Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Resolution No. R21-124
RESOLUTION NO. R21-124 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE SOUTHSIDE MASTER STORMWATER PLAN PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF LAUREL BY KLJ ENGINEERING. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, Section 1: Acceptance. The Southside Master Stormwater Plan,a copy attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby accepted by the City Council. Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on December 14, 2021, by Council Member Stokes. PASSED and APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Laurel this 14`h day of December 2021. APPROVED by the Mayor this 141h day of December 2021. (F OF LAUREL Emelie Eaton, Mayor A Bethany L g e -Treasurer Approved ojo o Sam S. Pamter, Civif City Attorney R21-124 Approve Southside Master Stonnwater Plan K L ENGINEERING, RElMAGINED City of Laurel, MT October 2021 Table of Contents ProjectBackground...........................................................................................................................................................1 Scopeof Study...............................................................................................................................................................1 ExistingDrainage Patterns.............................................................................................................................................1 Influencesfrom Off-site Runoff.....................................................................................................................................7 Soil and Groundwater Conditions.................................................................................................................................7 PriorStormwater Studies..............................................................................................................................................7 ProblemsIdentified...........................................................................................................................................................8 Conditionof Existing Streets.........................................................................................................................................8 On-grade Culverts..........................................................................................................................................................8 Lack of Stormdrain to Convey Nuisance Flows.............................................................................................................8 Flooding of West Railroad Street and Croell Facilities..................................................................................................9 Lackof Capacity in 1-90 Culverts....................................................................................................................................9 Management Challenges with Combined CHS Discharge.............................................................................................9 Alternative Analysis& Recommendations......................................................................................................................10 Summary of Problems to be Addressed......................................................................................................................10 StormdrainAlternatives..............................................................................................................................................10 StormwaterStorage Alternatives................................................................................................................................15 OutfallAlternatives......................................................................................................................................................23 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................................23 List of Figures Figure 1: Existing Drainage Patterns Figure 2:Storm Drain Alternative SD-1: Extend new Stormdrain from Culvert 2 Figure 3:Stormdrain Alternative SD-2: Extend new Stormdrain from Culverts 1&2 Figure 4:Storage Alternative S-2 Stormwater Detention on CHS's Property Figure 5:Storage Alternative S-3:Stormwater Detention in Russel Park Figure 6:Storage Alternative S-4:Stormwater Detention on First Congregational Church Property Appendices Appendix 1—Engineer's Opinion of Probable Costs Appendix 2—Soil Data Appendix 3—Groundwater Data Southside Master Stormwater Plan i Southside Master Stormwater Plan ii PROJECT BACKGROUND Scope of Study This Master Stormwater Plan evaluates existing stormwater drainage and investigates alternatives for improving drainage facilities serving the portion of the City of Laurel generally bound between 1-90, West Railroad Avenue, South 8`h Avenue and the MRL Rail Spur(Study Area). The Study Area is shown in Figure 1. It includes primarily a residential neighborhood that was developed early in Laurel's history, without a storm drain system. Pavement deterioration due to saturation from stormwater and other nuisance drainage problems have persisted due to lack of a storm drain system. These problems are described in more detail in this report along with a summary and analysis of various alternatives to address these issues. Existing Drainage Patterns Existing drainage patterns within the Study Area are shown in Figure 1. Land within the Study Area generally falls east and south. Stormwater runoff is conveyed overland, through the Study Area, via. existing alleys and roadways. Runoff flows across intersections through on-grade culverts, set at the same grade as road gutters. Runoff from the Study Area is intercepted on the south boundary by the 1-90 embankment. Stormwater is conveyed under 1 -90 at two culverts and the Montana Rail Link(MRL) underpass. Discharge from each of the culverts and the MRL underpass is all routed through CHS property, to the Clarks Fork Ditch. The Yellowstone Avenue/1-90 culvert (Culvert 1) is a 24-inch RCP. Due to the elevation of the culvert and grading around the inlet, the culvert intercepts very little runoff. Most of the flow bypasses the inlet and flows east along the 1-90 road embankment, to Culvert 2. The little amount of stormwater that flows through Culvert 1,discharges on the south edge of MDT right-of-way(ROW). Stormwater from there flows south through another culvert, across CHS parking and continues south in a road ditch and culverts along the east side of Yellowstone Avenue South as shown in Figure 1. The road ditch intercepts runoff from CHS facilities and flows to a stormwater pond at the south side of CHS property. CHS monitors water quality at the pond as part of their stormwater discharge permit, prior to the water flowing to the Clarks Fork Ditch. The South 1"Avenue/1-90 culvert (Culvert 2) is a 24-inch CSP. It crosses 1-90 and continues through the middle of CHS's facilities with no discharge or relief points until the south edge of the facility. It picks up several inlets along the way, draining the refinery site. At the south edge of the refinery, the culvert discharges to a small detention ditch, where CHS monitors water quality and controls a headgate, discharging to the Clarks Fork Ditch. Overflow from stormwater exceeding the capacity of Culvert 2, flows east, along the north side of 1-90, to the MRL underpass. In large storm events, the overflow water ponds beneath the underpass. Overflow from the ponding water, flows south, overland, across CHS and MRL property. A third culvert crosses 1-90 at 81h Avenue. It drains a small part of 81h Avenue, adjacent to the west side of the Study Area and is not analyzed in this report. Southside Master Stormwater Plan 1 Southside Master Stormwater Plan 2 M �tl LEI [10 UP W3_ EX 113 EX-1A 12.0 ACRES 5.2 ACRES ~ CN=89 0 CN=91 CROELL, INC. S El- Cu N E. _ 0 � � o OLD US 10 r EX. PONDING EX. PO DING ARE AREA 400 0 400 800 A { Emmimmola ® SCALE FEET EX-3 FIGURE 1 V�PN 6.9 ACRES (SHEET 1 OF 2) DTP R s 2ND ST g ` CN=91 / ®�w 8 �.� EXISTING DRAINAGE > � �� PATTERNS F S 3RD ST— ¢ y � o fiH} � Q\ '• \g� LEGEND P, TH S 4TH ST LAUREL POND EX-1 CN=89 — HL .5 ACRES � EXISTING CULVERT EX-1C S 5TH ST / MRL UNDERPASS sr EXISTING STORM DRAIN 25.6 ACRES - - FLOW PATH CN-77 EX. CULVERT �9p � POINT OF SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY / I e ANALYSIS 6"-12"ON-GRADE ———————— OFF-SITE SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY I CULVERTS(TYP.) 24"RCP�G ^ ^ POINT OF ANALYSIS OVERFLOW (CULVERT 2) uJ FROM ' OS-1 j 17.9 CULVERT 1 o ok ok ok 1.6 ACRES Q 7•9 ACRES ^ ^ /, = CN=85 CN=92 w I 24"RCP 24"RCP w (CULVERT 1) ++� > N CHS DISCHARGE .. w CHS MONITORING o �` EXISTING - o CULVERT EX. PONDING AREAS EAS sr EX. CULVERT 00, EX. STORM DRAIN - 1 ow r ..gas L l0 <<VK GPI ,..�`�. Aug 19, 2021 — 11:28am — K:\Projects\City\MT\Laurel\2004_01470_SouthSideStormwaterStudy\CAD\Working\E_Bose.dwg CO KLJ ENGINEERING,LLC 2021 Southside Master Stormwater Plan 4 N �r ROpO so o 150 aoo mil Vv SCALE FEET v — V V v FIGURE 1 � V I V V V (SHEET 2 OF 2) - _ L I -- `� _ _\ EXISTING DRAINAGE i — „" „ "s 2ND ST= -- " —� �. PATTERNS — » I� � I� W j - V I, V V -- v V Q -- I - v v I I v�- v LEGEND � I _T� V V V I V V Sri H EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING CULVERT ' 6"-12"ON-GRADE I I I I I �!► t I I V I ' 'I \ I sT EXISTING STORM DRAIN CULVERTS(TYP.) --- - '— —S 3RD ST- — " _— " > -- >> " — »--- »— EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR �> W I FLOW PATH 11 `>✓� QI I\Q✓ I \zr Q✓ Q 11 Q SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY ~� �C O 'z ----•---- OFF-SITE SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY Q Q W W POINT OF ANALYSIS� ] Qrr U;; ; O � I_ \Ii ll _ » »� >> —S 4TH ST >> I >> >> I— >> >> —>>: > I ♦ j UV V V �� V =�V V VV — e Q„ ♦♦ MRL UNDERPASS - - - LU I CONCRETE VALLEY I I q.- I -'I GUTTER(TYP.) 1" vv v V V V v I _�'v V V > - > _ I I - - S 5TH ST »— > —I I ' I IV i � I \ VI r piVv L' V V i I M 24"CSP (CULVERT 2) r EX.STORM vt DRAIN BOX ' 4 OVERFLOW r FROM CULVERT 1 " 24" RCP - (CULVERT 1) 24"RCP �r R3 � � I r '� Aug 19, 2021 - 11:28am - K:\Projects\City\MT\Laurel\2004-01470-SouthSideStormwaterStudy\CAD\Working\E_Base.dwg ©KLJ ENGINEERING,LLC 2021 Southside Master Stormwater Plan 6 Influences from Off-site Runoff A strip of land,about 26-acres in size, located between MRL's main rail line and West Railroad Street,drains into the Study Area, from the west. This off-site drainage area extends west to Shay Road. Stormwater from the area is conveyed by a ditch running along the north edge of West Railroad Street and culvert where the ditch crosses under the West Laurel/1-90 Interchange. The ditch terminates at the Croell Ready Mix batch plant. From this termination point,there is no defined outlet. Water simply overflows The Croell parking/gravel driveway approach,flowing east,along the north side of West Railroad Street. Water ponds in a low area at the northwest quadrant of West Railroad Street and 5th Avenue intersection. From a discussion with former Schessler Ready Mix plant (now Croell) manager, Rob Schessler, water from this intersection occasionally overflows West Railroad Street to the south. The overflow water floods the yard of the house located south of the intersection and continues south along Durland Avenue and the alley to the east of Durland Avenue. Rob also indicated, on a few occasions that the overflow across the Croell site, has flooded the Croell office building. The last time he could recall was around 2009. Soil and Groundwater Conditions From the USGS Web Soil Survey,surface soils within the Study Area consist predominately of silty-clay(see Appendix 2). From the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology,Groundwater Information Center data base, several wells exist within the Study Area. A few key well logs are included in Appendix 3. As can be observed from the well logs a thick layer of sand and gravel exists below the clayey surface material. The sands and gravels generally start at depths ranging from 4 to 12-feet depending on the exact location within the Study Area. Groundwater depth observed in the well logs is approximately 12-feet deep. CHS has conducted several soil borings and installed groundwater monitoring wells on the north side of their facilities, near the south edge of the Study Area. Key data from these boring and monitoring wells is included in Appendix 3. Bore Hole 1, near the MRL/1-90 Underpass shows a thick gravel layer starting at a depth of 5-feet. Well log RT-1, located near Culvert 2, shows sandy gravel starting at a depth of 8-feet. Seasonal high groundwater was observed in RT-1 at a depth of about 7-feet in 2020. Prior Stormwater Studies A Stormwater Preliminary Engineering Report was prepared for the City of Laurel, by Great West Engineering in 2007 (2007 PER). The focus of the study was major drainage ditches through the City, the closest to the Study Area being the Italian Ditch and Laurel Drain. The Italian Ditch merges into the Laurel Drain and skirts the north and east side of the Study Area. Flooding along the Laurel Drain is a significant problem identified in the 2007 PER. A FEMA Identified 100-year floodplain exists along the drain. The floodplain exceeds the Laurel Drain's banks due to several choke points at culverts along its route. This impacts a few businesses outside of the Study Area. Since the drain does not directly impact the Study Area, it is not evaluated in this report. Additionally, no alternatives are considered to re-direct any stormwater from the Study Area to the Laurel Drain,to avoid exacerbating existing downstream problems. Southside Master Stormwater Plan 7 PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED Condition of Existing Streets A Pavement Management Plan (PMP) was completed in 2019 by KU to evaluate the condition of all roads throughout the City of Laurel. A Pavement Surface Evaluation Rating(PASER)was assigned to all streets as part of the study. Nearly all streets within the Study Area were assigned a PASER rating of 2, with a few exceptions. This rating is based on a 1 to 10 scale, with 1 representing the poorest condition. A score of 2 represents pavements with over 25% alligator cracking, severe distortions, and excessive patching of potholes. For this road condition, the PMP calls for complete reconstruction as the only viable method of repair. The poor road condition is highly impacted by stormwater runoff that infiltrates and saturates the road base course and subgrade through cracks in the pavement. As a result of the severe pavement distortions as well as settled and heaved curb and gutter throughout the area, much of the stormwater runoff is not able to drain off the road surface. Puddles reside throughout the area until they infiltrate through cracks. Saturated subgrade and road base create pumping from traffic loads that further deteriorate the pavement.The amount of ponding is worsened by the flatness of the curb and gutter on many of the roads. Without a stormdrain system, curb and gutter must follow the natural grade to convey water overland across the entire Study Area. Curb and gutter cannot be steepened by creation of localize collection points. On-grade Culverts Throughout the Study Area, runoff is conveyed across intersections through on-grade culverts. These are generally constructed from gutter pan to gutter pan, with the culvert invert at the gutter flowline elevations. Pavement is mounded over the pipe for traffic. The on-grade culverts are typically about fl- inch in diameter. Many of the on-grade culverts have crushed ends from traffic cutting corners at the intersections. Restricted flow from the crushed ends combined with lack of available head water depth and small culverts sizes, result in minimal hydraulic capacity. The culverts also tend to catch garbage, sediment, and debris, routinely plugging up. Pond depths increased due to the pavement mounded over the culverts create a dam. Poor drainage conditions caused by these culverts, increase nuisance ponding and subgrade saturation. The pavement transitions at the culvert ends, also make it difficult to comply with accessibility standards at pedestrian crossings. Lack of Stormdrain to Convey Nuisance Flows Although not required by current City of Laurel standards,good engineering practice is to limit flow depths and flow spread widths in City streets to maintain access during minor storm events. The frequency of the storm and the flow depth and flow spread width is typically a function of the street classification. Efforts are currently underway to update City standards with this criterion. For local residential streets, the proposed standard is to limit flow depth to 0.5-feet at the flow line of the gutter and not to exceed the road crown, during a 2-year storm event. Except for West Railroad Street, all streets within the Study Area are classified local residential. Applying this proposed standard would limit flow areas draining in a single gutter to a maximum of about 3 or 4 blocks prior to being intercepted by a storm drain system. Currently some of the street in the neighborhood have areas four to five times this large draining in a single gutter due to the lack of a storm drain system. Southside Master Stormwater Plan 8 Flooding of West Railroad Street and Croell Facilities West Railroad Street is an MDT Urban Route and should be evaluated in accordance with criteria specified in MDT's Hydraulic Design Manual (MDT Standards). MDT standard limit spread widths in the roadway based on a 10-year frequency storm event. The allowable spread width is a function of number of lanes. To effectively control the spread width, a street must have a stormdrain, borrow ditch or other means to drain water from the road. As specified previously, West Railroad occasionally overflows at the South 5th Avenue intersection due to lack of any culverts, road ditches or any other drainage facilities. Flooding of the Croell Ready Mix building is also due to lack of any drainage facilities along West Railroad. The building is nearly level with the road surface with very little depression in the driveway apron to pass flows running along the north edge of the street. Lack of Capacity in 1-90 Culverts One difficulty with both 1-90 Culverts is with their elevation. Culvert 1 takes on very little water simply because it was constructed too high and due to road grading around its inlet. Most of the water that reaches the inlet of Culvert 1, drains east toward Culvert 2, rather than through Culvert 1. Culvert 2 is low enough to intercept surface water, but it is not low enough to connect a free draining storm drain to, if a storm drain is to be extended into the Study Area. Another major issue influencing the capacity of Culvert 2 is the amount of area it is draining. Culvert 2 takes in almost the entire Study Area in addition to the off-site area between West Railroad Street and MRL that drains through the Croell site. As it continues downstream through CHS's property, it collects drainage from the refinery at several locations. By the time it reaches the south edge of the refinery, it drains a total area of approximately 250-acres. The culvert is only a 24-inch corrugated steel pipe, and it is significantly silted up as it passes through the refinery. The estimated stormwater flow rate to the entrance of the culvert in a 2-year storm is about 35 CFS. It is estimated that the culvert would have a capacity of approximately 7-CFS, if cleaned. Management Challenges with Combined CHS Discharge Currently,the City has no ability to access Culvert 2 for maintenance since it continues through the refinery with no point of discharge outside of CHS property. Most of downstream piping is located within the heighted security area of the refinery, where City staff has no access. Culvert 2 is the primary facility to convey runoff from the Study Area. It is significantly silted up across the refinery. Much of the silt is from gravel parking and driving areas on the refinery property which the City has no control of. The silting and improper sizing causes water to back up into Russel Park, which is an impact to City facilities, but the City has limited means to address it. Discharge of stormwater from CHS's facilities is regulated by Montana's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MTR000000). The permit requires CHS to maintain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and monitor water quality prior to release off their property. Since most of the water from the Study Area drains through CHS,they are forced to manage and held to discharge quality requirements on a much greater volume of water than that which originates within their facilities. CHS's stormwater facilities lack storage volume needed to retain the water as needed to inspect the water quality prior to discharge. This poses a potential issue to the City of Laurel, not just CHS. The City is not currently held to the same discharge requirements. However, if an illicit discharge can be traced back to Southside Master Stormwater Plan 9 an issue that originated within the City of Laurel, it could raise dispute over who was responsible. A CHS's environmental engineer has already raised a point about two instances of oil contamination in stormwater that CHS intercepted from the Study Area. At current growth rates in the region,there is potential forthe City of Laurel to reach a population of 10,000 within the next 10 to 20 years. Under current State regulations this would trigger MS4 stormwater discharge permit requirements. It is also possible that the regulatory population threshold to be revised to a lower population and for the permit requirements to be triggered sooner. This could put a higher burden of responsibility on the City, in the case of a dispute over contaminant in City/CHS discharge. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS& RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of Problems to be Addressed The following table presents a list of problems that have been identified and potential solutions that are analyzed in this study to address each issue. Problem Potential Solutions Deteriorated Streets Impacted 1. Complete Street Improvements Identified in PMP by Infiltration of Stormwater 2. Addition of a Stormdrain System Restricted flow at on-grade 1. Replace on-grade Culverts with Valley Gutters During Road Rehabs Culverts 2. Addition of a Stormdrain System Excessive Flow Depths in Streets 1. Addition of a Stormdrain System from Nuisance Runoff Flooding over West Railroad 1. Addition of a Stormdrain System Street and Croell Facilities 2. Install Culvert from area between MRL and West Railroad Street to Laurel Pond (Lions Park) Lack of Capacity at 1-90 Culverts 1. Bore& Upsize New Culverts Under 1-90 &Culvert too High in Elevation 2. Addition of Stormwater Detention Facilities to drain a new Stormdrain 3. Addition of Infiltration Facilities System Management Challenge due to 1. New Dedicated Stormdrain Outfall Combined Discharge with CHS Future MS4 Requirements 1. New Dedicated Stormdrain Outfall 2. Addition of Stormwater Detention Facilities 3. Addition of Infiltration Facilities Stormdrain Alternatives To address issues identified above, the following stormdrain alternatives are considered: • Alt SD-1: Extend new Stormdrain from Culvert 2 • Alt SD-2: Extend new Stormdrain from Culverts 1 & 2 Figures 2 and 3 show the layout of these alternatives. Southside Master Stormwater Plan 10 WEST RAILROAD STREET SIZED 0.37 ACRES FOR 5 YEAR CN=98 STORM 12"STUB N 0.60 ACRES 1 CN=98 1.62 ACRES 0.39 ACRES_ CN=89 \ t CN 98 ! - 18"STUB \ 24" 0.42 ACRE � \ 150 0 150 aoo SCALE FEET CN=98/—' 4.72 ACRES \ \ 0.51 ACRE° / CN=94 ' �" "" 24" 24" 1 \ CN=� L��� ;`' \15 FIGURE 2 " \ STORMDRAIN ALTERNATIVE 15" \ 25.55 ACRES S 2ND ST \ CN=77 O SA Ui > > \ SD-1 0 w Q o w w \ EXTEND NEW STORM DRAIN �R > U z z Q Q 24" \ FROM CULVERT 2 LU LU O \ L` 1 0 \ LEGEND J w \ S 3RD ST \ EXISTING CULVERT 92.65 ACRE \ PROPOSED CULVERT El t_ ,.11 ACRES CN =89 \ r,,i=89 \ ST EXISTING STORM DRAIN 6.44 ACRES ` 15" 18 24 4.42 ACRES \ = PROPOSED STORM DRAIN CN 89 \ .:�.. 30" 24" STORM DRAIN DIAMETER LABEL P15' „ 24„ 30„ S 4TH ST SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY \ ———————— OFF-SITE SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY I r� \ PO.54 ACRES CN=92 I \ I 36" \ I ' uLduu S 5TH ST 18" 181, 24" j�36"_ 36" i \� o 1 BORE 1 8 42"CULVERT (CULVERT 2) zzill! R _ r OLr. EX 24"RCP '• (CULVERT 1) / <<VK L EX 24"RCP ,. _ r t Aug 19, 2021 — 11:28am — K:\Projects\City\MT\Laurel\2004_01470_SouthSideStormwaterStudy\CAD\Working\D_BASE.dwg CO KLJ ENGINEERING,LLC 2021 Southside Master Stormwater Plan 12 WEST RAILROAD STREET SIZED 0.37 ACRES FOR 5 YEAR CN=98 STORM 12"STUB �f. N 0.60 ACRES � 1 CN=98 1.62 ACRES _ �� 0.39ACRES_ CN=89 \ t CN 98 ! - 18"STUB \ 1so 0 1so aoo 0.42 ACRE 24" � \ SCALE FEET CN=98/-"' 4.72 ACRES \ \ 0.51 ACRE° / j CN=94 ' ry', " 24" 24" 1 \ CN=" ` ;`' \ FIGURE 3 � 15" \ 1 15"' \\ STORMDRAIN ALTERNATIVE 25.55 ACRES S 2ND ST \ CN=77 OSA > > > \ SD-2 P�LR0 w Q ❑ w w \ EXTEND NEW STORM DRAIN �R z z Q > U) Q 24" \ FROM CULVERTS 1 &2 U) v~i Q \ LU LU O ❑ ❑ \ U_ ° LU \ LEGEND J w _ \ S 3RD ST \ EXISTING CULVERT \ PROPOSED CULVERT \\ ST EXISTING STORM DRAIN 15" 24" I 4.42 ACRES \ �- PROPOSED STORM DRAIN 24" \ \ 24" STORM DRAIN DIAMETER LABEL 24" S 4TH ST ^ SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY ' ' \\ ———————— OFF-SITE SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY I \ rO.15'4 ACRES 18" I \ CN=92 I , 24" \ I 8.97 ACRES' CRES ,4 I I � � CyNr i 89 L—� S 5TH ST — I 24" w Q 30„ i i I a J � G ❑ o_ 30" O 1 BORE 8 30"CULVERT 30" (CULVERT 2) R _ r BORE 30"CULVERT EX 24"RCP (CULVERT 1) a4r R� I t t <<VK L ' 1. - 61 Aug 19, 2021 — 11:29am — K:\Projects\City\MT\Laurel\2004_01470_SouthSideStormwaterStudy\CAD\Working\D_BASE.dwg CO KLJ ENGINEERING,LLC 2021 Southside Master Stormwater Plan 14 It should be noted that lowering of the 1-90 culvert(s) and outfall improvements will be needed to achieve a free draining outfall with any stormdrain improvements. Infiltration could serve as an interim solution to boring new culverts and outfall improvements. However, infiltration is not an advisable permanent substitute to constructing a free draining outfall, due to capacity limitations and issues with soil pores plugging over time. Therefore, boring new culverts under 1-90 is included with each stormdrain alternative. An outfall solution will also be needed but is beyond the scope of this study. Both stormdrain alternatives considered assume the off-site area west of the Study Area, between MRL and West Railroad Street,will be diverted to Laurel Pond (Lions Park),west of the Croell site. This is a minor improvement, and it will reduce pipe sizing all the way from the upper stretch of the system to the outfall. It also alleviates flooding issues over West Railroad Street and at the Croell site. The area that would be added to the Laurel Pond drainage is very small compared to the size of the pond, so it will have a non- detectable influence on pond levels. Water quality should be acceptable to the fishery established in the pond since the area being drained by the culvert is primarily a natural grass area and the runoff flows through several hundred feet of a grassy ditch prior to discharge. No Action is not considered as an option in this analysis due to the extent of the problems identified in the Study Area and due to project timing with anticipated street rehab work. Street improvements recommended in the PMP are expected to serve the City for decades to come. To avoid trenching in new streets in the future, this is the best time to install a storm drain system. The Engineer's Opinion of Probable Costs (EOC)for both stormdrain alternatives are summarized below. See Appendix 1 for detailed EOCs. • Alt SD-1: $3,162,000 Stormdrain improvements as part of street rehabilitation projects $ 376,000 Culvert 2 Improvements $3,538,000 Total • Alt SD-2: $2,755,000 Stormdrain improvements as part of street rehabilitation projects $ 555,000 Culvert 1 &2 Improvements $3,310,000 Total Stormwater Storage Alternatives The following Stormwater Storage Alternatives are considered in this study: • Alt S-1: No Storage • Alt S-2: Stormwater Detention on CHS's Property at Culvert 1 • Alt S-3: Stormwater Detention in Russel Park • Alt S-4: Stormwater Detention on First Congregational Church Property Figures 4 through 6 show the layout of these alternatives. Providing storage is not absolutely necessary as long as downstream infrastructure has capacity to handle flow rates and water quality can be provide by other means to comply with future MS4 requirements. However,settlement of suspended solids and other treatment provided by stormwater detention is one of the most practical ways to improve water quality in stormwater discharge. Storage also reduces peak flow rates from the site, to help mitigate increased runoff that is anticipated with street improvements. This would result in reducing the sizing and cost of new culvert(s) under 1-90 and any outfall improvements. Southside Master Stormwater Plan 15 The storage alternatives presented are at locations of large open areas of property existing low in the watershed. Storage at South School Campus is not considered, because it is too high in the watershed to be very effective. If storage is provided in Russel Park, it is assumed it will serve a dual function—park use and stormwater management. This is a common approach in many other communities. It would be accomplished by re-grading the park area low, to provide stormwater an area to back into during large storms. Water would not pond in the park in most rainfall events. The ponding depths and slopes into the depressed park area would be graded shallow and relatively flat for safety and to allow continued park function. Water would be directed to a low-flow channel along the 1-90 ROW on the southside of the park, to keep nuisance water separate from park use. Due to the flat longitudinal slope across the back side of the park, the low flow channel would be integrated with an infiltration trench. This would help remove saturation and provide added water quality at the stormwater discharge. If a pond is constructed on First Congregational Church Property, it is assumed that the pond site will be subdivided from the property and serve as a dedicated stormwater management area. This solution would only be applicable in combination with storm drain Alternative SD-2. Alternative S-2 could help reduce the size and cost of an outfall pipe, but it would not influence any of the stormdrain alternatives being evaluated. It is also questionable if it could reliably be used to address future water treatment needs since it would be on CHS property, and the City would not have exclusive control over maintenance and management of the facility. Alternative S-2 may be something to evaluate in more detail in conjunction with design of any proposed outfall improvements, but it is not considered further in this study. The EOCs for storage alternatives S-3 and S-4 are summarized below. See Appendix 1 for detailed EOCs. • Alt S-3: ($402,000) Modifications to Storm Drain Improvements with Pond Addition $704,000 Culvert 2 and Pond Improvements $302,000 Total • Alt S-4: ($4,000) Modifications to Storm Drain Improvements with Pond Addition $258,000 Culvert 1 and Pond Improvements $254,000 Total It should be noted that the costs shown above for "Modification to Storm Drain Improvement with Pond Addition" are intended to be adjustments to stormdrain costs associated with stormdrain improvement alternatives SD-1 and SD-2. The costs shown above for Culvert and pond improvements are intended to replace the cost for Culvert 1 or Culvert 2 Improvements from SD-1 and SD-2 as applicable. Southside Master Stormwater Plan 16 i LU LU f � 1 Q Z N �: ; w Q a_ J Q r O U 36" 50 0 50 100 SCALE FEET i FIGURE 4 5TH ST 24" 36„ STORAGE ALTERNATIVE S-2 i. STORMWATER DETENTION ON ^ CHS PROPERTY AT CULVERT 2 LEGEND EXISTING CULVERT PROPOSED CULVERT ST EXISTING STORM DRAIN "W-,` PROPOSED STORM DRAIN i 24" STORM DRAIN DIAMETER LABEL BORE SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY • 42" CULVERT -------- OFF-SITE SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY (CULVERT 2) `- 1-90 S-2 s ' r eeKLI i V Aug 19, 2021 — 11:29am — K:\Projects\City\MT\Laurel\2004_01470_SouthSideStormwaterStudy\CAD\Working\D_BASE.dwg 0 KLJ ENGINEERING,LLC 2021 Southside Master Stormwater Plan 18 \LLJ Q _j Z CZC 0 o N a ct J 50 0 50 100 a SCALE millm FEET W G �..; ■. CURB FIGURE 5 30" :: OPENING STORAGE ALTERNATIVE 1p S-3 - STORMWATER DETENTION S 5TH ST 15„ IN RUSSELL PARK 18" A �y LEGEND 36" EXISTING CULVERT 24" PROPOSED CULVERT ST EXISTING STORM DRAIN PROPOSED STORM DRAIN 24" STORM DRAIN DIAMETER LABEL A SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY ' ———————— OFF-SITE SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY BORE 24" CULVERT POND DETAIL (CULVERT 2) INFILTRATION 10 2a�a 5� TRENCH I-90 BOLDER P 4' IT 12"BELOW TOPSOIL 4, SECTION A-A <<VK L Aug 19, 2021 — 11:29am — K:\Projects\City\MT\Laurel\2004_01470_SouthSideStormwaterStudy\CAD\Working\D_BASE.dwg CO KLJ ENGINEERING,LLC 2021 Southside Master Stormwater Plan 20 LLJ Q Q 1 W I- Z 11 11 W '� Q W Q 18 z 0 o Q N a O O J O LU (1_ Y• 50 0 50 100 SCALE FEET 24" S 5TH ST I FIGURE 6 STORAGE ALTERNATIVE S-4 STORMWATER DETENTION ON FIRST CONGREGATIONAL 30" CHURCH PROPERTY LEGEND EXISTING CULVERT PROPOSED CULVERT ST EXISTING STORM DRAIN PROPOSED STORM DRAIN I 24" STORM DRAIN DIAMETER LABEL SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY r ———————— OFF-SITE SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY F 3' DEEP POND WITH 4:1 SIDE-SLOPES 114' v I. � 3011 El 12" 1-90 --r BORE 24" CULVERT - - - - (CULVERT II) <<VK L Aug 19, 2021 — 11:30am — K:\Projects\City\MT\Laurel\2004_01470_SouthSideStormwaterStudy\CAD\Working\D_BASE.dwg CO KLJ ENGINEERING,LLC 2021 Southside Master Stormwater Plan 22 Outfall Alternatives Each of the stormdrain and storage alternatives considered in this analysis require outfall improvements due to grade and capacity limitations from the 1-90 culverts downstream,to the Clarks Fork Ditch.A detailed evaluation of alternative outfall alignments is outside of the scope of this report, but a general overview of options is provided to consider how they may influence selection of stormdrain and storage alternatives. Possible outfall alternatives are as follows: • Alt C-1: No New Outfall; Disposal through Infiltration • Alt 0-2: Upgrade Outfall from Culvert 1 to Clarks Fork Ditch (Through CHS & Along Yellowstone Avenue) • Alt C-3: New outfall from Culvert 2 to Clarks Fork Ditch (East of CHS Refinery) Installing a new upgraded outfall along the existing outfall alignment through the middle of the CHS refinery is not considered for the following reasons: • The South Laurel drainage area significantly increases the amount of stormwater needing to be managed by CHS in accordance with their stormwater discharge permit and CHS's stormwater management facilities are inadequate. • An increase in stormwater discharge volume is anticipated after improving drainage within the Study Area. This could further impact CHS's stormwater management facilities. • It is impractical for the City to manage and maintain the outfall pipe along the existing alignment because it passes through CHS's fenced in area with a higher level of security. • This would require a major City pipe project directly in the middle of CHS's operations. Outfall Alternative 0-1 would not be recommended as a permanent solution due to capacity and sustainability limitations associated with using infiltration as a primary method of disposal for a large urban drainage area. However, Infiltration could be used as an interim solution to allow time to improve a more reliable permanent outfall. Stormwater infiltration facilities could also remain in place and provide stormwater treatment after a permanent outfall is constructed. Recommendations Completion of improvements associated with the following combination of alternatives is recommended. • Alt SD-1: Extend new Stormdrain from Culvert 2 • Alt S-3: Stormwater Detention in Russel Park • Alt C-3: New outfall from Culvert 2 to Clark Fork Ditch (East of CHS Refinery) Based on the analysis, this is the most cost-effective combination of solutions. It is recognized that Stormdrain Alternative SD-2 is slightly lower in cost than the recommended Stormdrain Alternative SD-1. However,Alternative SD-2 would require a second outfall to be constructed which would require significant additional cost beyond those evaluated in this report. Based on the EOCs, adding storage in Russel Park is anticipated to have only a marginal influence on overall project cost, but it would also reduce sizing of the outfall pipe needed with Alternative 0-3. This is an additional cost savings that is not accounted for in the EOCs, since the outfall alternatives are not evaluated in detail. Following are other benefits that should be recognized with this combination of alternatives: Southside Master Stormwater Plan 23 1. Stormwater Treatment— Eventually the City will be faced with MS4 stormwater discharge permit requirements. The storage and treatment facilities provided with Alt S-3 will serve for treatment needed to manage stormwater from the study area to comply with these requirements. 2. Maintains Existing Drainage Patterns - Almost all runoff that currently flows toward Culvert 1, bypasses the culvert, and is directed to Culvert 2. The proposed solution would maintain this existing drainage pattern,thereby having minimal impact on downstream facilities. 3. Fewer Facilities to Maintain—With other solutions that utilize both Culverts 1 and 2, two outfalls would need to be maintained. Only one is needed with the recommended solution. 4. Interim Solution Provided for Outfall—With Alternative S-3, infiltration could provide a temporary solution to drain the area, while landowner agreements and permits for an outfall are worked out. After the outfall is constructed, the infiltration system would remain for stormwater treatment. S. Access to Outfall—Access for ongoing maintenance would be much simpler if it involves only one outfall. Potential routes associated with Alternative 0-3 would also likely be less in conflict with CHS's facilities than Alternative 0-2. 6. Fewer Easement & Land Acquisitions— Every other solution considered, requires easements and agreements in addition to those needed for the recommended solution. Outfall improvements will require cooperation with CHS, MRL, MDT and the Clarks Fork Ditch. This will involve several permits and easement. In negotiating the terms of these permits and easements, it should be stressed that all parties involved benefit from the recommended improvements. There will be a significant benefit to CHS by routing the stormwater around their primary facilities and separating the water from that which they currently manage. Cost sharing with CHS should be considered. The project will benefit MDT by upgrading Culvert 2 which is inadequate. It will benefit both MTD and MRL by alleviating some of the flooding that occurs at the MRL/MDT underpass in large storm events. The information presented in this study is tentative. Exact pipe sizes and other improvement details will be determined in final design.Costs may vary from those provided in preliminary EOCs as a result. The next step in the process should be to more closely evaluate potential outfall routes and commence with negotiations with other stakeholders. Southside Master Stormwater Plan 24 Appendix A Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost Opinion of Probable Capital Cost E:: Alternative SD-1 (Extend New Stormdrain from Culvert 2) Stormdrain Improvements as part of Street Rehabilitation # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL 101 Mobilization 1 LS $ 103,000.00 $ 103,000 102 Taxes, Insurance and Bond 1 LS $ 52,000.00 $ 52,000 103 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 104 Stormwater Management and Erosion 1 LS $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000 105 Concrete Curb and Gutter Removal 210 SY $ 17.00 $ 3,570 106 Type 2 Pipe Bedding 150 CY $ 72.00 $ 10,800 107 Imported Trench Backfill 300 CY $ 50.00 $ 15,000 108 Exploratory Excavation 30 HR $ 300.00 $ 9,000 109 Concrete Collars 19 EA $ 400.00 $ 7,600 110 Combined Curb &Gutter 945 LF $ 35.00 $ 33,075 111 12" diam. Storm Drain Pie 1,290 LF $ 75.00 $ 96,750 112 15" diam. Storm Drain Pie 1,400 LF $ 82.00 $ 114,800 113 18" diam. Storm Drain Pie 1,110 LF $ 90.00 $ 99,900 114 24" diam. Storm Drain Pie 2,630 LF $ 95.00 $ 249,850 115 30" diam. Storm Drain Pie 720 LF $ 120.00 $ 86,400 116 36" diam. Storm Drain Pie 610 LF $ 140.00 $ 85,400 117 Bore 30" Culvert West Railroad 90 LF $ 650.00 $ 58,500 118 2'x3' Inlet Boxes 63 EA $ 3,200.00 $ 201,600 119 48" diam. Storm Drain Manhole 15 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 60,000 120 60" diam. Storm Drain Manhole 4 EA $ 5,400.00 $ 21,600 121 Street Trench Repair 9000 SY $ 100.00 $ 900,000 Subtotal $ 2,232,000 Contingency 20% $ 447,000 Subtotal: 2022 Construction Cost $ 2,679,000 En ineerin 180/. $ 483,000 Subtotal: 2022 CAPITAL COST $ 3,162,000 Culvert 2 Improvements # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL 201 Mobilization 1 LS $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000 202 Taxes, Insurance and Bond 1 LS $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000 203 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 204 1 Stormwater Management and Erosion 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000 205 113ore 42" Culvert 300 LF $ 800.00 $ 240,000 Subtotal $ 265,000 Contingency 20% $ 53,000 Subtotal: 2022 Construction Cost $ 318,000 JEngineering 1 18% $ 58,000 TOTAL: 2022 CAPITAL COST $ 376,000 1 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. TOTAL: 2022 CAPITAL COST (All Storm Drain Imp with Alt SD-1) 1 $ 3,538,000 Opinion of Probable Capital Cost E:1 Alternative SD-2 (Extend New Stormdrain from Culverts 1 & 2) Stormdrain Improvements as part of Street Rehabilitation # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 101 Mobilization 1 LS $ 89,000.00 $ 89,000 102 Taxes, Insurance and Bond 1 LS $ 45,000.00 $ 45,000 103 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 104 Stormwater Management and Erosion 1 LS $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000 105 Concrete Curb and Gutter Removal 177 SY $ 17.00 $ 3,003 106 Type 2 Pipe Bedding 150 CY $ 72.00 $ 10,800 107 Imported Trench Backfill 300 CY $ 50.00 $ 15,000 108 Exploratory Excavation 30 HR $ 300.00 $ 9,000 109 Concrete Collars 17 EA $ 400.00 $ 6,800 110 Combined Curb &Gutter 795 LF $ 35.00 $ 27,825 111 12" diam. Storm Drain Pie 1,090 LF $ 75.00 $ 81,750 112 15" diam. Storm Drain Pie 1,040 LF $ 82.00 $ 85,280 113 18" diam. Storm Drain Pie 390 LF $ 90.00 $ 35,100 114 24" diam. Storm Drain Pie 3,330 LF $ 95.00 $ 316,350 115 30" diam. Storm Drain Pie 800 LF $ 120.00 $ 96,000 116 Bore 30" Culvert West Railroad 90 LF $ 700.00 $ 63,000 117 2'x3' Inlet Boxes 53 EA $ 3,200.00 $ 169,600 118 48" diam. Storm Drain Manhole 17 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 68,000 119 Street Trench Repair 8000 SY $ 100.00 $ 800,000 Subtotal $ 1,945,000 Contingency 20% $ 389,000 Subtotal: 2022 Construction Cost $ 2,334,000 JEngineering 1 18% $ 421,000 Subtotal: 2022 CAPITAL COST $ 2,755,000 Culvert 1 &2 Improvements # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 201 Mobilization 1 LS $ 18,000.00 $ 18,000 202 Taxes, Insurance and Bond 1 LS $ 9,000.00 $ 9,000 203 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 204 Stormwater Management and Erosion 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000 205 Bore 30" Culvert 510 LF $ 700.00 $ 357,000 Subtotal $ 391,000 Contingency 20% $ 79,000 Subtotal: 2022 Construction Cost $ 470,000 JEngineering 1 18% $ 85,000 Subtotal: 2022 CAPITAL COST $ 555,000 1 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. TOTAL: 2022 CAPITAL COST (All Storm Drain Imp with Alt SD-2) 1 $ 3,310,000 Opinion of Probable Capital Cost Alternative S-3 (Stormwater Detention in Russell Park) Modifications to Storm Drain Improvements with Pond Addition # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE t TOTAL 101 Mobilization 1 LS $ (13,000.00) $ (13,000) 102 Taxes, Insurance and Bond 1 LS $ (7,000.00) $ (7,000) 105 Concrete Curb and Gutter Removal -20 SY $ 17.00 $ (340) 106 Type 2 Pipe Bedding -25 CY $ 72.00 $ (1,800) 107 Imported Trench Backfill -50 CY $ 50.00 $ (2,500) 109 Concrete Collars -4 EA $ 400.00 $ (1,600) 110 Combined Curb& Gutter -90 LF $ 35.00 $ (3,150) 111 12" diam. Storm Drain Pie -120 LF $ 75.00 $ (9,000) 112 15" diam. Storm Drain Pie 25 LF $ 82.00 $ 2,050 113 18" diam. Storm Drain Pie -360 LF $ 90.00 $ (32,400) 114 24" diam. Storm Drain Pie -60 LF $ 95.00 $ (5,700) 115 30" diam. Storm Drain Pie -720 LF $ 120.00 $ (86,400) 116 36" diam. Storm Drain Pie 135 LF $ 140.00 $ 18,900 118 2'x3'Inlet Boxes -6 EA $ 3,200.00 $ (19,200) 120 60" diam. Storm Drain Manhole -4 EA $ 5,400.00 $ (21,600) 121 Street Trench Repair -1000 SY $ 100.00 $ (100,000) Subtotal $ (283,000) Contingency 20% $ (57,000) Subtotal: 2022 Construction Cost $ (340,000) Engineering 1 18% $ (62,000) Subtotal: 2022 CAPITAL COST $ (402,000) Culvert 2 &Pond Improvements # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL 201 Mobilization 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000 202 Taxes, Insurance and Bond 1 LS $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000 203 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 204 Stormwater Management and Erosion 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000 205 Bore 24" Culvert 300 LF $ 550.00 $ 165,000 206 Bolder Pit 385 CY $ 65.00 $ 25,025 207 Pond Excavation 3,500 CY $ 30.00 $ 105,000 208 Top Soil Stripping/Stockpile &Restoration 2000 CY $ 10.00 $ 20,000 209 Irrigation Repair 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 210 JLandscape Restoration(Sod) 11,000 SY $ 15.00 $ 165,000 Subtotal $ 496,000 Contingency 20% $ 100,000 Subtotal: 2022 Construction Cost $ 596,000 Engineering 1 18% $ 108,000 TOTAL: 2022 CAPITAL COST $ 704,000 1 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. Opinion of Probable Capital Cost Alternative S-4 (Stormwater Detention on First Congregational Church Property) Modifications to Storm Drain Improvements with Pond Addition # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL 111 12" diam. Storm Drain Pie 60 LF $ 75.00 $ 4,500 115 30" diam. Storm Drain Pie -50 LF $ 120.00 $ (6,000) Subtotal $ (2,000) Contingency 20% $ (1,000) Subtotal: 2022 Construction Cost $ (3,000) En ineerin 18% $ (1,000) Subtotal: 2022 CAPITAL COST $ (4,000) Culvert I &Pond Improvements # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL 201 Mobilization I LS $ 9,000.00 $ 9,000 202 Taxes, Insurance and Bond I LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 203 Traffic Control I LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 204 Stormwater Management and Erosion I LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000 205 Bore 24" Culvert 210 LF $ 550.00 $ 115,500 206 Pond Excavation 2,000 CY $ 30.00 $ 60,000 207 Top Soil Stripping/Stockpile &Restoration 481 CY $ 10.00 $ 4,815 208 JLandscape Restoration(Seeding) 0.3 Acre $ 1,500.00 $ 448 Subtotal $ 181,000 Contingency 20% $ 37,000 Subtotal: 2022 Construction Cost $ 218,000 JEngineering 1 18% $ 40,000 Subtotal: 2022 CAPITAL COST $ 258,000 1 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. Appendix 8 Soil Data USDA United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for N ��� States Department of Agriculture and other Yellowstone Federal agencies, State Natural agencies including the Resources Agricultural Experiment County,Conservation Stations, and local Service participants Montana r L 11g May 24, 2021 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres)or your NRCS State Soil Scientist(http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nres142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice)or(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 SoilMap.................................................................................................................. 8 SoilMap................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 MapUnit Legend................................................................................................ 11 MapUnit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Yellowstone County, Montana.........................................................................13 Lr—Lohmiller silty clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes............................................. 13 Ls—Lohmiller soils, seeped, 0 to 2 percent slopes.....................................14 Va—Vananda silty clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes.............................................16 References............................................................................................................18 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 6 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 Custom Soil Resource Report 3 3 Soil Map 672600 672700 672&]0 672900 673000 673100 673200 673300 673400 673500 673600 673700 673800 673900 674000 45°40'6"N O 45°40'6"N Uri "'.W-W. Oft : - - .�� t .I w Clam 08 h, 44r , - 310 . 8 i .h f �„10 J \ } :.�. *� 212 it R = lid`a 'scale. - I F 45°39'#"N 45°39'34"N 672600 672700 6728M 672900 673000 673100 673200 673300 673400 673500 6736M 679M 673800 673900 674000 3 3 v Map Scale:1:6,880 if printed on A landscape(11"x 8.5")sheet. G N Meters 0 101 200 400 610 Fe 0 300 600 1200 1 et 800 Map projection:Web Mentor Comer coordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:UTM Zone 12N WGS84 9 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 0 Area of Interest(AOI) Stony Spot 1:20,000. Soils Very Stony Spot 0 Soil Map Unit Polygons Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Wet Spot P1 0 Soil Map Unit Lines Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Other misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil � Soil Map Unit Points 9 pp 9 Y .- Special Line Features line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of Special Point Features contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed Lo Blowout Water Features scale. - Streams and Canals Borrow Pit Transportation Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Clay Spot 1-44 Rails measurements. Closed Depression Interstate Highways Gravel Pit Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service US Routes Web Soil Survey URL: Gravelly Spot Major Roads Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) 0 Landfill Local Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Lava Flow Background projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the Marsh or swamp Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more Mine or Quarry accurate calculations of distance or area are required. Miscellaneous Water This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as Perennial Water of the version date(s)listed below. Rock Outcrop Soil Survey Area: Yellowstone County,Montana Saline Spot Survey Area Data: Version 18,Jun 4,2020 Sandy Spot Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales Severely Eroded Spot 1:50,000 or larger. Sinkhole Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Jul 3,2013—Mar 6, Slide or Slip 2017 oa Sodic Spot 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. 10 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Lr Lohmiller silty clay,0 to 1 107.9 84.7% percent slopes Ls Lohmiller soils,seeped,0 to 2 1.7 1.4% percent slopes Va Vananda silty clay,0 to 1 17.8 13.9% percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 127.5 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or 11 Custom Soil Resource Report landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Yellowstone County, Montana Lr—Lohmiller silty clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: clsn Elevation: 1,900 to 6,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 14 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 120 to 135 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility)x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Map Unit Composition Lohmiller and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Lohmiller Setting Landform:Terraces, flood plains Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear, concave Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A -0 to 9 inches: silty clay C1 - 9 to 42 inches: stratified clay to silty clay loam C2-42 to 60 inches: stratified silty clay loam to fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to moderately saline (0.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 10.0 Available water capacity. High (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R058AC041 MT- Clayey(Cy) RRU 58A-C 11-14" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Haverson Percent of map unit: 6 percent Landform: Flood plains, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Concave, linear Ecological site: R058AC041 MT- Clayey (Cy) RRU 58A-C 11-14" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No Hysham Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Flood plains, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Concave, linear Hydric soil rating: No Glenberg Percent of map unit:4 percent Landform:Terraces, flood plains Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear, concave Ecological site: R058AC04OMT- Silty (Si) RRU 58A-C 11-14" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No Ls—Lohmiller soils, seeped, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: clsp Elevation: 900 to 6,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 14 inches Mean annual air temperature: 34 to 48 degrees F Frost-free period: 120 to 135 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Lohmiller and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Lohmiller Setting Landform: Flood plains, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Concave, linear 14 Custom Soil Resource Report Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A -0 to 3 inches: silty clay loam C-3 to 60 inches: stratified silty clay to silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 48 to 60 inches Frequency of flooding: RareNone Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity:Very slightly saline to slightly saline (2.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: High (about 9.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w Hydrologic Soil Group: C Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Haverson Percent of map unit: 15 percent Landform:Terraces, flood plains Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear, concave Ecological site: R058AC041 MT- Clayey (Cy) RRU 58A-C 11-14" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No Hydro Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Low hills, fans Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope Down-slope shape: Concave, linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R058AC041 MT- Clayey (Cy) RRU 58A-C 11-14" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No Lallie Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform: Oxbows Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Ecological site: R058AE008MT- Subirrigated (Sb) RRU 58A-E 10-14" p.z. Hydric soil rating: Yes 15 Custom Soil Resource Report Va—Vananda silty clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: clv8 Elevation: 1,600 to 4,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 14 inches Mean annual air temperature: 34 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 120 to 135 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Vananda and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Vananda Setting Landform: Lakebeds (relict), fans, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Clayey alluvium Typical profile A -0 to 3 inches: silty clay 8-3 to 17 inches: clay C- 17 to 62 inches: clay Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat):Very low to moderately low(0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Moderately saline to strongly saline (8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 20.0 Available water capacity. Low(about 5.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 7s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R058AC041 MT- Clayey(Cy) RRU 58A-C 11-14" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No 16 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Bone Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Fans, terraces, lakebeds (relict) Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R058AC050MT- Saline Upland (SU) RRU 58A-C 11-14" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No Mckenzie Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Ecological site: R058AC045MT- Overflow (Ov) RRU 58A-C 11-14" p.z. Hydric soil rating: Yes 17 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 18 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nres142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl 42p2_052290.pdf 19 Appendix C Groundwater Data MONTANA WELL LOG REPORT Other Options This well log reports the activities of a licensed Montana well driller,serves as the official record of work done within the borehole and casing,and describes the amount of water encountered. Go to GWIC website This report is compiled electronically from the contents of the Ground Water Information Center(GWIC)database for this site.Acquiring water rights is the well owner's responsibility and is NOT Plot this site in State Library Digital Atlas accomplished by the filing of this report. Plot this site in Google Maps View scanned well Iog_(7/19/2011 1:04:10 PM) Site Name:MT DEPT OF HWYS`LAUREL OVERPASS(S) Section 7:Well Test Data GWIC Id:98215 Total Depth:47 Section 1:Well Owner(s) Static Water Level: 14 Water Temperature: Section 2:Location Township Range Section Quarter Sections Unknown Test Method` 02S 24E 16 NE%SE%SE%NW'/< County Geocode Yield_gpm. YELLOWSTONE Pumping water level_feet. Time of recovery_hours. Latitude Longitude Geomethod Datum Recovery water level_feet. 45.662559 -108.772199 TRS-SEC NAD83 Ground Surface Altitude Ground Surface Method Datum Date 3290 `During the well test the discharge rate shall be as uniform as possible. This rate may or may not be the sustainable yield Addition Block Lot of the well.Sustainable yield does not include the reservoir of the well casing. Section 8:Remarks Section 3:Proposed Use of Water GEOTECH(1) Section 9:Well Log Geologic Source Section 4:Type of Work 211CLRD-COLORADO SHALE OR FM.(OF COLORADO GROUP) Drilling Method: Status:NEW WELL �From To Description V 6.3 DARK CLAYEY LOAM Date well completed:Tuesday,Section l Completion November 24,1959 33 46.9 CONTACT DARK GRAYS AGE GRAVEL Section 6:Well Construction Details There are no borehole dimensions assigned to this well. There are no casing strings assigned to this well. There are no completion records assigned to this well. Annular Space(Seal/Grout/Packer) There are no annular space records assigned to this well. Driller Certification All work performed and reported in this well log is in compliance with the Montana well construction standards.This report is true to the best of my knowledge. Name: Company: License No:- Date Completed:11/24/1959 Go gle Maps 45°39'45.2"N 108-46-19.9"W m ueuveiy Ford dealer S 3rd St a S 3rd St a Q n 7 Touch-free Car Wash r � 310 v a � n S 41h St S 4th St c� 212 m 3 Shamrock Rabbitso Pet stare m a a n n o •- � "� 310 5 5th St S 51h St r ' First Congregational Church 212 K r Google 212 k R Map data 02021 Google 200 ft 45039'45.2"N 108046'19.9"W 45.662559,-108.772199 MONTANA WELL LOG REPORT Other Options This well log reports the activities of a licensed Montana well driller,serves as the official record of work done within the borehole and casing,and describes the amount of water encountered. Go to GWIC website This report is compiled electronically from the contents of the Ground Water Information Center(GWIC)database for this site.Acquiring water rights is the well owner's responsibility and is NOT Plot this site in State Library Digital Atlas accomplished by the filing of this report. Plot this site in Google Maps View scanned well Iog_(7/19/2011 1:04:20 PM) Site Name:MT DEPT OF HWYS`LAUREL OVERPASS Section 7:Well Test Data GWIC Id:98216 Total Depth:48 Section 1:Well Owner(s) Static Water Level: 12 Water Temperature: Section 2:Location Township Range Section Quarter Sections Unknown Test Method` 02S 24E 16 NW%SE'/<SE/NW% County Geocode Yield_gpm. YELLOWSTONE Pumping water level_feet. Time of recovery_hours. Latitude Longitude Geomethod Datum Recovery water level_feet. 45.662559 -108.773509 TRS-SEC NAD83 Ground Surface Altitude Ground Surface Method Datum Date 3289 `During the well test the discharge rate shall be as uniform as possible. This rate may or may not be the sustainable yield Addition Block Lot of the well.Sustainable yield does not include the reservoir of the well casing. Section 8:Remarks Section 3:Proposed Use of Water GEOTECH(1) Section 9:Well Log Geologic Source Section 4:Type of Work 211CLRD-COLORADO SHALE OR FM.(OF COLORADO GROUP) Drilling Method: Status:NEW WELL �From To Description OF-4 3 CLAYEY LOAM Section l Completion el comple uursda ,Noov lted:Thursday, te 4.37-13.9FC—ONTACT COARSE GRAVEL Date ember 12,1959 13.9 32.5 FINE GRAY SANDY GRAVEL 32.5 48.5 CONTACT HARD FRACTURED GRAY SHALE Section 6:Well Construction Details There are no borehole dimensions assigned to this well. There are no casing strings assigned to this well. There are no completion records assigned to this well. Annular Space(Seal/Grout/Packer) There are no annular space records assigned to this well. Driller Certification All work performed and reported in this well log is in compliance with the Montana well construction standards.This report is true to the best of my knowledge. Name: Company: License No:- Date Completed:11/12/1959 Go,.:gle Maps 45°39'45.2"N 108°46'24.6"W m L'envery T S 3rd St S 3rd St n S 3rd S[ w c � „ m m 0 Touch-free Car Wash r n ro y a y� m a � L � S 41h St S 41h St N { 212 _ a C7 m S[ Shamrock RabbitsV Q Pel stare a a 310 S 5th St S 51h St En ementar First Congregational Russel Park K School V Church 212 Google 212 � k Map data©2021 Google 200 ft d - err �i 45039'45.2"N 108046'24.6"W 45.662559,-108.773509 MONTANA WELL LOG REPORT Other Options This well log reports the activities of a licensed Montana well driller,serves as the official record of work done within the borehole and casing,and describes the amount of water encountered. Go to GWIC website This report is compiled electronically from the contents of the Ground Water Information Center(GWIC)database for this site.Acquiring water rights is the well owner's responsibility and is NOT Plot this site in State Library Digital Atlas accomplished by the filing of this report. Plot this site in Google Maps View scanned well Iog_(7/19/2011 12:49:04 PM) Site Name:HEDINI MERLYN/GARDENS LAUREL Section 7:Well Test Data GWIC Id:120215 Total Depth:30 Section 1:Well Owner(s) Static Water Level:12 1)HEDINI,MERLYN(MAIL) Water Temperature: 3303 LAUREL AVE BLGS N/A N/A N/A[05/31/1990] Pump Test Section 2:Location Depth pump set for test_feet. Township Range Section Quarter Sections 35 gpm pump rate with_feet of drawdown after 4 hours of pumping. 02S 24E 16 SW'/<SW%NW% Time of recovery_hours. County Geocode Recovery water level_feet. YELLOWSTONE Pumping water level 16 feet. Latitude Longitude Geomethod Datum 45.6616 -108.7797 UNKNOWN NAD27 *During the well test the discharge rate shall be as uniform as possible.This rate may or may not be the sustainable yield Ground Surface Altitude Ground Surface Method Datum Date of the well.Sustainable yield does not include the reservoir of the well casing. Addition Block Lot Section 8:Remarks LAUREL Y'STONE 5 11-15 Section 9:Well Log Section 3:Proposed Use of Water I Geologic Source IRRIGATION(1) 111TRRC-TERRACE DEPOSITS(HOLOCENE) Section 4:Type of Work From To Description Drilling Method:UNKNOWN 0 2 TOP SOIL Status:NEW WELL 2 10 CLAY 10 30 SAND AND GRAVEL Section 5:Well Completion Date Date well completed:Thursday,May 31,1990 Section 6:Well Construction Details There are no borehole dimensions assigned to this well. Casin Wall Pressure From To Diameter Thickness Rating Joint Type -2 12516 1 1 1WELDED WELDED There are no completion records assigned to this well. Annular Space Seal/Grout/Packer) Cont. From To I Description Fed? 0 18 BENTONITE Driller Certification All work performed and reported in this well log is in compliance with the Montana well construction standards.This report is true to the best of my knowledge. Name:CURTIS SCHELLE Company:AMERICAN DRILLING&SUPPLY License No:WWC-344 Date Completed:5/31/1990 Google Maps 45°39'41.8"N 108°46'46.9"W S 4th St m a n Shamrock Rahbitso Pet store n a K C � S 5th St S 5th St S 5th St � y South Elementary N �FirstCongregational K School Church st = yb� s a CHS 9 N Google a 3E N n Map data©2021 Google 200 ft . 45039'41.8"N 108046'46.9"W 45.661600,-108.779700 MONTANA WELL LOG REPORT Other Options This well log reports the activities of a licensed Montana well driller,serves as the official record of work done within the borehole and casing,and describes the amount of water encountered. Go to GWIC website This report is compiled electronically from the contents of the Ground Water Information Center(GWIC)database for this site.Acquiring water rights is the well owner's responsibility and is NOT Plot this site in State Library Digital Atlas accomplished by the filing of this report. Plot this site in Google Maps View scanned well Iog_(7119/2011 1:03:57 PM) Site Name:RIEMANN CURT Section 7:Well Test Data GWIC Id:161054 Total Depth:37 Section 1:Well Owner(s) Static Water Level:16 1)RIEMAN,CURT(MAIL) Water Temperature: 220 1ST AVE S LAUREL N/A N/A N/A[12/14/1995] Air Test Section 2:Location 100 gpm with drill stem set at_feet for 35 hours. Township Range Section Quarter Sections Time of recovery_hours. 02S 24E 16 SE'%SE'/.NW% Recovery water level_feet. County Geocode Pumping water level_feet. YELLOWSTONE Latitude Longitude Geomethod Datum *During the well test the discharge rate shall be as uniform as possible. This rate may or may not be the sustainable yield 45.662107 -108.772854 TRS-SEC NAD83 of the well.Sustainable yield does not include the reservoir of the well casing. Ground Surface Altitude Ground Surface Method Datum Date Section 8:Remarks Addition Block Lot Section 9:Well Log Section 3:Proposed Use of Water Geologic Source IRRIGATION(1) 111TRRC-TERRACE DEPOSITS(HOLOCENE) From To Description Section 4:Type of Work 0 1 FILL Drilling Method:ROTARY DRIVEN 1 13 CLAY Status:NEW WELL 13 43 GRAVEL WITH LOTS OF SAND 43 43.5 SHALE Section 5:Well Completion Date Date well completed:Thursday,December 14,1995 Section 6:Well Construction Details There are no borehole dimensions assigned to this well. Casin Wall Pressure From To Diameter Thickness Rating Joint Type -1.5 13716 1 1 IWELDEDISTEEJ Com letion Pert/Screen #of Size of From To Diameter Openings Openings Description 20 14319.5 .025 SCREENS Driller Certification Annular Space(Seal/Grout/Packer) All work performed and reported in this well log is in compliance with the Montana well construction standards.This report Cont. is true to the best of my knowledge. From To Description Fed? Name: 0 121 1BENTONITE1 Company:PRO PUMP&EQUIPMENT INC License No:WWC-532 Date Completed:12/14/1995 Google Maps a S 41h St S 4th St to 212 m � — n f n m` y Shamrock Rabbits o C Pet stare V m � a a 310 _ S 5th St S 5th St r s First Congregational Russel Park k Church 212 r t r --��_ 212 CHS 9 Google 212 Map data©2021 Google 200 ft MONTANA WELL LOG REPORT Other Options This well log reports the activities of a licensed Montana well driller,serves as the official record of work done within the borehole and casing,and describes the amount of water encountered. Go to GWIC website This report is compiled electronically from the contents of the Ground Water Information Center(GWIC)database for this site.Acquiring water rights is the well owner's responsibility and is NOT Plot this site in State Library Digital Atlas accomplished by the filing of this report. Plot this site in Google Maps View scanned well Iog_(7/19/2011 12:47:14 PM) Site Name:SULLINS GEORGE L Section 7:Well Test Data GWIC Id:167903 DNRC Water Right:104938 Total Depth:30 Static Water Level:11 Section 1:Well Owner(s) Water Temperature: 1)SULLINS,GEORGE(MAIL) 205 S 8TH AVE Pump Test' LAUREL MT 59044[05/10/1998] Depth pump set for test_feet. Section 2:Location 20 gpm pump rate with_feet of drawdown after 2 hours of pumping. Township Range Section Quarter Sections Time of recovery_hours. 02S 24E 16 SW'/4 NW'/4 NW'/ Recovery water level_feet. County Geocode Pumping water level 28 feet. YELLOWSTONE Latitude Longitude Geomethod Datum *During the well test the discharge rate shall be as uniform as possible.This rate may or may not be the sustainable yield 45.665724 -108.780715 TRS-SEC NAD83 of the well.Sustainable yield does not include the reservoir of the well casing. Ground Surface Altitude Ground Surface Method Datum Date Section 8:Remarks Addition Block Lot YELLOWSTONE 05 19 Section 9:Well Log Section 3:Proposed Use of Water Geologic Source IRRIGATION(1) 111TRRC-TERRACE DEPOSITS(HOLOCENE) From To Description Section 4:Type of Work 0 1 GRAVEL Drilling Method:CABLE 1 5 STICKY CLAY Status:NEW WELL 5 12 SANDY CLAY 12 18 SAND AND GRAVEL Section 5:Well Completion Date 18 18.6 CLAY Date well completed:Sunday,May 10,1998 18.61 31 SAND AND GRAVEL Section 6:Well Construction Details Borehole dimensions From To Diameter 01301 6 Casin Wall Pressure From To Diameter Thickness Rating Joint Type -1.5 13016 1 1 1 IPLASTIC Com letion Pert/Screen Driller Certification #of Size of All work performed and reported in this well log is in compliance with the Montana well construction standards.This report From To Diameter Openings Openings Description is true to the best of my knowledge. 30 13016 1 1 JOPEN BOTTOM Name:MARVIN W.JEWETT Annular Space Seal/Grout/Packer) jCont.1 Company:A-1 DRILLING/BILLINGS DRILLING From To Description Fed? License No:WWC-532 0 1191CASING SEALI Date Completed:5/10/1998 Go gle Maps 45°39'56.6"N 108°46'50.6"W Wood's Softball Field Redneck Pizza&Chicken Takeout•Delivery '0 oxw Ra�l�oa6 St a C vy oad S� o Kowboy Kreativity adS� Log Works and More n Caboose Salon Laurel MT Ra`1(Daa St S 2nd St S 2nd St 9 Community Hope �oavoaagti Apart en Laurel Gardens o CL d 5t S 3rd St s 3rd St S 3rd St a S 3rd St g Rad�oa ,, Lions Park � N ad St n Go gle S 4th St S 4th St Map data©2021 Google 200 ft i 45039'56.6"N 108046'50.6"W 45.665724,-108.780715 MONTANA WELL LOG REPORT Other Options This well log reports the activities of a licensed Montana well driller,serves as the official record of work done within the borehole and casing,and describes the amount of water encountered.This Go to GWIC website report is compiled electronically from the contents of the Ground Water Information Center(GWIC)database for this site.Acquiring water rights is the well owner's responsibility and is NOT Plot this site in State Library.Digital Atlas accomplished by the filing of this report. Plot this site in Google Maps Site Name:CHS REFINERY Section 7:Well Test Data GWIC Id:304734 Total Depth:30 Section 1:Well Owner(s) Static Water Level:12 1)CHS REFINERY(MAIL) Water Temperature: 1011 US HWY 212 LAUREL MT 59044[01/20/2020] Air Test 2)CHS REFINERY(WELL) 535 BADGER SQ 25 gpm with drill stem set at 30 feet for 3 hours. LAUREL MT 59044[01/20/2020] Time of recovery 01 hours. Recovery water level 12 feet. Section 2:Location Pumping water level_feet. Township Range Section Quarter Sections 02S 24E 16 *During the well test the discharge rate shall be as uniform as possible.This rate may or may not be the sustainable yield YELLOWSTONE County Geocode of the well.Sustainable yield does not include the reservoir of the well casing. Latitude Longitude Geomethod Datum Section 8:Remarks 45.66241 -108.77787 NAV-GPS NAD27 K PACKER TO 25 FEET PITLESS ADAPTER SET AT 6 FEET Ground Surface Altitude Ground Surface Method Datum Date Addition Block Lot Section 9:Well Log Geologic Source Unassigned Section 3:Proposed Use of Water From To IDescription DOMESTIC(1) 0 30 SAND AND GRAVEL Section 4:Type of Work Drilling Method:ROTARY Status:NEW WELL Section 5:Well Completion Date Date well completed:Monday,January 20,2020 Section 6:Well Construction Details Borehole dimensions From To Diameter 01101 10 101301 6 Casin Wall Pressure Driller Certification From To Diameter Thickness Rating Joint �ASA 2 30 6 0.25 250.00 WELDED STEEL All work performed and reported in this well log is in compliance with the Montana well construction standards.This report is true to the best of my knowledge. Com letion Perf/Screen #of Size of Name:BRETT DOUGLAS From To Diameter Openings Openings Description Company:DOUGLAS DRILLING 25 13016 .020 SCREEN-CONTINUOUS-STAINLESS License No:WWC-591 Annular Space Seal/Grout/Packer) Date Completed:1/20/2020 Cont. From To Description Fed? 0 1 13011BENTONITE y Go gle Maps 45°39'44.7"N 108°46'40.3"W S 3rd St 5 3ra bt a aru ai a Diu ai b n y C � c m Touch-free Car Wash � a m a m a m 5 4th St S 4th St s 4th St � N m o n n K m Shamrock Rabbitsao C Pet store V m a a y � m m S Sth St � S 51h St 5 Sih St South Elementary First Congregational Russel Park 1�1K School v Church m st .- nr --. m Go-gle Map data©2021 Google 200 ft i 45039'44.7"N 108046'40.3"W 45.662410,-108.777870 RT 14 , PIEZOMETER CEN"27 RCRA LTU POC WELL RT_, RCRA LTU ASSESSMENT WELL CEw-1& RCRA LTU BKG WELL RT-97 j` RT-B EEO RT-t PZ 15 000 RTC , ► _ - FZ% _ t A�; A��_; It TBORING/WELL IN TALLATION LOG toot S. 24th Street W. FU Suite 100 REMEDIATION Monitor Well RT-1 Billings, MT 59102 TECHNOLOGIES INC (406)652-7481 PROJECT NO:E3-0730-340 Cenex RFI DRILLING CO.:ESD, Inc. MP ELEV.: 3291.54' (MSL) (TOP OF PVC) CLIENT: Cenex Refinery DRILLER: Ed Hillman TOTAL DEPTH: 26.5' LOCATION: Laurel, MT BORING ID: 6-518" SURFACE ELEV.:3289.30' (MSL) START DATE: 5115192 TIME.,0800 METHOD: Air Rotary/CasLn Advance WATER LEVEL DURING DRILLING: 7.0' COMPLETION DATE: 5115192 TIME.,1130 LOGGED BY:Nlc Winslow IPVC STICK-UP: 2.24' WELL LOCATION:-N. . Refiner Tank Farm M = � WELL CONSTRUCTION v ii r a � ffPROTECTIVE STEEL H y. W to >- WELL MONUMENT = J ; Ui J w U J DESCRIPTION /ram LOCKING COVER CL 3:1CONCRETE a x U x p E O 1 Tri t-;� PAD O N CC (n d M J 7 SILTY SAND0 Ok. Brown, well sorted =L 60% sand, fine grain, moist v r CL 40% silt, low plasticity SM W o U� w� 5 Gs too 0 = o = 20 Ow z 1 Z SAND - w m Sp Lt. Brown, poorly graded = .4 100% sand, medium grain • a SANDY GRAVEL W =_ Lt. Brown, well graded wcc 0 10 Gs too 0 Q '4 65% gravel, med-crs grained _ <j GW 35% sand, med-crs grained, >CL a 0' 4 W _ Q o� f = a SANDY GRAVEL W = z cli o Lt. Brown, mod grading N = a 75% gravel, med-crs grain o = U)- 15 GT 100 o D 'O 25% sand, med-crs grain = 'i' 5 a = o0 GW = 0 0 Gs 100 0 20 SANDY GRAVEL S.A.A with interbedded sand layers Sp 5 Gs too 0 25 SHALE Grey Shale, bedrock REMARKS: GS=Grab Sample REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES, Inc. GT=Geotechnical Sample Concord,MA Pittsburgh,PA Fort Collins,CO Austin,TX Chapel Hill,NC Seattle,WA Billings,MT St. Paul,MN Mandeville,LA Tucson, AZ Page 1 of! BORING/WELL INSTALLATI®N LOG t001 S. 24th Street W.Suite 100 FEMM 9102 REMEDIATION Monitor Well RT®2 Billings, 406)6 257481 TECHNOLOGIES INC PROJECT NO:E3-0730-340 Cenex RFI DRILLING CO.: ESO,Inc. MP ELEV.: 3291.64' (MSL) (TOP OF PVC) CLIENT: Cenex Refinery DRILLER: Wayne Jewett TOTAL DEPTH: 31.5' LOCATION: Laurel, MT BORING ID: 6-518" SURFACE ELEV.:3269.40' (MSL) START DATE: 5118192 TIME.*0800 METHOD: AIr Rotary/CasIng Advance WATER LEVEL DURING DRILLING: 8.5' COMPLETION DATE: 5118192 TIME.,1100 LOGGED BY:Nic Winslow PVC STICK-UP: 2.24' WELL LOCATION: North Refiner WELL CONSTRUCTION CL U w PROTECTIVE STEEL v� O � LLKINGE( C7 W/ OC COVER a o DESCRIPTION W WW W �� CONCRETE0- X ' iL X U X G E 0 1— to PA0 0 (n CC N CL mTri J CLAYEY SILT —� Lt. Brown; poorly graded; F80% silt, moist; (� ML 10% clay, low plasticity; Q 10% fine sand. Q . 5-Gs 100 0 in w2 W_ ° GRAVELLY SAND = z c ..0 Lt. Brown; well graded; _ z U. 0 W 70% sand, fine-coarse grained; = 1 •0.0 30% gravel, fine-medium grain; W ip Gs too 0 o SW saturated at 8.5 feet. Cr = 0 0 0 U) _ ° N -_ 0.0 0� - W - 1-U) - 4 SANDY GRAVEL o - 15 GT too o p Lt. Brown, mod graded; 0 _ GW 70% gravel, med-crs grain; N = o 30% sand, med grain. o = N o SP SAND _ N Lt. Brown, poorly graded; - o0 V. a 100% sand, med-crs grain. 0 Gs too o SANDY GRAVEL 20 D 'p Lt. Brown, well graded; 65% gravel, med-crs grain; GW 35% sand, med-crs grain. 5 GS too o 25 SAND Sp Ok. Brown, poorly graded; 95% sand, medium grained; 0 5% gravel, fine grained. 3 0 o GP GRAVEL Gs too o Brown, poorly graded; 80% gravel, med grain; 20% sand, coarse grain. SHALE 5 Grey, bedrock. 35 REMARKS: GS=Grab Sample REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES, Inc. GT=Geotechnical Sample Concord,MA Pittsburgh,PA Fort Collins,CO Austin, TX Chapel Hill,NC Seattle,WA Billings,MT St. Paul,MN Mandeville,LA Tucson, AZ Page I of I 618 South 25th Street Figure No. 1 Billings,Montana 59101 T'ETRAT'ECH Phone: 406-248-9161 LOG OF BORING Fax: 406-248-9282 . Sheet 1 of 1 Project: CHS Tank 152 and New LPG Rig:BK 81 Boring Location N: 1311.8 Bullets Hammer:Auto Coordinates E:-905.6 Project Number: Boring Diameter: System: CHS TPN Top of Boring 114-551962 8" Datum: Local Elevation: 104.0 ft Date Started: Date Finished: Drilling Fluid: Abandonment Method: 6/13/16 �6/17/16 None Backfilled with Cuttings Driller: Haz Tech Location: Center of proposed LPG Bullets. Lo er:Luke Michels a 0 o Depth n o c Depth (ft) g ~ Z 'o o (ft) Remarks ° o o Material Description o and o Elev. m o J Elev. v c o Other Tests W (ft) 0) m (ft) a N o o FILL,Clayey GRAVEL with sand(GC),moist, 0.5 N brown,fine to coarse grained,rounded to 103.5 51 20 85 a subangular. a Fat CLAY(CH),moist, brown. 5 4.5 z 99.0 ° Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with silt and sand(GP-GM), 99.5 medium dense to very dense,moist to wet, gray, fine to coarse grained,rounded to subangular. U c0 ° 50 9-10-12 N a 10 oo. 94.0 55 15-26-24 ° 0 o a o Q N o w 15 a 89'0 15 26-23-10 0 3° 0 z o 2 OU v 20 0 0 84.0 25 7-15-8 0 61 Q 0 o U a 25 ° 6) 79.0 60 13-29-50/0.4ft o w o U p � o 30 N 74.0 0 6-9-27 3 0 o 0 N ° 0 35 35.0 69.0 75 38-5010.4ft Weathered CLAYSTONE,gray,very thinly bedded. 69.0 ru Boring Depth:35.9 ft, Elevation:68.1 ft 35.9 F- 68.1 0 z z rr 0 m IL° Water Level Observations During Remarks: o - Drillin :8.0 ft 96.0 f< After After _ Dri li :Not Recorded _ Tetra Tech Figure No. 1 BORING TETiiATECH 618 South 25th Street Billings,Montana 59101 LOG OF Phone: 406-248-9161 Fax: 406-248-9282 Project Name: CHS Gantry Crane Pad Project Number: 114-551862 Borehole Borehole Location: See Drawing No.551862-1 Number: BH-1 Sheet 1 of 1 Hammer: Stationing: Type: Automatic Driller: O'Keefe Drilling Logger: Luke Michels Borehole Drilling Equipment: Mobile B-60 Diameter(in): 8.50 Date Started: 1/25/16 Date Finished: 1/25/16 Elevation Ground: 103.50 and Datum: Notes: Coordinates and elevations of borings provided by Common DRILL Ground Industries and are based on CHS's TPN system. 0 r x N 1714'4.75" w Z F 0 o E-115'0.12" �z o 0� 0 g 0 0 w JO O Ci J N O z C3z w w z ) n w o u~i MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS K w w > ¢zcn o O g x x a- w w t m� 0�n 0 c~natw } d z ¢ n~ w n. Cr ¢ Ow Ow ¢ w 0 w 0 0 a- LX Uo- Of U) o SPT 2 LL PI 2 80 10-9-8 5 FILL-Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand-Gray,moist, medium dense. Fine 2.00 ao 5-5-5 zz to coarse grained sand. Fine to coarse rounded to subangular gravel. Largest 5 45 22 4g 2g 93 gravel size approximately 1.5 inches. Lean CLAY-Light brown,moist,stiff. 45 26-11-17 3 Fine grained sand scattered throughout. .50 Poorly Graded GRAVEL with Sand-Gray, moist to wet, medium dense to very dense. D Fine to coarse grained sand. Fine to 10 60 14-50/6" 3 coarse rounded to subangular gravel. °& oO D 15 55 13-17-13 NV NP 5 �D °Qo OD °Q. 20 70 14-28-37 NV NP 5 OD o�o OD o Qo 25 40 3-4-23 o p OD 30 80 23-26-39 ° 30.00 Weathered CLAYSTONE Bedrock-Gray, d == moist,thinly layered structure. 0 =_ z 35 85 15-47-50/5" __ 5.40 a End of Boring. 0 z E- z 0 .E Operation ®Au er Sampler ®Split ®Penetrometer WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Types: 9 Types: soon Mud ®Air Rotary Shelby ®Vane Shear While Drilling V 11.30 ft Upon Completion of Drilling ft N Rotary Continuous Diamond Bulk Time After Drilling ° Flight Auger Core Eli Sample ® California Ring Depth To Water(ft) 1 c� 0 Wash Drive ®Grab ®Testpit Remarks. o Rotary Casing Sample Re.,ixcd I-M-07(MAT) ANNUAL CORRECTIVE MEASURES REPORT Facility-Wide Corrective Action Program CHS Refinery,Laurel,Montana Table 3-2:Summary of Fluid Level Measurements and Elevations-Third Quarter 2020 Description Measuring - _n - Corrected of Point Depth to Depth to Product Water Level Water Level Measuring Elevation Water Product Thickness Elevation Elevation Well No. Point (feet,MSL) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet,MSL) (teet,MSL)(a) PZ-10A To of PVC 3277.37 6.34 NPP --- 3271.03 --- PZ-10B Top of PVC 3277.42 5.60 NPP 3271,82 --- PZ-11B Top of PVC 3282.44 6.18 NPP --- 3276.26 --- PZ-13 To of PVC 3276.99 2,85 NPP --- 3274.14 --- PZ-14 Top of PVC 3289.73 7.33 NPP --- 3282.40 --- PZ-15 Top of PVC 3292.44 9.01 NPP --- 3283.43 --- PZ-16 Top of PVC 3284.16 7.16 NPP(d) --- 3277.00 --- PZ-17 Top of PVC 3285.19 9.03 NPP --- 3276.16 --- PZ-18 Top of PVC 3289.62 11.50 9.71 1.79 ---(f) 3279.70 PZ-19 Top of PVC 3284.95 7.01 NPP --- 3277.94 --- PZ-20 Top of PVC 3280.99 9.05 NPP --- 3271.94 --- PZ-22 Top of PVC 3287.14 9.89 NPP --- 3277.25 PZ-23 Top of PVC 3289,29 11.15 NPP 3278.14 --- RT-1 Top of PVC 3291,54 6.75 NPP --- 3284.79 --- RT-2 Top of PVC 3291.64 8.57 NPP --- 3283.07 RT-3 Top of PVC 3290.46 7.21 NPP --- 3283.25 --- RT-4 Top of PVC 3290.96 b 9.85(g) NPP(d) --- 3281.11 --- RT-7 Top of PVC 3295.04 7.65 NPP --- 3287.39 --- RT-8 Top of PVC 3296.08 7.58 NPP --- 3288.50 RT-9R Top of PVC 3295.43 9.54 NPP --- 3285.89 --- RT-10 Top of PVC 3293.75 10.11 NPP --- 3283.64 --- RT-11 Top of PVC 3288.51 8.01 NPP --- 3280.50 --- RT-12 Top of PVC 3287.48 7.33 NPP --- 3280.15 RT-13 Top of PVC 3285.90 5.24 NPP 3280.66 --- RT-14 To of PVC 3289.61 8.02 NPP --- 3281.59 --- RT-17 Top of PVC 3287.88 6.57 NPP --- 3281.31 --- RT-19 Top of PVC 3287.50 6.31 NPP --- 3281.19 --- RT-20 Top of PVC 3286.94 6.12 NPP(d) --- 3280.82 --- RT-21 Top of PVC 3282.70 5.20 NPP --- 3277.50 --- RT-22 Top of PVC 3283.62 7.43 NPP --- 3276.19 RT-23 Top of PVC 3278.67 6.86 NPP --- 3271.81 --- RT-24 Top of PVC 3278.51 7.45 NPP --- 3271.06 --- RT-25 Top of PVC 3282.24 7.63 NPP --- 3274.61 RT-27 Top of PVC 3289.55 8.89 NPP --- 3280.66 --- RT-29 Top of PVC 3276.06 5.59 NPP 3270.47 --- RT-30 Top of PVC 3285.74 8.33 NPP(d) --- 3277.41 --- RT-31 Top of PVC 3285.24 7.75 NPP --- 3277.49 RT-32 Top of PVC 3283.77 7.38 NPP --- 3276.39 --- RT-33 Top of PVC 3282.53 6.82 NPP --- 3275.71 RT-34 Top of PVC 3279.62 6.05 NPP --- 3273.57 RT-35 To of PVC 3274.52 7.51 NPP --- 3267.01 RT-36 Top of PVC 3273.61 6.70 NPP 3266.91 --- RT-37 Top of PVC 3281.18 9.89 NPP --- 3271.29 --- RT-38 Top of PVC 3274.74 6.89 NPP --- 3267.85 --- RT-39 Top of PVC 3275.52 11.82 NPP(d) --- 3263.70 --- RT-40 Top of PVC 3272.14 11.21 NPP --- 3260.93 --- RT-41 Top of PVC 3272.30 11.05 NPP --- 3261.25 --- RT-42 Top of PVC 3275.71 4.36 NPP 3271.35 NOTES: Measurement Date:August 17,2020 Measured by:Tetra Tech,Inc. NPP=No measurable Product Present. --- =Not Applicable (a)In wells with measurable product thickness,the ground water elevation was corrected for the presence of product.For this report the term product is correlative with light non-aqueous phase liquid(LNAPL). (b)Recovery system located in well. (c)3.32 feet subtracted from water level depth measurement taken inside the belt skimmer system at well CEN-26. (d)A sheen was observed during gauging;however,LNAPL was not measurable. (e)1.84 feet subtracted from water level depth measurement taken inside the belt skimmer system at well MW-68. (f)Specific gravity of 0.88 used to correct ground water elevation based on site-specific data. (g)2.00 feet subtracted from original water level depth measurement taken inside belt skimmer system at well RT-4. (h)Top of casing for Well RWA R is assumed to be the same as RW-1. Page 2 of 3 P:\Projects\0568569\DM\29124H(tbs).xlsx ANNUAL CORRECTIVE MEASURES REPORT Facility-Wide Corrective Action Program CHS Refinery,Laurel,Montana Table 3-1:Summary of Fluid Level Measurements and Elevation'-First Quarter 2020 Description Measuring "- Corrected of Point Depth to Depth to Product Water Level Water Level Measuring Elevation Water Product Thickness Elevation Elevation Well No. Point (feet,MSL) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet,MSL) (feet,MSL)(a) PZ-10A To of PVC 3277.37 10,40 NPP --- 3266.97 --- PZ-10B Top of PVC 3277.42 10.81 NPP --- 3266.61 --- PZ-11B Top of PVC 3282.44 9.70 NPP --- 3272.74 --- PZ-13 Top of PVC 3276.99 6.92 NPP 3270.07 --- PZ-14 Top of PVC 3289,73 9.52 NPP --- 3280.21 --- PZ-15 Top of PVC 3292.44 11.01 NPP --- 3281.43 --- PZ-16 Top of PVC 3284.16 10.82 NPP --- 3273.34 --- PZ-17 Top of PVC 3285.19 12.12 NPP --- 3273.07 --- PZ-18 Top of PVC 3289.62 12.48 11.94 0.54 ---(f) 3277.62 PZ-19 Top of PVC 3284.95 10,21 NPP --- 3274.74 --- PZ-20 Top of PVC 3280.99 12.89 NPP --- 3268.10 --- PZ-22 Top of PVC 3287.14 12.23 NPP(d) --- 3274.91 --- PZ-23 Top of PVC 3289.29 13.72 NPP --- 3275.57 --- RT-1 Top of PVC 3291.54 6.62 NPP --- 3284.92 --- RT-2 Top of PVC 3291.64 10.21 NPP --- 3281.43 RT-3 Top of PVC 3290.46 9.43 NPP --- 3281.03 --- RT-4 Top of PVC 3290.96 b 10.08(h) 9.97 0.11 ---(f) 3280.98 RT-7 Top of PVC 3295.04 10.85 NPP --- 3284.19 --- RT-8 Top of PVC 3296.08 11.28 NPP 3284.80 --- RT-9R Top of PVC 3295.43 12.27 NPP --- 3283.16 --- RT-10 Top of PVC 3293.75 12.97 NPP --- 3280.78 --- RT-11 Top of PVC 3288.51 10.02 NPP --- 3278.49 --- RT-12 Top of PVC 3287.48 9.53 NPP 3277.95 --- RT-13 Top of PVC 3285.90 7.78 NPP --- 3278.12 --- RT-14 Top of PVC 3289.61 10.35 NPP --- 3279.26 RT-17 Top of PVC 3287.88 8.52 NPP 3279.36 --- RT-19 Top of PVC 3287.50 9.03 NPP(d) --- 3278.47 --- RT-20 Top of PVC 3286.94 8.88 NPP --- 3278.06 --- RT-21 Top of PVC 3282.70 8.03 NPP --- 3274.67 --- RT-22 Top of PVC 3283.62 11.96 NPP 3271.66 --- RT-23 Top of PVC 3278.67 10.77 NPP --- 3267.90 --- RT-24 Top of PVC 3278.51 11.25 NPP 3267.26 RT-25 Top of PVC 3282.24 14.09 NPP(d) --- 3268.15 --- RT-27 To of PVC 3289.55 12.11 NPP --- 3277.44 --- RT-29 Top of PVC 3276.06 9.94 NPP --- 3266.12 --- RT-30 Top of PVC 3285.74 13.05 NPP(d) 3272.69 --- RT-31 Top of PVC 3285.24 10.55 NPP --- 3274.69 --- RT-32 To of PVC 3283.77 10.59 NPP(d) --- 3273.18 --- RT-33 Top of PVC 3282.53 9.96 NPP --- 3272.57 --- RT-34 Top of PVC 3279.62 9.28 NPP --- 3270.34 --- RT-35 Top of PVC 3274.52 9.49 NPP --- 3265.03 --- RT-36 Top of PVC 3273.61 9.31 NPP --- 3264.30 --- RT-37 Top of PVC 3281.18 12.79 NPP 3268.39 RT-38 Top of PVC 3274.74 8.59 NPP --- 3266.15 RT-39 Top of PVC 3275.52 12.21 NPP --- 3263.31 --- RT-40 Top of PVC 3272.14 1 12.20 1 NPP 3259.94 --- RT-41 Top of PVC 3272.30 1 11.55 NPP --- 3260.75 RT-42 Top of PVC 3275.71 7.87 N FF 3267.84 --- NOTES: Measurement Date:March 16,2020 Measured by:Tetra Tech,Inc. NPP=No measurable Product Present. --- =Not Applicable NM=Not Measured. (a)In wells with measurable product thickness,the ground water elevation was corrected for the presence of product.For this report the term product is correlative with light non-aqueous phase liquid(LNAPL). (b)Recovery system located in well. (c)3.32 feet subtracted from water level depth measurement taken inside the belt skimmer system at well CEN-26. (d)A sheen was observed during gauging;however,LNAPL was not measurable. (e)1.84 feet subtracted from water level depth measurement taken inside the belt skimmer system at well MW-68. (f)Specific gravity of 0.88 used to correct ground water elevation based on site-specific data. (g)Well was observed to be dry. (h)2.00 feet subtracted from original water level depth measurement taken inside belt skimmer system at well RT-4. (i)Top of casing for Well RWA R is assumed to be the same as RW-1. Page 2 of 3 P:\Projects\0568569\DM\29124H(tbs).xlsx