 2. Enter Programming Mode by pressing and holding [MODE] and [Y/+] simultaneously until the password screen appears. (A password is not necessary in Advanced mode.) 3. Input the 4-digit password. (The default password is “0000.” If you do not know the password, select “Done.”) Then follow the instructions for individual or multiple bump, zero and span calibration. Important! After a bump test or calibration, remove the calibration adapter or T connection to ensure correct readings. Zero & Fresh Air Calibration The QRAE 3 should be zero-calibrated in clean air with 20.9% oxygen or with a cylinder of clean zero air. In Programming Mode, press [MODE] to select “Multi Zero.” Press [Y/+] to select it. Then press [Y/+] to start a Fresh Air calibration for the listed sensors. All are fresh-air calibrated at once. During calibration, the screen says, “Calibrating.” When done, each sensor is shown, accompanied by the word “Pass.” To zero calibrate individual sensors: 1. Select “Single Sensor Zero” and select a sensor. 2. Press [Y/+] to select a sensor to zero calibrate. 3. Start the flow of the zero gas, if used, and press [Y/+]. 4. The screen says, “Calibrating” and counts down. 5. When done, it says, “Zero Calibration Passed” (the reading should be 0 or very close to it for toxic gas sensors, and 20.9% Vol. for an oxygen sensor). Shut off the flow of zero air (if used) and remove the calibration adapter or T connector. 8. 9. P/N: M02-4002-000 Rev B 201401 Basic Menu Navigation Pressing [MODE] repeatedly allows you to step through the screens as shown here. Note: The gray box around Datalogging indicates the datalog functions when datalogging is in Manual mode. When datalogging is in Automatic mode, this screen does not appear. Refer to the User’s Guide for information on select- ing Automatic or Manual datalogging. 10. 7. Install the calibration adapter on the QRAE 3 diffusion model Attach the T calibration tube on the QRAE 3 pumped model before calibration Span Calibration (Single Or Multi) In Programming Mode, and with “Multi Sensor Span” or “Single Sensor Span” highlighted: 1. Press [Y/+]. The screen displays the sensor(s) to be calibrated. · Multi: The list is shown. · Single: Select a sensor and press [Y/+]. 2. Attach the calibration adapter or T connector. Connect the calibration gas cylinder’s flow regulator to the QRAE 3, and start the gas flow. 3. Press [Y/+] to start calibration. 4. Upon completion, a pass/fail calibration result appears and the readings are shown (they should be within ±10% of the span gas value). Turn off the gas and remove the calibration adapter or T connector. Bump (Functional) Testing RAE Systems recommends periodic bump testing to confirm that the sensors and alarms are functional. Test each sensor with an appropriate test gas in a concentration not less than the sensor’s low alarm setting. To pass, each sensor should go at least to a low alarm. With the QRAE 3 in Normal Mode: 1. Connect the calibration gas cylinder, flow regulator, and calibration adapter or T connector to the QRAE 3 and start the gas flow. 2. Make sure the unit goes into at least a low alarm for each of the tested sensors and that the buzzer produces at least two beeps per second, the LED lights flash on and off, and the vibration alarm functions. The display backlight should illuminate and an alarm message should be shown in the display. 3. Turn off the gas flow. Remove the calibration adapter or T connector. Multi Or Single Bump Testing In Programming Mode, and with “Calibration/Multi Bump” or “Calibration/Single Bump” highlighted: 1. Press [Y/+]. The screen displays the sensor(s) to be bump tested. · Multi: The list is shown. · Single: Select a sensor and press [Y/+]. 2. Attach the calibration adapter or T connector. 3. Connect the calibration gas cylinder’s flow regulator to the QRAE 3, and start the gas flow. 4. Press [Y/+] to start the bump test. 5. Upon completion, a screen labeled “Bump Test Results” is shown with the sensor name(s) and value(s), plus the word “Pass” or “Fail.” 6. Turn off the gas and remove the calibration adapter or T connector. If a sensor fails a bump test, try to calibrate it. If it does not calibrate, it should be replaced. BATTERY PACK A Li-Ion battery pack (PN: G02-3004-000) is supplied with each QRAE 3. WARNING To reduce the risk of ignition of hazardous atmospheres, recharge, remove, or replace the battery only in an area known to be non-hazardous! WIRELESS CERTIFICATION Complies with the following: FCC Part 15 R&TTE Directive (1999/5/EC) WARNINGS ANY RAPID UP-SCALE READING FOLLOWED BY A DECLINING OR ERRATIC READING MAY INDICATE A GAS CONCENTRATION BEYOND UPPER SCALE LIMIT, WHICH MAY BE HAZARDOUS. TOUTE LECTURE RAPIDE ET POSITIVE, SUIVE D’UNE BAISSE SUBITE AU ERRATIQUE DE LA VALEUR, PEUT INDIQUER UNE CONCENTRA- TION DE GAZ HORS GAMME DE DÉTECTION QUI PEUT ÊTRE DANGEREUSE. ONLY THE COMBUSTIBLE GAS DETECTION PORTION OF THIS INSTRUMENT HAS BEEN ASSESSED FOR PERFORMANCE. UNIQUMENT, LA PORTION POUR DÉTECTOR LES GAZ COMBUSTIBLES DE CET INSTRUMENT A ÉTÉ ÉVALUÉE. CAUTION: HIGH OFF-SCALE READINGS MAY INDICATE AN EXPLOSIVE CONCENTRATION. ATTENTION: DES LECTURES HAUTES ET HORS D’ECHELLE PEUVENT INDIQUER DES CONCENTRATIONS DE GAZ INFLAMMABLES. CAUTION: SUBSTITUTION OF COMPONENTS MAY IMPAIR INTRINSIC SAFETY. CAUTION: BEFORE EACH DAY’S USAGE, SENSI- TIVITY OF THE LEL SENSOR MUST BE TESTED ON A KNOWN CONCENTRATION OF METHANE GAS EQUIVALENT TO 20 TO 50% OF FULL-SCALE CONCENTRATION. ACCURACY MUST BE WITHIN 0 AND +20% OF ACTUAL. ACCURACY MAY BE CORRECTED BY CALIBRATION PROCEDURE. ATTENTION: AVANT CHAQUE UTILISATION JOUR- NALIERE, VERIFIER LA SENSIBILITE DU CAPTEUR DE LIE AVEC UNE CONCENTRATION CONNUE DE METHANE EQUIVALENTE DE 20 A 50% DE LA PLEINE ECHELLE. LA PRECISION DOIT ETRE COM- PRISE ENTRE 0 ET 20% DE LA VALEUR VRAIE ET PEUT ETRE CORRIGEE PAR UNE PROCEDURE D’ETALONNAGE. 12. 13. 15. 11. 14. SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR SAFE USE 1. The PGM-25xx/D shall only be fitted with RAE Systems Battery Pack type G02-3004-000 2. The PGM-25xx/D shall only be charged outside hazardous areas. No precautions against electrostatic discharge are ne- cessary for portable equipment that has an enclosure made of plastic, metal, or a combination of the two, except where a significant static-generating mechan- ism has been identified. Activities such as placing the item in a pocket or on a belt, operating a keypad or cleaning with a damp cloth, do not present a signi- ficant electrostatic risk. However, where a static- generating mechanism is identified, such as repeated brushing against clothing, then suitable precautions shall be taken, e.g., the use of anti-static footwear. Using the PGM-25xx/D in Class I, Division 1, Group A, B, C, D Hazardous Locations Equipment which is intended for use in explosive atmospheres and which has been assessed and certified according to international regulations may be used only under specified conditions. The components may not be modified in any way. The appropriate regulations for service and repair must be properly observed during such activities. The PGM25xx/D is intrinsically safe and may be used in hazardous locations. SUBSTITUTION OF COMPONENTS MAY IMPAIR INTRINSIC SAFETY. WARNING Do not replace sensors in hazardous locations. HAZARDOUS LOCATION APPROVALS Hazardous Areas Classified by Zones PGM-25xx/D is intended to be used in hazardous areas classified Zone 0, Zone 1 or Zone 2, within the T4 temperature code range, where gases of explosion groups IIA, IIB or IIC may be present. For North America and Canada, the equipment can further be used in Class I, Zone 0 in the same T4 temperature range. Hazardous Areas Classified by Divisions PGM-25xx/D is intended to be used in hazardous areas classified for Class I, Div. 1 or 2, within the temperature range of -20º C to +50º C, where gases of explosion groups A, B, C or D may be present and within the T4 temperature code range. Note: Users are recommended to refer to ISA- RP12.13, Part II-1987 for general information on installation, operation, and maintenance of combustible gas detection instruments. The QRAE 3 multi-gas detector must be calibrated if it does not pass a bump test, or at least once every 180 days, depending on use and sensor exposure to poisons and contaminants. Wireless Operation If your QRAE 3 is equipped with a wireless modem, its settings are controlled via the menu items under “Wireless.” In order to save time while operating the QRAE 3 in a network, it is best to configure the settings before taking the QRAE 3 into the field. Consult the User’s Guide for more detailed instructions. 1. Enter Programming Mode by pressing and holding [MODE] and [Y/+] simultaneously until the password screen appears. 2. Input the 4-digit password. (The default password is “0000.”) 3. Press [MODE] repeatedly until “Wireless” is highlighted. 4. Press [Y/+] to select Wireless Settings. 5. Check that the radio is turned on, the PAN ID matches the PAN ID of the network, and matches the channel of the network, too. Select Join Network if a network is already established. You may also set the off-network alarm. 6. When you are done with the settings, press [MODE] until “Exit” is highlighted, and [Y/+] to return to the Programming menus. At “Exit,” press [Y/+] to return to normal operation. 7. Start the EchoView Host or RAELink3 Mesh wireless modem and ProRAE Guardian on your computer. 8. The antenna icon and signal-strength bars should be shown on the screen’s upper-left corner. 9. Check that data is being received by ProRAE Guardian or EchoView Host. 17. 16. 20. 18. 19. Appendix C Methane Monitoring Field Form METHANE MONITORING FIELD FORM Logan Landfill – Gallatin County, Montana Quarterly Event:_________________________ Date:________________________________ Sampler Name:_________________________ Company:____________________________ Weather Conditions:_____________________________________________________________ Location CO2 %LEL O2 Facilities/Buildings: Administrative Building Scale House Shop E-Waste Building Old Shop Methane Monitoring Wells: MMW-1 MMW-2 MMW-3 MMW-5 MMW-8 MMW-9 MMW-10 MMW-11 MMW-12 MMW-13 MMW-14 MMW-15 MMW-16 MMW-17 MMW-18 MMW-19 MMW-20 MMW-21 MMW-22 MMW-23 Notes/Comments: ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Attachment 10 Roads, Bridges and Transportation Attachment 10. Roads, Bridges and Traffic Considerations Traffic will continue to access the landfill facility via Two Dog Road, see Attachment 2. Existing public traffic patterns, bridges and/or culverts will not be impacted. No additional traffic is anticipated due to the landfill expansion. The only traffic pattern that will change is within in the facility. Attachment 11 Financial Assurance Attachment 11. Financial Assurance The District’s financial assurance program for the existing facility will continue and be expanded as required for the operation proposed in this Application. The expansion area will become part of the existing facility and the financial assurance will be extended as required by DEQ regulations. The Closure and Post Closure plan in attachment 12 describe the closure sequence and estimate of closure and post closure costs. Attachment 12 Closure and Post Closure Plan Gallatin Solid Waste Management District Landfill License Expansion Solid Waste License #158 Closure & Post Closure Plan June 2020 Prepared by: GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Closure Post Closure Plan Landfill License Expansion Solid Waste License #158 June 2020 GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Closure and Post Closure Plan Table of Contents 1.0 Site History .......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Closure and Post Closure Requirements .......................................... 2 3.0 Final Cover System ............................................................................. 2 4.0 Estimate of Largest Open Area During Active Life .......................... 3 5.0 Estimate of Gross Waste Area/Total Waste Inventory .................... 4 6.0 Final Land Use ..................................................................................... 4 7.0 Closure Schedule ................................................................................ 5 8.0 Closure Quantities .............................................................................. 5 9.0 Post-Closure Operation ...................................................................... 6 9.1 Final Cover Maintenance ................................................................................................ 7 9.2 Drainage Maintenance ................................................................................................... 7 9.3 Gas Well & Groundwater Monitoring Maintenance ...................................................... 7 9.4 Other Monitoring Requirements ..................................................................................... 8 10.0 Financial Assurance Approaches ...................................................... 8 10.1 Closure Costs & Financial Assurance Based on Overall Site .................................... 9 10.2 Closure Costs & Financial Assurance Based on Largest Open Area ........................ 9 11.0 Calculation of Annual Financial Assurance Payment .................... 10 List of Tables Table 1 - Phase Areas .................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2 - Life Estimates ................................................................................................................. 5 Table 3 - Estimated Closure Costs Per Acre - Alternative Final Cover System, June 2020 ...... 6 Table 4 - Monitoring Matrix ........................................................................................................... 8 Table 5 - Post Closure Care Estimates, June 2020 ..................................................................... 8 Table 6 - Estimated Closure Costs - Closure of Entire Remainder of Site, June 2020 ............. 9 Table 7 - Estimated Closure Costs - Closure of Largest Open Area (Phases 5-9), June 2020 ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 8 - Financial Assurance Calculation - Overall Site Life, June 2020 ................................ 10 Table 9 - Financial Assurance Calculation - Largest Open Area (Phases 5-9), June 2020 ..... 10 List of Appendices Appendix A – Figures GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Closure and Post Closure Plan 1 1.0 Site History 1.1 Background The Gallatin Solid Waste Management District (District) is planning a future landfill expansion to provide disposal capacity for the District once the existing landfill has reached capacity. The District owns approximately 535 acres adjacent to the existing landfill which appears suitable for licensing of a landfill expansion. The District will also license the existing 8.8 acre scale facility which will not be used for waste disposal. The original DEQ solid waste permit was issued to District in 1975 for 80 acres of District property. The limits of the current licensed area are shown on Figure 1. The District acquired 8.8 acres in 2006 for the scale facilities and office building. The District licensed an additional 47 acres for composting operations and groundwater monitoring in 2015. The District has since acquired additional property as a result of a land swap with the State of Montana in 2019. The District now owns approximately 700 acres. The landfill expansion area is located in Section 6 of Township 1 North, Range 3 East. The landfill expansion area will be accessed by Interstate 90 at the Logan interchange and by Two Dog Road to the landfill entrance. Traffic will utilize gravel access roads to enter the expansion area. The terrain slopes primarily to the north, with the Gallatin River approximately 1 mile north of the landfill expansion area. The general location of the site is depicted on Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix A. Great West Engineering has performed an overall landfill Master Plan for the license expansion area. The Master Plan includes cut and fill plans for the license expansion area. The cut and fill plans include an orderly sequence of landfilling throughout the life of the site. The Master Plan also includes the following analysis:  Waste quantities  Design and construction of storm water detention pond(s)  Installation of liners and leachate collection systems for new expansion areas This Closure Post Closure is part of a larger packet for the landfill license expansion application. Other portions of the landfill license expansion application include, but are not limited to the following:  A detailed hydrogeologic study  Installation of an explosive gas monitoring network  Installation of a groundwater monitoring network  Establishment of a financial assurance mechanism for the landfill GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Closure and Post Closure Plan 2 2.0 Closure and Post Closure Requirements State Solid Waste Rule ARM 17.50.1403 and 17.50.1404 requires the owner of the facility to have a written closure plan that addresses as a minimum the following items.  A description of the final cover, designed in accordance with Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Waste Management Division (MDEQ-WMD) rules and the methods and procedures to be used to install the cover  An estimate of the largest area of Class II and Class IV landfill units ever requiring a final cover at any time during the active life of the unit.  An estimate of the maximum inventory of wastes ever on-site over the active life of the landfill facility;  A schedule for completing closure activities.  A schedule for completing all activities necessary to satisfy the closure criteria in this rule.  Post-closure care shall include: maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the final cover, maintaining and operating the leachate collection system, monitoring the ground water, maintaining and operating the gas monitoring system.  A description of the monitoring and maintenance activities.  Name, address, and telephone number of the person or office to contact about the facility during the post-closure period  A description of the planned uses of the property during the post-closure period. 3.0 Final Cover System Montana State Solid Waste Rule 17.50.1403 (a) requires that owners of all Class II and Class IV landfill units install a final cover system designed to minimize infiltration and erosion. The State rule requires the final cover system be designed and constructed to:  Have a permeability no greater than to the permeability of any bottom liner system or natural subsoils present, or a permeability no greater than 1×10-5 cm/sec, whichever is less;  Minimize infiltration through the closed Class II or Class IV landfill unit by the use of an infiltration layer that contains at least 18 inches of earthen material; and  Minimize erosion of the final cover by the use of an erosion layer that contains at least six inches of earthen material that is capable of sustaining native plant growth. The landfill expansion will begin accepting waste when the existing landfill has one year of life remaining which is approximately the year 2025. The entire landfill expansion has approximately 181 years of life at the current tonnage of 160,000 tons/year. The Class II liner system needs to protect the groundwater as required by the State and Federal regulations. The alternative liner system proposed for the expansion area is the DEQ-approved composite liner system that is used in the existing landfill. The alternative GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Closure and Post Closure Plan 3 composite liner system consists of a Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) overlain by a textured 60 mil HDPE liner. The HDPE liner is protected by a 16 oz. non-woven fabric. The final cover proposed for the landfill expansion is the DEQ-approved final cover system that is used in the existing landfill. The final cover system will consist of the following layers from bottom to top; a one-foot thick layer of native sand, a two-foot layer of select native silt material and another foot of native sand/topsoil augmented with compost. (Figure 3, Appendix A). This final cover system will be utilized for the closure of all waste areas within the licensed landfill boundary. The site may not have enough suitable material for an ET cover as approved in the Alternative Cover Demonstration. If there is not enough suitable material, another analysis will be done to determine the appropriate cover system during the design phase of the closure project. The new alternative cover system may include a geosynthetic component. The daily or intermediate covered waste will provide the base for the final cover system. This surface will be prepared smooth, firm and no waste will protrude through the base. The four-foot thick cover system will be constructed in three continuous lifts compacted to a maximum of 85% standard proctor. The cover system will be constructed in accordance with the project specifications and QA/QC Plan. The permeability of the cover system will be verified by a combination of field and laboratory testing. The top layer will consist of six- inches of loose topsoil. The topsoil will be fertilized and seeded in accordance with the recommendations described in the Alternative Cover Demonstration. 4.0 Estimate of Largest Open Area During Active Life The overall cut and overall fill of the entire landfill expansion has been provided to determine the life of the whole facility. The first 5 phases (Phases 5 through 9) of the landfill have been designed with detailed interim cut and fill plans. These first 5 phases have a total estimated life expectancy of 29.6 years. The next phases on the west side will be designed with interim cut and fill plans when Phase 8 has reached capacity. The east side will be designed with interim cut and fill plans when the west side is close to capacity. Solid waste at the landfill will eventually cover approximately 300 acres for MSW and Class IV wastes. The District may dispose of asbestos in a 9-acre area, but for the purposes of this plan, it will not be included in the total waste inventory or acreage. Table 1 includes the area of each Phase. Table 1 includes the acreage of each phase of the landfill development. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Closure and Post Closure Plan 4 Table 1 - Phase Areas Phases Area Area of Previous Cell Closed Cumulative Open Area Phase 5 19.98 Acres 0 Acres 19.98 Acres Phase 6 12.37 Acres 4.37 Acres 27.98 Acres Phase 7 11.32 Acres 0 Acres 39.3 Acres Phase 8 11.83 Acres 2.61 Acres 48.53 Acres Phase 9 12.32 Acres 7.48 Acres 53.36 Acres Portion of Phase 9 Closed 29.78 Acres 23.58 Acres Remaining West Side (to be phased later and not included in largest open area calculation) 80.69 Acres East Side (to be phased later and not included in largest open area calculation) 151.3 Acres Total 300 Acres The largest area that will ever be open throughout the life of the first 5 phases will be when the landfill is filling in Phase 9 before Phases 5, 6, 7, and 8 areas are completely closed. The total largest open area will be approximately 53 acres. 5.0 Estimate of Gross Waste Area/Total Waste Inventory The landfill has an ultimate waste disposal area of approximately 300 acres. The estimated total waste inventory is approximately 29,026,050 tons. These estimates are based on comparing pre-landfill topographic maps with the Landfill Expansion Master Plan final waste elevations. 6.0 Final Land Use The Master Plan Drawings estimated that the landfill has a projected life of 181 years, assuming the current tonnage of 160,000 tons/year remained constant with no increase of waste quantity entering the landfill cells. At the end of this time period, the landfill area will be used for range land. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Closure and Post Closure Plan 5 7.0 Closure Schedule The Phase 5 unit will be the first area to accept waste. Phase 5 will be constructed and will begin accepting waste prior to the closure of Phase 4 in the existing license area. Phase 6 will be constructed and begin accepting waste prior to the closure of the Phase 5 unit. Closure of current open areas will be coordinated with the opening of new areas. Proper coordination and timing will ensure that service is not interrupted. Each unit will be closed after the subsequent unit opens. Table 2 - Life Estimates Phases Years Phase 5 6 Phase 6 5.3 Phase 7 3.4 Phase 8 4.9 Phase 9 10.1 Remaining West Side 62.8 East Side 88.5 Total 181 8.0 Closure Quantities The closure scenario that is of primary interest to the District, is the largest open area during the active life of the landfill. This worst case scenario is required in the financial assurance requirements and would only be required should the landfill be required to close prematurely. As stated earlier, the landfill’s worst case scenario is when Phases 9 and portions of Phases 5, 6, 7, and 8 open simultaneously which is a total of 53 acres. However, the worst case area should be reevaluated each year as the financial assurance is modified. Table 3 includes an estimate of the work quantities involved to complete closure per acre. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Closure and Post Closure Plan 6 Table 3 - Estimated Closure Costs Per Acre - Alternative Final Cover System, June 2020 Activity Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Cost Mobilization/Bonding/Insurance 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Subgrade Preparation 800 CY $4.00 $3,200.00 12” Capillary Sand Layer 1,600 CY $3.00 $4,800.00 24” ET Silt Layer 3,200 CY $4.00 $12,800.00 12” Sand Erosion & Topsoil Layer 1,600 CY $4.00 $6,400.00 Drainage Controls 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Seed, Fertilizer, Mulch 1 AC $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Gas Venting System 1 AC $8,000.00 $8,000.00 Survey/Certification 1 AC $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Engineering/QA/Inspection 1 LS $8,500.00 $8,500.00 Closure Costs Per Acre $56,700 9.0 Post-Closure Operation Post-Closure operations are an extension of the applicable operation procedures of an active landfill. The post-closure period lasts 30 years after the closure of each unit. Use during this period will be range land. Settlement will occur and the final cover will need to be periodically maintained. Surface and groundwater control systems will continue to function and roads and other facilities will be maintained. The groundwater monitoring system will be operated. The following plans will be followed for maintaining the facility through post-closure:  Groundwater Monitoring will continue according to the Sampling and Analysis Plan for 30 years after closure.  Methane Monitoring will continue for 30 years after closure according to the details outlined in the Sampling and Analysis Plan.  Leachate collection and removal systems will be operated throughout the post- closure period. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Closure and Post Closure Plan 7  The owner will remain the Gallatin Solid Waste Management District (District Manager, 10585 Two Dog Road, Manhattan, MT 59741, Phone – 406-284-4029) through the post-closure operation of this facility.  Yearly engineering inspection will be made at the closed facility to identify any repairs which may be required. Yearly engineering inspections will be subcontracted out to a third party consultant. The cost estimates of closure and post-closure should also be updated annually. This information will help determine the financial assurance requirements and subsequent payments.  The stormwater detention ponds may be phased out as each area of the landfill reaches its capacity, is closed, and successfully revegetated.  The final use of this facility will be range land. A notice will be posted with the deed at the Courthouse indicating that the land was used for a landfill. 9.1 Final Cover Maintenance  Final cover areas will be fenced and signed to restrict vehicle access.  Final cover areas will be inspected regularly (at least once a year) to ensure compliance with designated design function. Yearly final cover inspections are required and will be subcontracted to a third party consultant.  Final cover areas will be re-graded as necessary to prevent surface ponding that may result from differential settlement.  Final cover areas which have experienced erosion will be reseeded or treated with another appropriate erosion control method. 9.2 Drainage Maintenance  Periodic inspections during dry weather will be performed to check the integrity of the system.  During the wet season or following a measurable amount of precipitation, the surface water control structures should be inspected.  Repairs will be made immediately to any damaged portions of the system. Repairs will be made to any sloughed or erosional areas with reshaping and re-grading conducted as necessary. 9.3 Gas Well & Groundwater Monitoring Maintenance  Positive drainage will be made away from all vent and well locations.  Wells will be painted, marked or flagged in such a way that they are easily seen and identified on the final cover.  Warning signs shall be posted adjacent to all gas wells which may have potential for combustible gas present at any time.  Immediate repairs shall be made to any wells which may become damaged. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Closure and Post Closure Plan 8 9.4 Other Monitoring Requirements Table 4 - Monitoring Matrix Monitoring Parameter Frequency Notes Documentation Type Leachate Flow and Depth Monthly Measure after storm events and leachate pond pumping Record on file Vegetation Annually Years 2 and 3 (quantitative), Year 5 (qualitative or quantitative based on need) Report to DEQ Groundwater Monitoring Semi-Annually Report to DEQ Methane Monitoring Quarterly Report to DEQ Final Cover Inspections Annually Investigate surface ponding, erosion, settlement, loss of vegetation, prevention of animal intrusion, reduce vandalism, control access, etc. Report to DEQ Surface Drainage Periodic Inspection during dry and wet weather, run-off and run-on controls Record on file Gas Well & Groundwater Monitoring Well Periodic Positive drainage around well heads, repairs made immediately Record on file Leachate Collection System Ensure system working properly Record on file Table 5 - Post Closure Care Estimates, June 2020 Item Annual Cost Total 30 Year Cost Groundwater & Methane Monitoring $22,600 $678,000 Leachate Collection System Operation & Maint. $1,500 $45,000 Annual Engineering Inspection $2,800 $84,000 Periodic Cap and Stormwater Maintenance $8,500 $255,000 Annual Greenhouse Gas Reporting $1,500 $45,000 Total $36,900 $1,107,000 10.0 Financial Assurance Approaches The Montana financial assurance regulations require that the landfill financially assure for the largest planned open area during the life of the landfill. As stated above, the largest area that will ever be open throughout the life of the facility is approximately 53 acres. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Closure and Post Closure Plan 9 The Montana DEQ allows two basic approaches for financial assurance. One approach is to financially assure for the largest open area during the landfill life. Under this approach, the financial assurance timeline is based on when those funds would be needed for an emergency closure. The other acceptable approach is to financially assure for the entire landfill area. Under this approach, the financial assurance timeline is the overall life of the site. This report provides cost estimates for both approaches. 10.1 Closure Costs & Financial Assurance Based on Overall Site Under this approach the financial assurance can be built over the life of the site. With each closure project the amount of the financial assurance requirement decreases. The total landfill area is approximately 300 acres. The Montana DEQ requires that the financial assurance cost estimates be based on all of the work being conducted by a private contractor rather than the District. Therefore, it is assumed that plans, specifications and bid documents will be prepared and the project will be bid out. It is also assumed that the engineer will provide staking, compaction testing, quality assurance testing, interim and final inspections, and certifications and as-built drawings. A boundary survey needs to be completed and the deed needs to be filed at the courthouse. The estimated closure costs of the overall landfill site are depicted in Table 6. The total estimated closure cost is $18,711,000. Table 6 - Estimated Closure Costs - Closure of Entire Remainder of Site, June 2020 Activity Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Cost Alternative Final Cover System 300 AC $56,700 $17,010,000 10% Contingency $1,701,000 Closure for the Entire Site 300 AC $56,700 $18,711,000 10.2 Closure Costs & Financial Assurance Based on Largest Open Area In this approach, the financial assurance is based on the largest area open during the life of the first 5 phases (phases 5-9). Under the Master Plan, 53 acres is the largest area planned to be open during the life of the first 5 phases. The estimated closure costs of this portion of the site are depicted in Table 7. The estimated cost to close the largest open area is $3,305,610. GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT | Logan Landfill License Expansion | Closure and Post Closure Plan 10 Table 7 - Estimated Closure Costs - Closure of Largest Open Area (Phases 5-9), June 2020 Activity Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Cost Alternative Final Cover System 53 AC $56,700 $3,005,100 10% Contingency $300,510 Closure for the Entire Site (Phases 5-9) 53 AC $56,700 $3,305,610 11.0 Calculation of Annual Financial Assurance Payment Tables 8 and 9 summarize the annual payment for financial assurance under the overall site life method and largest open area method respectively. Table 8 - Financial Assurance Calculation - Overall Site Life, June 2020 Overall Site Closure Costs $18,711,000 Post Closure Costs $1,107,000 Total Obligation/Amount to Finance Over Site Life $18,818,000 Total Tonnage 29,026,050Tons Cost Per Ton to meet Closure Post Closure Financial Assurance Requirements Under Overall Site Method $0.65/Ton Total Annual Payment (160,000 Tons/Year) $104,000 Table 9 - Financial Assurance Calculation - Largest Open Area (Phases 5-9), June 2020 Overall Site Closure Costs $3,305,100 Post Closure Costs $1,107,000 Total Obligation/Amount to Finance Over Remaining Site Life $4,412,100 Life of Site 181 Years Total Annual Payment $24,376 Appendix A Figures Figure 1 Location Map GALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONengineeringR LANDFILL EXPANSION PROPERTY BOUNDARY LANDFILL EXPANSION WASTE BOUNDARY EXISTING LICENSED LANDFILL AREA SCALE SITE TO BE INCLUDED IN LICENSE EXPANSION I-90 I-90 ASBESTOS DISPOSAL BOUNDARY COMPOST AREA BOUNDARY C TTTPFOFOFOCOUGPUGPUGPFMFMWWCFigure 2Site PlanGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONengineeringRNORTHPHASE 519.98 ACRESPHASE 711.82 ACRESPHASE 811.83 ACRESPHASE 612.37 ACRESPHASE 912.32 ACRESPHASE 1012.45 ACRESPHASE 1112.83 ACRESPHASE 1212.10 ACRESPHASE 1312.09 ACRESPHASE 1415.42 ACRESPHASE 1515.80 ACRESPHASE 1612.73 ACRESPHASE 1712.73 ACRESPHASE 1812.73 ACRESPHASE 1912.63 ACRESPHASE 2012.64 ACRESPHASE 2112.23 ACRESPHASE 2212.21 ACRESPHASE 2312.11 ACRESPHASE 2412.12 ACRESPHASE 2513.17 ACRESPHASE 2612.89 ACRESPHASE 2713.11 ACRESEXPANSION AREAWASTE LIMITEAST STORMWATERDETENTION PONDAPPROXIMATEWASTE LIMITPHASE 4LANDFILL AREAPHASE 3LANDFILL AREASHOPEXISTINGSTORMWATERDETENTION PONDEXISTINGLEACHATEPONDNORTHSTORMWATERDETENTION PONDSCALEHOUSEADMINBUILDINGINTE R S T A T E 9 0PERIMETERROAD RUN-OFFCONTROLDITCHPHASE 2CLOSUREAREAE-WASTEBUILDINGOLDSHOPRUN-ONCONTROLDITCHTHREE 71'x36"CMP CULVERTSPROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.)PHASE 1CLOSURE AREAPHASE 2CLOSUREAREACLASS IVAREASPILLWAY (TYP.)COMPOST AREAACCESS ROADLEACHATEPONDINTERIM STORMWATER PONDLEAHCATEPONDASBESTOS DISPOSALBOUNDARYCOMPOST AREA BOUNDARY Figure 3Final Cover DesignengineeringRGALLATIN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTLOGAN LANDFILL LICENSE EXPANSIONCOMPOST AMENDMENTAND SEED MIX6 INCHES TOPSOILAUGMENTED WITH COMPOST24 INCHES SILT12 INCHES SAND(MINIMUM)4'6 INCHES SAND Attachment 13 Montana Natural Heritage Program Data Attachment 13. Threatened & Endangered Species The Montana Natural Heritage Program was accessed on June 4, 2020 to determine what threatened and endangered species and species of concern for the State of Montana exist in Section 06, Township 1N, Range 3E, in Gallatin County. According to MNHP, six animal species of concern and one animal of special status species are present in the area. MNHP lists two plant species of concern in the area. No effect on any threatened, endangered species, or species of concern is anticipated to occur due to the proposed expansion. Considering the abundance of available habitat within proximity to the expansion area, the impact resulting from construction of the project would have a negligible effect to wildlife. Expand All | Collapse All Introduction Introduction The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) serves as the state's information source for animals, plants, and plant communities with a focus on species and communities that are rare, threatened, and/or have declining trends and as a result are at risk or potentially at risk of extirpation in Montana. This report on Montana Animal Species of Concern is produced jointly by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). Montana Animal Species of Concern are native Montana animals that are considered to be "at risk" due to declining population trends, threats to their habitats, and/or restricted distribution. Also included in this report are Potential Animal Species of Concern -- animals for which current, often limited, information suggests potential vulnerability or for which additional data are needed before an accurate status assessment can be made. We also include Special Status Species which are species that have some legal protections in place, but are otherwise not Montana Species of Concern. Bald Eagle is a Special Status Species because, although it is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act and is also no longer a Montana Species of Concern, it is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c). Red Knot is not a Montana Species of Concern, having a state rank of SNA because of a lack of information on its migratory stopover use of Montana's wetlands. However it is a Special Status Species because it is listed as Threatened in Montana under theEndangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). Over the last 200 years, 5 species with historic breeding ranges in Montana have been extirpated from the state; Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido), Passenger Pigeon(Ectopistes migratorius), Pilose Crayfish (Pacifastacus gambelii), and Rocky Mountain Locust (Melanoplus spretus). Designation as a Montana Animal Species of Concern or Potential Animal Species of Concern is not a statutory or regulatory classification. Instead, these designations provide a basis for resource managers and decision-makers to make proactive decisions regarding species conservation and data collection priorities in order to avoid additional extirpations. Status determinations are made by MTNHP and MFWP biologists in consultation with representatives of the Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society, the Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, and other experts. The process for evaluating and assigning status designations uses the Natural Heritage Program ranking system, described below, which forms the basis for identifying Montana Species of Concern. How to Read the Lists What Species are Included in this ReportMontana Species of Concern are defined as vertebrate animals with a state rank of S1, S2, or S3. Vertebrate species with a rank indicating uncertainty (SU), a "range rank" extending below the S3 cutoff (e.g., S3S4), or thoseranked S4 for which there is limited baseline information on status are considered Potential Species of Concern. Because documentation for invertebrates is typically less complete than for vertebrates, only those ranked S1 or S2 are included as SOC. Invertebrates with a range rank extending below S2 (e.g., S2S3) are included as SOC only if their global ranks are G2G3 or G3, or if experts agree their occurrence in Montana has been adequately documented. Other invertebrates of concern with global ranks other than G1, G2, or G3 and with state ranks below S2 or range ranks extending below S2 (e.g., S3S4) are treated as Potential Species of Concern. Organization of ListBoth the list of Species of Concern and the list of Potential Species of Concern are grouped taxonomically in the following order: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and various invertebrates. Within each taxonomic groupyou can sort species by common name or scientific name. County DistributionThis column lists the documented county distribution for each species, including extant and historical occurrences. Any occurrences that cross county boundaries are counted for each county. Many older occurrence records and specimen collections are only known from vague location information and the area mapped as the potential area of observation may be quite large, leading to more than one county being counted. Additions and DeletionsSpecies that have been added to or deleted from the SOC list due to changes in their state rank are reported in separate sections below; changes in global ranks are not tracked in this report. Montana Natural Heritage - SOC Report Animal Species of Concern 6 Species of Concern 1 Special Status Species Filtered by the following criteria: Township = 001N003E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) Species List Last Updated 04/16/2020 A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System operated by the University of Montana. MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 1 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM Montana Species Ranking Codes (GRank, SRank) Montana employs a standardized ranking system to denote global (range-wide) and state status (NatureServe 2006). Species are assigned numeric ranks ranging from 1 (highest risk, greatest concern) to 5 (demonstrably secure),reflecting the relative degree of risk to the species’ viability, based upon available information. A number of factors are considered in assigning ranks — the number, size and quality of known occurrences or populations, distribution, trends (if known), intrinsic vulnerability, habitat specificity, and definable threats. The processof assigning state ranks for each taxon relies heavily on the number of occurrences and Species Occurrence (OE) ranks, which is a ranking system of the quality (usually A through D) of each known occurrence based on factors such as size (# of individuals) and habitat quality. The remaining factors noted above are also incorporated into the ranking process when they are known. The “State Rank Reason” field in the Montana Field Guide provides additional information on the reasons for a particular species’ rank. Rank Definition G1 S1 At high risk because of extremely limited and/or rapidly declining population numbers, range and/or habitat, making it highly vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state. G2 S2 At risk because of very limited and/or potentially declining population numbers, range and/or habitat, making it vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state. G3 S3 Potentially at risk because of limited and/or declining numbers, range and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas. G4 S4 Apparently secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, and/or suspected to be declining. G5 S5 Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range). Not vulnerable in most of its range. GX SX Presumed Extinct or Extirpated - Species is believed to be extinct throughout its range or extirpated in Montana. Not located despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and smalllikelihood that it will ever be rediscovered. GH SH Historical, known only from records usually 40 or more years old; may be rediscovered. GNR SNR Not Ranked as of yet. GU SU Unrankable - Species currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. GNA SNA A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species or ecosystem is not a suitable target for conservation activities as a result of being: 1) not confidently present in the state; 2) non-native or introduced; 3) a long distance migrant with accidental or irregular stopovers; or 4) a hybrid without conservation value. Combination or Range RanksG#G#orS#S# Indicates a range of uncertainty about the status of the species (e.g., G1G3 = Global Rank ranges between G1 and G3). S#, S#Indicates that populations in different geographic portions of the species' range in Montana have a different conservation status (e.g., S1 west of the Continental Divide and S4 east of the Continental Divide). Sub-rankT#Rank of a subspecies or variety. Appended to the global rank of the full species, e.g. G4T3 QualifiersQ Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority-Distinctiveness of this entity as a taxon at the current level is questionable; resolution of this uncertainty may result in change from a species to a subspecies orhybrid, or inclusion of this taxon in another taxon, with the resulting taxon having a lower-priority (numerically higher) conservation status rank. Appended to the global rank, e.g. G3Q ? Inexact Numeric Rank - Denotes uncertainty; inexactness. HYB Hybrid - Entity not ranked because it represents an interspecific hybrid and not a species. C Captive or Cultivated Only - Species at present exists only in captivity or cultivation, or as a reintroduced population not yet established. A Accidental - Species is accidental or casual in Montana, in other words, infrequent and outside usual range. Includes species (usually birds or butterflies) recorded once or only a few times at a location. A few of thesespecies may have bred on the few occasions they were recorded. SYN Synonym - Species reported as occurring in Montana, but the Montana Natural Heritage Program does not recognize the taxon; therefore the species is not assigned a rank. B Breeding - Rank refers to the breeding population of the species in Montana. Appended to the state rank, e.g. S2B,S5N = At risk during breeding season, but common in the winter N Nonbreeding - Rank refers to the non-breeding population of the species in Montana. Appended to the state rank, e.g. S5B,S2N = Common during breeding season, but at risk in the winter M Migratory - Species occurs in Montana only during migration. MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 2 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM Federal Status Designations in this column reflect the status of a species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), or as “sensitive” by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) or Bureau of Land Management (BLM). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Endangered Species Act)Status of a taxon under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.A. § 1531-1543 (Supp. 1996)) Designation DescriptionsLE Listed endangered: Any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)). LT Listed threatened: Any species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). C Candidate: Those taxa for which sufficient information on biological status and threats exists to propose to list them as threatened or endangered. We encourage their consideration in environmental planning andpartnerships; however, none of the substantive or procedural provisions of the Act apply to candidate species. P Proposed threatened: Any species that is proposed in the Federal Register to be listed under section 4 of the Act. DM Recovered, delisted, and being monitored - Any previously listed species that is now recovered, has been delisted, and is being monitored. NL Not listed - No designation. XE Experimental - Essential population - An experimental population whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild. XN Experimental - Nonessential population - An experimental population of a listed species reintroduced into a specific area that receives more flexible management under the Act. CH Critical Habitat - The specific areas (i) within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to conserve the species and (II) thatmay require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it is listed upon determination that such areas are essential toconserve the species. PS Partial status - status in only a portion of the species' range. Typically indicated in a "full" species record where an infraspecific taxon or population, that has a record in the database has USESA status, but the entirespecies does not. For example, Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) is ranked PS:LT. Partial Status - Listed Threatened. Designated as Threatened in the Western U.S. Distinct Population Segment (DPS)(subspecies occidentalis) BGEPA The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (BGEPA) - (16 U.S.C. 668-668c) prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from taking bald or golden eagles, including theirparts, nests, or eggs. The BGEPA provides criminal and civil penalties for persons who take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any baldeagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof. The BGEPA defines take as pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb. "Disturb" means to agitateor bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normalbreeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts thatresult from human-induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagles return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that injuresan eagle or substantially interferes with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits and causes, or is likely to cause, a loss of productivity or nest abandonment. MBTA The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) - (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, July 3, 1918, as amended 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989) implements four treaties that provide for international protection ofmigratory birds. The statute’s language is clear that actions resulting in a "taking" or possession (permanent or temporary) of a protected species, in the absence of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) permit orregulatory authorization, are a violation of the MBTA. The MBTA states, "Unless and except as permitted by regulations ... it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means, or in any manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture,kill ... possess, offer for sale, sell ... purchase ... ship, export, import ... transport or cause to be transported ... any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird .... [The Act] prohibits the taking, killing,possession, transportation, import and export of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior." The word "take" is defined by regulation as "to pursue,hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect." The USFWS maintains a list of species protected by the MBTA at 50 CFR 10.13. This listincludes over one thousand species of migratory birds, including eagles and other raptors, waterfowl, shorebirds, seabirds, wading birds, and passerines. The USFWS also maintains a list of species not protected bythe MBTA. MBTA does not protect species that are not native to the United States or species groups not explicitly covered under the MBTA; these include species such as the house (English) sparrow, European starling,rock dove (pigeon), Eurasian collared-dove, and non-migratory upland game birds. BCC The 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additionalconservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (BCC 2008) is the most recent effort to carry out this mandate. The overall goalof this report is to accurately identify the migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent the Service's highest conservation priorities. BCC10, BCC11, and BCC17 designations represent inclusion on the Birds of Conservation Concern list for Bird Conservation Region 10, 11, and 17 in Montana, respectively. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)BLM Sensitive Species are defined by the BLM 6840 Manual as native species found on BLM-administered lands for which the BLM has the capability to significantly affect the conservation status of the species through management, and either: (1) there is information that a species has recently undergone, is undergoing, or is predicted to undergo a downward trend such that the viability of the species or a distinct population segment of the species is at risk across all or a significant portion of the species range, or; (2) the species depends on ecological refugia or specialized or unique habitats on BLM-administered lands, and there is evidence that such areas are threatened with alteration such that the continued viability of the species in that area would be at risk. Designation DescriptionsEndangeredDenotes species that are listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act Threatened Denotes species that are listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act Sensitive Denotes species listed as Sensitive on BLM lands U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Designation DescriptionsEndangeredListed as Endangered (LE) under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Threatened Listed as Threatened (LT) under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Proposed Any species that is proposed in the Federal Register to be listed under section 4 of the Act. Candidate Those taxa for which sufficient information on biological status and threats exists to propose to list them as threatened or endangered. We encourage their consideration in environmental planning andpartnerships; however, none of the substantive or procedural provisions of the Act apply to candidate species. Sensitive U.S. Forest Service Manual (2670.22) defines Sensitive Species on Forest Service lands as those for which population viability is a concern as evidenced by a significant downward trend in population or asignificant downward trend in habitat capacity. These designations were last updated in 2011 and they apply only on USFS-administered lands with land management plans finalized prior to 2017. SensitiveSpecies designations are being replaced by Species of Conservation Concern designations on individual National Forest as revised land management plans are finalized under the 2012 planning rule. Species ofConservationConcern A species, other than federally recognized Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the bestavailable scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area (36 CFR 219.9). Species of Conservation Concern replace regionalforester Sensitive Species on individual National Forests as revised land management plans are finalized under the 2012 planning rule. Acknowledgements MTNHP and MFWP staff work together on a daily basis to manage information used to evaluate the status of Montana's animal species. We extend our thanks to these individuals and professional biologists that study and work to conserve species across Montana. We also thank a number of private citizens that spend a great deal of their free time contributing valuable information to statewide databases so that species can be better understood andmanaged. Selected References Abbott, J.C. 2006. Odonata Central: An online resource for the Odonata of North America. Austin, TX. (Accessed: July 28, 2009). http://www.odonatacentral.com Acorn, J. 2004. Damselflies of Alberta: flying neon toothpicks in grass. Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta Press. 156 p. Brown, C.J.D. 1971. Fishes of Montana. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 207 p. Flath, D.L. 1984. Vertebrate species of special interest or concern. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 76 p. Flath, D.L. 1998. Species of special interest or concern. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 7 p. Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 1995. Interior Columbia Basin mollusk species of special concern. Final report to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WA. 274 p. plus appendices. Foresman, K.R. 2001. The wild mammals of Montana. Special Publication No. 12. Lawrence, KS: The American Society of Mammalogists. 278 p. Hand, R.L. 1969. A distributional checklist of the birds of western Montana. Unpublished manuscript available from the Montana State Library, Helena, MT. 55 p. Hendricks, P., B.A. Maxell, S. Lenard, C. Currier, and J. Johnson. 2006. Riparian bat surveys in eastern Montana. Report to the USDI Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 13 p. + appendices. Hendricks, P., B.A. Maxell, S. Lenard, and C. Currier. 2007. Land mollusk surveys on USFS Northern Region Lands: 2006. Report to the USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 11 pp. + appendices. Hendricks, P., B.A. Maxell, S. Lenard, and C. Currier. 2008. Surveys and predicted distribution models for land mollusks on USFS Northern Region Lands: 2007. Report to the USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 12 pp. + appendices. Hoffman, R.L. 1999. Checklist of the millipeds of North and Middle America. Special Publication No. 8. Martinsville, VA: Virginia Museum of Natural History. 584 p. Hoffmann, R.S. and D.L. Pattie. 1968. A guide to Montana mammals. Missoula, MT: University of Montana Printing Services. 133 p. Holton, G.D. and H.E. Johnson. 2003. A field guide to Montana fishes. Third Edition. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 95 p. MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 3 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM Bryce A. Maxell Senior Zoologist bmaxell@mt.gov (406) 444-3655 Montana Natural Heritage Program P.O. Box 201800 1515 E. 6th Ave. Helena, MT 59620-1800 Phone: (406) 444-3290 Fax: (406) 444-0581 E-mail: mtnhp@mt.gov MAMMALS (MAMMALIA)1 SPECIESTOWNSHIP = 001N003E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) BIRDS (AVES)4 SPECIESTOWNSHIP = 001N003E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) Kohler, S. 1980. Checklist of Montana butterflies (Rhopalocera). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 34(1):1-19. Lenard, S., J. Carlson, J. Ellis, C. Jones, and C. Tilly. 2003. P.D. Skaar's Montana bird distribution. Sixth edition. Helena, MT: Montana Audubon. 144 p. Lenard, S., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and C. Currier. 2007. Bat Surveys on USFS Northern Region 1 Lands in Montana: 2006. Report to the USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana 23 pp. plus appendices. Lewis, J.J. 2001. Three new species of subterranean assellids from western North America, with a synopsis of the species of the region (Crustacea: Isopoda: Asellidae). Texas Memorial Museum, Speleological Monographs 5:1-15. Maxell, B.A., J.K. Werner, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath. 2003. Herpetology in Montana: a history, status summary, checklists, dichotomous keys, accounts for native, potentially native, and exotic species, and indexed bibliography. Olympia, WA: Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology. Northwest Fauna 5: 1-138. Miller, K.B. and D.L. Gustafson. 1996. Distribution records of the Odonata of Montana. Bulletin of American Odonatology 3(4):75-88. [Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks]. 2005. Montana's comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation strategy. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 658 p. Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. 2009. Montana animal Species of Concern. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks. 17 p. NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An on-line encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. Arlington, VA. (Accessed: July 28, 2009). http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Opler, P.A., H. Pavulaan, R.E. Stanford, and M. Pogue (coordinators). 2006. Butterflies and moths of North America. Bozeman, MT: NBII Mountain Prairie Information Node. (Accessed: July 28, 2009). http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ Paulson, D.R. 2009. Dragonflies and damselflies of the West. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 535 p. Pearson, D.L., C.B. Knisley, and C.J. Kazilek. 2006. A field guide to the tiger beetles of the United States and Canada: identification, natural history, and distribution of the Cicindelidae. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 227 p. Regan, T.J., L.L. Master, and G.A. Hammerson. 2004. Capturing expert knowledge for threatened species assessments: a case study using NatureServe conservation status ranks. Acta Oecologica 26:95-107. Roemhild, G. 1975. The damselflies (Zygoptera) of Montana. Montana Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 87. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 53 p. Saunders, A.A. 1921. A distributional list of the birds of Montana with notes on the migration and nesting of the better known species. Pacific Coast Avifauna Number 14. Berkeley, CA: Cooper Ornithological Club. 194 p. Stagliano, D.M. 2008. Freshwater mussels of Montana. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 20 p. Stagliano, D.M., G.M. Stephens, and W.R. Bosworth. 2007. Aquatic invertebrate Species of Concern on USFS Northern Region Lands. Report to USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 95 pp. + appendices. Thompson, L.S. 1982. Distribution of Montana amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Helena, MT: Montana Audubon Council. 24 p. Wang, D. and J.R. Holsinger. 2001. Systematics of the subterranean amphipod genus Stygobromus (Crangonyctidae) in western North America, with emphasis on the hubbsi group. Amphipacifica 3:39-147. Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p. Westfall, M.J., Jr. and M.L. May. 1996. Damselflies of North America. Gainesville, FL: Scientific Publishers. 650 p. Westfall, M.J. Jr. and M.L. May. 2000. Dragonflies of North America. Revised Edition Gainesville, FL: Scientific Publishers. 940 p. Wright, P.L. 1996. Status of rare birds in Montana with comments on known hybrids. Northwest Naturalist 77(3):57-85. Contact Information For questions or comments specific to this publication or for specific zoology related questions, please contact: For general questions and zoology-related data requests please use the Information Request function on our website (www.mtnhp.org) or the general MTNHP contact info below. Species of Concern SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAMETAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC)FAMILY (COMMON)GLOBALRANK STATERANK USFWS USFS BLM FWP SWAP % OF GLOBAL BREEDING RANGEIN MT % OF MT THAT ISBREEDING RANGE HABITAT Myotis lucifugusLittle Brown Myotis VespertilionidaeBats G3 S3 SGCN3 3% 100% Generalist Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Daniels, Dawson, Deer Lodge, Fallon, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Garfield, Glacier, Golden Valley, Granite, Hill, Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Madison, Mccone, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Musselshell, Park,Petroleum, Phillips, Pondera, Powder River, Powell, Prairie, Ravalli, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sanders, Sheridan, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Toole, Treasure, Valley, Wheatland, Wibaux, Yellowstone State Rank Reason: Species is common and widespread, but under significant threat of catastrophic declines due to White-Nose Syndrome, a fungal disease responsible for the collapse of populations of this species in the eastern US. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME TAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) FAMILY (COMMON) GLOBAL RANK STATE RANK USFWS USFS BLM FWP SWAP % OF GLOBAL BREEDING RANGE IN MT % OF MT THAT IS BREEDING RANGE HABITAT Aquila chrysaetosGolden Eagle AccipitridaeHawks / Kites / Eagles G5 S3 BGEPA; MBTA; BCC17 SENSITIVE SGCN3 3% 100% Grasslands Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Dawson, Deer Lodge, Fallon, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Garfield, Glacier, Golden Valley, Granite, Hill, Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Lincoln, Madison, Mccone, Meagher, Missoula, Musselshell, Park, Petroleum, Phillips, Pondera, Powder River, Powell, Prairie, Ravalli, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sanders, Sheridan, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Toole, Treasure, Valley, Wheatland, Wibaux, Yellowstone Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron Ardeidae Bitterns / Egrets / Herons / Night-Herons G5 S3 MBTA SGCN3 3% 100% Riparian forest Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Dawson, Deer Lodge, Fallon, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Garfield, Glacier, Golden Valley, Granite, Hill, Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Lincoln, Madison, Mccone, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Musselshell, Park, Petroleum, Phillips, Pondera, Powder River, Powell, Prairie, Ravalli, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sanders, Sheridan, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Treasure, Valley, Wheatland, Wibaux, Yellowstone State Rank Reason: Small breeding population size, evidence of recent declines, and declining regeneration of riparian cottonwood forests due to altered hydrology and grazing. Catharus fuscescensVeery TurdidaeThrushes G5 S3B MBTA SENSITIVE SGCN3 6% 100% Riparian forest Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Deer Lodge, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Glacier, Granite, Hill, Jefferson, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Lincoln, Madison, Mccone, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Musselshell, Park, Petroleum, Phillips, Pondera, Powder River, Powell, Ravalli, Richland,Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sanders, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Wheatland, Yellowstone Dolichonyx oryzivorus Icteridae G5 S3B MBTA SGCN3 9% 100% Moist grasslands Species of Concern6 SpeciesFiltered by the following criteria: Township = 001N003E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 4 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM REPTILES (REPTILIA)1 SPECIESTOWNSHIP = 001N003E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) BIRDS (AVES)1 SPECIESTOWNSHIP = 001N003E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) Bobolink Blackbirds Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Daniels, Dawson, Fallon, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Garfield, Glacier, Granite, Hill, Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Madison, Mccone, Meagher, Missoula, Musselshell, Park, Petroleum, Phillips, Powder River, Powell, Prairie, Ravalli, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sanders, Sheridan, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Valley, Wheatland, Wibaux, Yellowstone State Rank Reason: Species has undergone recent large population declines in Montana and a patchwork of declines and increases have been documented in surrounding states and provinces. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAMETAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC)FAMILY (COMMON)GLOBALRANK STATERANK USFWS USFS BLM FWP SWAP % OF GLOBAL BREEDING RANGEIN MT % OF MT THAT ISBREEDING RANGE HABITAT PhrynosomahernandesiGreater Short-horned Lizard PhrynosomatidaeSagebush / Spiny Lizards G5 S3 Sensitive - Known on Forests (CG) Sensitive - Suspected onForests (HLC) SENSITIVE SGCN3, SGIN 19% 66% Sandy / gravelly soils Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Dawson, Fergus, Gallatin, Garfield, Glacier, Golden Valley, Hill, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Mccone, Musselshell, Petroleum, Phillips, Pondera, Powder River, Prairie, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Toole, Treasure, Valley, Wheatland, Wibaux, Yellowstone Potential Species of Concern Special Status Species SCIENTIFIC NAMECOMMON NAMETAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC)FAMILY (COMMON)GLOBALRANK STATERANK USFWS USFS BLM FWP SWAP % OF GLOBALBREEDING RANGEIN MT % OF MT THAT ISBREEDING RANGE HABITAT Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Accipitridae Hawks / Kites / Eagles G5 S4 DM; BGEPA;MBTA; BCC10; BCC11; BCC17 Sensitive - Known onForests (BD, BRT, CG, HLC, KOOT, LOLO) SENSITIVE 2% 100% Riparian forest Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Dawson, Deer Lodge, Fallon, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Garfield, Glacier, Golden Valley, Granite, Hill, Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Lincoln, Madison, Mccone, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Musselshell, Park, Petroleum, Phillips, Pondera, Powder River, Powell, Prairie, Ravalli, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sanders, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Toole, Treasure, Valley, Wheatland, Wibaux, Yellowstone State Rank Reason: Populations numbers have steadily increased since the 1980s and breeding pairs now occupy a high percentage of suitable habitat across the state. However the species isstill protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Additions To Statewide List ADDITIONS TO STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Atrytone arogos Arogos Skipper 4/16/2020 Species added to the SOC list because it is globally rare/ threatened (G2G3). More information is needed to refine state rank. Celastrina humulus Hops Azure 4/16/2020 Species added to the SOC list because it is globally rare/ threatened (G2G3). More information is needed to refine state rank. Fisherola nuttalli Shortface Lanx 10/31/2019 Based on repeated surveys of historic habitat this species appears to be declining precipitously and is at great risk of extirpation within Montana due to ongoing threats to persistence of the population isolated by damming of the Clark Fork River. Rank of SH inappropriate, updated to numeric rank as species is present in the state. Lasiurus borealis Eastern Red Bat 9/25/2018 Recent surveys using acoustic detectors have shown this species to be present across much of central and eastern Montana during the summer and fall. Tree roosting bat species, including the Eastern Red Bat, are commonly killed at wind farms, which presents a substantial threat to the long-term viability of populations within the state. Myotis yumanensis Yuma M yotis 9/25/2018 In Montana populations of this species are believed to be stable. However, the threat of catastrophic decline from White-Nose Syndrome, a fungal disease of bats responsible for the deaths of millions of individuals of closely related species in other areas, presents a treat of substantial declines within the state. Recent observations from Washington have confirmed the susceptibility of this species to WNS infection. Myotis septentrionalis Northern Myotis 9/24/2018 Recent survey efforts have established year-round presence of the species in Montana, and have provided enough data to assign a status rank. Hemphillia skadei Skade's Jumping-slug 6/7/2018 Species newly discovered in the state. Only a single occurrence is known in Montana from the western portion of the Cabinet Mountains. Habitat is limited to forested areas with cooler temperatures. Pyrgulopsis blainica Blaine Pyrg 5/3/2016 Species is endemic to Montana and is only found in the outflow from one spring in Madison County. Cryptomastix sanburni Kingston Oregonian 5/3/2016 Species is endemic to far western Montana and Idaho. There are no recent collections. Pristiloma idahoense Thinlip Tightcoil 4/26/2016 Recently discovered in Montana. Lack of detection in recent broadscale terrestrial mollusk surveys indicates its rarity in Montana and the species is globally rare. Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Myotis 4/21/2014 State risk upgraded from S4 to S3 because global risk was upgraded to G3 by NatureServe; state risk cannot be more secure than global risk. Cicindela arenicola Saint Anthony Dune Tiger Beetle 10/7/2013 Species risk evaluated at S1S2 as a result of its global rarity and recently detected occupancy of isolated suitable habitat in the Centennial Sandhills of southwest Montana. Sorex hoyi Pygmy Shrew 5/10/2013 Risk evaluated at S3 due to apparent rarity and intrinsic vulnerability. Coccothraustes vespertinus Evening Grosbeak 4/17/2012 Risk evaluated at S3 because populations in Montana and across the Northern Rockies have undergone significant recent declines. Pipilo chlorurus Green-tailed Towhee 4/17/2012 Risk evaluated at S3 because populations in Montana and across the Northern Rockies have undergone recent declines. Surnia ulula Northern Hawk Owl 4/17/2012 Risk evaluated at S3 because species has a small population and limited distribution in Montana. Ixoreus naevius Varied Thrush 4/17/2012 Risk evaluated at S3 because species has undergone recent population declines in Montana and across the Northern Rockies and faces threats from fire, insect outbreak, and timber harvest related to climate change. Canis lupus Gray Wolf 8/5/2010 On 8/5/2010 a judge in U.S. district court reversed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to delist, thereby placing them back on the Endangered Species List. The species was added back onto the Montana Species of Concern List despite its S4 ranking in order to make this federal status information available on environmental reviews. Myoxocephalus thompsonii Deepwater Sculpin 4/8/2010 Risk evaluated at S3 due to extremely restricted distribution. This species occupies <=5% of Montana. Etheostoma exile Iowa Darter 4/8/2010 Risk evaluated at S3 due primarily to restricted distribution. Montana populations also face threats from introductions of Northern Pike and intensive agriculture and grazing. Chrosomus eos Northern Redbelly Dace 4/8/2010 Risk evaluated at S3 due to declining population trends that appear to be linked to the introduction of Northern Pike. Intensive agriculture and grazing also represent threats to the species. Prosopium coulteri Pygmy Whitefish 4/8/2010 Risk evaluated at S3 due to restricted and disjunct distribution. This species occupies <=5% of Montana. Potential Species of Concern0 Species Filtered by the following criteria:Township = 001N003E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) Special Status Species1 SpeciesFiltered by the following criteria: Township = 001N003E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) This section is not Filtered MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 5 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM ADDITIONS TO STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Tympanuchus phasianellus Sharp-tailed Grouse 2/26/2010 A recent genetic study indicates that populations formerly found west of the Continental Divide were more appropriately recognized as the same subspecies of Sharp-tailed Grouse found across eastern Montana rather than Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse. Therefore, populations of Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) west of the Continental Divide are a Species of Concern with a state rank of S1 and populations east of the Continental Divide have a state rank of S4 and are not a Species of Concern. Grylloblatta campodeiformis Northern Rock Crawler 2/1/2010 Species recently identified as occuring in the state. State risk assessed at S3S4 because the species is listed by Jarvis and Whiting (2006) as having near Threatened status by IUCN standards, but yet assessed by IUCN. Oreohelix haydeni Lyrate Mountainsnail 1/7/2010 Species recently identified as occuring in the state during the course of a literature review. State risk assessed at S13 because Montana only represents a portion of the species' range and its global risk is rated at G23 by NatureServe. Oreohelix pygmaea Pygmy Mountainsnail 1/7/2010 Species recently identified as occuring in the state during the course of a literature review. State risk assessed at S1 because its global risk is rated at G1 by NatureServe. Coccyzus erythropthalmus Black-billed Cuckoo 5/1/2009 Risk upgraded from S3S4 to S3 due to declining population trends in Montana and surrounding states and provinces. Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked Stilt 5/1/2009 Risk upgraded from S3S4 to S3 due to threats to wetland habitats species is dependent on. Certhia americana Brown Creeper 5/1/2009 Risk upgraded from S4 to S3 due to threats to mature conifer forest habitats from insect outbreaks and fire. Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle 5/1/2009 Risk upgraded from S4 to S3 due to recent evidence for rangewide declines and threats posed from energy development. Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron 5/1/2009 Risk upgraded from S3S4 to S3 due to declining population trends and threats to nesting habitat. Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe 5/1/2009 Risk upgraded from S4 to S3 due to declining population trends and threats to wetland breeding habitats. Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk 5/1/2009 Risk upgraded from S4 to S3 due to increased threats to habitat from insect outbreaks and fire. Troglodytes pacificus Pacific Wren 5/1/2009 Risk upgraded from S4 to S3 due to increased threats to habitat from insect outbreaks and fire. Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker 5/1/2009 Risk upgraded from S4 to S3 due to increased threats to habitat from insect outbreaks and fire. Catharus fuscescens Veery 5/1/2009 Risk upgraded from S4 to S3 due to declining population trends and threats to riparian breeding habitat. Soyedina potteri Northern Rocky Mountains Refugium Stonefly 5/1/2009 State risk upgraded to S2 because global risk was upgraded to G2 by NatureServe; state risk cannot be more secure than global risk. Lasiurus cinereus Hoary Bat 10/1/2008 Risk upgraded from S3S4 to S3 due to threat posed by collision with wind turbines and threats to broadleaf riparian forests.. Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern 10/1/2008 Risk upgraded from S4 to S3 due to threats to wetland breeding habitats. Haemorhous cassinii Cassin's Finch 10/1/2008 Risk upgraded from S5 to S3 due to declining population trends threats to conifer forest habitats from insect outbreaks and fire. Aechmophorus clarkii Clark's Grebe 10/1/2008 Risk upgraded from S2S4 to S3 due to threats to wetland breeding habitats. Nucifraga columbiana Clark's Nutcracker 10/1/2008 Risk upgraded from S5 to S3 due to declining population trends and threats to conifer forest habitats from disease, insect outbreaks, and fire. Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Pinyon Jay 10/1/2008 Risk upgraded from S4 to S3 due to declining population trends. Rhyacophila rickeri A Rhyacophilan Caddisfly 10/1/2008 Risk assessed at S2 as a result of recent baseline surveys and literature records indicating that the species is rare within its known range in Montana and because drought and climate change represent threats to the species' limited habitat. Rhyacophila potteri A Rhyacophilan Caddisfly 10/1/2008 Risk assessed at S2 as a result of recent baseline surveys and literature records indicating that the species is rare within its known range in Montana and because drought and climate change represent threats to the species' limited habitat. Rhyacophila gemona A Rhyacophilan Caddisfly 10/1/2008 Risk assessed at S2 as a result of baseline surveys and literature records indicating that the species is rare within its known range in Montana and because drought and climate change represent threats to the species' limited habitat. Goereilla baumanni Northern Rocky Mountains Refugium Caddisfly 10/1/2008 Risk assessed at S2 as a result of recent baseline surveys and literature records indicating that the species is rare within its known range in Montana and because drought and climate change represent threats to the species' limited habitat. Rossiana montana Northern Rocky Mountains Refugium Caddisfly 10/1/2008 Risk assessed at S2 as a result of recent baseline surveys and literature records indicating that the species is rare within its known range in Montana and because drought and climate change represent threats to the species' limited habitat. Caurinella idahoensis Lolo Mayfly 10/1/2008 Risk upgraded from S3 to S2 as a result of baseline surveys and literature records indicating that the species is rare within its known range in Montana and because drought and climate change represent threats to the species' limited habitat. Soliperla salish Clearwater Roachfly 10/1/2008 Risk assessed at S2 as a result of recent baseline surveys and literature records indicating that the species is rare within its known range in Montana and because drought and climate change represent threats to the species' limited habitat. Prophysaon andersoni Reticulate Taildropper 10/1/2008 Risk upgraded from S13 to S12 because recent surveys indicate the species is quite rare within their known range in Montana. Margaritifera falcata Western Pearlshell 10/1/2008 Risk upgraded from S24 to S2 because recent surveys indicate the species has undergone dramatic declines across their former range in Montana. Blarina brevicauda Northern Short-tailed Shrew 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S1S3 as a result of their recent detection in Montana with a likely limited distribution. Spilogale gracilis Western Spotted Skunk 7/1/2006 Risk assessed with a range rank of S1S3 as a result of only a single detection of the species in Montana since 1995. Dicamptodon aterrimus Idaho Giant Salamander 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S1S3 as a result of their recent detection in Montana with a likely limited distribution. Salvelinus namaycush Lake Trout 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S2 due to declining trends in, and restricted distribution of, native populations. Stylurus intricatus Brimstone Clubtail 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S1 because of rarity of habitat and threats to large prairie river breeding habitat. Raptoheptagenia cruentata A Mayfly 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S2 because of rarity of habitat and threats to large prairie river breeding habitat. Anepeorus rusticus A Sand-dwelling Mayfly 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S1 because of rarity of habitat and threats to large prairie river breeding habitat. Homoeoneuria alleni A Sand-dwelling Mayfly 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S2 because of rarity of habitat and threats to large prairie river breeding habitat. Lachlania saskatchewanensis A Sand-dwelling Mayfly 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S1 because of rarity of habitat and threats to large prairie river breeding habitat. Macdunnoa nipawinia A Sand-dwelling Mayfly 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S2 because of rarity of habitat and threats to large prairie river breeding habitat. Pyrgulopsis bedfordensis Bedford Springsnail 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S1 because species' known global distribution is restricted to a single warm spring on the west side of Canyon Ferry Reservoir. Kootenaia burkei Pygmy Slug 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S12 due to rarity and limited known distribution. Haplotrema vancouverense Robust Lancetooth 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S12 as a result of recent surveys and literature records indicating the species is rare with its known breeding range in Montana and because drought and climate change represent threats to the species' limited habitat. Prophysaon humile Smoky Taildropper 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S13 as a result of recent surveys and literature records indicating the species is rare with its known breeding range in Montana and because drought and climate change represent threats to the species' limited habitat. Pacifastacus gambelii Pilose Crayfish 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S1 because recent surveys have failed to detect them throughout their former known range in Montana. Ephydatia cooperensis A Freshwater Sponge 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S13 because of rarity and limited known distribution. MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 6 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM ADDITIONS TO STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Adrityla cucullata A Millipede 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S13 because of rarity and limited known distribution. Austrotyla montani A Millipede 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S13 because of rarity and limited known distribution. Corypus cochlearis A Millipede 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S13 because of rarity and limited known distribution. Endopus parvipes A Millipede 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S13 because of rarity and limited known distribution. Lophomus laxus A Millipede 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S13 because of rarity and limited known distribution. Orophe cabinetus A Millipede 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S13 because of rarity and limited known distribution. Orthogmus oculatus A Millipede 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S13 because of rarity and limited known distribution. Taiyutyla curvata A Millipede 7/1/2006 Risk assessed at S13 because of rarity and limited known distribution. Lasiurus borealis Eastern Red Bat 7/1/2004 Risk assessed at S2S3 due to rarity, intrinsic vulnerability, and threats to habitat. Myotis septentrionalis Northern Myotis 7/1/2004 Risk assessed at S2S3 due to rarity and intrinsic vulnerability. Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink 7/1/2004 Risk assessed at S2 due to declining population trends and threats to habitat. Spizella breweri Brewer's Sparrow 7/1/2004 Risk upgraded from S4 to S2 due to threats to habitat. Calcarius ornatus Chestnut-collared Longspur 7/1/2004 Risk upgraded from S5 to S3 due to declining population trends and threats to habitat. Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow 7/1/2004 Risk upgraded from S4 to S3 due to declining population trends and threats to habitat. Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse 7/1/2004 Risk upgraded from S4 to S3 due to declining population trends and threats to habitat. Calamospiza melanocorys Lark Bunting 7/1/2004 Risk upgraded from S4 to S3 due to evaluation of threats faced by species. Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike 7/1/2004 Risk upgraded from S4 to S3 due to declining population trends. Numenius americanus Long-billed Curlew 7/1/2004 Risk upgraded from S4 to S3 due to evaluation of threats faced by species. Rhynchophanes mccownii McCown's Longspur 7/1/2004 Risk upgraded from S4 to S2 due to declining population trends and threats to habitat. Oreoscoptes montanus Sage Thrasher 7/1/2004 Risk assessed at S3 due to declining population trends and threats to habitat. Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk 7/1/2004 Risk upgraded from S4 to S3 due to evaluation of threats faced by species. Boloria alberta Alberta Fritillary 7/1/2004 Risk assessed at S23 due to apparent rarity and threats to habitat. Boloria frigga Frigga Fritillary 7/1/2004 Risk assessed at S12 due to apparent rarity and threats to habitat. Polygonia progne Gray Comma 7/1/2004 Risk assessed at S2 due to apparent rarity. Erebia magdalena Magdalena Alpine 7/1/2004 Risk assessed at S2 due to apparent rarity and threats to habitat. Radiodiscus abietum Fir Pinwheel 7/1/2004 Risk assessed at S23 due to apparent rarity. Polygyrella polygyrella Humped Coin 7/1/2004 Risk assessed at S13 due to apparent rarity. Udosarx lyrata Lyre Mantleslug 7/1/2004 Risk assessed at S1 due to apparent rarity. Sorex arcticus Arctic Shrew 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S1 due to apparent rarity after species was detected in the state for the first time. Sorex hoyi Pygmy Shrew 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S3 due to apparent rarity. Leucosticte tephrocotis Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S3 for breeding population of year round resident Cassin's Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch (Leucosticte tephrocotis tephrocotis) due to apparent rarity while the winter migrant population of Hepburn's Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch (Leucosticte tephrocotis littoralis) was assessed at S5. Phrynosoma hernandesi Greater Short-horned Lizard 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S3 due to apparent rarity. Elgaria coerulea Northern Alligator Lizard 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S3 due to apparent rarity. Spea bombifrons Plains Spadefoot 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S3 due to apparent rarity. Hesperia ottoe Ottoe Skipper 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S23 due to apparent rarity. Enallagma clausum Alkali Bluet 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S24 due to apparent rarity. Enallagma civile Familiar Bluet 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S24 due to apparent rarity. Argia alberta Paiute Dancer 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S23 due to apparent rarity. Coenagrion angulatum Prairie Bluet 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S13 due to apparent rarity. Aeshna tuberculifera Black-tipped Darner 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S24 due to apparent rarity. Rhionaeschna multicolor Blue-eyed Darner 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S24 due to apparent rarity. Arigomphus cornutus Horned Clubtail 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S24 due to apparent rarity. Aeshna constricta Lance-tipped Darner 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S13 due to apparent rarity. Somatochlora minor Ocellated Emerald 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S24 due to apparent rarity. Gomphus externus Plains Clubtail 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S24 due to apparent rarity. Sympetrum madidum Red-veined Meadowhawk 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S23 due to apparent rarity. Ophiogomphus occidentis Sinuous Snaketail 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S24 due to apparent rarity. MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 7 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM ADDITIONS TO STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Aeshna sitchensis Zigzag Darner 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S23 due to apparent rarity. Stygobromus tritus A Subterranean Amphipod 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S12 due to apparent rarity. Stygobromus glacialis Glacier Amphipod 1/1/2003 Risk assessed at S12 due to apparent rarity. Bos bison Bison 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S2 due to rarity of free ranging herds. Antrozous pallidus Pallid Bat 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S1 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Sorex preblei Preble's Shrew 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S3 due to apparent rarity. Spilogale gracilis Western Spotted Skunk 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S1 due to apparent rarity. Tyto alba Barn Owl 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S1 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Leucosticte atrata Black Rosy-Finch 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S3 due to apparent rarity and threats to habitat. Mniotilta varia Black-and-white Warbler 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S2S3 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Poecile hudsonicus Boreal Chickadee 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S1S2 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Selasphorus platycercus Broad-tailed Hummingbird 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S1 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Sialia sialis Eastern Bluebird 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S2 due to threats to habitat. Melanerpes lewis Lewis's Woodpecker 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S3S4 due to apparent rarity. Surnia ulula Northern Hawk Owl 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S1 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Contopus cooperi Olive-sided Flycatcher 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S3 due to apparent rarity and threats to habitat. Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed Woodpecker 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S3S4 due to apparent rarity. Cistothorus platensis Sedge Wren 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S1 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S3S4 due to threats to habitat. Plegadis chihi White-faced Ibis 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S1 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Lagopus leucura White-tailed Ptarmigan 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S3 due to apparent rarity and threats to habitat. Sceloporus graciosus Common Sagebrush Lizard 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S3 due to apparent rarity as indicated by available data. Plestiodon skiltonianus Western Skink 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S3 due to apparent rarity. Anaxyrus cognatus Great Plains Toad 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S3 due to apparent rarity. Sander canadensis Sauger 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S2 due to declining population trends. Zaitzevia thermae Warm Spring Zaitzevian Riffle Beetle 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S1 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Oncopodura cruciata A Springtail 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S12 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Discus shimekii Striate Disc 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S1 due to apparent rarity. Sclerobunus cavicolens A Cave Obligate Harvestman 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S12 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Salmasellus steganothrix A Cave Obligate Isopod 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S12 due to apparent rarity. Stygobromus montanensis A Subterranean Amphipod 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S12 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Stygobromus obscurus A Subterranean Amphipod 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S12 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Stygobromus puteanus A Subterranean Amphipod 8/1/2001 Risk assessed at S12 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Lasiurus borealis Eastern Red Bat 1/1/1999 Risk assessed at S1 due to apparent rarity in Montana. Anaxyrus boreas Western Toad 1/1/1999 Risk assessed at S3S4 due to declining population trends. Polioptila caerulea Blue-gray Gnatcatcher 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S1 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Euphydryas gillettii Gillette's Checkerspot 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S3 due to apparent rarity. Coenagrion interrogatum Subarctic Bluet 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S12 due to apparent rarity. Leucorrhinia borealis Boreal Whiteface 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S1 due to apparent rarity. Somatochlora walshii Brush-tipped Emerald 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S12 due to apparent rarity. Erpetogomphus designatus Eastern Ringtail 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S1 due to apparent rarity. Somatochlora albicincta Ringed Emerald 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S13 due to apparent rarity. Aeshna subarctica Subarctic Darner 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S12 due to apparent rarity. Erythemis collocata Western Pondhawk 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S12 due to apparent rarity. Oreohelix sp. 3 Bearmouth Mountainsnail 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S12 due to apparent rarity. Oreohelix sp. 5 Brunson Mountainsnail 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S12 due to apparent rarity. Oreohelix sp. 31 Byrne Resort Mountainsnail 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S12 due to apparent rarity. MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 8 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM ADDITIONS TO STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Oreohelix sp. 4 Drummond Mountainsnail 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S1 due to apparent rarity. Oreohelix yavapai mariae Gallatin Mountainsnail 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S1 due to apparent rarity. Oreohelix sp. 6 Kintla Lake Mountainsnail 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S1 due to apparent rarity. Oreohelix sp. 7 Kitchen Creek Mountainsnail 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S12 due to apparent rarity. Amnicola sp. 2 Lake Amnicola 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S1 due to apparent rarity. Discus brunsoni Lake Disc 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at SH (historic records only) due to collection at a single locality without resurvey in several decades. Physa megalochlamys Large-mantle Physa 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S1 due to apparent rarity. Oreohelix sp. 10 Missoula Mountainsnail 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S13 due to apparent rarity. Stagnicola montanensis Mountain Marshsnail 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S13 due to apparent rarity. Zacoleus idahoensis Sheathed Slug 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S12 due to apparent rarity. Fisherola nuttalli Shortface Lanx 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S13 due to apparent rarity. Oreohelix sp. 11 Subcarinate Mountainsnail 3/1/1997 Risk assessed at S1 due to apparent rarity. Cynomys ludovicianus Black-tailed Prairie Dog 6/1/1996 Risk assessed at S3S4 due to declining population trends, unknown viability of many current colonies, and its key role in the life history of several other threatened and endangerd species. Ammospiza nelsoni Nelson's Sparrow 6/1/1996 Risk assessed at S1 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana after recent first detections of breeding individuals. Coturnicops noveboracensis Yellow Rail 6/1/1996 Risk assessed at S1 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana after recent first detections of breeding individuals. Lithobates pipiens Northern Leopard Frog 6/1/1996 Risk assessed at S3S4 due to catastrophic population declines in western Montana and apparent declines in eastern Montana. Oreohelix alpina Alpine Mountainsnail 6/1/1996 Risk assessed at S1 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Oreohelix amariradix Bitterroot Mountainsnail 6/1/1996 Risk assessed at S12 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Magnipelta mycophaga Magnum Mantleslug 6/1/1996 Risk assessed at S13 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Hemphillia danielsi Marbled Jumping-slug 6/1/1996 Risk assessed at S13 due to limited distribution and apparent rarity in Montana. Myotis evotis Long-eared Myotis 2/1/1995 Added to list because species was on the USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Myotis volans Long-legged Myotis 2/1/1995 Added to list because species was on the USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Myotis ciliolabrum Western Small-footed Myotis 2/1/1995 Added to list because species was on the USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Myotis yumanensis Yuma M yotis 2/1/1995 Added to list because species was on the USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Empidonax alnorum Alder Flycatcher 2/1/1995 Risk assessed at S1 because of limited distribution and rarity of breeding populations in Montana. Sceloporus graciosus Common Sagebrush Lizard 2/1/1995 Added to list because species was on the USFWS Category 2 Candidate list and because of apparent rarity. Phrynosoma hernandesi Greater Short-horned Lizard 2/1/1995 Added to list because species was on the USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Note: at this time the species in Montana was recognized as Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma douglasi). Rana luteiventris Columbia Spotted Frog 2/1/1995 Added to list because species was on the USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Ascaphus montanus Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog 2/1/1995 Added to list because species was on the USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Platygobio gracilis Flathead Chub 2/1/1995 Added to list because species was on the USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow 2/1/1995 Added to list because species was on the USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Hybognathus argyritis Western Silvery Minnow 2/1/1995 Added to list because species was on the USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Speyeria idalia Regal Fritillary 2/1/1995 Added to list because species was on the USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Phyciodes batesii Tawny Crescent 2/1/1995 Added to list because species was on the USFWS Category 2 Candidate list and because of apparent rarity. Oreohelix strigosa berryi Berry's Mountainsnail 2/1/1995 Added to list because species was on the USFWS Category 2 Candidate list and because of apparent rarity. Discus shimekii Striate Disc 2/1/1995 Added to list because species was on the USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Note: this addition referred to Cockerell's Striate Disc (Discus shimeki cockerelli); this subspecies is no longer recognized from Montana. Leucophaeus pipixcan Franklin's Gull 3/1/1994 Risk assessed at S3S4 due to rarity of breeding records and habitat. Sorex merriami Merriam's Shrew 5/1/1993 Risk assessed at S3 for undocumented reasons. Cypseloides niger Black Swift 5/1/1993 Risk assessed at S3 for undocumented reasons. Mniotilta varia Black-and-white Warbler 5/1/1993 Risk assessed at S1S3 for undocumented reasons. Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-Heron 5/1/1993 Risk assessed at S3 for undocumented reasons. Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked Stilt 5/1/1993 Risk assessed at S3 for undocumented reasons. Poecile hudsonicus Boreal Chickadee 5/1/1993 Risk assessed at S3 for undocumented reasons. Hydroprogne caspia Caspian Tern 5/1/1993 Risk assessed at S3 for undocumented reasons. Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's Kingbird 5/1/1993 Risk assessed at S1S3 for undocumented reasons. Aechmophorus clarkii Clark's Grebe 5/1/1993 Risk assessed at S2S4 for undocumented reasons. Sterna hirundo Common Tern 5/1/1993 Risk assessed at S3 for undocumented reasons. MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 9 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM ADDITIONS TO STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Sterna forsteri Forster's Tern 5/1/1993 Risk assessed at S3 for undocumented reasons. Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting 5/1/1993 Risk assessed at S2S4 for undocumented reasons. Brachylagus idahoensis Pygmy Rabbit 9/1/1992 Risk assessed at S4 for undocumented reasons. Centronyx bairdii Baird's Sparrow 9/1/1992 Risk assessed at S3 for undocumented reasons. Chlidonias niger Black Tern 9/1/1992 Risk assessed at S3 for undocumented reasons. Picoides arcticus Black-backed Woodpecker 9/1/1992 Risk assessed at S3 for undocumented reasons. Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike 9/1/1992 Risk assessed at S5 for undocumented reasons. Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk 9/1/1992 Risk assessed at S4 for undocumented reasons. Rana luteiventris Columbia Spotted Frog 9/1/1992 Risk assessed at S4 and added to list for undocumented reasons. Dicamptodon aterrimus Idaho Giant Salamander 9/1/1992 Added to list as a result of recognition of the Idaho Giant Salamander as a sister species to the Pacific Giant Salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) which was formerly recognized as having discontinuous coastal and inland populations. Risk was assessed at S1 due to rarity and limited likely distribution. Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker 9/1/1992 Risk assessed at S3 for undocumented reasons. Acroloxus coloradensis Rocky Mountain Capshell 9/1/1992 Risk assessed at S1 for undocumented reasons. Myotis septentrionalis Northern Myotis 2/15/1989 Added because species was formerly recognized as synonymous with Keen's Myotis (Myotis keeni). Thus, Keen's Myotis was dropped and Northern Myotis was added. Sternula antillarum Least Tern 2/15/1989 Risk assessed at S1 for undocumented reasons. Plegadis chihi White-faced Ibis 2/15/1989 Risk assessed at S1 for undocumented reasons. Elgaria coerulea Northern Alligator Lizard 4/22/1987 Risk assessed at S3 for undocumented reasons. Notropis hudsonius Spottail Shiner 4/22/1987 Risk assessed at S3 for undocumented reasons. Cottus rhotheus Torrent Sculpin 4/22/1987 Risk assessed at S2 for undocumented reasons. Rhyacophila ebria A Rhyacophilan Caddisfly 4/22/1987 Risk assessed at S1 for undocumented reasons. Rhyacophila newelli A Rhyacophilan Caddisfly 4/22/1987 Risk assessed at S2 for undocumented reasons. Rhyacophila glaciera A Rhyacophilan Caddisfly 4/22/1987 Risk assessed at S1 for undocumented reasons. Agapetus montanus An Agapetus Caddisfly 4/22/1987 Risk assessed at S2 for undocumented reasons. Caenis youngi A Mayfly 4/22/1987 Risk assessed at S2 for undocumented reasons. Isocapnia integra Alberta Snowfly 4/22/1987 Risk assessed at S2 for undocumented reasons. Utacapnia columbiana Columbian Snowfly 4/22/1987 Risk assessed at S2 for undocumented reasons. Zapada cordillera Cordilleran Forestfly 4/22/1987 Risk assessed at S2 for undocumented reasons. Isocapnia crinita Hooked Snowfly 4/22/1987 Risk assessed at S2 for undocumented reasons. Isoperla petersoni Springs Stripetail 4/22/1987 Risk assessed at S2 for undocumented reasons. Zapada glacier Western Glacier Stonefly 4/22/1987 Risk assessed at S1 for undocumented reasons. MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 10 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM Species Removed From Statewide List SPECIES REMOVED FROM STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Spea bombifrons Plains Spadefoot 9/25/2018 Recent nocturnal calling surveys conducted after precipitation events on warm evenings have often detected this species east of the Continental Divide. It appears that the previous perception of rarity was due in part to lack of historical survey effort and difficulty detecting the species during much of the year and in most weather conditions. Given these data, the SOC status can no longer be justified and the rank has been increased to S4. Caenis youngi A Mayfly 6/23/2015 Removed from SOC list after macroinvertebrate surveys across Montana found the species to be less habitat-restricted than previously believed. Sceloporus graciosus Common Sagebrush Lizard 5/10/2013 Risk downgraded from S3 to S4 due to detection of apparently stable populations in a high percentage of rock outcrop sites across their known range in eastern Montana (higher percentages in southeastern Montana and lower percentages in northeastern Montana). Lepus californicus Black-tailed Jack Rabbit 5/8/2013 Moved to PSOC list with a new state rank of SU and noted as a "Species of Highest Inventory Need" due to a lack of information on distribution and status. Lasiurus borealis Eastern Red Bat 5/8/2013 Moved to PSOC list with a new state rank of SU and noted as a "Species of Highest Inventory Need" due to a lack of information on distribution and status. Chaetodipus hispidus Hispid Pocket Mouse 5/8/2013 Moved to PSOC list with a new state rank of SU and noted as a "Species of Highest Inventory Need" due to a lack of information on distribution and status. Zapus hudsonius Meadow Jumping Mouse 5/8/2013 Moved to PSOC list with a new state rank of SU and noted as a "Species of Highest Inventory Need" due to a lack of information on distribution and status. Tamias umbrinus Uinta Chipmunk 5/8/2013 Moved to PSOC list with a new state rank of SU and noted as a "Species of Highest Inventory Need" due to a lack of information on distribution and status. Spilogale gracilis Western Spotted Skunk 5/8/2013 Moved to PSOC list with a new state rank of SU and noted as a "Species of Highest Inventory Need" due to a lack of information on distribution and status. Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle 4/17/2012 Risk downgraded from S3 to S4 because populations numbers have steadily increased since the 1980s and breeding pairs now occupy a high percentage of suitable habitat across the state. However the species is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow 4/17/2012 Risk downgraded from S3B to S4B because although populations face some habitat loss, the estimated statewide population is large and population trends are stable to increasing. Myotis septentrionalis Northern Myotis 7/19/2011 Moved to Potential Species of Concern List due to limited documentation and uncertainty about the species use of habitats in Montana. After statewide mist net and acoustic survey efforts, the species has only been documented at two localities. It is possible that the species uses habitats in Montana outside of the summer season that has been the focus of recent sampling efforts. Additional sampling is needed in the fall to see if the species is migrating through, or overwintering in, the state more regularly. Canis lupus Gray Wolf 5/5/2011 On May 5, 2011, the Gray Wolf was removed from the Endangered Species Act by the Secretary of the Interior at the direction of the President of the United States and Congress under a rider associated with the Department of Defense and Full-Year Appropriations Act of 2011. Because the species was ranked at a state conservation status of S4 and was only included on the Species of Concern List in order to make its federal status information available in environmental reviews, federal delisting resulted in removal from the Species of Concern List. Canis lupus Gray Wolf 5/25/2010 Risk evaluated at S4. Although the population is still relatively small, the species has expanded into available habitat across western Montana and has had a 528% increase in the number of breeding pairs in the state between 1999 and 2009. Plans for management of human conflict with wolves provide a high probability of maintaining a stable population into the future. Picoides dorsalis American Three-toed Woodpecker 5/1/2009 Risk downgraded from S3S4 to S4 due to increasing availability of preferred habitats. Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole 5/1/2009 Risk downgraded from S3S4 to S4 due to habitats evaluated as less threatened than previously recognized. Tyto alba Barn Owl 5/1/2009 Risk downgraded from S1 to S4 due to expanding range and population in Montana. Mniotilta varia Black-and-white Warbler 5/1/2009 Risk downgraded from S2S3 to S4 due to habitats being evaluated as less threatened than previously recognized, but kept as a Potential Species of Concern due to limited survey effort. Selasphorus platycercus Broad-tailed Hummingbird 5/1/2009 Risk downgraded from S1 to S4 due to stable population trends, but kept as a Potential Species of Concern due to limited baseline data in Montana. Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's Kingbird 5/1/2009 Risk downgraded from S2 to S4 due to stable population trends, but kept as a Potential Species of Concern due to limited baseline data for Montana. Spiza americana Dickcissel 5/1/2009 Risk downgraded from S1S2 to S4 due to stable population trends and fewer threats to habitats than previously recognized. Kept as a Potential Species of Concern due to limited baseline data in Montana. Sialia sialis Eastern Bluebird 5/1/2009 Risk downgraded from S2 to S4 due to use of widely available artificial nest boxes and stable population trends. Kept as a Potential Species of Concern due to limited baseline data for Montana. Calamospiza melanocorys Lark Bunting 5/1/2009 Risk downgraded from S3 to S4 due to stable to increasing population trends. Surnia ulula Northern Hawk Owl 5/1/2009 Risk downgraded from S1 to S4 due to stable population trends, but kept as a Potential Species of Concern due to limited baseline data in Montana. Contopus cooperi Olive-sided Flycatcher 5/1/2009 Risk downgraded from S3 to S4 due to increasing trends in population and available habitat. Icterus spurius Orchard Oriole 5/1/2009 Risk downgraded from S2S4 to S4 due to increasing population trends and habitats evaluated as less threatened than previously recognized. Sphyrapicus thyroideus Williamson's Sapsucker 5/1/2009 Risk downgraded from S3S4 to S4 due to stable to increasing population trends and habitats evaluated as less threatened than previously recognized. Lithobates pipiens Northern Leopard Frog 5/1/2009 Risk to eastern Montana populations downgraded from S3 to S4 due to widespread occupancy of suitable habitat in eastern Montana during recent surveys. Western Montana populations, which have been nearly extirpated since the early 1980s, remain at an S1 level of risk. Eastern populations were kept as Potential Species of Concern due to ongoing concerns about diseases such as the pathogenic chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk 10/1/2008 Risk downgraded from S3 to S4 due to recent surveys indicating the species is more common than previously recognized. Agapetus montanus An Agapetus Caddisfly 10/1/2008 Risk downgraded from S2 to S3 due to habitat being evaluated as less threatened than previously recognized, but kept as a Potential Species of Concern due to potentially growing threats to habitat. Radiodiscus abietum Fir Pinwheel 7/1/2006 Risk downgraded to Potential Species of Concern as a result of recent surveys and in order to remain consistent with other invertebrate species listed as Species of Concern. Stagnicola montanensis Mountain Marshsnail 7/1/2006 Dropped from consideration because taxonomic research indicated that the species' designation was invalid. Sorex hoyi Pygmy Shrew 7/1/2004 Risk downgraded from S3 to S4 because the species was evaluated as more common than previously recognized. Spilogale gracilis Western Spotted Skunk 7/1/2004 Moved to Potential Species of Concern List for undocumented reasons. Dicamptodon aterrimus Idaho Giant Salamander 1/1/2003 Dropped because reports of the species presence in Montana were deemed false. Lasiurus borealis Eastern Red Bat 8/1/2001 Moved to the Species on Review List for undocumented reasons. Myotis septentrionalis Northern Myotis 8/1/2001 Moved to Species on Review List because species is rare and possibly out of range. Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked Stilt 8/1/2001 Moved to the Species on Review List for undocumented reasons. Aegolius funereus Boreal Owl 8/1/2001 Dropped because species was found to be more common than previously recognized. Aechmophorus clarkii Clark's Grebe 8/1/2001 Moved to Species on Review list for undocumented reasons. Oreohelix sp. 3 Bearmouth Mountainsnail 8/1/2001 Dropped because taxa had not been formally described as a species. Oreohelix sp. 5 Brunson Mountainsnail 8/1/2001 Dropped because taxa had not been formally described as a species. Oreohelix sp. 31 Byrne Resort Mountainsnail 8/1/2001 Dropped because taxa had not been formally described as a species. Oreohelix sp. 4 Drummond Mountainsnail 8/1/2001 Dropped because taxa had not been formally described as a species. This section is not Filtered MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 11 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM SPECIES REMOVED FROM STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Oreohelix sp. 6 Kintla Lake Mountainsnail 8/1/2001 Dropped because taxa had not been formally described as a species. Oreohelix sp. 7 Kitchen Creek Mountainsnail 8/1/2001 Dropped because taxa had not been formally described as a species. Amnicola sp. 2 Lake Amnicola 8/1/2001 Dropped because taxa had not been formally described as a species. Oreohelix sp. 10 Missoula Mountainsnail 8/1/2001 Dropped because taxa had not been formally described as a species. Oreohelix sp. 11 Subcarinate Mountainsnail 8/1/2001 Dropped because taxa had not been formally described as a species. Plegadis chihi White-faced Ibis 9/1/1999 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Discus shimekii Striate Disc 9/1/1999 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Myotis evotis Long-eared Myotis 6/1/1996 Dropped from USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Myotis volans Long-legged Myotis 6/1/1996 Dropped from USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Myotis ciliolabrum Western Small-footed Myotis 6/1/1996 Dropped from USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Sceloporus graciosus Common Sagebrush Lizard 6/1/1996 Dropped due to indications the species is more common and widespread than previoulsy known. Phrynosoma hernandesi Greater Short-horned Lizard 6/1/1996 Dropped from USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Note: at this time the species in Montana was recognized as Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma douglasi). Rana luteiventris Columbia Spotted Frog 6/1/1996 Dropped from USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Ascaphus montanus Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog 6/1/1996 Dropped from USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Platygobio gracilis Flathead Chub 6/1/1996 Dropped from USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow 6/1/1996 Dropped from USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Hybognathus argyritis Western Silvery Minnow 6/1/1996 Dropped from USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Speyeria idalia Regal Fritillary 6/1/1996 Dropped from USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike 2/1/1995 Dropped from USFWS Category 2 Candidate list. Mniotilta varia Black-and-white Warbler 3/1/1994 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Poecile hudsonicus Boreal Chickadee 3/1/1994 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting 3/1/1994 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Icterus spurius Orchard Oriole 3/1/1994 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Ascaphus montanus Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog 3/1/1994 Dropped because species was found to be more widespread and common than previously recognized. Speyeria idalia Regal Fritillary 3/1/1994 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Rana luteiventris Columbia Spotted Frog 5/1/1993 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Myotis californicus California Myotis 9/1/1992 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Sialia sialis Eastern Bluebird 9/1/1992 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Numenius americanus Long-billed Curlew 9/1/1992 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk 9/1/1992 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Elgaria coerulea Northern Alligator Lizard 9/1/1992 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker 5/1/1991 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Taricha granulosa Rough-skinned Newt 2/27/1990 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Sorex merriami Merriam's Shrew 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Sorex hoyi Pygmy Shrew 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Spilogale gracilis Western Spotted Skunk 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Strix varia Barred Owl 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Spizella breweri Brewer's Sparrow 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Spizella pallida Clay-colored Sparrow 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Megascops asio Eastern Screech-Owl 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Spizella pusilla Field Sparrow 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Asio otus Long-eared Owl 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Falco columbarius Merlin 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 12 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM SPECIES REMOVED FROM STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Glaucidium gnoma Northern Pygmy-Owl 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Aegolius acadicus Northern Saw-whet Owl 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Falco mexicanus Prairie Falcon 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Sialia mexicana Western Bluebird 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. Megascops kennicottii Western Screech-Owl 4/22/1987 Dropped for undocumented reasons. MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 13 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM MAMMALS (MAMMALIA)12 SPECIES BIRDS (AVES)14 SPECIES Species of Greatest Inventory Need SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME TAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) FAMILY (COMMON)MT STATUS GLOBAL RANK STATE RANK USFS FOREST BLM FIELD OFFICE FWP REGION HABITAT COMMENTS Chaetodipus hispidus Hispid Pocket Mouse Heteromyidae Pocket Mice / Kangaroo Rats PSOC G5 SNR Custer Miles City 7 Mixed grassland dry forest Surveys needed in mixed grassland and open Ponderosa Pine forest in Carter County. Erethizon dorsatum Porcupine Erethizontidae Porcupines PSOC G5 S4 All forests All field offices All regions Mixed forest Need baseline surveys of mixed conifer/deciduous forest with shrub understory statewide. Euderma maculatumSpotted Bat VespertilionidaeBats SOC G4 S3 Beaverhead/Deerlodge, Custer, Helena, Lewisand Clark Billings, Butte, Dillon, Havre,Lewistown 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Cliffs with rock crevices Need acoustic surveys targeting big cliff habitats. Once areas of high activity are identified, targetedmistnetting in the early to mid summer should be usedto document breeding. Lepus californicus Black-tailed Jack Rabbit Leporidae Rabbits PSOC G5 SNR Beaverhead/Deerlodge Dillon 3 Sagebrush grassland Need summer and winter headlight/spotlight surveysin sagebrush and grassland habitats across Beaverhead and Madison counties. Marmota caligata Hoary Marmot Sciuridae Squirrels PSOC G5 S3S4 Beaverhead/Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Lewis and Clark, Lolo, Flathead, Kootenai Dillon 1, 2, 3, 4 Alpine / Subalpine slopes Need surveys of grass and forb covered alpine/subalpine slopes with talus nearby. Myotis yumanensis Yuma Myotis Vespertilionidae Bats SOC G5 S3 Flathead, Kootenai, Lolo 1 Riparian and mixed forest Need targeted acoustic surveys paired with mist netting and genetic analysis in Northwestern Montana. Perognathus parvusColumbia Plateau PocketMouse HeteromyidaePocket Mice / Kangaroo Rats SOC G5 S3 Beaverhead/Deerlodge Dillon 3 Sagebrush / grassland Need surveys target grasslands and shrublands with sandier soils. Spilogale gracilis Western Spotted Skunk Mephitidae Skunks PSOC G5 SNR Bitterroot,Beaverhead/Deerlodge, Custer, Gallatin, Helena Billings, Butte,Dillon, Missoula 2, 3, 5, 7 Riparian shrub Woody or brushy areas along streams or near outcropsshould be targeted for survey; recent detections have all been with camera traps. Tamias umbrinus Uinta Chipmunk Sciuridae Squirrels PSOC G5 SNR Custer, Gallatin Billings, Butte 3, 5 High elevation conifer forest Need targeted surveys in all high mountain ranges adjacent to the border with northwestern Wyoming. Thomomys idahoensis Idaho Pocket Gopher Geomyidae Pocket Gophers PSOC G4 S2S4 Beaverhead/Deerlodge Dillon 3 Open habitat / generalist In southwestern Montana, the species' northern range boundary and habitat occupancy rates both need to be assessed relative to the distribution of NorthernPocket Gopher. Urocitellus armatusUinta Ground Squirrel SciuridaeSquirrels PSOC G5 S3S4 Beaverhead/Deerlodge, Custer, Gallatin Butte, Dillon 3, 5 Open grassy edges Need targeted surveys for the species in subalpine meadows and forest edges. Zapus hudsonius Meadow Jumping Mouse Dipodidae Jumping Mice PSOC G5 SNR Custer Billings, MilesCity 7 Riparian and moist grassland Need surveys targeting riparian areas and moistgrasslands across southeastern Montana. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME TAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) FAMILY (COMMON)MT STATUS GLOBAL RANK STATE RANK USFS FOREST BLM FIELD OFFICE FWP REGION HABITAT COMMENTS Aegolius funereus Boreal Owl Strigidae Owls PSOC G5 S3S4 Beaverhead/Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Custer, Flathead, Gallatin, Helena, Kootenai,Lewis and Clark, Lolo Butte, Dillon, Missoula 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Conifer forest Need call playback surveys of conifer forests. Bucephala islandicaBarrow's Goldeneye AnatidaeSwans / Geese / Ducks PSOC G5 S4 Beaverhead/Deerlodge,Bitterroot, Flathead,Gallatin, Helena, Lewisand Clark, Lolo, Kootenai Billings, Butte,Dillon,Lewistown,Missoula 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Mountain Lakes and Wetlands Need surveys of mountain lakes and wetlands. Chaetura pelagica Chimney Swift Apodidae Swifts PSOC G4G5 S3S4B Custer Butte, Glasgow, Havre, Miles City, Phillips, Upper Missouri River NationalMonument 5, 6, 7 Chimneys, caves, hollow trees Need surveys of potential roost sites. Coccyzus americanusYellow-billed Cuckoo CuculidaeCuckoos SOC G5 S3B All Forests Billings, Butte,Dillon,Lewistown, Miles City, Missoula 1,2,3, 4, 5, 7 Prairie riparian forest Need call playback surveys along lower elevationriparian areas. Coccyzus erythropthalmus Black-billed Cuckoo Cuculidae Cuckoos SOC G5 S3B Beaverhead/Deerlodge, Custer, Gallatin, Helena, Lewis and Clark Billings, Butte, Dillon, Glasgow, Havre, Lewistown, Phillips County,Upper MissouriRiver NationalMonument 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Riparian forest Need call playback surveys along lower elevation riparian areas east of the Continental Divide. Cypseloides niger Black Swift Apodidae Swifts SOC G4 S1B Beaverhead/Deerlodge,Bitterroot, Flathead, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, Lolo Missoula 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Waterfalls Need surveys of potential waterfall nest sites. Lagopus leucura White-tailed Ptarmigan Phasianidae Upland Game Birds SOC G5 S3 Flathead, Helena, Lewis and Clark, Lolo 1,4 Alpine Need treeline/alpine surveys. Leucostictetephrocotis Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch Fringillidae Finches SOC G5 S2B,S5N Beaverhead/Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Flathead, Helena, Kootenai,Lewis and Clark 1, 2, 4 Alpine Need surveys of areas near cliffs and talus that are among glaciers and snowfields above treeline. Lophodytes cucullatusHooded Merganser AnatidaeSwans / Geese / Ducks PSOC G5 S4 Beaverhead/Deerlodge,Bitterroot, Flathead,Gallatin, Helena, Lewis and Clark, Lolo, Kootenai Billings, Butte,Dillon, Missoula 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Rivers, Riparian/Wetland Need stream surveys. Megascops kennicottii Western Screech-Owl Strigidae Owls PSOC G4G5 S3S4 Beaverhead/Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Flathead, Gallatin, Helena, Lewis and Clark, Lolo Butte, Dillon, Missoula 1, 2, 3, 4 Riparian forest Need nocturnal call playback surveys along lower elevation riparian areas across western Montana. Phalaenoptilusnuttallii Common Poorwill CaprimulgidaeNightjars PSOC G5 S4B All forests All field offices All regions Shrub grassland Need baseline nocturnal calling surveys in grasslands and shrublands. Selasphorus platycercus Broad-tailed Hummingbird Trochilidae Hummingbirds PSOC G5 S4B Beaverhead/Deerlodge, Custer, Gallatin Billings, Butte, Dillon 3, 5, 7 Montane shrublands / woodlands Need surveys in shrubby hillside and open forest habitats during the known breeding period; preferably with trapping surveys to confirm reproduction. This section is not filtered by Geography It includes species in need of recent survey data across their entire Montana range.Species and Rank/Status filters are used, if selected. SOC and PSOC that Lack Baseline SurveysAll Records (no filtering) MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 14 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM REPTILES (REPTILIA)7 SPECIES FISH (ACTINOPTERYGII)3 SPECIES MAMMALS (MAMMALIA)1 SPECIES BIRDS (AVES)2 SPECIES AMPHIBIANS (AMPHIBIA)1 SPECIES INVERTEBRATES - MOLLUSKS 1 SPECIES Strix nebulosa Great Gray Owl Strigidae Owls SOC G5 S3 Beaverhead/Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Custer, Flathead, Gallatin, Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, Lolo Butte, Dillon, Missoula 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Conifer forest near open meadows Need nocturnal call playback surveys of meadows and other open areas within conifer forests. Surnia ululaNorthern Hawk Owl StrigidaeOwls SOC G5 S3 Flathead, Lewis and Clark, Kootenai 1, 4 Conifer forest Need surveys in conifer forests, especially in post-fire landscapes, within and around their known breeding range. SCIENTIFIC NAMECOMMON NAME TAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) FAMILY (COMMON)MT STATUS GLOBAL RANK STATE RANK USFS FOREST BLM FIELD OFFICE FWP REGION HABITAT COMMENTS Chelydra serpentina Snapping Turtle Chelydridae Snapping Turtles SOC G5 S3 Custer Billings, Miles City 5, 7 Prairie rivers and streams Need trapping surveys on permanent waters; especially rivers and streams. Elgaria coerulea Northern Alligator Lizard Anguidae Alligator Lizards SOC G5 S3 Bitterroot, Flathead, Kootenai, Lolo Missoula 1, 2 Talus slopes / rock outcrops Need surveys of the margins of talus slopes below the subalpine. Heterodon nasicusPlains Hog-nosed Snake ColubridaeColubrid Snakes SOC G5 S2 Custer Billings, Glasgow, Havre, Lewistown, MilesCity, PhillipsCounty, Upper Missouri River Breaks 4, 5, 6, 7 Friable soils Need funnel trap surveys of sand/gravelly soils, particularly in and adjacent to riparian areas. Opheodrys vernalis Smooth Greensnake Colubridae Colubrid Snakes SOC G5 S2 Miles City 6 Wetlands Need road and wetland/wet meadow habitat surveys across and slightly beyond their known range during wetter weather in May, June, and early July. Phrynosoma douglasii Pygmy Short-horned Lizard Phrynosomatidae Sagebush / Spiny Lizards PSOC G5 SNA Beaverhead/Deerlodge Dillon 3 Sandy/gravelly soils in grassland and shrubland One 1936 museum record from “Centennial Valley, Montana” and more recent unverified observation record from upper Horse Prairie Creek southwest ofDillon. Phrynosomahernandesi Greater Short-horned Lizard PhrynosomatidaeSagebush / Spiny Lizards SOC G5 S3 Beaverhead/Deerlodge, Custer, Gallatin,Helena, Lewis andClark Butte, Billings, Dillon, Glasgow,Havre,Lewistown, Miles City, Phillips County, Upper Missouri River NationalMonument 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Sandy / gravelly soils Need visual encounter surveys of sandy/gravelly soils in grasslands and shrublands. Plestiodonskiltonianus Western Skink ScincidaeSkinks SOC G5 S3 Bitterroot, Kootenai,Lolo Missoula 1, 2 Open conifer forest andadjacent grasslands Need pitfall trap surveys targeting open coniferforests and adjacent grasslands. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME TAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) FAMILY (COMMON)MT STATUS GLOBAL RANK STATE RANK USFS FOREST BLM FIELD OFFICE FWP REGION HABITAT COMMENTS Myoxocephalusthompsonii Deepwater Sculpin CottidaeSculpins SOC G5 S3 Havre 4 Deep mountain lakes Only documented on the Canadian side of Upper Waterton Lake. PercopsisomiscomaycusTrout-perch Percopsidae Trout-perch SOC G5 S2 Havre 4 Deep lakes, mountain streams Need focal surveys of deepwater lake habitats and associated tributaries across their range: gillnetting, seining. Prosopium coulteriPygmy Whitefish SalmonidaeTrout SOC G5 S3 Flathead,Kootenai 1, 4 Deep mountain lakes andtributaries Need gill netting and slat trap surveys of deepwaterlake habitats. SCIENTIFIC NAMECOMMON NAME TAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC)FAMILY (COMMON)MT STATUS GLOBALRANK STATERANK USFSFOREST BLM FIELDOFFICE FWPREGION HABITAT COMMENTS Synaptomys borealis Northern Bog Lemming Cricetidae New World Mice / Rats / Voles SOC G5 S2 Beaverhead/Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Flathead, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, Lolo Missoula 1, 2, 4 Conifer forest wetland Baseline surveys date to the 1990s. Need surveys of wet meadow and fen habitats with sphagnum moss. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME TAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) FAMILY (COMMON)MT STATUS GLOBAL RANK STATE RANK USFS FOREST BLM FIELD OFFICE FWP REGION HABITAT COMMENTS Leucosticte atrataBlack Rosy-Finch FringillidaeFinches SOC G4 S2 Beaverhead/Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Custer,Gallatin, Helena Dillon 2, 3, 4, 5 Alpine Species received some baseline survey effort in 1968 and again in 1983 that covered most of the knownrange of the species in the state. Currently FWPbiologists are conducting range wide surveys targetingalpine nesting habitats (crevices in alpine cliffs and talus) and snowfields to provide more robust information about this species. Sternula antillarum Least Tern Laridae Gulls / Terns SOC G4 S1B Miles City 7 Large prairie rivers Last systematic surveys on the lower Yellowstone River date to the 1990s. Need surveys of unvegetated sand-pebble beaches of shorelines and islands. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME TAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) FAMILY (COMMON)MT STATUS GLOBAL RANK STATE RANK USFS FOREST BLM FIELD OFFICE FWP REGION HABITAT COMMENTS Plethodon idahoensisCoeur d'Alene Salamander PlethodontidaeLungless Salamanders SOC G4 S2 Bitterroot, Kootenai, Lolo 1, 2 Spring / seep, waterfall, fractured rock Range-wide baseline surveys date to the 1980s. More recent surveys have been conducted in NorthwesternMontana, but surveys are still needed in the central andsouthern portions of this species range Need surveys of waterfall spray zones, springs, seeps, and streamsides that have underground cracks, crevices, and chambers that have year round water. SOC and PSOC with Outdated SurveysAll Records (no filtering) MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 15 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM MAMMALS (MAMMALIA)9 SPECIES BIRDS (AVES)15 SPECIES SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME TAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) FAMILY (COMMON)MT STATUS GLOBAL RANK STATE RANK USFS FOREST BLM FIELD OFFICE FWP REGION HABITAT COMMENTS Fisherola nuttalli Shortface Lanx Lymnaeidae Fossarias / Pondsnails / Lanxs SOC G2 S1 Bitterroot, Lolo Missoula Region 2 Large Mountain Rivers Need surveys of historically occupied cold fast streams and rivers with cobble-boulder diatom covered substrates in the Clark Fork River basin. SCIENTIFIC NAMECOMMON NAMETAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC)FAMILY (COMMON)MT STATUS GLOBALRANK STATERANK USFSFOREST BLM FIELDOFFICE FWPREGION HABITAT COMMENTS Glaucomys sabrinus Northern Flying Squirrel Sciuridae Squirrels G5 S4 Lewis and Clark,Helena, Custer Gallatin, Bitterroot, Flathead, Beaverhead- Deerlodge, Lolo,Kootenai Missoula, Butte,Billings, Dillon, Lewistown 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Conifer forest All observations are incidental. The species geographicrange may be broader than is currently recognized. Species needs surveys of forested areas across its known and potential geographic range in the state using nest boxes, live tomahawk traps with wax card board shelters, or potentially camera traps. Lepus townsendii White-tailed Jack Rabbit Leporidae Rabbits G5 S4 Lewis and Clark,Helena, CusterGallatin, Bitterroot, Flathead, Beaverhead- Deerlodge, Lolo Missoula, MilesCity, Butte,Billings, Dillon, Malta, Lewistown 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Grasslands Structured surveys are needed for this species acrossthe state. Spotlighting and/or visual encounter surveysalong roads at night should be adequate to establish baselines for this species. Neotoma cinereaBushy-tailed Woodrat CricetidaeNew World Mice / Rats /Voles G5 S5 Lewis and Clark, Helena, CusterGallatin,Bitterroot, Flathead, Beaverhead- Deerlodge, Lolo, Kootenai Missoula, Miles City, Butte,Billings, Dillon,Malta, Lewistown 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Generalist Species has never really been targeted with surveys and the majority of observations are incidental or detectionsof middens. To determine baseline metrics, systematicsurveys of suitable structures like cliffs,rock outcrops, and caves is necessary across this species range. Ochotona princepsPika OchotonidaePikas G5 S4 Lewis and Clark, Helena, Custer Gallatin,Bitterroot,Flathead, Beaverhead- Deerlodge, Lolo, Kootenai Missoula, Butte, Billings, Dillon, Malta,Lewistown 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Montane talus Systematic surveys are limited to the Bitterroot Mountains and relatively small areas in the Absoraka/Beartooths.Across other ranges, observationsare primarily incidental in nature. Species needssystematic surveys of talus, boulder fields, and adjacent meadow habitats across a range of elevations throughout their known breeding range in the state. Sciurus niger Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciuridae Squirrels G5 S4 Custer Gallatin Miles City, Billings 5,7 Deciduous forest Within the native range of this species, no taxa specific surveys have been conducted and other small mammal survey methods are unlikely to detect this species.Visual encounter transects or tomahawk live trappingalong ash draws and riparian corridors in SC and SE Montana is needed to establish robust baselines for this species. Sylvilagus audubonii Desert Cottontail Leporidae Rabbits G5 S4 Custer, Lewis and Clark Billings, Glasgow, Havre, Lewistown, Miles City, Phillips County, UpperMissouri RiverNational Monument 4, 5, 6, 7 Upland grassland / upland breaks Range-wide systematic surveys are needed for all cottontail species. Identification of cottontial species can be problematic in areas where the ranges of Desert Mountian, and/or Eastern Cottontail overlap. To gain information about the status of this species livetrapping efforts across E Montana are necessary. Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern Cottontail Leporidae Rabbits G5 S4 Custer Miles City 7 Riparian shrub Summer and winter headlight/spotlight surveys need to be conducted in riparian areas across the species' known range. Trapping/handling may be needed to distinguish from Desert Cottontail with certainty. Sylvilagus nuttallii Mountain Cottontail Leporidae Rabbits G5 S4 Lewis and Clark, Helena, Custer Gallatin,Bitterroot,Flathead, Beaverhead- Deerlodge, Lolo, Kootenai Missoula, Miles City, Butte, Billings, Dillon,Malta,Lewistown 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Sagebrush, willow, riparian Baseline surveys across central and eastern Montana are needed for this and other cottontail species. Although track and spotlight surveys are appropriate for regionswith a single species, due similar appearance andhabitat associations of this group, surveys conducted in areas with multiple cottontail species should use methods that allow in hand identification. Thomomys talpoides Northern Pocket Gopher Geomyidae Pocket Gophers G5 S5 Lewis and Clark, Helena, Custer Gallatin, Bitterroot,Flathead,Beaverhead- Deerlodge, Lolo, Kootenai Missoula, Butte, Billings, Dillon, Lewistown 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Open habitat / generalist Surveys targeting Pocket Gophers need to be conducted across Beaverhead, Madison, Gallatin, Ravalli, Granite, Deerlodge, and Silver Bow Counties in order to determine the range boundaries and degree of overlapin ranges of Idaho and Northern Pocket Gophers. Taxaspecific live trapping methods and/or EDNA collection from spoil piles or burrows should be implemented. Across the rest of Montana, Northern Pocket Gopher distribution and status information could easily be gathered through documentation of excavation spoilpiles. SCIENTIFIC NAMECOMMON NAME TAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC)FAMILY (COMMON)MT STATUS GLOBALRANK STATERANK USFSFOREST BLM FIELDOFFICE FWPREGION HABITAT COMMENTS Actitis macularius Spotted Sandpiper Scolopacidae Sandpipers G5 S5B Lewis and Clark,Helena, Custer Gallatin, Bitterroot, Flathead, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Lolo,Kootenai Missoula, MilesCity, Butte, Billings, Dillon, Malta, Lewistown 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Wetland margin Although this species may be documented incidentallyduring other structured surveys, current survey effort is not adequate to establish baseline metrics for this species. Surveys targeting streams and rivers across this species range are necessary. Aeronautes saxatalis White-throated Swift Apodidae Swifts G5 S5B Lewis and Clark,Helena, Custer Gallatin, Bitterroot, Flathead, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Lolo,Kootenai Missoula, MilesCity, Butte, Billings, Dillon, Malta, Lewistown 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Cliffs / canyons Observations are mostly incidental from a variety ofcitizen birders. Need a survey effort targeting cliff roosting/nesting sites across western and southeastern Montana. Non SOC that Lack Baseline Surveys All Records (no filtering) MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 16 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM REPTILES (REPTILIA)1 SPECIES Archilochus alexandri Black-chinned Hummingbird Trochilidae Hummingbirds G5 S4B Lewis and Clark, Helena, Custer Gallatin, Bitterroot, Flathead,Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Lolo, Kootenai Missoula, Butte, Billings, Dillon 1, 2, 3, 4 Riparian forest Species is not well represented by BBS, IMBCR, or other point count surveys. Most data has come from citizen birders or special efforts like Ned and Gigi Batchelder's trapping program. Need more focal surveys of preferred shrubby hillside and open forest habitats during theknown breeding period; preferably with trapping surveysto confirm reproduction. Bucephala albeola Bufflehead Anatidae Swans / Geese / Ducks G5 S5B Lewis and Clark,Helena, Custer Gallatin, Bitterroot, Flathead, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Lolo,Kootenai Missoula, MilesCity, Butte, Billings, Dillon, Malta, Lewistown 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Wetlands Range-wide waterbird surveys led by FWP wereconducted in 1996 and 2009-1010, although coverage was poor in SW Montana. Other surveys associated with Wildlife Refuges are performed more regularly. Across the rest of the range survey effort is inadequate or to determine state-wide baseline metrics for the species. Bucephala clangula Common Goldeneye Anatidae Swans / Geese / Ducks G5 S5 Lewis and Clark,Helena, Custer Gallatin, Bitterroot, Flathead, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Lolo,Kootenai Missoula, MilesCity, Butte, Billings, Dillon, Malta, Lewistown 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Wetlands Species breeds in mountain lakes. Although they aredetected on annual Wildlife Refuge and WPA surveys this does not provide adequate range-wide survey coverage. Targeted surveys of suitable waterbodies in the spring and summer will provide baseline data and help assess the status of this species in Montana. Chaetura vauxi Vaux's Swift Apodidae Swifts G5 S4B Lewis and Clark,Helena, Bitterroot, Flathead, Beaverhead- Deerlodge, Lolo, Kootenai Missoula, Butte,Lewistown 1, 2 Moist conifer forests Observations are mostly incidental from a variety ofcitizen birders and confirmed breeding has mostly been documented through detection of injured fledglings. Need a survey effort targeting likely roost sites in urban areas across western Montana. Chordeiles minorCommon Nighthawk CaprimulgidaeNightjars G5 S5B Lewis and Clark, Helena, CusterGallatin,Bitterroot, Flathead, Beaverhead- Deerlodge, Lolo, Kootenai Missoula, Miles City, Butte,Billings, Dillon,Malta, Lewistown 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Grasslands Species is almost exclusively reported through incidental observations. Need statewide surveys of thisspecies using Western Working Group of Partners inFlight protocols. This could possibly be combined with surveys for other nocturnal bird species. Empidonax wrightiiGray Flycatcher TyrannidaeFlycatchers G5 S4B Custer Gallatin, Beaverhead-Deerlodge Billings, Dillon 3, 5 Sagebrush Species is a rare summer breeder and not covered by the annual BBS survey routes and IMBCR and/or otherpoint count efforts given their rarity. The species'distribution/status may best be tracked by citizen birders surveying appropriate sagebrush habitats in and around the areas in SW and SC Montana where they have been previously detected.\ Gallinago delicata Wilson's Snipe Scolopacidae Sandpipers G5 S5 Lewis and Clark, Dakota Prairie Grasslands, Helena, CusterGallatin,Bitterroot, Flathead, Beaverhead- Deerlodge, Lolo, Kootenai Missoula, Miles City, Butte, Billings, Dillon, Malta,Lewistown 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Wet meadows This species is detected by BBS and other point counts, but spring nocturnal bird calling surveys may be necessary to establish robust baseline metrics. It may be possible to pair this survey work with nocturnalamphibian calling surveys. Glaucidium gnomaNorthern Pygmy-Owl StrigidaeOwls G4G5 S4 Lewis and Clark, Helena, CusterGallatin,Bitterroot, Flathead, Beaverhead- Deerlodge, Lolo, Kootenai Missoula, Butte, Billings, Dillon,Lewistown 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Conifer forest Need to establish a late winter / early spring rangewide call playback survey beyond what has been done by theORI for a portion of western Montana, and the early1990s surveys by MTNHP on portions of the Gallatin and Lewis and Clark National Forests. Junco hyemalis aikeniDark-eyed Junco (White-winged) PasserellidaeNew World Sparrows G5T4 SNR Custer Gallatin Miles City 7 Forest Species had some baseline surveys done in association with Northern Goshawk calling stations on portions of the Sioux District of the Custer National Forest, butneeds focal surveys on other Ponderosa Pine savannahacross and adjacent to their known range in SE Montana. Mergus merganser Common Merganser Anatidae Swans / Geese / Ducks G5 S5B Lewis and Clark, Helena, Custer Gallatin, Bitterroot, Flathead,Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Lolo, Kootenai Missoula, Miles City, Butte, Billings, Dillon, Malta, Lewistown 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Montane rivers Although this species is included with the annual May USFWS waterfowl population and habitat (HAPET) surveys, these surveys are only conducted across eastern Montana and western Montana receives little survey effort. To determine state-wide baseline metrics,stream surveys targeting this species are needed. Selasphorus calliope Calliope Hummingbird Trochilidae Hummingbirds G5 S5B Lewis and Clark, Helena, Custer Gallatin, Bitterroot, Flathead, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Lolo,Kootenai Missoula, Butte, Billings, Dillon, Lewistown 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Conifer forest Species is not well represented by BBS, IMBCR, or other point count surveys. Most data has come from citizen birders or special efforts like Ned and Gigi Batchelder's trapping program. Need more focal surveys of preferred shrubby hillside and open forest habitats during the known breeding period; preferably with trapping surveysto confirm reproduction. Spizella breweri taverneri Brewer's Sparrow(Timberline) Passerellidae New World Sparrows G5T4T5 SNRB Lewis and Clark Malta,Lewistown 4 Krummholz shrubs at treeline Need systematic baseline surveys of subalpine shrubhabitats along the east front of the Rocky Mountains. Strix variaBarred Owl StrigidaeOwls G5 S4 Lewis and Clark, Helena, CusterGallatin, Bitterroot, Flathead, Beaverhead- Deerlodge, Lolo, Kootenai Missoula, Butte, Dillon, Malta,Lewistown 1, 2, 3, 4 Conifer forest Need to establish a late winter / early spring rangewide call playback survey beyond what has been done by theORI for a portion of western Montana, and the early 1990s surveys by MTNHP on portions of the Gallatin and Lewis and Clark National Forests. SCIENTIFIC NAMECOMMON NAME TAXA SORT FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) FAMILY (COMMON)MT STATUS GLOBAL RANK STATE RANK USFS FOREST BLM FIELD OFFICE FWP REGION HABITAT COMMENTS Charina bottae Northern Rubber Boa Boidae Boas G5 S4 Lewis and Clark, Helena, Custer Gallatin, Bitterroot, Flathead,Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Lolo, Kootenai Missoula, Miles City, Butte, Billings, Dillon, Lewistown 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 Montane forest Current data is completely incidental. Species needs focal road surveys on evenings after thunderstorms in June and July across their known range. This might be able to be paired with other fieldwork. Since 2012 several observations of this species have been reportedto the northeast of the Bighorn Mountains extending therange of this species into Southeastern Montana. Future survey efforts should include this area to provide further data on its range in this area. MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 17 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM Citation for data on this website:Montana Animal Species of Concern Report. Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Retrieved on 6/4/2020, from http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a 18 of 18 6/4/2020, 11:49 AM Expand All | Collapse All Introduction Introduction The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) serves as the state's information source for Species of Concern (SOC) -- plants and animals that are rare, threatened, and/or have declining populations and as a result are at risk or potentially at risk of extirpation in Montana. This report is based on information gathered from field inventories, publications, reports, herbaria specimens, and the knowledge of botanists and other taxonomic experts. Taxa in theSOC category generally include all vascular plant taxa ranked S1, S2, S3 or SH. Nonvascular taxa (bryophytes and lichens) which are not as well documented or studied as vascular plant taxa in the state, are listed as SOC using similar criteria as vascular taxa but are more strictly limited to those taxa which are believed to be the rarest or most vulnerable to extirpation based on current information. Designation as a Species of Concern is not a statutory or regulatory classification. Instead, these designations provide a basis for resource managers and decision-makers to make proactive decisions regarding species conservation and data collection priorities in order to maintain viable populations and avoid extirpation of species from the state. MTNHP may designate additional taxa as Potential Species of Concern (PSOC). Taxa in this designation include species or subspecies which may be rare, have a restricted range in the state or are otherwise vulnerable to extirpation in at least part of their range but otherwise do not meet the criteria for inclusion as a SOC. An additional designation of Status Under Review is used for those taxa for which additional information is needed to accurately assign a status rank or for which conflicting information exists. Taxa designated as Status Under Review are not included in this document but can be found in the on-line Fieldguide (http://fieldguide.mt.gov/). This web-based report, which replaces the 2006 Plant Species of Concern publication, identifies vascular plant Species of Concern (SOC), bryophyte SOC and lichen SOC in Montana. The MTNHP continuously reviews andupdates status ranks as new information and data become available through field surveys, research, and submitted observations. Status ranks and information supporting them are reviewed by botanists and resource specialists. If you wish to comment or contribute information to this process please contact the MTNHP Botanist. The information we receive from botanists and others throughout the state is essential in this process, and contributes to more accurate assessments of species' status. We continue to ask that all observations for SOC, PSOC and Review Status plants be reported to the Heritage Program. A copy of the field survey form specifying the information that should be submitted is available on our website (http://mtnhp.org/). Information concerning plant species contained on the SOC, PSOC or Review lists may be viewed on the MTNHP's on-line Montana Plant Field Guide. The Field Guide provides information for vascular and non-vascular plants,including species' characteristics, identification, habitat, distribution, state rank reasons and references, as well as technical illustrations and photographs of the plants and their habitats. For each species, a link to the NatureServe website (http://www.natureserve.org/) provides access to information on the status of the species throughout North America, assembled from state and provincial Natural Heritage databases. Information in the Montana Field Guide is continuously updated and expanded, so please check it often for current species' information. If you have questions concerning the field guide or find errors or omissions please contact the MTNHP. Status lists of SOC plants may be queried on-line by county and/or township; taxonomic group or one of several rank/status criteria. More detailed information or additional assistance can be requested from MTNHP using the Information Request function on our website, or by phone, e-mail or mail. How to Read the Lists The SOC list is organized alphabetically by scientific name (Genus and specific epithet followed by subspecific epithet if any) within the major groups of Vascular Plants, Bryophytes (Mosses and Liverworts) and Lichens. Vascular plants are further sorted by the subgroups: Ferns and Fern Allies, Gymnosperms (if any), Flowering Plants-Dicots and Flowering Plants-Monocots. The list can also be sorted alphabetically by the common name. Additional scientific names as well as the Family name are included in adjacent columns for each species. The nomenclature and taxonomy for many groups of plants continues to change as new research is conducted and published, and as a result no one nomenclatural reference is followed. Publications and web resources which are most relevant to Montana plants include Vascular Plants of Montana (Dorn 1984), NatureServe Explorer, The USDA PLANTS database, Flora of North America (1993-), Grasses of Montana (Lavin and Seibert 2011) and Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973). Additionally, an abundance of scientific literature pertinent to Montana plants is available and indispensable in the process of determining the nomenclature and taxonomic concepts used in this report. Species that have been added to or deleted from the SOC list due to changes in their global or state rank are reported in separate sections below. These changes are also reflected in the date displayed at the top of the report whichshows when an addition or deletion to the list last occurred. County Distribution Montana counties of record are listed alphabetically with each species. County records of occurrence are determined directly from mapped species occurrences (SO's) in MTNHP databases. A record of occurrence for a particular county may be based on a historical observation which may no longer be extant. Additionally, some plant observations with vague locality information are not mapped in MTNHP databases and as result would not be included in the county distribution for that particular species. Montana Natural Heritage - SOC Report Plant Species of Concern 2 Species of Concern Filtered by the following criteria: Township = 001N003E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) Species List Last Updated 04/16/2020 A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System operated by the University of Montana. MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p 1 of 14 6/4/2020, 11:52 AM Montana Species Ranking Codes (GRank, SRank) Montana employs a standardized ranking system to denote global (range-wide) and state status (NatureServe 2006). Species are assigned numeric ranks ranging from 1 (highest risk, greatest concern) to 5 (demonstrably secure),reflecting the relative degree of risk to the species’ viability, based upon available information. A number of factors are considered in assigning ranks — the number, size and quality of known occurrences or populations, distribution, trends (if known), intrinsic vulnerability, habitat specificity, and definable threats. The processof assigning state ranks for each taxon relies heavily on the number of occurrences and Species Occurrence (OE) ranks, which is a ranking system of the quality (usually A through D) of each known occurrence based on factors such as size (# of individuals) and habitat quality. The remaining factors noted above are also incorporated into the ranking process when they are known. The “State Rank Reason” field in the Montana Field Guide provides additional information on the reasons for a particular species’ rank. Rank Definition G1 S1 At high risk because of extremely limited and/or rapidly declining population numbers, range and/or habitat, making it highly vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state. G2 S2 At risk because of very limited and/or potentially declining population numbers, range and/or habitat, making it vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state. G3 S3 Potentially at risk because of limited and/or declining numbers, range and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas. G4 S4 Apparently secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, and/or suspected to be declining. G5 S5 Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range). Not vulnerable in most of its range. GX SX Presumed Extinct or Extirpated - Species is believed to be extinct throughout its range or extirpated in Montana. Not located despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and smalllikelihood that it will ever be rediscovered. GH SH Historical, known only from records usually 40 or more years old; may be rediscovered. GNR SNR Not Ranked as of yet. GU SU Unrankable - Species currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. GNA SNA A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species or ecosystem is not a suitable target for conservation activities as a result of being: 1) not confidently present in the state; 2) non-native or introduced; 3) a long distance migrant with accidental or irregular stopovers; or 4) a hybrid without conservation value. Combination or Range RanksG#G#orS#S# Indicates a range of uncertainty about the status of the species (e.g., G1G3 = Global Rank ranges between G1 and G3). S#, S#Indicates that populations in different geographic portions of the species' range in Montana have a different conservation status (e.g., S1 west of the Continental Divide and S4 east of the Continental Divide). Sub-rankT#Rank of a subspecies or variety. Appended to the global rank of the full species, e.g. G4T3 QualifiersQ Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority-Distinctiveness of this entity as a taxon at the current level is questionable; resolution of this uncertainty may result in change from a species to a subspecies orhybrid, or inclusion of this taxon in another taxon, with the resulting taxon having a lower-priority (numerically higher) conservation status rank. Appended to the global rank, e.g. G3Q ? Inexact Numeric Rank - Denotes uncertainty; inexactness. HYB Hybrid - Entity not ranked because it represents an interspecific hybrid and not a species. C Captive or Cultivated Only - Species at present exists only in captivity or cultivation, or as a reintroduced population not yet established. A Accidental - Species is accidental or casual in Montana, in other words, infrequent and outside usual range. Includes species (usually birds or butterflies) recorded once or only a few times at a location. A few of thesespecies may have bred on the few occasions they were recorded. SYN Synonym - Species reported as occurring in Montana, but the Montana Natural Heritage Program does not recognize the taxon; therefore the species is not assigned a rank. B Breeding - Rank refers to the breeding population of the species in Montana. Appended to the state rank, e.g. S2B,S5N = At risk during breeding season, but common in the winter N Nonbreeding - Rank refers to the non-breeding population of the species in Montana. Appended to the state rank, e.g. S5B,S2N = Common during breeding season, but at risk in the winter M Migratory - Species occurs in Montana only during migration. MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p 2 of 14 6/4/2020, 11:52 AM Federal Status Designations in this column reflect the status of a species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), or as “sensitive” by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) or Bureau of Land Management (BLM). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Endangered Species Act)Status of a taxon under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.A. § 1531-1543 (Supp. 1996)) Designation DescriptionsLE Listed endangered: Any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)). LT Listed threatened: Any species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). C Candidate: Those taxa for which sufficient information on biological status and threats exists to propose to list them as threatened or endangered. We encourage their consideration in environmental planning andpartnerships; however, none of the substantive or procedural provisions of the Act apply to candidate species. P Proposed threatened: Any species that is proposed in the Federal Register to be listed under section 4 of the Act. DM Recovered, delisted, and being monitored - Any previously listed species that is now recovered, has been delisted, and is being monitored. NL Not listed - No designation. XE Experimental - Essential population - An experimental population whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild. XN Experimental - Nonessential population - An experimental population of a listed species reintroduced into a specific area that receives more flexible management under the Act. CH Critical Habitat - The specific areas (i) within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to conserve the species and (II) thatmay require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it is listed upon determination that such areas are essential toconserve the species. PS Partial status - status in only a portion of the species' range. Typically indicated in a "full" species record where an infraspecific taxon or population, that has a record in the database has USESA status, but the entirespecies does not. For example, Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) is ranked PS:LT. Partial Status - Listed Threatened. Designated as Threatened in the Western U.S. Distinct Population Segment (DPS)(subspecies occidentalis) BGEPA The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (BGEPA) - (16 U.S.C. 668-668c) prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from taking bald or golden eagles, including theirparts, nests, or eggs. The BGEPA provides criminal and civil penalties for persons who take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any baldeagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof. The BGEPA defines take as pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb. "Disturb" means to agitateor bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normalbreeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts thatresult from human-induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagles return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that injuresan eagle or substantially interferes with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits and causes, or is likely to cause, a loss of productivity or nest abandonment. MBTA The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) - (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, July 3, 1918, as amended 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989) implements four treaties that provide for international protection ofmigratory birds. The statute’s language is clear that actions resulting in a "taking" or possession (permanent or temporary) of a protected species, in the absence of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) permit orregulatory authorization, are a violation of the MBTA. The MBTA states, "Unless and except as permitted by regulations ... it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means, or in any manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture,kill ... possess, offer for sale, sell ... purchase ... ship, export, import ... transport or cause to be transported ... any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird .... [The Act] prohibits the taking, killing,possession, transportation, import and export of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior." The word "take" is defined by regulation as "to pursue,hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect." The USFWS maintains a list of species protected by the MBTA at 50 CFR 10.13. This listincludes over one thousand species of migratory birds, including eagles and other raptors, waterfowl, shorebirds, seabirds, wading birds, and passerines. The USFWS also maintains a list of species not protected bythe MBTA. MBTA does not protect species that are not native to the United States or species groups not explicitly covered under the MBTA; these include species such as the house (English) sparrow, European starling,rock dove (pigeon), Eurasian collared-dove, and non-migratory upland game birds. BCC The 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additionalconservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (BCC 2008) is the most recent effort to carry out this mandate. The overall goalof this report is to accurately identify the migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent the Service's highest conservation priorities. BCC10, BCC11, and BCC17 designations represent inclusion on the Birds of Conservation Concern list for Bird Conservation Region 10, 11, and 17 in Montana, respectively. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)BLM Sensitive Species are defined by the BLM 6840 Manual as native species found on BLM-administered lands for which the BLM has the capability to significantly affect the conservation status of the species through management, and either: (1) there is information that a species has recently undergone, is undergoing, or is predicted to undergo a downward trend such that the viability of the species or a distinct population segment of the species is at risk across all or a significant portion of the species range, or; (2) the species depends on ecological refugia or specialized or unique habitats on BLM-administered lands, and there is evidence that such areas are threatened with alteration such that the continued viability of the species in that area would be at risk. Designation DescriptionsEndangeredDenotes species that are listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act Threatened Denotes species that are listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act Sensitive Denotes species listed as Sensitive on BLM lands U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Designation DescriptionsEndangeredListed as Endangered (LE) under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Threatened Listed as Threatened (LT) under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Proposed Any species that is proposed in the Federal Register to be listed under section 4 of the Act. Candidate Those taxa for which sufficient information on biological status and threats exists to propose to list them as threatened or endangered. We encourage their consideration in environmental planning andpartnerships; however, none of the substantive or procedural provisions of the Act apply to candidate species. Sensitive U.S. Forest Service Manual (2670.22) defines Sensitive Species on Forest Service lands as those for which population viability is a concern as evidenced by a significant downward trend in population or asignificant downward trend in habitat capacity. These designations were last updated in 2011 and they apply only on USFS-administered lands with land management plans finalized prior to 2017. SensitiveSpecies designations are being replaced by Species of Conservation Concern designations on individual National Forest as revised land management plans are finalized under the 2012 planning rule. Species ofConservationConcern A species, other than federally recognized Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the bestavailable scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area (36 CFR 219.9). Species of Conservation Concern replace regionalforester Sensitive Species on individual National Forests as revised land management plans are finalized under the 2012 planning rule. MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p 3 of 14 6/4/2020, 11:52 AM Andrea Pipp Program Botanist apipp@mt.gov (406) 444-3019 Montana Natural Heritage Program P.O. Box 201800 1515 E. 6th Ave. Helena, MT 59620-1800 Phone: (406) 444-5363 Fax: (406) 444-0581 E-mail: mtnhp@mt.gov FLOWERING PLANTS - DICOTS (MAGNOLIOPSIDA)2 SPECIESTOWNSHIP = 001N003E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) Acknowledgements We would like to gratefully acknowledge the many people who contributed information on plant species' occurrences and distribution throughout Montana over the years -- those contributions are the building blocks of the MTNHPdatabases and this publication. We encourage you to continue submitting data for SOC, PSOC and Under Review taxa so that status ranks and this document are as accurate and comprehensive as possible. Selected References Dorn, R.D. 1984. Vascular Plants of Montana. Mountain West Publishing, Cheyenne, WY. 276 pp. Faber-Langendoen, D., L. Master, J. Nichols, K. Snow, A. Tomaino, R. Bittman, G. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L. Ramsay, and B. Young. 2009. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Methodology for Assigning Ranks. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. On-line at http://www.natureserve.org/publications/ConsStatusAssess_RankMethodology.pdf Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 8+ vols. New York and Oxford. On-line at http://hua.huh.harvard.edu/FNA/ and http://www.efloras.org /flora_page.aspx?flora_id=1 Hitchcock, C.L and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 30 pp. On-line at: http://www.iucn.org Lavin, M. and C. Seibert. 2011. Grasses of Montana. MSU Herbarium, Dept of Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 100 pp. On-line at: http://gemini.oscs.montana.edu/~mlavin /herb/mtgrass.pdf Lesica, P., G. Moore, K.M. Peterson, and J.H. Rumely. 1984. Vascular plants of limited distribution in Montana. Montana Academy of Science Monograph No. 2. Lesica, P. and J.S. Shelly. 1991. Sensitive, threatened and endangered vascular plants of Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Montana State Library, Helena, Montana. Master, L., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Bittman, G. Hammerson, B. Heidel, J. Nichols, L. Ramsay, and A. Tomaino. 2009. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Assessing Extinction Risk. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. On-line at http://www.natureserve.org/publications/ConsStatusAssess_StatusFactors.pdf NatureServe. NatureServe Explorer: An on-line encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.7. Arlington, Virginia. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Regan, T.J., L.L. Master and G. A. Hammerson. 2004. Capturing expert knowledge for threatened species assessments: a case study using NatureServe conservation status ranks. Acta Oecologia 26: 95-107. Rollins, R.C. 1993. The Cruciferae of continental North America: Systematics of the mustard family from the Arctic to Panama. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 976 pp. USDA, NRCS. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. Contact Information For questions or comments specific to this publication or for specific plant related questions, please contact: For general questions and botany-related data requests please use the Information Request function on our website (www.mtnhp.org) or the general MTNHP contact info below. Species of Concern SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME TAXA SORT OTHER NAMES FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) FAMILY (COMMON) GLOBAL RANK STATE RANK USFWS USFS BLM MNPS THREAT CATEGORY HABITAT Castilleja exilisAnnual Indian Paintbrush Castilleja minor ssp. minor OrobanchaceaeBroomrape Family G5T5 S2 2Wetland/Riparian Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Broadwater, Deer Lodge, Fergus, Gallatin, Jefferson, Madison, Park State Rank Reason: Annual Indian Paintbrush is known from a half dozen counties in southwest Montana with the majority of documented locations on private lands. Many areas of suitable habitat have been converted to agricultural uses and/or are used for livestock grazing. Additionally, populations are susceptible to hydrologic changes and may negatively impacted by invasive weeds. Senecio hydrophilus Alkali-marsh Ragwort Asteraceae Aster/Sunflowers G5 S3 Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Broadwater, Flathead, Gallatin, Madison, Missoula, Park, Powell State Rank Reason: Senecio hydrophilus is present in alkaline habitats within a portion of southwest Montana. Plants are not that common, and occur in low- elevation wetlands that can be victum to dewatering. Potential Species of Concern Special Status Species Additions To Statewide List ADDITIONS TO STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Myriophyllum quitense Andean Water-milfoil 10/31/2019 Myriophyllum quitense is an aquatic plant that recently (2008-2016) has been found in three waterbodies of Montana. Plants are found in slow-moving rivers that vary in water quality from the Madison River in Yellowstone National Park to Toston Reservoir on the Missouri River. These locations represent a very narrow geographical portion of Montana. Proper identification of Myriophyllum species require careful collections that obtain flowering or fruiting structures, use of an appropriate and current taxonomic key, and time spent studying the specimen. More surveys are greatly needed to assess the abundance and distribution of Myriophyllum quitense in Montana. Navarretia divaricata Divaricate Navarretia 10/31/2019 Navarretia divaricata in Lesica et al. (2012) is based on a 1981 herbarium specimen (MONT 68910) collected in a pasture in Sanders County that was re-determined independently by Leigh Johnson (author for the Navarretia treatment for Flora of North America) and Matt Lavin (MONT curator) to be Navarretia squarrosa. In October 2019, retired USFS Botanist Craig Odegard brought to the MONTU herbarium his 2017 collection of Navarretia divaricata which came from a different location in Sanders County and has been verified by Shannon Kimball (MONTU Curator). Muhlenbergia minutissima Annual Muhly 10/31/2019 Muhlenbergia minutissima is known from 7 locations observed from 1895 to 2015 in central and western Montana. It is also reported to occur in northeast Montana, but specimens have not been located (Peterson in FNA 2003). A 1941 occurrence near Belgrade has been searched for in recent decades, but not re-located (Matt Lavin personal communication). Plants can occupy disturbed areas, yet populations may not be persisting. Surveys that bring forth current data on locations, populations sizes, habitat requirements, or threats is needed. Muhlenbergia andina Foxtail Muhly 10/31/2019 Muhlenbergia andina occurs widely scattered in western and south-central Montana. It grows in damp places, but often with well-drained soils. It can be found along streams, in wet meadows and seeps, and around hot springs. The low number of collections in combination with limited habitat and/or specific micro-habitat characteristics indicates it is either rare, declining, or over-looked in floristic surveys. Current data on locations, population sizes, habitat, and threats is greatly needed to better assess its status in Montana. Species of Concern2 SpeciesFiltered by the following criteria:Township = 001N003E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) Potential Species of Concern0 SpeciesFiltered by the following criteria: Township = 001N003E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) Special Status Species0 SpeciesFiltered by the following criteria: Township = 001N003E (based on mapped Species Occurrences) This section is not Filtered MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p 4 of 14 6/4/2020, 11:52 AM ADDITIONS TO STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Dichanthelium acuminatum Panic Grass 10/31/2019 Dichanthelium acuminatum is common and ubiquitous in most of the U.S. and Canada (Freckmann and Lelong in FNA 2007). The species is polymorphic and 10 major subspecies have been described, but many overlap in characteristics and widespread introgression from other Dichanthium species contributes to taxonomic difficulties (Freckmann and Lelong in FNA 2007). However, only subspecies sericeum has been documented in Montana. Dichanthelium acuminatum susp. sericeum colonizes wet soils around the edges of hot springs. It occurs widely scattered through south-central, southwest, and northwest Montana, where it can be locally common. Observation data is aging, and some re-visits to known populations did not re-locate the grass. Given its narrow habitat requirements, potential threats from ground disturbance and recreation, and lack of current data a Species of Concern rank is warranted. Current data on locations, population sizes, threats, and how it responds to natural and manmade disturbances are greatly needed. Isoetes howellii Howell's Quillwort 9/25/2018 Isoetes howellii is known from about 5 locations in Northwestern Montana. Based on limited information threats appear to be minimal, but survey work to document locations, population sizes, and threats is greatly needed. Isoetes echinospora Spiny-spore Quillwort 9/25/2018 Isoetes echinospora is known from 8 occurrences scattered in western Montana. At one occurrence, the species has been observed in 1940, 1967, and 1998 indicating persistence. However, current survey work is need to document locations, population sizes, and threats. Isoetes occidentalis Western Quillwort 9/25/2018 Isoetes occidentalis is known from two locations in northwest Montana. Survey work to identify other locations, document population sizes, and determine threats is greatly needed. Celastrus scandens Bittersweet 9/25/2018 Celastrus scandens occurs frequently in woodlands, rocky hillsides, thickets, fence rows, and roadsides in the Great Plains (McGregor 1986). The previous SH rank in Montana was based on a vague location provided on a 1975 herbarium specimen. In recent years it has been been collected at four locations in woody draws. It appears that the Montana sites represent the western edge of its range, and currently it ranks as an S1. Additional surveys of woody draws are needed to accurately document its distribution and population size in Montana. Astragalus ceramicus var.filifolius Painted Milkvetch 9/25/2018 Astragalus ceramicus variety filifolius is associated with sandy soils of the sandhills and sandstone outcrops in eastern Montana. It is known from about 20 occurrences observed mostly from 1983 to 2000. Some populations occur in State Parks, and current data on population sizes and theats is needed. The Flora of the Great Plains (1986) considered it rare in the Great Plains except for the Nebraska sandhill region where it was somewhat common. Based on aging data, limited distribution, and an association to specific habitat types it is considered a Species of Concern. Impatiens aurella Pale-yellow Jewel-weed 9/25/2018 Impatiens aurella is known from about 20 locations documented from 1886 to 2016. It is consider uncommon in Lake and Flathead Counties, where the majority of observations have been found, and rare in other counties of western Montana. It grows in wet, often organic soil in both disturbed and undisturbed wetlands, and rarely appears abundant. However, it may require or persist better with some hydrological disturbance. Re-visits to known locations and more surveys are needed to better document locations, population sizes, and threats. Astragalus ceramicus Pottery Milkvetch 9/25/2018 Astragalus ceramicus variety filifolius is associated with sandy soils of the sandhills and sandstone outcrops in eastern Montana. It is known from about 20 occurrences observed mostly from 1983 to 2000. Some populations occur in State Parks, and current data on population sizes and theats is needed. The Flora of the Great Plains (1986) considered it rare in the Great Plains except for the Nebraska sandhill region where it was somewhat common. Based on aging data, limited distribution, and an association to specific habitat types it is considered a Species of Concern. Artemisia tilesii Tilesius Wormwood 9/25/2018 Artemisia tilesii is known from seven locations located at higher elevations in western Montana. The species can be difficult to separate from Artemisia ludoviciana and A. michauxiana. Survey work to identify occurrences, determine population sizes, and assess threats is greatly needed before re-evaluating its status. Carex amplifolia Big-leaf Sedge 9/25/2018 Carex amplifolia occurs in temperate western North America where it is usually uncommon or rare from coastal lowlands to middle elevations in the mountains (FNA 2002). The previous SH rank in Montana was based on a 1978 herbarium specimen. In recent years it has been collected from several wetlands in Sanders and Flathead Counties. Additional wetland surveys are needed to accurately document its distribution and population size in Montana. Cryptogramma cascadensis Cascade Rockbrake 9/27/2017 Cryptogramma cascadensis is known from 11 locations in western Montana, of which 2 locations are poorly defined and considered historical, 5 locations occur in Wilderness areas, and the remaining 4 locations occur on U.S. Forest Service lands. Although the fern is thought to be undercollected and could be more common, current population and location data is needed to remove this plant from the Species of Concern list. Marsilea oligospora Pepperwort 9/27/2017 Marsilea oligospora has relatively recently been segregated from Marsilea vestita (FNA 1993). It is quite common around Ninepipes National Wildlife Refuge, but has not been documented elsewhere in Montana. Observation data is greatly needed to further assess its distribution and viability in Montana. Almutaster pauciflorus Alkali Marsh Aster 9/27/2017 Almutaster pauciflorus was first documented in 1988, and is now known from five sites in central and northeastern Montana. It grows in wet meadows or calcareous soil of fens within the plains. Ligusticum verticillatum Idaho Lovage 9/27/2017 Ligusticum verticillatum occurs in northern Idaho, western Montana, and British Columbia. It has been found in Lincoln and Ravalli Counties, growing in moist forests and meadows of spruce-fir habitats, becoming common in Idaho. Herbarium specimens from Missoula and Granite Counties may be mis-identified. Current data on locations, population sizes, and threats is greatly needed. Lobelia kalmii Kalm's Lobelia 9/27/2017 Lobelia kalmii occurs in fens and other high-organic wetlands in northwest, central, and northeast Montana. Approximately 34 observations have been made at about 23 unique locations. The central Montana location has not been observed since 1934. Current observation, population size, and threat information at documented sites is needed. Castilleja kerryana Kerry's Paintbrush 9/27/2017 Castilleja kerryana is a recently recognized species that is found in alpine habitat within a portion of the Scapegoat Wilderness in Montana. Populations tend to be small and scattered on slopes and ridges, and apparently absent on broad, fairly flat alpine terrain. Although Castilleja species in general have brittle stems that are easily damaged by livestock, grazing is not known to occur where Kerry's Paintbrush grows. The plant appears to be limited geographically in Montana, and additional surveys are needed to accurately determine its range. Berberis nervosa Longleaf Oregon-grape 9/27/2017 Berberis nervosa is disjunct in northern Idaho. In Montana it is known from 2-3 locations in Sanders County, of which one population in 2001 is reported to have over 1,000 plants. Additional data on locations and population sizes are greatly needed. Triodanis leptocarpa Slim-pod Venus'-looking-glass 9/27/2017 Triodanis leptocarpa is common in the southern Great Plains and extends into eastern and central Montana. It occurs in grasslands, grass-dominated rocky slopes, and sagebrush-dominated grasslands. It has been found in grazed and ungrazed lands and appears to tolerate some disturbance. Approximately 14 locations were documented prior to 1958 and occur in central Montana. Approximately 14 locations were documented since 1974 and mostly occur in eastern Montana. Re-visits to known locations and current population data is greatly needed. Carex glacialis Alpine Sedge 9/27/2017 Carex glacialis occurs throughout Canada, and has recently been discovered in the United States where it occurs at 4 locations in Montana. It grows in limestone fellfield habitats within the alpine. Populations are few, but appear stable. Surveys are needed to explore potential habitat, map its distribution, and determine population sizes. Lilium columbianum Columbia Lily 9/27/2017 Lilium columbianum is currently only known from Lincoln County, where six locations have been documented in the 1980's and 1990's. This species is vulnerable to extirpation in Montana because its attractiveness, potential to be over-collected, and limited range. Native lilies have rarely survived in gardens. Current information on known locations is greatly needed. Scolochloa festucacea Sprangletop 9/27/2017 Scolochloa festucacea occurs through most of Canada and in portions of mid-western and western States. In Montana it is known from 3 locations collected from 1949 to 1999 in Flathead County. A fourth location from a specimen with a poorly defined location in Carbon county needs to be verified. Surveys to find this species have been unsuccessful. Lilium philadelphicum Wood Lily 9/27/2017 Lilium philadelphicum has a patchy, but wide distribution in Montana, and is often found in specialized habitats. Observations in eastern Montana have not been made since the 1930's and 1940's. This species is vulnerable to extirpation in Montana because of its attractiveness, potential to be over-collected, and habitat requirements. Native lilies have rarely survived in gardens. Current information on known locations, especially in the eastern counties, is greatly needed. Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum Limestone Maidenhair Spleenwort 10/4/2016 Limited habitat in MT. Limited populations. Equisetum palustre Marsh Horsetail 10/4/2016 Equisetum palustre is known from a small number of sites in seven counties of western Montana. Equisetum pratense Meadow Horsetail 10/4/2016 Equisetum pratense has accurately been identified to occur in a few places within three counties of Montana. Trifolium cyathiferum Cup Clover 10/4/2016 Trifolium cyathiferum occurs in two counties with limited information on population size. One occurrence was re-visited in 1998 and found to be absent due to habitat succession. Delphinium glaucum Pale Larkspur 10/4/2016 Based on the discrepancy in the number of herbarium specimens identified as Delphinium glaucum (CPNWH 2015) and in its Montana County distribution (Lesica 2012), there seems to be an issue in how to accurately identify this species. Specimens deposited in herbaria outside of Montana will need to be examined before it can be demonstrated that this plant is more widely distributed. Delphinium depauperatum Slim Larkspur 10/4/2016 Delphinium depauperatum has been identified in Beaverhead, Flathead, and possibly Jefferson Counties in western Montana. It is found in common habitats, yet relatively few occurrences have been documented. Trifolium microcephalum Woolly Clover 10/4/2016 Trifolium microcephalum occurs in two counties of Montana with limited population sizes. Descurainia torulosa Wyoming Tansymustard 10/4/2016 Descurainia torulosa is known in Montana from one location in Park County; in Wyoming this species is also considered rare. Piperia elongata Dense-flower Rein Orchid 10/4/2016 Piperia elongata has been observed once in 1957 in Lincoln County, Montana. Allium geyeri var. geyeri Geyer's Onion 10/4/2016 In Montana this variety of Allium geyeri has been found in limited numbers with a limited distribution. Piperia elegans Hillside Rein Orchid 10/4/2016 Between 1902 and 1995, Piperia elegans has been observed at 16 locations in northwest Montana. Observations since 1995 have not been reported. Bolboschoenus fluviatilis River Bulrush 10/4/2016 Accurate identifications of Bolboshchoenus fluviatilis are found in very few populations within three counties of Montana. Stellaria crassifolia Fleshy Stitchwort 6/18/2014 Rare in Montana where it is known from a few sparsely distributed locations. Utricularia ochroleuca Northern Bladderwort 6/18/2014 Rare in Montana, where it is currently known from one population that may be detrimentally impacted by an adjacent gravelpit. Senecio integerrimus var.scribneri Scribner's Ragwort 4/2/2013 Regional endemic with the core of its range in Montana. Few documented locations, though the species may be under-reported/under-collected. Some loss and degradation of habitat has likely occurred, primarily from agricultural uses. Physaria pachyphylla Thick-leaf Bladderpod 11/5/2012 Local Endemic restricted to Carbon County and probably adjacent Big Horn County as well as adjacent WY. Currently known from only a few observations. Pedicularis pulchella Mountain Lousewort 11/1/2012 Regional endemic from southern Montana and adjacent Wyoming with few documented locations, though the species may be under-reported/under-collected. High-elevation habitat does not appear to be at risk. Collection of additional population information may show that the viability of the species is not at risk in the state. Mimulus clivicola North Idaho Monkeyflower 4/22/2011 Recently documented in Montana from 1 collection from 2010. Erigeron grandiflorus Large-flower Fleabane 2/14/2011 Known in Montana from only a couple of collections. Botrychium lunaria Common Moonwort 2/11/2011 Rare in the state. Few observation records and population levels are poorly documented. MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p 5 of 14 6/4/2020, 11:52 AM ADDITIONS TO STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Botrychium lanceolatum Lanceleaf Moonwort 2/11/2011 Rare in the state. Very few observation records and population levels are poorly documented. Botrychium simplex Least Moonwort 2/11/2011 Rare in the state. Very few observation records and population levels are poorly documented. Botrychium pinnatum Northern Moonwort 2/11/2011 Rare in the state. Very few observation records and population levels are poorly documented. Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine 2/11/2011 Large declines in population levels and continued threats from white pine blister rust and mountain pine beetle attacks threaten the long-term viability of the species. Mimulus floribundus Floriferous Monkeyflower 2/11/2011 Known in Montana from two historical collections. Symphyotrichum molle Soft Aster 2/11/2011 Known in Montana from 1 collection from the Bighorn Mtns. Though its exact status is uncertain, its rarity warrants its inclusion as a Species of Concern. Mimulus hymenophyllus Thinsepal monkeyflower 2/11/2011 Known in Montana from only 1 locality. Penstemon humilis Low Beardtongue 12/16/2010 Known in Montana from 1 collection from Beaverhead County. Douglasia conservatorum Bloom Peak Douglasia 3/16/2010 Described as a new species in 2010 based on a single location along the Idaho/Montana border. Senecio elmeri Elmer's Ragwort 10/26/2009 Senecio elmeri is the correct identity for the single Montana location of what was previously and incorrectly called Senecio spribillei. Physaria ludoviciana Silver Bladderpod 6/8/2009 Restricted in Montana to sandy sites in the extreme eastern portion of the state. Botrychium sp. 4 Adnate Moonwort 2/1/2008 A recently described species which is globally rare and recently discovered in northwest Montana. Botrychium gallicomontanum Frenchman's Bluff Moonwort 2/1/2008 A recently described species which is globally rare and recently discovered in northwest Montana. Botrychium michiganense Michigan Moonwort 2/1/2008 A recently described species which is globally rare and recently discovered in northwest Montana. Botrychium tunux Moosewort 2/1/2008 A recently described species which is globally rare and recently discovered in northwest Montana. Botrychium yaaxudakeit Yakutat Moonwort 2/1/2008 A recently described species which is globally rare and recently discovered in northwest Montana. Delphinium burkei Meadow Larkspur 2/1/2008 Rare. Currently known from a few locations in western Montana in mesic meadows and grasslands. Castilleja nivea Snow Indian Paintbrush 12/14/2007 Rare. Currently known from only a few collections from sw and south-central Montana mountain ranges. Most of these collections were made more than 30 years ago. Cirsium pulcherrimum Wyoming Thistle 12/15/2006 Botrychium montanum Mountain Moonwort 6/1/2006 Collomia debilis var. camporum Alpine Collomia 6/1/2006 Erigeron allocotus Big Horn Fleabane 6/1/2006 Draba daviesiae Bitterroot Draba 6/1/2006 Ipomoea leptophylla Bush morning-glory 6/1/2006 Penstemon caryi Cary's Beardtongue 6/1/2006 Cardamine rupicola Cliff Toothwort 6/1/2006 Polygonum polygaloides ssp.confertiflorum Dense-flower Knotweed 6/1/2006 Senecio eremophilus Desert Groundsel 6/1/2006 Physaria klausii Divide Bladderpod 6/1/2006 Erigeron flabellifolius Fan-leaved Fleabane 6/1/2006 Castilleja crista-galli Greater Red Indian Paintbrush 6/1/2006 Oxytropis lagopus var.conjugans Hare's-foot Locoweed 6/1/2006 Delphinium bicolor ssp. calcicola Limestone Larkspur 6/1/2006 Camissonia subacaulis Long-leaf Evening-primrose 6/1/2006 Cirsium longistylum Long-styled Thistle 6/1/2006 Synthyris canbyi Mission Mountain kittentails 6/1/2006 Brickellia oblongifolia Mojave Brickellbush 6/1/2006 Erigeron parryi Parry's Fleabane 6/1/2006 Pedicularis contorta var.ctenophora Pink Coil-beaked Lousewort 6/1/2006 Eriogonum brevicaule var.canum Rabbit Buckwheat 6/1/2006 Eriogonum soliceps Railroad Canyon Wild Buckwheat 6/1/2006 Sphaeromeria capitata Rock-tansy 6/1/2006 Physaria saximontana var.dentata Rocky Mountain Twinpod 6/1/2006 Pedicularis crenulata Scallop-leaf Lousewort 6/1/2006 MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p 6 of 14 6/4/2020, 11:52 AM ADDITIONS TO STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Pedicularis contorta var. rubicunda Selway Coil-beaked Lousewort 6/1/2006 Castilleja gracillima Slender Indian Paintbrush 6/1/2006 Townsendia spathulata Sword Townsend-daisy 6/1/2006 Draba crassa Thick-leaf Whitlow-grass 6/1/2006 Penstemon flavescens Yellow Beardtongue 6/1/2006 Calamagrostis tweedyi Cascade reedgrass 6/1/2006 Listera borealis Northern Twayblade 6/1/2006 Papaver pygmaeum Alpine Glacier Poppy 6/1/2001 Salix cascadensis Cascade Willow 6/1/2001 Githopsis specularioides Common Blue-cup 6/1/2001 Physaria douglasii Douglas Bladderpod 6/1/2001 Viola selkirkii Great-spurred Violet 6/1/2001 Cryptantha humilis Round-headed Cryptantha 6/1/2001 Mimulus ringens Square-stem Monkeyflower 6/1/2001 Carex chalciolepis Copper-scale Sedge 6/1/2001 Previously referred to as C. chalciolepis Carex lacustris Lake-bank Sedge 6/1/2001 Acorus americanus Sweetflag 6/1/2001 Botrychium pallidum Pale Moonwort 3/1/1999 Balsamorhiza hookeri Hooker's Balsamroot 3/1/1999 Alnus rubra Red Alder 3/1/1999 Erigeron tener Slender Fleabane 3/1/1999 Mimulus ampliatus Stalk-leaved Monkeyflower 3/1/1999 Previously referred to as M. patulus Ribes laxiflorum Trailing Black Currant 3/1/1999 Puccinellia lemmonii Lemmon's Alkaligrass 3/1/1999 Sisyrinchium septentrionale Northern Blue-eyed-grass 3/1/1999 Carex pallescens Palish Sedge 3/1/1999 Lycopodium sitchense Alaskan Clubmoss 6/1/1997 Botrychium campestre Prairie Moonwort 6/1/1997 Botrychium pedunculosum Stalked Moonwort 6/1/1997 Eriogonum visheri Visher's Buckwheat 6/1/1997 Carex chalciolepis Copper-scale Sedge 6/1/1997 Previously referred to as C. chalciolepis Carex nelsonii Nelson's Sedge 6/1/1997 Carex vaginata Sheathed Sedge 6/1/1997 Evax prolifera Big-head Evax 5/1/1996 Potentilla hyparctica Low Arctic Cinquefoil 5/1/1996 Elatine brachysperma Short-seeded Waterwort 5/1/1996 Eriophorum viridicarinatum Green-keeled Cottonsedge 5/1/1996 Carex prairea Prairie Sedge 5/1/1996 Spiranthes diluvialis Ute Ladies'-tresses 5/1/1996 Botrychium lineare Linearleaf Moonwort 5/1/1995 Physaria brassicoides Double Bladderpod 5/1/1995 Heterotheca villosa var.depressa Low Hairy Goldenaster 5/1/1995 Lomatogonium rotatum Marsh Felwort 5/1/1995 Primula incana Mealy Primrose 5/1/1995 Lomatium nuttallii Nuttall Desert-parsley 5/1/1995 Asclepias ovalifolia Ovalleaf Milkweed 5/1/1995 MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p 7 of 14 6/4/2020, 11:52 AM ADDITIONS TO STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Eustoma grandiflorum Showy Prairie-gentian 5/1/1995 Gymnosteris parvula Small-flower Gymnosteris 5/1/1995 Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed 5/1/1995 Poa laxa ssp. banffiana Banff Bluegrass 5/1/1995 Trisetum orthochaetum Missoula County Oats 5/1/1995 Scirpus pendulus Pendulous Bulrush 5/1/1995 Poa arnowiae Short-leaved Bluegrass 5/1/1995 Previously called P. curta Eriophorum gracile Slender Cottongrass 5/1/1995 Botrychium ascendens Upward-lobed Moonwort 5/1/1994 Pyrrocoma carthamoides var. subsquarrosa Beartooth Large-flowered Goldenweed 5/1/1994 Physalis heterophylla Clammy Ground-cherry 5/1/1994 Senecio pauciflorus Few-flowered Butterweed 5/1/1994 Penstemon globosus Globe Beardtongue 5/1/1994 Stellaria jamesiana James Stitchwort 5/1/1994 Delphinium bicolor ssp.calcicola Limestone Larkspur 5/1/1994 Referrable to D. bicolor ssp. novum prior to 1995 Cryptantha humilis Round-headed Cryptantha 5/1/1994 Townsendia leptotes Slender Townsend-daisy 5/1/1994 Ipomopsis minutiflora Small-flower Ipomopsis 5/1/1994 Lomatium attenuatum Taper-tip Desert-parsley 5/1/1994 Physaria didymocarpa var.lanata Woolly Twinpod 5/1/1994 Saxifraga hirculus Yellow Marsh Saxifrage 5/1/1994 Carex luzulina var.atropurpurea Black and Purple Sedge 5/1/1994 Oryzopsis contracta Contracted Indian Ricegrass 5/1/1994 Scheuchzeria palustris Pod Grass 5/1/1994 Cyperus erythrorhizos Red-root Flatsedge 5/1/1994 Eriophorum scheuchzeri Scheuchzer Cotton-grass 5/1/1994 Primula alcalina Alkali Primrose 4/1/1993 Papaver pygmaeum Alpine Glacier Poppy 4/1/1993 Draba daviesiae Bitterroot Draba 4/1/1993 Sphaeromeria argentea Chicken-sage 4/1/1993 Cardamine rupicola Cliff Toothwort 4/1/1993 Oxytropis campestris var.columbiana Columbia Locoweed 4/1/1993 Erigeron flabellifolius Fan-leaved Fleabane 4/1/1993 Vernonia fasciculata ssp.corymbosa Fascicled Ironweed 4/1/1993 Cuscuta pentagona Field Dodder 4/1/1993 Oxytropis lagopus var.conjugans Hare's-foot Locoweed 4/1/1993 Cymopterus hendersonii Henderson's Wavewing 4/1/1993 Penstemon grandiflorus Large Flowered Beardtongue 4/1/1993 Braya humilis Low Braya 4/1/1993 Viguiera multiflora Many-flowered Viguiera 4/1/1993 Stenotus multicaulis Many-stem Goldenweed 4/1/1993 Cryptantha scoparia Miner's Candle 4/1/1993 Synthyris canbyi Mission Mountain kittentails 4/1/1993 MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p 8 of 14 6/4/2020, 11:52 AM ADDITIONS TO STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Nama densum Nama 4/1/1993 Oxytropis deflexa var. foliolosa Nodding Locoweed 4/1/1993 Eriogonum ovalifolium var.ovalifolium Oval-leaf Buckwheat 4/1/1993 Previously referred to as E. ovalifolium var. nevadense Oxytropis parryi Parry's Locoweed 4/1/1993 Physalis pumila ssp. hispida Prairie Ground-cherry 4/1/1993 Previously referred to as P. virginiana var. hispida Eriogonum brevicaule var.canum Rabbit Buckwheat 4/1/1993 E. lagopus Sphaeromeria capitata Rock-tansy 4/1/1993 Physaria saximontana var.dentata Rocky Mountain Twinpod 4/1/1993 Draba globosa Round-fruited Draba 4/1/1993 Claytonia arenicola Sand Springbeauty 4/1/1993 Pedicularis contorta var.rubicunda Selway Coil-beaked Lousewort 4/1/1993 Mimulus breviflorus Short-flowered Monkeyflower 4/1/1993 Pediocactus simpsonii Simpson's Hedgehog Cactus 4/1/1993 Camissonia parvula Small Camissonia 4/1/1993 Eriogonum salsuginosum Smooth Buckwheat 4/1/1993 Chenopodium subglabrum Smooth Goosefoot 4/1/1993 Solidago velutina Three-nerved Goldenrod 4/1/1993 Transberingia bursifolia ssp. virgata Twiggy Halimolobos 4/1/1993 Symphyotrichum lanceolatum White Panicle Aster 4/1/1993 Previously referred to as Aster simplex var. ramosissimus Polygonum polygaloides White-margin Knotweed 4/1/1993 Penstemon flavescens Yellow Beardtongue 4/1/1993 Muhlenbergia minutissima Annual Muhly 4/1/1993 Carex rostrata Glaucus Beaked Sedge 4/1/1993 Phippsia algida Ice Grass 4/1/1993 Carex eburnea Ivory Sedge 4/1/1993 Stipa lettermanii Letterman's Needlegrass 4/1/1993 Liparis loeselii Loesel's Twayblade 4/1/1993 Trisetum orthochaetum Missoula County Oats 4/1/1993 Agrostis mertensii Northern Bentgrass 4/1/1993 Scirpus pallidus Pale Bulrush 4/1/1993 Eriophorum callitrix Sheathed Cotton-grass 4/1/1993 Acorus americanus Sweetflag 4/1/1993 Juncus triglumis Three-flowered Rush 4/1/1993 Stipa thurberiana Thurber's Needlegrass 4/1/1993 Dichanthelium wilcoxianum Wilcox's Panic Grass 4/1/1993 MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p 9 of 14 6/4/2020, 11:52 AM Species Removed From Statewide List SPECIES REMOVED FROM STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Pediomelum hypogaeum Little Indian Breadroot 6/10/2013 Moved to PSOC status. Status re-determined as relatively low risk, low to moderate priority due to widespread geographic range, occurrence in over a dozen subwatersheds and low threat levels. Population numbers are small according to the limited data available, though additional surveys would likely find more populations as well as document many more individuals. Sphaeralcea munroana White-stemmed globemallow 5/30/2013 Species was moved to PSOC status pending the collection and availability of additional information concerning the species' conservation needs and population dynamics in Montana. Most documented occurrences are from roadsides and these may be adventive or introductions. Polygonum austiniae Austin's Knotweed 5/29/2013 Status re-determined as relatively low risk, low to moderate priority due to widespread geographic range, occurrence in many subwatersheds, low threat levels and habitat trends that appear to be stable. Phlox andicola Plains Phlox 5/29/2013 Status re-determined as relatively low risk, low to moderate priority due to widespread geographic range, moderate population levels, low intrinsic vulnerability and low threat levels. Solidago velutina Three-nerved Goldenrod 5/24/2013 Species is only known in Montana from one 1980 collection in the Stillwater River Valley with little additional data available. Until additional documentation on the species distribution, abundance, habitat preferences and vulnerbaility becomes available, status as a Species of Concern is unwarranted. Ranunculus hyperboreus High Northern Buttercup 5/20/2013 Status re-determined as low risk, low priority due to relatively widespread geographic range, occurrence in numerous subwatersheds and low threat levels. Additionally, the species does does not appear to be restricted to rare habitats nor have instrinsic characteristics that make it especially vulnerable. See state rank details for additional information. Sphenopholis intermedia Slender Wedgegrass 2/22/2013 Rare to uncommon in the state, where it is sporadically distributed in various mesic sites. Species may respond favorably to some disturbance and threats appear to be minimal, as such its viability in the state does appear to be at significant risk. As a result, the species was moved to the Potential Species of Concern Status pending additional information. Balsamorhiza macrophylla Large-leaved Balsamroot 1/4/2013 Status re-determined as relatively low risk, low to moderate priority due to combination of moderate population levels, low threat levels, and habitat trends that appear to be stable. Additionally, the species does does not appear to be restricted to rare habitats nor have instrinsic characteristics that make it especially vulnerable. Botrychium montanum Mountain Moonwort 6/7/2012 Status re-determined as relatively low risk, low to moderate priority due to widespread geographic range, occurrence in many subwatersheds, low threat levels and habitat trends that appear to be stable. Cirsium brevistylum Short-styled Thistle 6/7/2012 Dropped from SOC status pending additional information and a re-evaluation of its status to determine if the species' viability or its habitat is at risk. Unclear if the species has benefited or expanded its range from human-caused disturbances. Botrychium lunaria Common Moonwort 6/1/2012 Status re-determined as low risk, low priority due to widespread geographic range, occurrence in numerous subwatersheds, low threat levels and habitat trends that appear to be stable. See additional state rank details. Stellaria crassifolia Fleshy Stitchwort 5/29/2012 Species is poorly documented from Montana and its conservation priority and needs cannot be accurately assessed without additional information. Dropped from SOC status pending additional information and a re-evaluation of its status to determine if the species' viability or its habitat is at risk. Stellaria jamesiana James Stitchwort 5/29/2012 Species is poorly documented from Montana and its conservation priority and needs cannot be accurately assessed without additional information. Dropped from SOC status pending additional information and a re-evaluation of its status to determine if the species' viability or its habitat is at risk. Suckleya suckleyana Poison Suckleya 5/29/2012 Species is poorly documented from Montana and its conservation priority and needs cannot be accurately assessed without additional information. Dropped from SOC status pending additional information and a re-evaluation of its status to determine if the species' viability or its habitat is at risk. Listera borealis Northern Twayblade 5/4/2012 Status re-determined as low risk, low priority due to widespread geographic range, occurrence in many subwatersheds, low threat levels and habitat trends that appear to be stable. Juncus hallii Hall's Rush 3/12/2012 Status re-determined as low risk, low priority due to its occurrence in at least 15 subwatersheds, low threat levels, habitat trends that appear stable and overall low risk scores in all vulnerability factors. Sphaeromeria capitata Rock-tansy 1/5/2012 Regional endemic, though population levels are robust, threats to the species' viability are minimal and large areas of intact habitat exist. Penstemon globosus Globe Beardtongue 3/18/2011 Though rare in the state, it is more common and widespread in southwest Montana than previously reported by MTNHP. Its habitat and viability generally do not appear to be at risk in Montana. Castilleja crista-galli Greater Red Indian Paintbrush 3/18/2011 Though uncommon in the state, it is more common and widespread in southwest Montana than previously reported by MTNHP. Its habitat and viability generally do not appear to be at risk in Montana. Potentilla uniflora One-flowered Cinquefoil 3/1/2011 Though rare in the state, the species does not appear to be at any significant risk of extirpation as a result of relatively healthy population levels and lack of threats to those populations and the species' habitat. Poa arnowiae Short-leaved Bluegrass 3/3/2010 Moved to Status Under Review pending further taxonomic clarification of Poa anowiae in relation to Poa wheeleri and the previously used name Poa curta. Additional review of Montana material is needed. Eustoma grandiflorum Showy Prairie-gentian 2/11/2010 Removed from SOC status due to insufficient information on the habitat and locality of the single Montana collection. May have been an isolated introduction into the state. Townsendia spathulata Sword Townsend-daisy 9/16/2009 The species' viability in the state does not appear to be at risk due in part to its relatively widespread distribution in southwest and south-central montana and its overall abundance. Delphinium bicolor ssp.calcicola Limestone Larkspur 9/11/2009 A Montana endemic that is widespread in sw Montana and locally common in some habitats. The viability of this endemic subspecies does not appear to be at risk. Orogenia linearifolia Great Basin Indian-potato 5/27/2009 More common than previously known with few potential threats to the viability of the species in MT Ranunculus jovis Jove's Buttercup 5/27/2009 More common than previously known with very few potential threats to the viability of the species in MT Erigeron radicatus Taprooted Fleabane 4/8/2008 Removed due to overall abundance and lack of threats to high elevation habitats. Eriogonum brevicaule var.canum Rabbit Buckwheat 12/15/2006 Locally common in parts of Carbon and Big Horn Counties. Trifolium cyathiferum Cup Clover 6/1/2006 Status of the species in Montana requires additional review. At least 2 of the 3 documented locations in Montana are likely adventive. Senecio pauciflorus Few-flowered Butterweed 6/1/2006 Status of the species in Montana requires additional review. Carex chalciolepis Copper-scale Sedge 6/1/2006 Reports of this species from Montana require additional review. Carex pallescens Palish Sedge 6/1/2006 Occurrences of this species in Montana are likely introduced. Cypripedium parviflorum Small Yellow Lady's-slipper 6/1/2006 Moved to PSOC list due in part to the number of known occurrences, level of threat to the species and the relatively wide distribution in the state. Cirsium longistylum Long-styled Thistle 12/15/2004 Removed from SOC status at the time as a result of review showing that a state rank of S3 was warranted. Lycopodium sitchense Alaskan Clubmoss 4/1/2003 Botrychium montanum Mountain Moonwort 4/1/2003 Allotropa virgata Candystick 4/1/2003 Chrysosplenium tetrandrum Northern Golden-carpet 4/1/2003 Castilleja gracillima Slender Indian Paintbrush 4/1/2003 Carex livida Pale Sedge 4/1/2003 Senecio eremophilus Desert Groundsel 6/1/2001 S. eremophilus var eremophilus Eurybia glauca Gray Aster 6/1/2001 Viola renifolia Kidney-leaf White Violet 6/1/2001 Salix wolfii var. wolfii Wolf Willow 6/1/2001 This section is not Filtered MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p 10 of 14 6/4/2020, 11:52 AM SPECIES REMOVED FROM STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Carex magellanica Poor Sedge 6/1/2001 Botrychium minganense Mingan Island Moonwort 3/1/1999 Salix cascadensis Cascade Willow 3/1/1999 Myosotis verna Early Forget-me-not 3/1/1999 Conioselinum scopulorum Hemlock Parsley 3/1/1999 Helenium hoopesii Orange Sneezeweed 3/1/1999 Cryptantha flavoculata Pale Yellow Cryptantha 3/1/1999 Agoseris lackschewitzii Pink Agoseris 3/1/1999 Gentiana prostrata Pygmy Gentian 3/1/1999 Cryptantha humilis Round-headed Cryptantha 3/1/1999 Gentianella tenella Slender Gentian 3/1/1999 Halenia deflexa Spurred Gentian 3/1/1999 Bidens comosa Three-lobe Beggarticks 3/1/1999 Carex neurophora Alpine Nerved Sedge 3/1/1999 Calamagrostis tweedyi Cascade reedgrass 3/1/1999 Carex chalciolepis Copper-scale Sedge 3/1/1999 Previously referred to as C. chalciolepis Allium fibrillum Fringed Onion 3/1/1999 Carex nelsonii Nelson's Sedge 3/1/1999 Agrostis mertensii Northern Bentgrass 3/1/1999 Juncus triglumis Three-flowered Rush 3/1/1999 Papaver pygmaeum Alpine Glacier Poppy 6/1/1997 Evax prolifera Big-head Evax 6/1/1997 Physaria klausii Divide Bladderpod 6/1/1997 Erigeron flabellifolius Fan-leaved Fleabane 6/1/1997 Cuscuta pentagona Field Dodder 6/1/1997 Heterotheca villosa var. depressa Low Hairy Goldenaster 6/1/1997 Chrysopsis villosa Spiraea x pyramidata Pyramidal Spiraea 6/1/1997 Eriogonum brevicaule var.canum Rabbit Buckwheat 6/1/1997 E. lagopus Erigeron flagellaris Running Fleabane 6/1/1997 Pedicularis contorta var.rubicunda Selway Coil-beaked Lousewort 6/1/1997 Madia minima Small-headed Tarweed 6/1/1997 Bidens vulgata Tall Bur-marigold 6/1/1997 Specifically B. vulgata var. schizantha Symphyotrichum lanceolatum White Panicle Aster 6/1/1997 Previously referred to as Aster simplex var. ramosissimus Polygonum polygaloides White-margin Knotweed 6/1/1997 Lilium columbianum Columbia Lily 6/1/1997 Oryzopsis contracta Contracted Indian Ricegrass 6/1/1997 Eriophorum viridicarinatum Green-keeled Cottonsedge 6/1/1997 Carex eburnea Ivory Sedge 6/1/1997 Trisetum orthochaetum Missoula County Oats 6/1/1997 Scirpus pendulus Pendulous Bulrush 6/1/1997 Astragalus platytropis Broad-keeled Milkvetch 5/1/1996 Penstemon caryi Cary's Beardtongue 5/1/1996 Castilleja pilosa var. longispica Parrot-head Indian Paintbrush 5/1/1996 C. longispica Physalis pumila ssp. hispida Prairie Ground-cherry 5/1/1996 Previously referred to as P. virginiana var. hispida Carex luzulina var. atropurpurea Black and Purple Sedge 5/1/1996 MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p 11 of 14 6/4/2020, 11:52 AM SPECIES REMOVED FROM STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Carex torreyi Torrey's Sedge 5/1/1996 Erigeron allocotus Big Horn Fleabane 5/1/1995 Regional endemic, secure Draba daviesiae Bitterroot Draba 5/1/1995 Regional endemic, secure Physalis heterophylla Clammy Ground-cherry 5/1/1995 Adventive Cardamine rupicola Cliff Toothwort 5/1/1995 State endemic, secure Astragalus chamaeleuce Ground Milkvetch 5/1/1995 Many populations, low threats Oxytropis lagopus var.conjugans Hare's-foot Locoweed 5/1/1995 State endemic, secure Cymopterus hendersonii Henderson's Wavewing 5/1/1995 Taxonomic revision pending Delphinium bicolor ssp. calcicola Limestone Larkspur 5/1/1995 Referable to D. bicolor ssp. novum prior to 1995 Ericameria discoidea var.linearis Linear-leaved Whitestem Goldenbush 5/1/1995 Many populations, low threats Stenotus multicaulis Many-stem Goldenweed 5/1/1995 New populations, low threats Synthyris canbyi Mission Mountain kittentails 5/1/1995 Regional endemic, secure Sphaeromeria capitata Rock-tansy 5/1/1995 Many populations, low threats Physaria saximontana var. dentata Rocky Mountain Twinpod 5/1/1995 Epilobium suffruticosum Shrubby Willowherb 5/1/1995 Many populations, low threats Gaultheria ovatifolia Slender Wintergreen 5/1/1995 Many populations, low threats Lorandersonia linifolia Spearleaf Rabbitbrush 5/1/1995 Locally common, low threats Townsendia spathulata Sword Townsend-daisy 5/1/1995 Many populations, low threats Trifolium latifolium Twin Clover 5/1/1995 Many populations, low threats Trifolium microcephalum Woolly Clover 5/1/1995 Many populations, low threats Penstemon flavescens Yellow Beardtongue 5/1/1995 Regional endemic, secure Muhlenbergia minutissima Annual Muhly 5/1/1995 Many populations, low threats Eriophorum viridicarinatum Green-keeled Cottonsedge 5/1/1995 Many populations, locally common Amphiscirpus nevadensis Nevada Bulrush 5/1/1995 Many populations, low threats Scirpus pallidus Pale Bulrush 5/1/1995 Many populations, low threats Dichanthelium acuminatum Panic Grass 5/1/1995 Many populations, low threats. Previously referred to as Panicum occidentale Acorus americanus Sweetflag 5/1/1995 Specimen review needed Stipa thurberiana Thurber's Needlegrass 5/1/1995 Probably accidental Carex vallicola Valley Sedge 5/1/1995 Many populations, low threats Dichanthelium wilcoxianum Wilcox's Panic Grass 5/1/1995 Many populations, low threats Lycopodium alpinum Alpine Clubmoss 5/1/1994 More common than previously known Orobanche corymbosa Flat-topped Broomrape 5/1/1994 More common than previously known Astragalus lentiginosus Freckled Milkvetch 5/1/1994 Limited distribution Stanleya viridiflora Green Prince's plume 5/1/1994 Limited distribution Arenaria kingii King's Arenaria 5/1/1994 More common than previously known Eriogonum ovalifolium var.ovalifolium Oval-leaf Buckwheat 5/1/1994 More common than previously known. Previously referred to as E. ovalifolium var. nevadense Astragalus leptaleus Park Milkvetch 5/1/1994 Limited distribution Castilleja flava var. rustica Rustic Indian Paintbrush 5/1/1994 More common than previously known. Many populations, low threats Astragalus argophyllus Silver-leaved Milkvetch 5/1/1994 More common than previously known Pediocactus simpsonii Simpson's Hedgehog Cactus 5/1/1994 More common than previously known Erigeron gracilis Slender Fleabane 5/1/1994 More common than previously known Mimulus suksdorfii Suksdorf Monkeyflower 5/1/1994 More common than previously known Senecio debilis Weak Groundsel 5/1/1994 Limited distribution Trisetum orthochaetum Missoula County Oats 5/1/1994 Sterile hybrid MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p 12 of 14 6/4/2020, 11:52 AM SPECIES REMOVED FROM STATEWIDE LIST SPECIES DATE NOTES Selaginella watsonii Watson's Spikemoss 4/1/1993 More common than previously known Ipomopsis pumila Dwarf Ipomopsis 4/1/1993 More common than previously known Ligusticum filicinum Fern-leaf Lovage 4/1/1993 More common than previously known Gilia leptomeria Great Basin Gilia 4/1/1993 More common than previously known Townsendia incana Hoary Townsend-daisy 4/1/1993 More common than previously known Geocaulon lividum Northern Toadflax 4/1/1993 More common than previously known Claytonia multiscapa Rydberg’s Springbeauty 4/1/1993 1994 note: More common than previously known Camissonia minor Small-flowered Evening-primrose 4/1/1993 More common than previously known Phacelia ivesiana var.glandulifera Sticky Scorpion-weed 4/1/1993 More common than previously known Streptanthella longirostris Streptanthella 4/1/1993 More common than previously known Gilia tweedyi Tweedy's Gilia 4/1/1993 More common than previously known. Previously referred to as G. inconspicua var. tweedyi Xylorhiza glabriuscula Woody Aster 4/1/1993 More common than previously known Stanleya tomentosa Woolly Prince's plume 4/1/1993 More common than previously known Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass 4/1/1993 Adventive MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p 13 of 14 6/4/2020, 11:52 AM Citation for data on this website:Montana Plant Species of Concern Report. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Retrieved on 6/4/2020, from http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p 14 of 14 6/4/2020, 11:52 AM Attachment 14 Cultural Resources ADDENDUM to: DNRC Project No. 2018-3-1 A Cultural and Paleontologic Resources Inventory of SECTION 6, TIN R3E By Patrick Rennie for the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), March 2018. Prepared by Brenna Moloney Ethnoscience Inc. 4140 King Avenue East Billings, Montana 59102 Prepared for Great West Engineering 6780 Trade Center Ave. Billings, MT 59101 November 2018 2 Abstract In October 2018, Ethnoscience, Inc. conducted an inventory of cultural and paleontological resources on land in Section 6, TIN R3E. The tract lies just east of the Gallatin County Landfill, also known as the Logan Landfill. The land was previously State School Trust Land but was transferred to Gallatin County ownership at the time of the survey. The surveyed land is located in west Gallatin County on the south side of Interstate 90, just east of Logan, Montana (Figure 1). Previously, in March 2018, the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) conducted a survey (DNRC Project No. 2018-3-1) of the property as it considered exchanging Section 6, TIN R3E for Section 1, TIN R2E because the Gallatin Solid Waste District requires additional property for landfill expansion. The March 2018 survey and report were conducted and prepared by DNRC archaeologist Patrick Rennie. The present Ethnoscience work is an addendum to that report under contract with Great West Engineering as part of their planning process for landfill expansion. The October 2018 survey by Ethnoscience resulted in identification of two new sites and three isolated finds. The following report provides a description of the project area, the field methods used, and results. 1.0 Project Overview The area of potential effect (APE) is all of Section 6, Township 1 North, Range 3 East except for that portion in the NW quarter presently used for landfill operations (Figures 1 and 2). Survey in October 2018 concentrated on the area west of the creek on the eastern edge of Section 6, which will be developed for landfill expansion and no land east of the creek was surveyed. The topography of the project area is moderate to severe rolling prairie lying just east of the confluence of the Gallatin and Madison rivers. The prairie landscape within the project area is broken periodically by shallow to moderately deep ephemeral drainages. Vegetation in the project area consists of short prairie grasses, mixed sagebrush and prickly pear. Section 6 was cultivated in the past, as evidenced by historic aerial imagery and remnant plow scarring on the land. The project area consists 3 of sandy to silty loams of the Sheege Series while the bedrock consists of limestone, dolomite, and green shales (Veseth and Montagne 1980). Prior to conducting fieldwork, Ethnoscience reviewed record search results received from the Montana State Historic Preservation Office, as well as Bureau of Land Management General Land Office maps and property records, and historic USGS aerials to determine the potential for cultural resources in the proposed project area. According to the record search results, in addition to the 2018 DNRC survey, cultural inventories of portions of Section 6, T1N, 3E were conducted in 1984, 1994, and 2006. These surveys have collectively covered the entire project area, which encompasses all of Section 6 not presently used for landfill operations. With the exchange of Section 6, TIN R3E (State School Trust Land) for Section 1, TIN R2E (Gallatin County land), planning for landfill expansion will proceed. The 1984 and 1994 surveys, by Passman and Wood, respectively, identified no resources. The 2006 inventory by Rennie documented a lithic scatter (24GA1757) and an abandoned ditch (24GA1758). The March 2018 inventory work conducted by the DNRC, also by Rennie, identified additional abandoned ditch segments which were added to site 24GA1758. Another previously recorded ditch segment (24GA1860) was located and an update to the original site form was prepared. The March 2018 survey also identified two newly recorded cultural resources consisting of an abandoned segment of county road with an associated bridge or culvert (24GA1968), and a historic period trash dump (24GA1969). In addition to the cultural resources identified previously, one paleontological resource also lies within the project area (24GA1566). This site was discovered during construction of Interstate 90 in the 1960s and was examined the 1970s and early 2000s. The site consists of the fossilized remains of terrestrial mammalian species from the Tertiary period. Specimens from 24GA1566 are now housed at the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman. The October 2018 Ethnoscience survey identified two additional sites and three isolated finds within Section 6 T1N R3E. 24GA1972 is a diffuse historic artifact scatter/trash deposit located in the southwest quarter of Section 6. 24GA1973 is a deposit of vehicles, 4 machinery, and other large scrap metal remnants used to fill a drainage just east of the landfill in the northwest quarter of Section 6. Isolate A, and B are non-diagnostic lithic flakes and Isolate C is a tested cobble. All of the isolates were found on the top of hills in the northeast quarter of Section 6. In the March 2018 report, the DNRC determined sites 24GA1757, 24GA1758, 24GA1968, and 24GA1969 were not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Site 24GA1860 was recommended eligible for NRHP listing, but it was determined that the proposed property transfer and landfill expansion would not impact this site. Ethnoscience visited all sites west of the drainage on the eastern edge of Section 6 including 24GA1566, 24GA1757, and 24GA1968. Finding no changes to their condition since March 2018, Ethnoscience concurs with the recommendations made by Patrick Rennie in his report. The new sites and isolated finds identified in October 2018 are recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP. The future expansion of the existing Logan Landfill will therefore have No Effect on these resources as defined in the Montana State Antiquities Act and 36 CFR Part 800. 5 Figure 1. 1:24,000 topographic map of the project area showing land ownership. 6 Figure 2. 1:24,000 topographic map of the project area showing sites and land ownership. 7 2.0 Results The project area was surveyed in parallel east-west pedestrian transects spaced no more than 15 meters apart. Ground surface visibility ranged from 5 to 60% depending on vegetation, animal disturbance, and erosion along hilltops, cut banks and washes. Previously identified sites were visited to ascertain the present condition of these resources. All sites were photographed and their coordinates recorded using a handheld GPS receiver. Previously recorded sites 24GA1566 No evidence of this paleontological resource was observed during the October 2018 survey. Figure 3. View of 24GA1577 and I-90 facing east northeast. 24GA1757 8 The site consists of a diffuse scattering of chipped stone debris and a small number of tested cobble cores of a dark gray fine grained lithic material that appears to be dacite. The site lies on the top and sides of a hill centered in the north half of Section 6. It was identified in 2006 and determined not eligible for listing on the NRHP. The March 2018 survey determined there would be no effect for the proposed landfill expansion and no further work was recommended. The site’s condition has not changed and no updates to the site form were required. Figure 4. View of north end of 24GA1757 which overlooks I-90 to the north, facing northeast. 24GA1758 This site consists of four abandoned, historic irrigation ditch segments which traverse Section 6 from north to south in the northeast, northwest, and southwest quarters. The initial segment of the ditch was first identified in 2006 and the other three as part of the March 2018 inventory. The site was determined not eligible for listing on the NRHP and 9 a determination of no effect was recommended for the landfill expansion. The October 2018 survey found no changes to the site and the site form was not updated. Figure 5. View of 24GA1758 in the north half of Section 6 facing west. 24GA1968 The site is located in the northeast quarter of Section 6 on the west bank of an unnamed creek. It is an abandoned road bed 1,045 ft. long and 28 ft. wide on a raised bed with 4 ft. wide borrow ditches along its edges. An earthen mound and fragments of a concrete culvert are also present. The road was built after 1918 and it is not known when it was abandoned. The site was first identified in March 2018, it was determined to be not eligible for listing in the NRHP, and a determination of no effect for the proposed landfill expansion was made. Its condition has not changed and no updates to the site form were done. 10 Figure 6. Concrete culvert associated with 24GA1968 facing southeast. Figure 7. Roadbed and borrow ditches associated with 24GA1968 facing southeast. 11 Newly recorded sites and isolated finds 24GA1972 This multicomponent site is located in the southwest quarter of Section 6. It consists of a widely dispersed historic artifact scatter composed of domestic refuse, some building materials, and a single prehistoric lithic flake. The site lies on a terrace above an unnamed ephemeral stream bed to the east. The land slopes upward to the west to the fence and two-track which run along the section line. The site measures 160 meters north-south x 45 meters east-west. The boundary is based on the distribution of cultural materials observed on the ground surface. No features were observed. Artifacts consist of one non-diagnostic, prehistoric stone flake two cm. in length and composed of petrified wood. Historic artifacts observed at the site included 10 shards of milk glass, two shards amethyst glass, two fragments of a mint-green hand-pulled artisan glass rod, porcelain doll feet, one unpainted porcelain penny figurine, one crown bottle cap, less than 10 cobalt glass shards, 10 molded whiteware sherds including a teacup handle, five molded creamware body sherds, one scalloped edge undecorated whiteware rimsherd, two transparent bottle bases, approximately 20 shards flat transparent glass, one transparent glass insulator, 10 sanitary cans, one hole-in-top evaporated milk can, one molded brick fragment, concrete fragments, an iron bedspring, one tobacco or baking powder can lid with a solder dot, one tin wash tub, and one brown extract bottle. One transparent glass bottle base has the mark for the Hazel-Atlas Glass Company, (large stylized capital H over a smaller capital A) which can be dated to 1923-1986 (Figure 11). The other bottle base bears an L with an oval surrounding it which may be the mark of the W.J. Latchford Glass Company (1925-1939) or the Lynchburg Glass Corp. (1923- 1925). The embossed solder dot tin lid, which is in poor condition, has the marks "King P…DER" on it in addition to the weight of the contents and the word "MADE.” This lid may be from a Snow King Powder Baking Powder can. Established in the late 19th- Century, Snow King Powder was purchased by the General Foods Corporation in 1937 12 and ceased production under this name after that time (Lindsey 2018; Dietz 2012). These dates, considered in combination with the glass and ceramic types found at the site, point to a likely date range of 1920-1939 for the historic materials. No artifacts were collected. The artifacts were not found in association with any features, such as depressions or foundations, which might point to occupation at this location. BLM GLO land patent records indicate that this land passed into state ownership in 1889 and remained in state hands until the recent transfer to Gallatin County. The fragmentary condition of most of the artifacts may also indicate that this is a secondary deposition of household trash, possibly tossed from the two-track that runs along the section line uphill from the site to the west. In order to be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, a property must fulfill at least one of the Criteria of Significance and retain a sufficient level of integrity. National Register Bulletin #15 (NRB 15 1991) states that a property can be considered significant in association with Criterion A if a relationship between the site and a significant event or historical pattern can be demonstrated. The artifacts observed at the site are common 20th-Century household items which lack association with features or historical documentation which might establish a relationship to larger historical patterns. The non-diagnostic flake was also found in isolation. The site is therefore not eligible under Criterion A. A property is considered significant in association with Criterion B if a connection between the site and a person significant in local, regional, or national history or prehistory can be demonstrated (NRB 15 1991:14). No such association has been identified so the site is not considered significant in association with Criterion B. A property can be considered significant under Criterion C if it can be demonstrated to, "Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction (NRB 15 1991:18).” The type of cultural materials observed on the site's surface, the lack of evidence of subsurface cultural materials, and the lack of associated features mean that the site cannot be considered significant under Criteria C. The results of documentation suggest that the site does not contain the kinds of cultural materials or sufficient contextual data to significantly develop an understanding of larger 13 archaeological questions and therefore the site is recommended not eligible in association with Criterion D. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the Criteria but it also must retain sufficient integrity. The historic artifacts at this site are highly fragmented and scattered across the landform. The site is likely a secondary deposition and therefore lacks any integrity. Additionally, the site is in poor condition. The site is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP. The proposed landfill expansion may destroy the site. No further work is recommended. Figure 8. Site map of 24GA1972. 14 Figure 9. Overview of 24GA1972 to north with location of artifacts identified with pin flags. Figure 10. Porcelain figurine from 24GA1972. 15 Figure 11. Transparent bottle base from 24GA1972. Figure 12. Solder dot can lid, possibly Snow King Baking Powder, from 24GA1972. 16 Figure 13. Petrified wood flake from 24GA1972. 24GA1973 This site is located in the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 6. It consists of numerous automobiles, heavy equipment, and metal scraps which have been buried in an ephemeral drainage possibly to prevent erosion. The site is located at the eastern edge of the landfill, across the boundary fence, and 30 ft. from the access road and is likely associated with the development of the facility. It is irregularly shaped and follows the contour of the drainage generally measuring 127 meters north-south x 67 meters east-west. The boundary is based on the distribution of cultural materials observed eroding from the ground surface. Ground visibility was approximately 50% because the area had been heavily disturbed by animal burrowing and erosion. The automobiles appear to be mid to late 20th-Century models based on their forms and materials however they were mostly buried so a specific make or model and other 17 distinguishing marks could not be discerned. Some of the heavy equipment and machinery appeared to be more recent because of intact paint coating the metal and lack of corrosion. Like the automobiles, the machinery was mostly buried and could not be definitively identified. Other unidentifiable scrap metal fragments also protruded from the ground. In order to be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, a property must fulfill at least one of the Criteria of Significance and retain a sufficient level of integrity. National Register Bulletin #15 (NRB 15 1991) states that a property can be considered significant in association with Criterion A if a relationship between the site and a significant event or historical pattern can be demonstrated. The machinery and automobiles buried at the site are likely associated with development of the Logan Landfill. While this is a specific historical association, it is a common association and is not significant. The site is therefore not eligible under Criterion A. A property is considered significant in association with Criterion B if a connection between the site and a person significant in local, regional, or national history or prehistory can be demonstrated (NRB 15 1991:14). No such association has been identified so the site is not considered significant in association with Criterion B. A property can be considered significant under Criterion C if it can be demonstrated to, "Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction (NRB 15 1991:18).” While the site may be associated with historically situated erosion control practices and landfill development, it is not exemplary or distinctive and therefore cannot be considered significant under Criteria C. Lastly, while the site likely contains large subsurface deposits of cultural material, excavation and further study of these objects and their context is unlikely to yield important data which might significantly broaden understanding of the past and of people. The site is therefore does not fulfill Criteria D. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the criteria, but it also must have integrity. The heavy machinery, automobiles, and scrap metal used as erosion control in the drainage appear to have stayed in the position they were buried with minimal animal disturbance on the surface. The site therefore 18 retains integrity. Though the site retains integrity, it does not meet the minimum criteria and is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP. Figure 14. Site map of 24GA1973. 19 Figure 15. Overview of 24GA1973, view to the southeast looking down the drainage. Figure 16. Buried automobile at 24GA1973, looking down. 20 Figure 17. Half buried heavy machinery at 24GA1973, looking down. Isolated Finds There were four isolated non-diagnostic lithics identified on a hilltop in the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 6. The first, Isolate A, is a non-diagnostic utilized chert flake with a ball of percussion. It is located 38 meters north of Isolate B and 60 meters northeast of Isolate C. Isolate B consists of 2 flakes, one 8cm. in length and the other 6cm., found within two feet of one another south of Isolate A. Both flakes are very dark gray fine grained volcanic stone that may be dacite. They are similar to those identified at 24GA1757 two hundred meters to the west. Isolate C is located 40 meters east of Isolate B. This isolate consists of a tested cobble 10 cm. in diameter of the same dark gray volcanic material as found at Isolate 5 and 24GA1757. The stone was likely tested and then discarded after the material was deemed inferior by the toolmaker. There were no features identified in the vicinity of the isolates and it is likely they are the result of transient tool-making activity as people moved through the area. Isolates of less than five non-diagnostic pre-contact artifacts are not considered sites in Montana and are generally not eligible for listing in the NRHP. 21 Figure 18. Site map of Isolates A, B, and C. 22 Figure 19. Overview of hilltop where Isolates A, B, and C were located, looking north. Figure 20. Isolate A in situ. 23 Figure 21. Isolate B dacite flake. Figure 22. Isolate C tested dacite cobble. 24 3.0 Recommendation for Further Work The inventory identified one historic site, one multicomponent site, and three prehistoric isolates. None are recommended NRHP eligible. A determination of No Effect on Historic Properties is therefore recommended and no further cultural resource work is necessary prior to expansion of the landfill. 4.0 References Dietz, Kira 2012 “Snow King: Even MORE about Baking Powder.” Virginia Tech Culinary History Blog. Virginia Tech Special Collections Library. Electronic document: https://whatscookinvt.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/snow-king-baking-powder/. Accessed November 2018. Lindsey, Bill 2017 “Bottle/Glass Colors,” Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website. Society for Historical Archaeology and the Bureau of Land Management. Electronic document: https://sha.org/bottle/colors.htm. Accessed November 2018. National Register Bulletin #15 (NRB 15) 1991 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. 1991 Revision. National Park Service, Washington D.C. Passmann, D. 1984 Gallatin County Landfill Test. Report prepared for the DNRC (Helena, MT). Rennie, P. 2006 Cultural Resources Inventory in Response to the Gallatin Solid Waste District's Proposed Soil Storage Site. Report prepared for the DNRC (Helena, MT). -- 2018 A Cultural and Paleontologic Resources Inventory of SECTION 6, TIN R3E. Report prepared for the DNRC (Helena, MT). Veseth, R. and C. Montagne 25 1980 Geologic Parent Materials of Montana Soils. Montana State University and USDA-Soil Conservation Service Bulletin 721. November 1980. Wood, G. 1994 Cultural Resource Management Report: Empire Sand and Gravel—South Interstate Gravel Source: Gallatin County, Montana. Consultant's report (Gar C. Wood and Associates, Loma, MT prepared for Empire Sand and Gravel of Billings, MT. Attachment 15 Deed Notation Attachment 15. Deed Notation The notation on the property deed that the parcel will be used as a municipal solid waste facility will be completed and submitted upon approval or conditional approval of the Class II Solid Waste Management System License Application. Attachment 16 General Liability Insurance Policy A copy of the General Liability Insurance Policy will be provided after the license expansion application has been approved.