DSHW-2024-005247

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT/HEADQUARTERS
1 TOOELE ARMY DEPOT, BUILDING 1
TOOELE, UT 84074-5003
*I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.

March 11, 2024

SUBJECT: Tooele Army Depot South Draft Final Groundwater Monitoring Plan,
Revision 3, Tooele Army Depot South Area (TEAD-S), State/EPA I.D. Number
UT5210090002.
Mr. Doug Hansen
Director, Division Waste Management and Radiation Control
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880

Dear Mr. Hansen:

TEAD-S is submitting the Draft Final Groundwater Monitoring Plan (GMP), Revision 3.
The GMP is a dynamic document that will be updated as needed as new information
becomes available and as sites (e.g., SWMUs and Areas of Concern [AOCs]) are
added or removed from LTM.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Tyson Erickson at
[phone].

Sincerely,

Lonnie Brown
Chief Environmental Division *CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

Enclosure

DRAFT FINAL
Groundwater Management Plan
Revision 3
Tooele Army Depot – South
Tooele County, Utah
March 2024
Environmental Remediation
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Contract No. W9124J-21-D-0006

U.S. Army Environmental Command Tooele Army Depot

DRAFT FINAL
Groundwater Management Plan
Revision 3
Tooele Army Depot – South
Tooele County, Utah
March 2024
Environmental Remediation
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Contract No. W9124J-21-D-0006

Prepared For:

U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command
Fort Sam Houston (MICC – FSH), U.S. Army Environmental Command (USAEC), and Tooele Army Depot (TEAD)

Prepared By:

Brice Engineering, LLC
362 Pierpont Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
801-948-9319 PH
www.BriceEng.com

This page intentionally blank

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 i
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... III
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Facility Background .......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Authorization ....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Purpose, Scope, and Objectives ....................................................................................... 1-1
1.4 Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4.1 Groundwater Protection Standards (Non-Degradation Policy) .......................... 1-2
1.4.2 Potential Drinking Water Well and Surface Water Receptors ............................ 1-3
1.4.3 Alternative Method of Compliance with UAC R315-101 and R315-264............. 1-3
1.4.4 Utah Groundwater Quality Classification ........................................................... 1-3
2.0 BASEWIDE GROUNDWATER SYSTEM UPDATE ....................................................................... 2-1
3.0 BASEWIDE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT APPROACH ....................................................... 3-1
3.1 GMP Decision Framework and Guidelines for Adding Sites ............................................ 3-1
3.1.1 Timeline and Decision Framework for the GMP ................................................. 3-1
3.1.2 Long-Term Performance Monitoring Decision Criteria ...................................... 3-2
3.1.3 Guidelines for Adding Additional Sites to the GMP ............................................ 3-2
3.2 Groundwater Monitoring Network Integrity ................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Monitoring Well Network Adequacy ............................................................................... 3-3
3.4 Groundwater Analytical Result Repository ...................................................................... 3-4
3.5 Investigative-Derived Waste Management ..................................................................... 3-4
4.0 SITE-SPECIFIC GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS .......................................................... 4-1
4.1 SWMUs in Long-Term Monitoring ................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 SWMUs 1 and 25 ................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.2 SWMU 13 ............................................................................................................ 4-6
4.1.3 SWMU 26 ............................................................................................................ 4-8
4.2 SWMUs/AOCs in Characterization or Corrective Action ................................................. 4-8
4.2.1 AOC 5 Open Storage Yard ................................................................................... 4-9
4.2.2 AOC 27 Classification Yard Burial ........................................................................ 4-9
4.2.3 SWMUs 21/22 ..................................................................................................... 4-9
4.2.4 SWMUs and AOCs Removed from Long-Term Monitoring Program ................ 4-10
4.2.5 SWMUs and AOCs with No Long-Term Monitoring Requirements .................. 4-13
5.0 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND WELL INSTALLATION METHODOLOGY ............................... 5-1
5.1 Groundwater Sampling Field Procedures ........................................................................ 5-1
5.1.1 Low-Flow Groundwater Sampling ...................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 HydraSleeve Groundwater Sampling .................................................................. 5-2
5.2 Quality Control Plan ......................................................................................................... 5-3
5.3 Laboratory Analytical Methods ....................................................................................... 5-3
5.4 Drilling Methods and Monitoring Well Installation ......................................................... 5-3
5.4.1 Drilling Methods and Selection Criteria .............................................................. 5-3
5.4.2 Monitoring Well Installation and Construction .................................................. 5-4
5.5 Well Abandonment .......................................................................................................... 5-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 ii
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
6.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 6-1
TABLES
Table 4-1 SWMU 1 Long-Term Monitoring Program
Table 4-2 SWMU 1 Well Data
Table 4-3 SWMU 25 Long-Term Monitoring Program
Table 4-4 SWMU 25 Well Data
Table 4-5 SWMU 13 Long-Term Monitoring Program
Table 4-6 SWMU 13 Well Data
Table 4-7 SWMU 26 Long-Term Monitoring Program
Table 4-8 SWMU 26 Well Data
FIGURES
Figure 1-1 TEAD-S Site Map
Figure 1-2 Basewide Groundwater Quality Map
Figure 1-3 General Groundwater Flow Direction and Drinking Water Wells
Figure 1-4 Geology and Hydrogeology Block Diagram of TEAD-S
Figure 1-5 Groundwater Recharge and Discharge Areas and Aerial Distribution of Well
Screen Hydraulic Conductivities
Figure 3-1 TEAD-S Monitoring Well Network
Figure 4-1 Long-Term Monitoring Plan at SWMU 1 and the Buffer Zone
Figure 4-2 Long-Term Monitoring Plan at SWMU 25
Figure 4-3 Long-Term Monitoring Plan at SWMU 13
Figure 4-4 Long-Term Monitoring Plan at SWMU 26

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 iii
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
μg/L micrograms per liter
amsl above mean sea level
AOC area of concern
bgs below ground surface
Brice Brice Engineering, LLC
btoc below top of casing
CAMDS Chemical Agent Munitions Disposal System
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CMI Corrective Measures Implementation
CMS Corrective Measures Study
COPC contaminant of potential concern
Cr(VI) hexavalent chromium
CTA Combat Training Area
CTC carbon tetrachloride
DCD Deseret Chemical Depot
DEHP bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
DFW definable feature of work
DMM discarded military munitions
DWMRC Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
g/cm3 grams per cubic centimeter
g/mL grams per milliliter
GMP Groundwater Management Plan
HARR Hydrogeological Assessment and Recommendations Report
HCE hexachloroethane
HWMU Hazardous Waste Management Unit
ID identification
IDF Individual Disposal Feature
IDW investigation-derived waste
IRA Interim Remedial Action
LNAPL light non-aqueous phase liquid
LTM long-term monitoring
MICC Mission and Installation Contracting Command
mg/L milligrams per liter
mL milliliters
MW monitoring well
NA not available
NFA No Further Action
No. Number
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)
Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 iv
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
NS not sampled
ODP Old Demolition Pit
PAL project action limit
PCE tetrachloroethene
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QCP Quality Control Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFI Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SSL soil screening level
SVOC semi-volatile organic compound
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
TDS total dissolved solids
TEAD Tooele Army Depot
TEAD-S Tooele Army Depot South
TOC top of casing
TPH-DRO total petroleum hydrocarbon – diesel range organics
UAC Utah Administrative Code
UBFAU upper basin-fill aquifer unit
UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USAEC U.S. Army Environmental Command
VOC volatile organic compound

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 1-1
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Tooele Army Depot South (TEAD-S), formerly Deseret Chemical Depot (DCD), in Tooele County, Utah, has
revised this Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) to provide guidance in groundwater management
decisions in support of TEAD-S compliance objectives and use of groundwater monitoring as an alternative
method of compliance with Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R315-101 and UAC R315-264-90 through 101.
1.1 Facility Background
TEAD-S is located in Tooele County, Utah, approximately 35 miles southwest of Salt Lake City (Figure 1-1).
The facility, previously known as DCD, encompasses 19,364 acres in the northern portion of Rush Valley.
Designed and built in the early 1940s, TEAD-S has been used since that time for the storage, renovation,
and disposal of many types of chemical weapons and material. Operations related to the disposal of the
chemical weapons stockpile at TEAD-S began in 1996 and concluded in January 2012. The primary mission
of TEAD-S for the storage and demilitarization of chemical warfare agents has been completed, and
facilities at the installation related to demilitarization are being closed. Detailed information on site
characteristics, including geology, soil, and hydrogeology, is presented in the Hydrogeological Assessment
and Recommendations Report (HARR; Parsons 2013), previous GMPs (Parsons 2017a, 2018a, 2019a), and
other site reports. Additional hydrogeological data may be retrieved from the U.S. Geological Society
Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5154 (Stolp and Brooks 2009).
1.2 Project Authorization
Brice Engineering, LLC (Brice) was contracted by the U.S. Army Environmental Command (USAEC) through
the U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC) under Contract W9124J-21-D-0006
to revise the GMP. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Part B Permit has specific
conditions requiring TEAD-S to perform corrective action investigations, including investigation and
remediation, for each Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) and other corrective action sites identified
in the permit. Most environmental investigations, removals, and site closures conducted at TEAD-S are
being performed under a corrective action program and must be conducted in accordance with state and
federal regulations and the RCRA Part B Permit. The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ)
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) is the regulatory authority for RCRA
environmental projects at TEAD-S.
1.3 Purpose, Scope, and Objectives
The purpose of the GMP is to present a comprehensive basewide long-term groundwater monitoring
program. The GMP references data and information collected during previous site investigations to
develop and present a defensible program that allows for the future removal and addition of monitoring
wells and sites from the long-term monitoring (LTM) program.
The GMP is a dynamic document that will be updated as needed as new information becomes available
and as sites (e.g., SWMUs and Areas of Concern [AOCs]) are added or removed from LTM. The objectives
of the TEAD-S groundwater monitoring program are as follows:
• Detect and monitor releases from known sources of contamination.
• Evaluate groundwater flow patterns and contaminant migration pathways, define the extent of
groundwater contamination, and ensure that the TEAD-S monitoring well network is adequate.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 1-2
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
• Collect reproducible data that accurately represents site conditions.
• Monitor natural attenuation.
• Evaluate potential risks to human health and the environment related to contaminants in
groundwater and prioritize efforts to mitigate the most significant risks.
• Provide recommendations to ensure RCRA compliance.
• Provide recommendations including monitoring frequency, field procedures, laboratory
analytical methods, well installation and abandonment, and quality assurance/quality control
requirements.
• Provide sufficient data to allow stakeholders to make technically sound decisions based on
clearly defined goals and criteria.
1.4 Regulatory Framework
This section outlines the appropriate federal and State of Utah legal and regulatory requirements for
groundwater protection. TEAD-S operates under a RCRA Part B Hazardous Waste Storage Permit
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] Identification (ID) Number UT5210090002; UDEQ 1993)
originally issued by the Executive Secretary of the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Control Board in 1993
and renewed in 2004 and 2015. Module VI of the permit was updated in 2020.
The permit has specific conditions requiring TEAD-S to perform corrective action investigations for all
SWMUs and other corrective action sites identified in the permit. As outlined in Module V of the permit,
RCRA corrective action is composed of three distinct phases: RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI), Corrective
Measures Study (CMS), and Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI). TEAD-S has several SWMUs and
AOCs currently in the RFI, CMS, and/or CMI steps of the RCRA corrective action process, as described in
Appendices A and B of Module V of the permit. Module VI of the permit discusses post-closure care
requirements. This GMP will be incorporated into the permit as part of Module VI Section P by reference.
1.4.1 Groundwater Protection Standards (Non-Degradation Policy)
The State of Utah Risk-Based Closure Standards (UAC R315-101) contain a non-degradation provision that
is applicable to a responsible party where risk management decisions support leaving hazardous
constituents at a site greater than background levels. Per UAC R315-101-3, that section specifically states:
“The responsible party shall not allow levels of contamination in groundwater, surface water, soils and air
to increase beyond the existing levels of contamination at a site where site management commences.”
The non-degradation requirement is considered by UDEQ to be applicable to Army remedial activities
regarding groundwater under the corrective action permit for TEAD-S; therefore, applicable to all TEAD-S
SWMUs. This UAC R315-101-3 non-degradation requirement in Utah is reflective of a traditional
non-degradation statement, which requires resource protection and prohibits any further degradation of
the quality of groundwater from existing conditions or from background.
Water quality beneath TEAD-S ranges from Class IA pristine groundwater (total dissolved solids [TDS] less
than 500 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) to Class IV saline groundwater (TDS greater than 10,000 mg/L) water
quality (Figure 1-2). However, water quality standards do not specify the management of saline waters,
other than requiring a plan that is protective of human health and the environment. Therefore, the UAC
R315-101-3 non-degradation provision is the primary goal of groundwater management in the western
and southwestern portions of TEAD-S where poor groundwater quality (i.e., Class III or IV) exists and

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 1-3
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
where there is no pathway for contaminant migration to higher quality groundwater at depth. For regions
with higher quality groundwater (Class I or II) in the northeast areas of TEAD-S (e.g., SWMU 26), the
protection of drinking water resources is the primary goal and non-degradation is a secondary goal.
1.4.2 Potential Drinking Water Well and Surface Water Receptors
Review of Utah’s Division of Water Rights databases for domestic or municipal drinking water wells
indicates that few receptors are located downgradient of TEAD-S. Many drinking water wells nearby are
located upgradient, to the northeast of TEAD-S in the Ophir, Utah vicinity. In addition, two Army-owned
wells are located at TEAD-S (Wells 1 and 2); however, because they are located upgradient of any SWMUs
or AOCs, impacts from the installation are not a concern. Three drinking water wells (water right numbers
15-4096, 15-79, and 15-5138) were identified as downgradient or cross gradient of TEAD-S to the
northwest and west (Figure 1-3). Information on these three wells, including ownership, can be found in
Appendix A of the TEAD-S GMP Revision 2 (Parsons 2019). Future impacts to these wells are unlikely,
based on the distance of these wells from TEAD-S and because the intakes of the wells are deeper, in a
higher quality groundwater aquifer than the shallower, poor quality first water encountered in the
western portion of TEAD-S. Furthermore, the existing boundary wells are appropriate to monitor for any
contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) that are at and/or migrating offsite toward these wells. If
COPCs are detected in boundary wells near these wells, then additional assessment should be performed,
including searching for wells classified for other uses, such as irrigation or stock water in the area.
Groundwater does not discharge at TEAD-S (i.e., no springs or wetlands are present). The only surface
water present at or in the vicinity of TEAD-S is temporal from ponding rain or snowmelt or intermittent
flows of ephemeral streams (Ophir, Mercur, and Faust). Following heavy precipitation events, the stream
banks of Faust Creek may overflow and cause local flooding; and a shallow lake that occupies several
hundred acres forms from rainwater (not groundwater discharge) in a low area in the western portion of
DCD during periods of elevated precipitation (Parsons 2013). Thus, no surface water exists that is a
potential receptor of impacted groundwater.
1.4.3 Alternative Method of Compliance with UAC R315-101 and R315-264
This GMP has been developed to establish criteria for groundwater monitoring at TEAD-S as an alternative
method of compliance with UAC R315-101 and UAC R315-264-90 through UAC R315-264-101. The
installation-wide groundwater management program uses the findings of completed studies including
results of RFI, CMS, CMI, and LTM phases. During these activities, the presence and extent, including fate
and transport of groundwater contaminants present, quality of groundwater, impacts to deeper water-
bearing zones, potential risks to human health and the environment were assessed. This GMP focuses on
sites in the LTM phases of the RCRA corrective action process to continually verify that there are no risks
to human health and the environment and migration of contaminated groundwater off-base is mitigated.
1.4.4 Utah Groundwater Quality Classification
Decisions regarding groundwater management and protection impact the quality of the groundwater
being managed. Groundwater quality has been considered during the development of the installation-
wide groundwater management program for TEAD-S. Investigation, monitoring, and remediation efforts
are necessarily prioritized according to the greatest risk. The intrinsic value, or quality, of the groundwater
resource in question plays a significant role in determining the beneficial use of groundwater resources,
with a higher priority being given to groundwater of higher quality and groundwater in recharge areas.
The quality of groundwater in the State of Utah is regulated by UAC R317-6, Ground Water Quality

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 1-4
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Protection, and UAC R317-6-3 establishes the classification of Utah groundwater based on the
concentration of TDS. Six main classes of groundwater quality are identified and consist of the following:
• Class IA constitutes “pristine groundwater” and contains TDS concentrations ranging from
0 to 500 mg/L.
• Class IB constitutes “irreplaceable groundwater” and represents a source of water for a
community public drinking water system for which no reliable supply of comparable quality and
quantity is available because of economic or institutional constraints.
• Class IC constitutes “ecologically important groundwater” and represents a source of
groundwater discharge important to the continued existence of wildlife habitat.
• Class II groundwater is considered “drinking water quality groundwater” and has TDS
concentrations ranging from 500 to 3,000 mg/L.
• Class III is considered “limited use groundwater” with TDS concentrations of 3,000 to
10,000 mg/L.
• Class IV groundwater is classified as “saline” with TDS concentrations greater than 10,000 mg/L.
Groundwater quality classes presented in this document follow this State of Utah classification.
The highest quality groundwater (Class IA where TDS is less than 500 mg/L) coincides with the Ophir Creek
groundwater recharge area and is likely related to groundwater recharge coming from the Oquirrh
Mountains (Figure 1-4). A second area of Class IA groundwater at TEAD-S occurs in the southeastern
quadrant of the installation near Mercur Creek and is also likely related to groundwater recharge from
the Oquirrh Mountains. Areas of the poorest groundwater quality (Class IV where TDS is greater than
10,000 mg/L) occur along the western and southern boundaries of TEAD-S, which have been identified as
former groundwater discharge areas (Figures 1-4 and 1-5). Regions of Class II and III groundwater are
present in between the regions of Class IA and Class IV groundwater (Figure 1-2).

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 2-1
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
2.0 BASEWIDE GROUNDWATER SYSTEM UPDATE
Each version of the TEAD-S GMP updates the previous version, and this is the third revision. The previous
versions of the TEAD-S GMP are referenced in the bullets below. The first three versions of the TEAD-S
GMP reported on the implementation of the recommendations of the HARR (Parsons 2013). With the
maturation of the basewide LTM program, reiteration of these data and the addition of new data and
analysis in the GMP have proven cumbersome. Data and analysis presented in previous versions of the
GMP will no longer be included in this or future revisions of the GMP. Therefore, the previous versions of
the GMP will remain a useful repository of site data that can be referenced as needed, similar to any other
site report. Future data collected as part of RFIs or LTM will be documented in appropriate RFI and annual
LTM reports, respectively. These reports will be referenced within the GMP, as needed, to provide a
defensible program that allows for the future removal and addition of monitoring wells and sites from the
LTM program.
• Final Groundwater Management Plan, Tooele Army Depot South (Parsons 2017a)
• Revised Final Groundwater Management Plan, Tooele Army Depot South (Parsons 2018a)
• Final Groundwater Management Plan, Revision Two, Tooele Army Depot South (Parsons 2019a)
In addition to the organizational changes to the GMP, this section summarizes site-specific updates made
in this GMP Revision 3. Site-specific updates made to the GMP include:
• Groundwater at SWMU 2 was shown to have met the non-degradation requirements outlined in
UAC R315-101, and LTM at SWMU 2 was discontinued per the recommendations of the 2022
Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report (Brice 2023). A more detailed discussion of the decision
is included in Section 4.2.4.1.
• Updates of other SWMUs:
­ SWMUS 1 and 25: Removal of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) from monitoring
requirements per the results and conclusion of the 2022 Annual Groundwater Monitoring
Report (Brice 2023); update on the ongoing status of the CMIP
­ SWMU 13: Documentation of changes to LTM program per the Request for an Alternative
Remedy Strategy at SWMU 13 (Parsons 2019) and 2023 Annual Groundwater Monitoring
Report (Brice 2024)
­ SWMU 26: Documentation of completion of CMI and changes to LTM program
­ SWMUs 21/22: Discussion of ongoing RFI

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 2-2
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah

This page intentionally blank

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 3-1
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
3.0 BASEWIDE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT APPROACH
The HARR (Parsons 2013) provided a comprehensive evaluation of the hydrogeological characteristics and
assessed the existing groundwater monitoring program at TEAD-S. The HARR also recommended
additional actions to improve the groundwater monitoring program. This section presents the updated
basewide groundwater monitoring program approach for TEAD-S following implementation of the HARR
recommendations. The TEAD-S monitoring well network is shown on Figure 3-1. SWMU-specific
monitoring is discussed in Section 4.
3.1 GMP Decision Framework and Guidelines for Adding Sites
Over the years multiple SWMUs have been identified and investigated. The majority of the SWMUs have
been closed and/or their historical activities have not impacted the underlying groundwater; therefore,
No Further Action (NFA) is necessary for assessing the SWMU as a potential source of groundwater
contamination. Several of the historical activities at the SWMUs may have impacted groundwater
including the following sites with ongoing groundwater evaluations:
• SWMU 1 (groundwater impacted – CMI and LTM ongoing)
• SWMU 2 (removed from LTM, refer to Section 4)
• SWMU 5 (removed from LTM, refer to Section 4)
• SWMU 13 (currently in post-closure LTM)
• SWMU 25 (groundwater impacted – CMI and LTM ongoing)
• SWMU 26 (currently in post-closure LTM)
• AOCs (groundwater impacts suspected at AOCs 5, 23, and 27)
The remainder of the SWMUs that have been identified as potentially having a contaminant source area
that may pose risk to groundwater are currently in RFI or CMI phases. If a new source is suspected,
assessment of the source area should be performed in accordance with the Post-Closure Permit and the
migration to groundwater assessment criteria specified in the Risk Assumptions Document (AQS 2017). If
a new groundwater contaminant source area is discovered, then the existing monitoring well network will
be evaluated; if necessary, new wells will be installed, assessed, and monitored to define the source.
3.1.1 Timeline and Decision Framework for the GMP
The TEAD-S groundwater management program is a dynamic program established to ensure the
groundwater beneath TEAD-S is monitored and managed using the best available information. Thus, the
program must be flexible and evolve as new information becomes available and/or as the characteristics
of the groundwater system beneath TEAD-S change (e.g., groundwater elevations, contaminants etc.).
Therefore, it is necessary for this GMP to be dynamic as well. The GMP will be updated as needed,
specifically as SWMUs are added or closed or as the Post-Closure Permit is modified. In addition,
the adequacy of the GMP will be evaluated internally each fall as part of the post-closure annual
inspection process.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 3-2
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
3.1.2 Long-Term Performance Monitoring Decision Criteria
The decision framework for assessing whether LTM of groundwater for each SWMU or combination of
SWMUs where LTM of groundwater is in place will follow the goals of the Post-Closure Permit and any
specific conditions outlined in Module VI. In general, LTM will be considered complete and will be
discontinued when stakeholders agree that ongoing monitoring is unnecessary. LTM decision criteria will
include determining if:
• There is statistically defensible groundwater data that is representative of the aquifer
in question.
• There is any remaining impact to groundwater, and if so, if there is a risk to human health or the
environment associated with the impact.
• The condition of the groundwater (quality, constituents present, etc.) is well understood and
unlikely to change.
• LTM is required to continue based on UAC R315-264.
In addition to ceasing LTM, the above criteria may be used to reassess the LTM program originally outlined
in an SWMU site-specific closure plan, including which wells to monitor, constituents to analyze, and/or
frequency of monitoring. The evaluation of an SWMU LTM program and discussions made regarding
changes required should occur as part of the site-specific LTM reporting program.
3.1.3 Guidelines for Adding Additional Sites to the GMP
As investigations and remedial activities continue at TEAD-S, additional sites (e.g., SWMUs, Hazardous
Waste Management Units [HWMUs]) may need to be added to this GMP. When a site transitions to the
LTM phase, a revision to the GMP should be prepared to document the LTM program associated with site.
The GMP revision will be performed after the site has been fully characterized and after completion of
remedial efforts, if performed. The final SWMU RFI, corrective measures completion report, or HWMU
closure report should evaluate the need for LTM at the site. The evaluation should consider contaminant
type, extent of contamination, and the hydrogeologic nature of the site. The GMP revision should be
prepared in conjunction with a site-specific Work Plan for LTM activities and must be in accordance with
any LTM requirements prescribed in the Post-Closure Permit.
3.2 Groundwater Monitoring Network Integrity
During each groundwater monitoring event, water levels and total depth of each well should be measured
and recorded. Water levels should be compared to historical water levels, and total depths should be
compared with the as-built total depths to monitor for siltation or obstructions and to verify adequate
communication exists between the well and aquifer. A monitoring well inspection including assessment
of the outer protective casing, well security, well ID labeling, concrete pad construction, bollards, inner
casing, and downhole conditions should also be conducted annually.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 3-3
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
3.3 Monitoring Well Network Adequacy
Groundwater-related data have been collected from TEAD-S for over three decades including installation
of over 140 wells (Figure 3-1). Monitoring wells have been installed for assessing and detecting potential
groundwater contamination. The existing monitoring well network meets the current groundwater
monitoring programs objectives (Section 1), the RCRA Part B Permit, and relevant UDEQ regulations
including UAC R315-101 and R315-264-90 to 101.
Assessment of the well network is evaluated in each LTM annual report, and those data will be used to
update the conceptual groundwater flow model, as needed. The following should be evaluated in each
LTM annual report:
• Groundwater Elevation Fluctuations and Trends – Wells with water quality Class III or IV are
adjusted to the freshwater head equivalent to account for salinity using Equation 1, and wells at
SWMU 13 are adjusted to account for the different densities of groundwater and the thickness of
the light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) using Equation 2 per the Work Plan (Parsons 2016).
ℎ𝑓𝑓=�ℎ𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓�−�𝜌𝜌−𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓𝑧𝑧� Equation 1 (Post et al. 2007)
Where: ℎ𝑓𝑓 = freshwater equivalent head (feet above mean sea level [amsl]) ℎ = measured groundwater elevation (feet amsl) 𝜌𝜌 = measured groundwater density (grams per cubic centimeter [g/cm3])
(derived by adding the mass of TDS [in g/cm3] for each well to the density
value of freshwater [𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓], assumed to be 1 g/cm3)* 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓 = density of freshwater (1 g/cm3)
z = well screen midpoint (feet amsl)
*The most recent TDS concentration should be used for each well. If a TDS concentration does not
exist for a well, then data available from the nearest well within the SWMU should be used.
𝒉𝒉𝒄𝒄=𝒉𝒉𝒎𝒎+�𝑯𝑯𝟎𝟎𝝆𝝆𝒐𝒐𝝆𝝆𝒘𝒘� Equation 2
Where: ℎ𝑐𝑐 = hydraulic head, corrected (feet amsl) ℎ𝑚𝑚 = measured elevation of hydrocarbon-water interface (feet) 𝐻𝐻𝑜𝑜 = thickness of hydrocarbon layer (feet) 𝜌𝜌𝑜𝑜 = hydrocarbon density (grams per milliliter [g/mL]) (0.866 g/mL based on data
from the CMS field investigation) 𝜌𝜌𝑤𝑤 = water density (g/mL); usually assumed = 1.0
Water level measurements in wells with LNAPL present should be corrected as described in
Exhibits III.9 and III.10 of the EPA guidance document, “How to Effectively Recover Free Product at
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites” (EPA 1996a).
• Hydraulic Gradients and Groundwater Velocity – Based on lithological data, the advective
movement of groundwater in the southern regions of TEAD-S is believed to be insignificant, and
stagnant, non-flowing groundwater conditions are dominant.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 3-4
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
• Vertical Migration of COPCs – The installation of wells and evaluation for vertical migration are
typically performed during the RFI phase and, if necessary, site-specific LTM plans should include
monitoring well pairs for regular assessment of vertical migration over time. More information
regarding the installation and construction of nested wells and installation of wells screened
over different intervals is described in Section 5.
• Contaminant Concentrations at the TEAD-S Boundary – Along the northern and northeastern
boundary of TEAD-S, groundwater flow is toward the installation; thus there is no risk of
groundwater to the north being impacted from TEAD-S. Groundwater discharge areas exist
along the western boundary, portions of the southern boundary, and to the southeast
(Figure 1-5). Groundwater impacts in the regions where discharge occurs have been identified,
including volatile organic compound (VOC) plumes at SWMUs 1, 13, and 25. These groundwater
impacts have been delineated in detail at each of the SWMUs, and no contaminants have been
detected at the TEAD-S installation boundaries, nor are any known contaminants expected to
ever reach the installation boundaries. Sufficient monitoring wells exist to continue site-specific
downgradient monitoring at individual plume locations for which downgradient monitoring has
been required. However, in addition to the plume-specific downgradient monitoring, TEAD-S has
initiated a secondary level of compliance/detection monitoring at the western, southern, and
southeastern boundaries of the TEAD-S installation. The purpose of these perimeter monitoring
wells is not to act as downgradient monitoring for specific plume areas, but instead to show that
for regions of TEAD-S where groundwater contamination has been identified, there are no
contaminants present at or going beyond the installation boundary. Monitoring at these
locations should be implemented during the LTM phase for the upgradient SWMUs.
3.4 Groundwater Analytical Result Repository
Groundwater analytical trends over time are an important tool in evaluating groundwater impacts and
characteristics. Therefore, having an established program for the storage and accessibility of past
historical data is vital to a successful groundwater management program. A previous excel database for
groundwater analytical data at TEAD-S was compiled and used in the preparation of the HARR (Parsons
2013). This database has been updated with groundwater analytical data collected through 2023 and will
continue to be updated as part of the annual LTM report.
3.5 Investigative-Derived Waste Management
Groundwater that is extracted from the monitoring wells and not used for laboratory analysis should be
combined, containerized, and stored at a designated location, and managed per the LTM/HARR WP waste
management plan (Parsons 2016). Waste characterization of the liquid investigation-derived waste (IDW)
should be conducted to determine proper disposition. With concurrence from TEAD-S, if liquid IDW is
determined to be non-hazardous, then it may be disposed of into the sanitary sewer along Montgomery
Road. Documentation related to IDW management should be included in the annual LTM report.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 4-1
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
4.0 SITE-SPECIFIC GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
This section provides a site-specific sampling and analysis plan for each SWMU at TEAD-S where
groundwater contamination has been identified, characterized, and/or remediated. The components of
the site-specific plans include SWMU status, groundwater characteristics, future monitoring
recommendations, and a closure path or whether the site is currently being characterized or remediated.
These sampling and analysis plans are based on the groundwater management approach presented in
site-specific plans and are designed to meet the goals of this GMP. The SWMUs at TEAD-S are separated
into four categories:
• SWMUs currently in LTM and included as part of this basewide GMP.
• SWMUs and/or AOCs currently in the characterization (RFI) or corrective action (CMI) process.
Future LTM will be incorporated into the basewide GMP following a site’s RFI or upon
completion of corrective action. Groundwater characteristics are discussed in the site-specific
RFI reports.
• SWMUs and AOCs removed from the LTM program.
• SWMUs and AOCs with no known groundwater impacts. These sites are not included in
this GMP.
4.1 SWMUs in Long-Term Monitoring
SWMUs 1, 13, 25, and 26 currently require LTM for groundwater as part of the RCRA Part B Permit or
long-term corrective measures. For SWMUs 1 and 25, LTM is required to monitor several plumes.
SWMU 13 monitoring addresses tracking of the fuel oil spill contamination and efficacy of ongoing
corrective measures via monitored natural attenuation. SWMU 26 LTM will assess the effectiveness of the
landfill cover through sampling for VOCs in groundwater. Annual LTM monitoring should continue to be
performed in May of each year, as spring is when groundwater is highest for the majority of TEAD-S.
4.1.1 SWMUs 1 and 25
SWMUs 1 and 25 are adjacent SWMUs in the southern portion of TEAD-S (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). Due to
their proximity and similar characteristics, they are discussed jointly. SWMU 1 occupies approximately
373 acres of land along the southeastern boundary of the TEAD-S facility. SWMU 25 occupies
approximately 1,293 acres to the west of SWMU 1, and the two SWMUs are separated by a thin
“buffer zone” area. SWMU 1, known as the Eastern Demilitarization Area/Disposal Pit Site, was used from
the 1940s to the 1970s for the destruction and disposal of conventional and chemical munitions. SWMU 1
contains numerous disposal pits because of these activities. At SWMU 25, a variety of demilitarization and
disposal activities were conducted from 1945 to 1978. The western portion of the SWMU 25 includes
numerous clusters of explosion craters, with each cluster encompassing approximately 3 to 4 acres. The
eastern portion of SWMU 25 includes numerous trenches from scrap metal from incendiary cluster bomb
burnings. In the north-central portion of SWMU 25, scrap munitions formerly occupied shallow trenches
in two windrows. The windrows once contained ash and incendiary waste from past open burning
activities; however, the waste piles and ash were removed during the surface stabilization project
conducted from 2012 to 2015 (CB&I 2016).

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 4-2
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Elevated concentrations of VOCs and metals, primarily carbon tetrachloride (CTC), chloroform, other
chlorinated solvents, and hexavalent chromium (Cr[VI]) have been detected at multiple locations at
SWMUs 1 and 25 as a result of the historical activities outlined above. Five mappable plumes have been
identified: the Mustard Mountain, Northern, and Southern plumes at SWMU 1 and the Eastern and
Western Plumes at SWMU 25. Characterization activities conducted during the Phase II RFI Addendum
resulted in a thorough understanding of the nature and extent of these plumes and the subsurface
hydrogeologic environment in which they occur (Parsons 2018b). Key findings from the Phase II RFI are
discussed in the rest of this section.
There are no potential risks to receptors. The sites are being closed as industrial, and no drinking water
resource exists or will be developed (groundwater quality is classified predominantly as Class III or IV).
There are no springs or other pathways for human or ecological receptors to be exposed to contaminated
groundwater, and depth to groundwater generally precludes other human and ecological exposures. No
deeper groundwater resources have been identified in this area of Rush Valley, nor would any be expected
based on regional geological/hydrogeological studies.
Vertical contaminant transport occurred via sinking dense vapors, and vapor diffusive transport was likely
the dominant mechanism by which the plumes have spread horizontally. The contaminant plumes are
“old age” and will not change significantly. Any remaining contaminants are dissolved in stagnant
groundwater or sorbed to adjacent fine-grained sediments of very low hydraulic conductivity.
Clay-rich lithologies of the water-bearing zones will continue to greatly limit migration of contaminant
plumes, and any plume expansion is expected to be driven by diffusive transport only. Multiple lines of
evidence show that groundwater flow is essentially non-existent at SWMU 1 and 25 sites.
Frequent sampling of groundwater at contaminant plumes is likely to produce low biased results due to
contaminant purging (i.e., flushing) during sampling. Sufficiently long-time intervals are needed between
sampling events to allow for back-diffusion of contaminants from low conductivity materials into
groundwater. Cr(VI) impacts were identified in soil at Individual Disposal Feature (IDF) 1-152. Investigation
of potential Cr(VI) impacts at IDF 1-152 is in process.
Although the contaminant plumes pose no risk to potential receptors or deeper potable groundwater
resources, the plumes are spatially associated with IDFs that will remain with uncharacterized buried
waste left in place. Given this environment, the requirements of the TEAD-S RCRA Part B Permit (Condition
VI.G.1) Corrective Action Plan, and the principle of non-degradation (UAC R315-101-3), LTM is required
for SWMUs 1 and 25. Based on the results of the Phase II RFI, an LTM program for SWMUs 1 and 25 was
developed and presented in the 2019 GMP Revision 3 (Parsons 2019). The main components of the LTM
program (i.e., specific wells, specific plumes, and analyte lists), as well as future planned remedies and
land use for SWMUs 1 and 25, were agreed upon during a series of project planning meetings held
between the Army and UDEQ over the course of the Phase II RFI Addendum fieldwork.
The main objectives of the LTM program for groundwater at SWMUs 1 and 25 were identified as follows:
• Characterize the extent to which contaminant source areas continue to release contaminants
into groundwater.
• Document the vertical migration of contaminants in groundwater toward deeper
hydrostratigraphic units.
• Document horizontal migration of contaminants to validate the conceptual model of vapor
diffusive transport, in compliance with the non-degradation provision of state and federal laws.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 4-3
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
• Document the requirements of the principle of non-degradation (UAC R315-101-3).
• Document Cr(VI) impacts to groundwater near IDF 1-152, if any.
All five mapped contaminant plume areas at SWMUs 1 and 25 exhibit similar shape, horizontal extent,
and vertical extent characteristics. This is related to the very fine-grained subsurface lithologies that
underlie the entire extent of both SWMU sites. Due to these similarities, it is not necessary to monitor
each individual plume for changes in migration rate or direction; the monitoring of several plumes will
provide sufficient information for identifying potential changes that could impact all plumes.
4.1.1.1 Groundwater Monitoring Plan Design and Rationale
The above-mentioned objectives of the LTM are addressed through limited groundwater monitoring and
an evaluation of the resultant data. The Summary of Stage I and II Groundwater Results and Monitoring
Well Network Plan presentation given on 27 September 2016 was a key component of the project
planning meetings (Section 4.1.1). At this meeting, the general approach to the proposed monitoring plan
was presented, discussed, and revised. The resulting agreement made among project stakeholders
identified specific plumes at SWMU 1 where LTM would be implemented, as well as the location of existing
and new monitoring wells that would be installed/sampled for the LTM program. Details of the LTM
program for SWMU 25 were not finalized at the meeting because groundwater investigations were still
ongoing at SWMU 25. However, a similar approach to LTM has been implemented for SWMU 25 based
on similarities in subsurface conditions and plume characteristics. Additional details of the LTM program
not addressed in previous meetings are described below.
Groundwater monitoring at SWMUs 1 and 25 is designed to focus on the five objectives of the LTM
program. Data collected during monitoring will be used to assess changes in contaminant plume
concentrations and movement. Resultant data will be compared to expected results in the context of the
hydrogeological conceptual model as presented in the Phase II RFI Addendum (Parsons 2018b). If
necessary, the conceptual model may be refined based on new information as needed, and applicable
adjustments may be made to site-specific monitoring and sampling plans.
To fulfill the requirements of the LTM program’s main objectives, groundwater monitoring will be
organized into four areas:
• Source area monitoring
• Vertical migration monitoring
• Downgradient (horizontal) assessment
• Off-Post non-degradation perimeter monitoring
Source Area Monitoring
Source area monitoring is a key component of the LTM plan as it identifies contaminant source areas that
are continuing to release contaminants to groundwater. It will consist of monitoring groundwater directly
beneath contaminant source areas to identify concentration trends and patterns of increasing
contaminant concentration in groundwater.
Vertical Migration Monitoring
Vertical plume migration must be considered under the non-degradation provisions set forth in the State
of Utah regulatory requirements. Vertical migration monitoring will rely on deep source area groundwater
monitoring to identify new contamination or increasing contaminant concentrations that are migrating to
deeper water-bearing zones in the source area.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 4-4
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Downgradient (Horizontal) Assessment
Tracking of horizontal migration of contamination is also required under the non-degradation rules.
Horizontal migration of contaminant plumes will be monitored by sampling of monitoring wells located in
the expansion paths of contaminant plumes to address downgradient monitoring.
Off-Post Non-Degradation Perimeter Monitoring
To address sampling of a set of monitoring wells located on the SWMU boundaries to address compliance
monitoring for off-post migration of contaminants.
4.1.1.2 Sampling Frequency, Monitoring Period, Analytes, and Sample Methods
Based on the results of the Phase II Addendum investigation, the groundwater contaminant plumes
present at SWMUs 1 and 25 are believed to be of old age and the horizontal and vertical migration of
contaminants to date has been very minimal. Both of these are due to the diffusion-dominant spread of
groundwater contaminants with almost no influence from advective or dispersive flow. Based on this,
abrupt changes in plume concentrations or expansion are not anticipated over short time periods.
Further, it was noted during the field investigation that frequent repeat sampling of the same location
resulted in a pronounced (and unrealistic) reduction in contamination concentrations for later samples.
Therefore, based on the hydrogeologic model that indicates contaminant concentrations are almost
entirely dependent on equilibration time and diffusion, closely spaced sample intervals are not
recommended. Closely spaced sample intervals are likely to produce unrealistic contamination
concentration trends that are not representative of the underlying groundwater system. For this reason,
annual sampling of the LTM wells will be conducted. Annual sampling of designated LTM wells (described
below) and measurements of groundwater levels from all monitoring wells at SWMUs 1 and 25 will be
conducted. Annual sampling will be performed in May, which is presumed to represent the typical period
of high water. The initial period of required LTM at SWMUs 1 and 25 is 5 years. At the conclusion of the
first 5 years of the LTM program, data will be evaluated to determine whether contaminant
concentrations are increasing systematically in source area wells, and whether vertical or horizontal
migration of contaminant plumes is indicated. The first round of LTM occurred in 2022, and monitoring
will continue annually through 2026, after which a determination will be made as to whether the LTM
program should be modified, left unchanged, or terminated.
Due to the dominance of chlorinated solvents in the groundwater plumes and the absence of agent
breakdown products and site-related inorganics in groundwater, the LTM analyte list for SWMUs 1 and 25
will be limited to VOCs. There are two exceptions:
• During the CMI, a new monitoring well is proposed to be installed immediately downgradient of
IDF 1-152 to determine if any impacts to groundwater from Cr(VI) have occurred. Total
chromium and Cr(VI) will be added to the LTM analyte list for this proposed monitoring well
only. The proposed well will be installed in accordance with procedures outlined in the GMP and
the forthcoming CMI Work Plan. The well ID will be S-YYY-XX. The “YYY” will be the next
sequential monitoring well number installed at TEAD-S, and the “XX” will be the 2-digit calendar
year of installation (e.g., 24 for 2024).
• Due to the inconclusive investigation into DEHP detections/exceedances observed during
Stage II sampling of the Phase II RFI Addendum (Parsons 2018b), total and dissolved DEHP were
sampled at SWMUs 1 and 25 during the 2022 annual event. Dissolved DEHP was not detected in
any samples, and total DEHP was only detected in 2 of the 20 wells sampled. The detected
concentrations for total DEHP were 2.3 micrograms per liter (μg/L) in S-136-16 and 1.7 μg/L in

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 4-5
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
S-140-17, both of which are less than the project action limit (PAL) (5.6 μg/L). These results
suggest there is not a source of DEHP contamination within SWMUs 1 and 25, and the PAL
exceedances during the Phase II RFI Addendum were the result of cross-contamination
(Brice 2023).
The monitoring wells at SWMUs 1 and 25 will be sampled using low-flow methods for the entire LTM
period (initially, 5 years). Low-flow methods were used during the Phase I and II RFI Addendum fieldwork
and were considered appropriate for the groundwater conditions at these sites. However, due to slow
recharge rates and minimal groundwater flow in water-bearing zones, there is a potential for well
drawdown during at some wells.
4.1.1.3 Specific Requirements for SWMU 1
Of the three groundwater plume areas identified at SWMU 1, two plumes will be monitored in addition
to the proposed new monitoring well near IDF 1-152. Co-located shallow and deep wells will be sampled
at each area. Note that “downgradient” monitoring wells in this context are intended to track and confirm
the diffusive-dominated expansion of the plume and may or may not be in a location that is hydraulically
downgradient to the plume. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 and Figure 4-1 provide an overview of the monitoring
wells at SWMU 1 that will be sampled under the LTM program. The areas to be monitored and specific
LTM wells to be sampled are:
• Northern CTC Plume: No LTM
• Southern CTC Plume:
­ Source Area Monitoring: Well S-137-16
­ Vertical Migration Monitoring: Well S-138-16 (co-located with S-137-16)
­ Downgradient Monitoring: Well S-129-15
• Mustard Mountain Plume:
­ Source Area Monitoring: Wells S-127-15 and S-135-16
­ Vertical Migration Monitoring: Well S-136-16 (co-located with S-135-16)
­ Downgradient Monitoring: Well S-128-15
• Off-Post Non-Degradation Perimeter Monitoring:
­ Wells S-70-90, S-71-90, and S-93-92
• IDF 1-152:
­ Proposed well S-YYY-XX
The off-post non-degradation perimeter monitoring at SWMU 1 includes a set of three wells evenly spaced
across the southern boundary of SWMU 1. From west to east, the wells are S-70-90 and S-71-90, located
at the southwest and southeast corners of SWMU 1, respectively, and well S-71-90 located at the central
position along the SWMU 1 southern boundary. This well network is spaced to detect the migration of
groundwater contaminants beyond the SWMU 1 southern boundary toward the TEAD-S installation
boundary.
Monitoring wells S-70-90 and S-71-90 are shallow wells, with 10-foot screens set across first water at
44 and 61 feet below ground surface (bgs), respectively; well S-93-92 is a deeper well with a 15-foot
screen set at 136 feet bgs. Well S-93-92 is screened at a deeper interval under confined conditions and
the static water level in this well rises to the same height as the regional potentiometric surface. A review
of the boring log for this well indicates that it was screened at this interval due to a lack of water-bearing
zones at shallower depths.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 4-6
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
4.1.1.4 Specific Requirements for SWMU 25
Similar to SWMU 1, the downgradient monitoring wells at SWMU 25 are intended to track and confirm
the diffusive-dominated expansion of the plume and may or may not be in a location that is hydraulically
downgradient to the plume. Tables 4-3 and 4-4 and Figure 4-2 provide an overview of the monitoring
wells at SWMU 25 that will be sampled under the LTM program. The areas to be monitored and specific
LTM wells to be sampled are:
• Eastern CTC Plume:
­ Source Area Monitoring: Well S-139-17
­ Vertical Migration Monitoring: Well S-140-17 (co-located with S-139-17)
­ Downgradient Monitoring: Well S-141-17
• Western CTC Plume:
­ Source Area Monitoring: Well S-120-08
­ Vertical Migration Monitoring: Well S-142-17 (co-located with S-120-08)
­ Downgradient Monitoring: Well S-121-08
• Off-Post Non-Degradation Perimeter Monitoring:
­ Wells S-67-90, S-68-90, S-95-92, and S-97-92
The off-post non-degradation perimeter monitoring at SWMU 25 includes three wells, S-95-92, S-68-90,
and S-97-92. These wells form a sentinel line of monitoring points around the southeast boundary of
SWMU 25 where the SWMU boundary and the TEAD-S installation boundary are closest to the
groundwater contaminant plumes. Well S-95-92 is the westernmost well, located in an upgradient to cross
gradient position to the VOC plumes; wells S-68-90 and S-97-92 are at cross gradient positions. The boring
logs indicate that the wells are screened at the top of the aquifer. Monitoring wells S-68-90 and S-97-90
both have 10-foot well screens placed at shallower depths; well S-95-92 has a 25-foot set at 103 feet bgs.
A review of the boring log for this well indicates that it was screened at this interval due to a lack of
water-bearing zones at shallower depths.
The placement of the off-post non-degradation perimeter monitoring wells represents a built-in
conservatism in the LTM program because they are cross gradient to the VOC plume region and at
distances of 1,000 feet or greater from the nearest VOC plume. Additionally, monitoring well S-141-17 is
downgradient of the SWMU 25 VOC plumes and would detect contamination migrating beyond the
SWMU 25 boundary.
4.1.2 SWMU 13
SWMU 13 encompasses the Chemical Agent Munitions Disposal System (CAMDS) Facility, which began
operations in 1979 and was demolished in 2012 (Figure 4-3). The demilitarization facility is contained
within a 10-acre fenced site and was constructed for the research and development of methods for
demilitarizing lethal chemical munitions (such as nerve, blister, and mustard agents) and the treatment of
wastes from this demilitarization process. Most materials and munitions tested and demilitarized at the
CAMDS facility were disposed of by incineration. Three aboveground diesel fuel oil tanks were located
within the western perimeter of CAMDS. In 1978, these tanks leaked approximately 500 gallons of fuel,
which spilled onto the ground surface. Between 1980 and 1985, an underground diesel fuel spill also
reportedly occurred in the vicinity of these tanks. The line leak went undetected, and it was estimated
that up to 38,000 gallons of fuel may have leaked.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 4-7
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
SWMU 13 also includes three unlined lagoons known as the Northwest Wastewater Lagoons, which were
installed in 1991 and received sanitary sewer discharge from the CAMDS facility. The lagoons were
investigated during a Phase II RFI for potential environmental impacts (Rust 1997). Lagoon sludge was
found to have metals concentrations slightly greater than background; however, significant
groundwater impacts were not observed (Rust 1997). Cumulatively, SWMU 13 includes all releases to
groundwater and the fuel release to soil. Other waste management units at SWMU 13 were addressed
during CAMDS closure.
Surface topography at SWMU 13 and adjacent SWMU 30 slopes to the southwest with ground surface
elevations ranging from approximately 5,072 to 5,040 feet amsl. SWMU 13 is near the valley center and
within 15 feet of the elevation of Faust Creek. To the east of the site, the ground abruptly rises
approximately 25 feet. The area west and northwest of SWMU 13 flooded when Faust Creek discharge
was high because the stream is dammed by the railroad embankments meeting in the northwest portion
of TEAD-S.
In 2017 during the CMI stage of the project, a LNAPL recovery system with interceptor trenches was
installed to address groundwater impacts associated with the fuel tanks at SWMU 13; these groundwater
impacts also required LTM (Parsons 2018c). An initial round of groundwater sampling was conducted in
2018; however, the LNAPL recovery system proved ineffective. In 2019, a request for an Alternative
Remedy Strategy consisting of LTM and land use controls was submitted by Tooele Army Depot (TEAD;
2019) and granted by UDEQ on the basis of Technical Impracticality. The LTM program specified under
the Alternative Remedy Strategy consists of annual groundwater sampling and well gauging for a
minimum of 5 years. After 5 years of monitoring or no later than 2025, a more extensive sampling event
is also required to update the plume map for SWMU 13 to support future decision making. Following this
event, an evaluation will be made as to whether the LTM program should be modified, left unchanged, or
terminated. The first round of LTM was conducted in 2018, but LTM was not conducted in 2019 or 2020.
Sampling resumed in 2021 and will continue through 2025, which will be the fifth year of LTM. A more
extensive one-time sampling event is scheduled to occur in 2025. Table 4-4 summarizes the current LTM
program as outlined in the Alternative Remedy Strategy.
4.1.2.1 Specific Requirements for SWMU 13
Annually, groundwater samples will be collected from monitoring wells S-55-90, S-78-91, S-91-91, and
S13-CAM-DW1 and groundwater level measurements will be collected from 18 wells for monitoring the
potentiometric surface. The objective of annual sampling is to monitor the horizontal and vertical plume
movement. After 5 years of monitoring or no later than 2025, a more extensive sampling event is also
required to update the plume map for SWMU 13. The fifth-year sampling event will include collecting
groundwater samples from the following 12 monitoring wells: S-81-91, S-25-88, S-26-88, S-CAM-2,
S13-CAM-DW1, S-82-91, S-55-90, S-CAM-1, S-78-91, S-29-88, S-30-88, and S-91-91. All wells will be
sampled for total petroleum hydrocarbons–diesel range organics (TPH-DRO) and VOCs. If any of these
wells contain free product, samples will not be collected. Tables 4-5 and 4-6 and Figure 4-3 provide an
overview of the monitoring wells at SWMU 13 that will be sampled under the LTM program.
During the annual remedy review, the groundwater data will be evaluated to determine whether the LTM
program should be modified, left unchanged, or terminated. Based on the annual review, the GMP will be
updated for any changes in the groundwater monitoring program at SWMU 13, if necessary.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 4-8
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
4.1.3 SWMU 26
SWMU 26 consists of a former landfill that operated from 1956 until 1994 and occupies approximately
44 acres in the northeastern portion of the TEAD-S facility (Figure 4-4). SWMU 26 is divided into Eastern
and Western areas that are separated by an access road. The Eastern Area covers approximately 30 total
acres, with buried waste located under approximately 14 acres. The Western Area consists of
approximately 11 total acres and has buried waste within four separate areas that encompass
approximately 2 acres. Types of waste disposed at the landfill in the 1990s included solid waste, paper,
and building debris. However, these observations were limited to the active disposal trench at the time,
and the contents of other portions of the landfill are unknown. Historical documents also indicate
munitions materials were disposed of in the landfill (Plexus 2020). Surface topography at SWMU 26 slopes
to the southwest with an elevation of 5,372 feet amsl in the northeast corner of the SWMU and 5,312 feet
amsl in the southwest corner of the SWMU.
In 2016, an RFI Addendum was performed and groundwater was investigated for potential VOC and semi-
volatile organic compound (SVOC) impacts (Plexus 2017). Unacceptable risks to groundwater were
identified in the Eastern Area and 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, and DEHP were identified as
COPCs for the site. Following the supplemental RFI, a CMS was conducted, which recommended
implementation of land use controls, installation of downgradient monitoring well, and installation of an
engineered geosynthetic clay liner cap over the landfill (Plexus 2018a). Cap installation was completed
between July 2019 and June 2020 (Plexus 2020). A new downgradient monitoring well, S-150-20, was also
installed during the CMI stage.
4.1.3.1 Specific Requirements for SWMU 26
A mappable groundwater plume has not been identified at SWMU 26; however, an LTM program was
established due to the presence of COPCs to evaluate groundwater conditions downgradient of the buried
waste and determine the effectiveness of the landfill cover at preventing additional groundwater
degradation. The program consists of annual water level monitoring at 10 monitoring wells and
groundwater sampling for VOCs at 3 monitoring wells for a minimum period of 5 years. The first round of
LTM was completed in 2021 and will continue through 2025, at which time an evaluation will be made as
to whether the LTM program should be modified, left unchanged, or terminated. Tables 4-7 and 4-8 and
Figure 4-4 provide an overview of the monitoring wells at SWMU 26 that will be sampled under the LTM
program.
4.2 SWMUs/AOCs in Characterization or Corrective Action
In addition to the sites addressed in Section 4.1, other SWMUs are currently in characterization (RFI) or
corrective action (CMI) process. Future LTM for these sites, if needed, will be incorporated into the
basewide GMP following the completion of the RFI and/or CMI at each SWMU. Groundwater
characteristics are discussed in the site-specific RFI reports and the HARR (Parsons 2013). The HARR also
details past site activities and site-specific hydrogeologic conditions for each SWMU. A summary of the
site history for each SWMU and current site characteristics is provided below.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 4-9
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
4.2.1 AOC 5 Open Storage Yard
AOC 5 was an approximately 150-acre former open storage yard used for surface storage of mustard
shipments when they arrived at TEAD-S via rail. The spur rail lines within the storage area have been
removed. AOC 5 is located in the northeastern quadrant of TEAD-S, west of Montgomery Road. There are
three areas within AOC 5 open for investigation: a concrete structure area, a burial feature, and a lead
hotspot. The Phase II RFI for the AOCs (Parsons 2019b) recommends removal of the lead hotspot and
additional investigations for the concrete structure area and the burial feature, including sampling to
determine vertical and horizontal extent of contamination. Additional investigations and corrective action
will determine whether AOC 5 will need LTM under this GMP.
4.2.2 AOC 27 Classification Yard Burial
AOC 27 occupies approximately 0.4 acres and consists of a mound with scattered surface debris. Phase I
investigations confirmed the presence of buried debris including melted and burned metal. The Phase II
RFI recommended corrective actions including removals. The site will be re-evaluated upon completion
of potential corrective actions to assess if LTM is required under this GMP.
4.2.3 SWMUs 21/22
SWMUs 21 and 22 had been closed with an NFA designation and were removed from the TEAD-S RCRA
Part B Permit. During investigations of AOCs and SWMUs over the last few years, Cr(VI) has been detected
as a contaminant in both soil and groundwater. The source of the groundwater contamination has been
difficult to identify. Based on a review of total chromium data for SWMU 22, TEAD-S and the DWMRC
agreed soil sampling was needed to determine if the former SWMU 22 washout operation could be a
source of Cr(VI) contamination. Previous investigations that resulted in the NFA designation did not
include Cr(VI) sampling. Division staff collected several surface soil samples in the former ditch/runoff
area south of the old bomb washout building/SWMU 22; significant levels of Cr(VI) and other metals were
detected in the 12 surface soil samples from the ditch leading away from the former SWMU 22. Based on
an internal evaluation of the data, levels of contamination are present greater than risk-based levels.
Therefore, additional investigation is warranted for both soil and groundwater.
An RFI that began in 2023 is currently underway to delineate the lateral and vertical extent of Cr(VI), total
chromium, and RCRA metals in soil and groundwater at SWMU 21/22 and to evaluate the site features as
a potential source for Cr(VI) in the groundwater beneath the site. Additionally, a parallel investigation is
being conducted to evaluate the potential for the existence of additional source(s) of Cr(VI) in
groundwater upgradient, in the vicinity of, and downgradient of SWMU 21/22 to determine if the
presence of Cr(VI) in groundwater at SWMU 21/22 and other locations at TEAD-S can be attributed to
anthropogenic and/or geogenic (non-anthropogenic) mechanisms.
The 2023 RFI project scope involves the following activities, which are in progress at time of this
GMP revision:
1. Conducting an RFI at SWMU 21/22 and the surrounding areas at TEAD-S to supplement existing
data and information obtained during previous investigative activities, including:
a. Collecting and analyzing soil samples at select features associated with SWMU 21/22 for
Cr(VI), total chromium, and RCRA metals
b. Installing and developing two new groundwater monitoring wells

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 4-10
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
c. Performing two rounds of groundwater sampling for Cr(VI), total chromium, RCRA metals,
and various geochemical parameters (e.g., anions/cations, alkalinity, ammonia, and
ferric/ferrous iron) at select existing and new groundwater monitoring wells
2. Conducting a groundwater investigation to evaluate the presence and potential source(s) of
Cr(VI) at TEAD-S, including:
a. Installing three new groundwater monitoring wells
b. Performing two rounds of groundwater sampling for Cr(VI), total chromium, RCRA metals,
and various geochemical parameters (e.g., anions/cations, alkalinity, ammonia, and
ferric/ferrous iron) at select existing and new groundwater monitoring wells
c. Preparing a CMS to screen, develop, and evaluate potential corrective measures to address
remediation of environmental impacts
The site will be re-evaluated upon completion of additional investigation and potential corrective actions
to assess if LTM is required under this GMP.
Nitrate contamination in groundwater, due to a possible leaking septic tank or sewer line, will be
addressed under a separate program.
4.2.4 SWMUs and AOCs Removed from Long-Term Monitoring Program
4.2.4.1 SWMU 2
SWMU 2 occupies approximately 10 acres in the southwest portion of the Chemical Munition Storage
Area, identified separately as SWMU 11 (Figure 3-1). SWMU 2 consists of an oval-shaped burial pit
approximately 300 feet long by 60 feet wide. Historical aerial photographs suggest TEAD personnel
excavated the area around 1974 and used it as a quarry for construction materials, and it was later used
as a dump site. Excavation depths in the pit ranged from approximately 2 to 10 feet below grade. Historical
reports indicated the burial pit contained non-demilitarized discarded military munitions (DMMs), and
their presence was later confirmed during an Interim Remedial Action (IRA).
From 2013 to 2016, an IRA was conducted to remove DMMs and other military-related devices, surface
and subsurface debris, and contaminated soil (Kemron 2016). Based on visual and olfactory indications of
leakage from the DMMs, soil samples were collected from the burial pit and stockpiles. Additional
excavation was performed based on analytical results. Final confirmation results indicated that the source
area of contamination had been removed; however, concentrations of hexachloroethane (HCE) in soil
remaining beneath the pit exceeded the site-specific soil screening level (SSL) for the protection of
groundwater. HCE is historically found in smoke munitions (e.g., smoke grenades). Low levels of
tetrachloroethene (PCE) were also identified in the remaining soil at concentrations less than the SSL.
Based on these results, the final IRA report recommended no additional soil investigation or excavation
at SWMU 2 and recommended the site for closure with unrestricted use of soil (Kemron 2016). However,
the HARR recommended that groundwater should be monitored under a Post-Closure Permit due to
potential groundwater impacts from remaining soil.
Following the IRA, TEAD-S developed a Work Plan to define the groundwater monitoring program for
several corrective action sites, including SWMU 2 (Parsons 2016). The program outlined the technical
approach and potential future actions to be conducted at SWMU 2 if contaminants greater than the PALs
were present in the groundwater contamination. To determine if groundwater exceeded PALs, a grab
sample was collected in April 2016 at a location beneath the former burial pit where HCE in soil exceeded
the SSL. The groundwater sample was collected using direct push technology and analyzed for SVOCs and

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 4-11
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
HCE. Analytical results for SVOCs were less than PALs; however, the concentration of HCE (3.8 μg/L) was
greater than the PAL of 0.33 μg/L.
Based on the presence of HCE in groundwater greater than the PAL, the Utah DWMRC approved the site
for unrestricted land use while requiring LTM as part of the RCRA Part B Permit. The 2017 LTM report for
SWMU 2 recommended LTM be conducted for a minimum of 5 years (i.e., from 2016 through 2020), after
which the need for continued monitoring would be evaluated (Plexus 2018b).
In August 2016, a permanent groundwater monitoring well (S-134-16) was installed in the approximate
location of the groundwater grab sample and has been sampled annually since 2016 to assess the level of
groundwater contamination in the source zone. Downgradient Wells S-3-82 and S-46-90 have also been
sampled annually since 2016 and 2017, respectively, to assess the lateral extent of groundwater
contamination at SWMU 2. Water level measurements have been collected from each well during the
annual sampling events to determine groundwater flow direction, which has been observed to flow west.
Since 2016, all groundwater samples have been analyzed for HCE. In 2016 and 2017, the analytical results
for HCE from source area well S-134-6 were greater than the PAL. In 2018, 2019, and 2020, the analytical
results for HCE were non-detect in all wells. Since 2017, VOCs have been analyzed in all groundwater
samples. Concentrations of PCE in S-134-16 exceeded the PAL from 2017 through 2020. No other
compounds or locations had PAL exceedances during that time. Due to continued PAL exceedances at
S-134-16, LTM at SWMU 2 continued without modification beyond the initial 5-year period. In 2022, the
analytical results were either non-detect or less than the PALs in all groundwater samples.
Based on these results, sufficient data have been collected at SWMU 2 to assess concentration trends for
HCE and PCE. Since monitoring began in 2016, source area well S-134-16 has been the only SWMU 2 well
with PAL exceedances for HCE and/or PCE. Recent concentrations of HCE and PCE in the well have been
less than the PAL, and results from the statistical analysis indicate S-134-16 has statistically significant
decreasing concentration trends for both compounds. At downgradient Wells S-3-82 and S-46-90, HCE
and PCE concentrations have been predominantly HCE or uniformly PCE non-detect since 2016, and no
concentrations have exceeded PALs. These results suggest contaminant concentrations within the source
area will remain less than PALs in the future, and significant downgradient migration will not occur. The
groundwater at SWMU 2 was determined to meet the non-degradation requirements outlined in UAC
R315-101, and LTM was discontinued per the recommendation of the 2022 Annual LTM Report
(Brice 2023).
4.2.4.2 SWMU 5
SWMU 5 is an unlined drainage pond (approximately 100 feet by 50 feet) that was used to collect
wastewater generated in the renovation of munitions at Building 600 (Figure 3-1). Building 600 activities
included chemical munition and white phosphorous grenade renovation, as well as the washout of high
explosive cluster bombs from the late 1940s to early 1950s. Mustard projectiles, M15 WP grenades, and
M4-A2 smoke pots were also renovated in this building (DCD 2012). During renovation, munitions were
placed in acid baths, fuses and bursters were replaced, and the munitions were repainted in spray booths
within the building (DCD 2012). In the 1970s, Building 600 was used for retort operations of the pilot test
for the CAMDS (North Wind 2004). Paint constituents and chromic acid were also listed as potential
contaminants in the groundwater and soil, and during the RFI, metals and VOCs were detected in soil. The
Corrective Measures Work Plan was finalized in November 2002 (Tetra Tech 2012), and a closure report
was completed in 2004 (North Wind 2004).

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 4-12
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
The surface topography that immediately surrounds SWMU 5 slopes to the southwest with a ground
surface elevation of approximately 5,150 amsl. The drainage pond represents the boundary of SWMU 5.
A nearby ditch receives flow from the drainage pond and can carry runoff out of the eastern portion of
the SWMU. There are no other surface water features within SWMU 5 (Parsons 2013).
In 2016, a new monitoring well (S-130-16) was installed, groundwater samples were collected from eight
wells, and groundwater analytical results were assessed, including modeling, to evaluate if the source of
Cr(VI) reported in groundwater was anthropogenic (e.g., from past SWMU 5 operations), naturally
occurring, or a combination of both. The eight groundwater monitoring wells at SWMU 5 are:
• Wells S-2-82, S-51-90, and S-50-90 located upgradient of the drainage pond
• Well S-53-90 located cross gradient to the drainage pond, approximately 150 feet south-
southwest of the pond
• Wells S-108-93 and S-109-93 located downgradient of the drainage pond
• Well S-110-93, a distal cross gradient well located approximately 1,400 feet northeast of
the pond
• Well S-130-16 located on the downgradient edge of the former drainage pond
The groundwater flow patterns confirm an east-southeast flow direction (Parsons 2013). A review of
seasonal groundwater elevation fluctuations at SWMU 5 wells shows water levels remain consistent
throughout the year with a low-water level period during the fall and winter and a high-water level period
during the spring and summer; however, the minor water level fluctuations are not indicative of significant
seasonal trends. Figure 4-2 presents groundwater elevation contours for an area of TEAD-S encompassing
SWMU 5.
An evaluation of the monitoring data collected through 2017 has indicated that Cr(VI) is present in both
upgradient and cross gradient wells and is likely from an anthropogenic source(s) combined with geogenic
conditions (Plexus 2018b). The conclusion of the 2017 Final LTM Annual Report for SWMUs 2 and 5 (Plexus
2018b) established that groundwater at SWMU 5 was understood and the concentration of Cr(VI) in
groundwater was stable. The report further concluded that SWMU 5 be closed with no additional
groundwater monitoring. As noted in the 15 March 2018 state approval letter, groundwater monitoring
for Cr(VI) may continue under a regional approach, but corrective action LTM for SWMU 5 is closed.
4.2.4.3 AOC 23 Building 4553 Bomb Renovation Building Evaporation Pond
AOC 23 is a formerly used evaporation pond associated with Building 4553 (Figure 3-1). This AOC occupies
approximately 4 acres in the northeastern quadrant of TEAD-S on the south side of Gardner Road. An
overflow ditch runs south from the evaporation pond and a conveyance pipe travels beneath Gardner
Road, discharging to the middle of the northeastern edge of the evaporation pond.
According to the results of the Phase I RFI, no VOCs, SVOCs or explosives were identified in site soil
(Parsons 2017c). The Phase II RFI confirmed elevated levels of metals in soil, specifically lead, zinc,
cadmium, chromium, and Cr(VI) (Parsons 2019b). Horizontal extent of the metals contamination is limited
to the evaporation pond, with the exception of Cr(VI), which extended southwest to sample location
AS-SB-06 and northeast along the conveyance pipe to sample location AS-SS-15. The vertical extent of
contamination was delineated to less than 10 feet bgs.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 4-13
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
As part of the Phase II RFI, three monitoring wells (S-146-18, S-147-18, and S-148-18) were installed at
AOC 23. Monitoring well S-146-18 is an upgradient well. In addition to collecting groundwater samples for
laboratory analysis of COPCs (metals and Cr[VI]), additional analytes of nitrite and nitrate were included
in the sampling. While nitrate and nitrite were not site-related, they were included to provide additional
data needed to assist in modeling Cr(VI) in groundwater. Both nitrate and nitrite were detected in the
downgradient wells at concentrations similar to those associated with SWMUs 21/22 (which is cross
gradient from AOC 23).
The risk assessment conducted for AOC 23 indicated that the migration to groundwater pathway was
incomplete, and data indicate that metals had not migrated to groundwater. The recommendation of the
Phase II RFI was that groundwater monitoring was not needed for AOC 23. However, the monitoring wells
installed at AOC may be beneficial for use in the regional groundwater assessments for Cr(VI). The
concentrations of the nitrate/nitrite should also be assessed with the regional groundwater investigation
(SWMUs 21/22).
4.2.5 SWMUs and AOCs with No Long-Term Monitoring Requirements
SWMUs at TEAD-S with no known groundwater impacts are not included in LTM and have been designated
as NFA with regards to groundwater. Many of the monitoring wells remain at these closed SWMUs and
are used for measuring groundwater elevation to assist in assessing basewide groundwater monitoring.
SWMUs with NFA regarding groundwater include:
• SWMU 3: VOCs were sampled in 2016 as outlined in the LTM/HARR Work Plan (Parsons 2016) to
confirm a previous NFA designation. Based on the analytical results of the 2016 sampling,
NFA for groundwater was approved and the SWMU was removed from the TEAD-S RCRA
Part B Permit.
• SWMU 9: The SWMU is closed and designated for industrial land use in the TEAD-S
Post-Closure Permit.
• SWMU 11: The SWMU is closed under the Igloo (Area 10) and Mustard Yard investigation
(Pika-Pirnie 2015) and removed from the TEAD-S RCRA Part B Permit.
• SWMU 15: The SWMU has been closed with an NFA and removed from the TEAD-S RCRA
Part B Permit.
• SWMU 19: The SWMU has been closed with an NFA and removed from the TEAD-S RCRA
Part B Permit.
• SWMU 27: The corrective action process has been completed. The SWMU has been closed with
an NFA and removed from the TEAD-S RCRA Part B Permit.
• SWMU 28: The SWMU is closed and designated for industrial land use in the TEAD-S
Post-Closure Permit.
• SWMU 30: The SWMU is closed with an NFA and removed from the TEAD-S RCRA Part B Permit.
• HWMU 31: The HWMU has been closed and removed from the TEAD-S RCRA Part B Permit. The
site is now permitted as an active open-detonation range.
• SWMUs 4, 8, 14, 17, 20, 23, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36, and 37: These SWMUs have been removed
from the TEAD-S Part B Permit, do not have known groundwater impacts, and are not included
in the GMP.
• SWMUs not listed: SWMUs not in this list have been incorporated into other SWMUs or were
never assigned to an area.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 4-14
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
• AOCs 7, 9, 10, 11, and 15: The AOCs were investigated during Phase I RFI and were closed with
NFA. There are no known groundwater impacts, and they are not included in the GMP.
• AOCs 2, 3, 6, 8, and 24: These AOCs will be closed under the Phase II RFI and/or through limited
surface removals. There are no known impacts to groundwater associated with these AOCs and
they will not be included in the GMP.
In addition to the RCRA-regulated sites, two munitions response sites at TEAD-S are being remediated
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA):
• Combat Training Area (CTA) (DCD-001-R-01) – The CTA is in the north-central portion of TEAD-S
and was used for training from the 1940s until 1980. The site included a handgun range, rifle
range, combat assault course, bazooka/rifle range, hand grenade range, and a mortar firing
range (ITSI 2014).
• Old Demolition Pit (ODP) (DCD-004-R-01) – The ODP is in the central portion of TEAD-S, south
of SWMU 11 and near SWMU 15. It was the location of an accidental detonation of a 4.2-inch
mortar in the late 1940s (ITSI 2014).
The UDEQ Division of Environmental Response and Remediation is the regulatory authority for CERCLA
projects at TEAD-S. Investigations performed under RCRA to date at these two sites have found no
groundwater impacts or monitoring requirements. Investigation and remediation actions are ongoing.
Groundwater impacts and monitoring are not anticipated, but if required, they will be incorporated into
this GMP.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 5-1
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
5.0 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND WELL INSTALLATION
METHODOLOGY
Groundwater monitoring has been ongoing at TEAD-S for several decades. Over the years, groundwater
sampling and related activities (e.g., drilling) allowed for new lessons to be learned and new technologies
to be understood. Based on past experiences, this section provides guidance for groundwater monitoring
techniques including when to use which method and aspects to consider. The information presented
provides baseline information only. Detailed Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) should be included in
site-specific LTM work plans and/or Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs).
5.1 Groundwater Sampling Field Procedures
The main groundwater sampling method in use at TEAD-S is low-flow sampling. HydraSleeves have been
used in past procedures at TEAD-S, but low groundwater levels have made it difficult to collect sufficient
volume for samples using HydraSleeves. The characteristics of COPCs and the aquifer should be evaluated
to determine the optimal sample collection point within the water column to ensure a representative
sample is collected (e.g., for sites where VOCs are of concern, samples may be collected near the top of
the screen interval). The collection of groundwater samples at discrete depths alleviates concerns
regarding mixture of groundwater and potential dilution of contaminants at wells with longer screens.
Appropriate sample collection points may vary by SWMU. Prior to sampling a groundwater monitoring
well, regardless of the sampling method, the depth to water should be measured from the surveyed point
marked on the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing of each well using a water level meter. If LNAPL is present,
an electronic interface probe will be used instead of a water level meter. The two groundwater sampling
methods that have been used at TEAD-S are described in the following sections.
5.1.1 Low-Flow Groundwater Sampling
Low-flow purging and sampling involves the use of a submerged pump that can be adjusted to deliver
groundwater to the surface at rates from less than 100 milliliters (mL) per minute to a maximum of 1 liter
per minute. The purpose of this technique is the recovery of representative samples of water from the
aquifer adjacent to the well screen. Stagnant water above and below the screen will not usually be purged
or sampled. The technique eliminates the need for collection and costly disposal of several well volumes
of groundwater as IDW from wells containing contaminated water (EPA 1996b). With other sampling
techniques, such as bailing, at least three well volumes of groundwater are required to be purged prior to
sampling to make sure a representative sample is collected. However, sample collection using the low-
flow method is based on stabilized water quality parameters being achieved during purging at a low rate
rather than number of well volumes removed.
During low-flow purging and sampling, the pump intake is placed within the middle of the screened
interval, and the water pumped from the well is monitored for several water quality parameters
(e.g., temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity) using a flow-through cell and field
instrumentation. The water level is also monitored to keep drawdown to a minimum. Samples are
collected when the measured parameters have stabilized.
Parameters for consideration before choosing low-flow sampling as the appropriate method of
groundwater collection include sample volume requirements, length of water column in the well, and
formation yield and permeability characteristics. At wells with shallow seasonal water columns and/or
large sample volume requirements, low-flow sampling is the preferred method over HydraSleeve

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 5-2
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
sampling. However, low-permeability or low-yield formations can render the low-flow method ineffective
if drawdown of the well cannot be minimized or groundwater parameters do not stabilize (Yeskis and
Zavala 2002).
5.1.2 HydraSleeve Groundwater Sampling
The HydraSleeve groundwater sampling device is designed to collect a representative groundwater
sample from a well while eliminating the need to purge the well. The sample is collected from a discrete
depth within the screened interval of the well without mixing fluid from other depth intervals.
HydraSleeve samplers can be used to sample for most groundwater analytes (e.g., VOCs, SVOCs,
explosives, and metals) and eliminate the need for pumping a well and disposing of purge water
(GeoInsight 2016).
HydraSleeve samplers cause minimal well drawdown and agitation of the water column. The samplers are
made from a collapsible tube of polyethylene, sealed at the bottom end, and built with a self-sealing
reed-valve at the top end. The HydraSleeve sampler is installed collapsed and empty into the water
column where hydrostatic pressure keeps the device closed except during sample collection. One or more
samplers can be suspended on a weighted line and positioned in a well at the desired screen sampling
intervals or target horizons. The sampler is deployed through use of a weighted line that allows the
sampler to be positioned in the screened interval at a location optimized for each well (GeoInsight 2016).
Because the HydraSleeve sampler does not require purging, field measurements of groundwater
parameters (e.g., temperature, pH, conductivity, etc.), normally taken during purge sampling, are not
required to evaluate whether the groundwater parameters have stabilized prior to sampling. However, if
desired, these indicator parameters can still be measured from well water collected from the HydraSleeve
sampler or in situ following sampling.
The displacement of well water caused by placement of a single HydraSleeve sampler is minimal (less than
100 mL). Because the sampler does not disturb the water column significantly, long equilibrations times
following insertion of the sampler into the well are unnecessary. To obtain a groundwater sample, the
HydraSleeve is pulled upward on the suspension line through the zone of interest, which causes water to
enter the one-way check valve and fill the sampler (GeoInsight 2016).
Parameters for consideration before choosing HydraSleeve as the appropriate method of groundwater
collection include sample volume requirements and length of water column in the well. For a 2-inch well,
the standard options include a 600-mL HydraSleeve bag or a 1,000-mL HydraSleeve bag. The 600-mL bag
is 30 inches long and a has fill stroke (distance to pull upwards to fill the bag) of 30 inches, for a total of
60 inches water column needed to fill the bag. The 1,000-mL bag is 38 inches long and has a fill stroke of
38 inches, for a total of 76 inches water column needed to fill the bag. For a 4-inch well, a 3,000-mL
HydraSleeve bag is available. The 3,000-mL bag is 37 inches long and has a fill stroke of 37 inches, for a
total of 74 inches of water column needed to fill the bag (GeoInsight 2016). Top-weighted models, Super
Sleeve and Turbo Sleeve, are available in sizes of 1,000-mL, 1,500-mL, 2,000-mL, and 4,000-mL bags. With
a top-weight, the Super Sleeve and Turbo Sleeve become compressed at the bottom of the well. The
compression length of the Super Sleeve is approximately 16 inches and the fill stroke is 46 inches, for a
total of approximately 62 inches of water column needed to fill the bag. The compression length of the
Turbo Sleeve is 36 inches and the fill stroke is 96 inches, for a total of 132 inches of water column needed
to fill the bag (GeoInsight 2017). Two standard HydraSleeve samplers may also be joined together in series
to obtain additional sample volume, though that effectively doubles the length of the bag and, therefore,
increases the water column needed to fill the bag. Limitations on water column length and sample volume
requirements have necessitated the usage of low-flow groundwater sampling.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 5-3
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
5.2 Quality Control Plan
Prior to initiating sampling at a site, a Quality Control Plan (QCP) must be in place. The QCP is generated
and used to confirm representative and reproducible data are produced. The QCP can be included in
site-specific LTM work plans or be a stand-alone document. At a minimum, the QCP should
include/prescribe the following:
• Preparatory, kickoff, and ongoing quality meetings
• Separate controls for each definable feature of work (DFW)
• Verification that SOPs are established and personnel are sufficiently trained for each DFW
• Historical field information (e.g., previous water levels, total depth)
• Sufficient inspections scheduled for each DFW
• Description and use of field forms to verify relevant information is collected and recorded
• Establishment of decision making and data acceptance criteria
• Recordkeeping
• Confirmation work and analytical reporting in compliance with the project specific QAPP and
TEAD-S QAPP (AQS 2012)
• Corrective action procedures
Additional components will be included as needed or as negotiated with stakeholders.
5.3 Laboratory Analytical Methods
Laboratory analytical methods to be implemented are site/project-specific and should be performed in
accordance with the analytical requirements detailed in the DCD QAPP (AQS 2012) and in site-specific
QAPPs. The sensitivity of all methods and laboratory instrumentation shall provide limits of quantitation,
at a minimum (if possible), that are no higher than the EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) and State of
Utah cleanup standards (UAC R315-101), and that also meet the requirements outlined in the DCD QAPP
(AQS 2012). Each laboratory must be Department of Defense Environmental Laboratory Accreditation
Program (ELAP) and State of Utah certified.
5.4 Drilling Methods and Monitoring Well Installation
This section incorporates lessons learned from previous well installations at TEAD-S to provide guidance
for future well installations and increase efficiency and drilling effectiveness. Numerous drilling methods
exist for well installation including direct push, hollow-stem auger, reverse rotary, and ODEX. However,
based on recent availability of sonic and direct push rigs, reduction in IDW generation, and the ability to
collect continuous soil core, only sonic and direct push rigs are recommended for use at TEAD-S and
discussed below.
5.4.1 Drilling Methods and Selection Criteria
Rotosonic (sonic) drilling provides superior speed, safety, accuracy, and less waste generation compared
to conventional drilling equipment. This drilling method can be used for continuous sampling in
unconsolidated soil and in soft/fractured bedrock to hundreds of feet bgs. Core samples are collected in
a 4- to 7-inch-diameter core barrel and vibrated into clear plastic sleeves ranging from 2 to 3 feet long.
This provides an effective means of describing soil lithology, while maintaining environmental integrity of

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 5-4
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
samples collected for chemical or physical analyses. The sonic drill has the capability to advance the core
barrel 20 feet each run. Depending on the frequency in changes in lithology encountered during drilling,
runs may be limited to 10 feet to increase the quality of soil core recovery.
The direct push method is used to acquire soil samples in formations where a standard 2-inch-diameter
split-spoon sampler can be driven (e.g., unconsolidated clays, silts, sands, and fine gravels) at lower costs
than other types of drilling. The direct push drilling method produces continuous cores that can provide
lithologic detail of the subsurface strata and allow soil sampling for classification and chemical testing. In
addition, soil strata profiling in shallow depths may be accomplished over large areas in less time than
conventional drilling methods because of the rapid sample gathering potential of the direct push method.
Furthermore, grab groundwater sampling may be employed via direct push groundwater sampling which
has the benefits of smaller size tooling, smaller diameter boreholes, and minimal waste generation. Some
models of direct push drill rigs have the capability to perform hollow-stem auger drilling in addition to
direct push.
At TEAD-S direct push should be considered for the installation of monitoring wells at locations where the
groundwater is shallow (less than 50 feet bgs); lithology is permissible for advancement of direct push
rods; and 2-inch-diameter monitoring wells are suitable for meeting groundwater monitoring needs.
Direct push should not be used in areas where groundwater is deeper than 50 feet bgs and where dense
clays and large cobbles are present or where monitoring wells greater than 2-inch in diameter are
necessary. Based on these limitations, direct push should not be used in the southeastern areas
(e.g., SWMU 1/25 and 31) due to past experiences but should be considered for the western portions of
TEAD-S (e.g., SWMU 13 and SWMU 30) where direct push has been proven to be effective.
5.4.2 Monitoring Well Installation and Construction
Potential new monitoring wells consist of two main groups: wells installed in first (shallowest) water and
wells installed below first water at deeper hydrostratigraphic levels. A distinction between the two groups
is necessary because different installation procedures must be followed when installing deep wells. This
is to prevent the possibility of cross contaminating deeper water-bearing zones with contamination
present in shallower levels.
For shallow wells installed in first water, the above installation parameters can be achieved without
special consideration of cross-contamination as boreholes will not be advanced below the bottom of the
first water-bearing lithologic unit. For wells installed below first water, precautions must be taken to
prevent downward flow of shallow contaminated groundwater to deeper levels. During installation of
deeper wells, the outer drill casing remains in the hole at all times during borehole drilling and well
installation. The casing seals off shallow water-bearing units and prevents flow from those units from
entering deeper intervals. The monitoring well PVC riser and screening materials are set at the target
depth from inside the outer drill casing. Following this, installation of the filter pack and bentonite seal
occurs in discrete steps, whereby the drill casing is slowly raised by several inches, and annular materials
(sand or bentonite) are installed (tremied or poured). The raising of the drill casing in small steps allows
for the opening of annular space so that annular materials may fall freely into position around the well,
while maintaining a seal on overlying water-bearing zones. To prevent bridging, coated bentonite pellets
are used. This procedure is performed until the well is grouted above the base of the first water-bearing
unit, at which time the remaining casing may be removed from the borehole if conditions allow.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 5-5
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Monitoring well construction will be PVC of either 2- or 4-inch diameter with a default screen length of
10 feet; 7 feet of the screen interval should be installed below the average groundwater elevation and
3 feet of screen should remain above. The final monitoring well design will be modified, as needed, on a
site-by-site basis to meet the data needs of each site. Parameters to consider include the future use of
the well, including sampling/monitoring methods, if any down-well monitoring is needed, or if the wells
are nested. If nested wells or 4-inch wells are needed, sonic drilling should be used to achieve a sufficient
boring diameter.
Prior to installing new wells, applicable permits must be obtained including contacting the Division of
Water Rights and obtaining approval for the construction of non-production wells. Following well
installation, each new well should be surveyed by a professional Utah-licensed surveyor using the North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) or the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84) reference system and the
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) reference system. Vertical control is required to the
nearest 0.01 feet, and horizontal control is required to the nearest 0.1 feet. The survey must be tied
into/checked against the existing monitoring wells to accurately calculate groundwater elevation across
the installation.
5.5 Well Abandonment
Following the completion of LTM at a site, well abandonment may be considered and discussed. However,
wells should not necessarily be abandoned after LTM is complete at a site because the monitoring well
may still be valuable for basewide groundwater monitoring (e.g., measuring groundwater elevations). In
addition, a monitoring well may need to be abandoned (or abandoned and replaced) should its integrity
fail (e.g., casing breaks or groundwater decreased below the well screen). If a well is to be abandoned,
concurrence should be documented from all stakeholders; and an abandonment SOP should be prepared,
approved, and performed in accordance with Utah rules and regulations.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 5-6
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah

This page intentionally blank

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 6-1
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
6.0 REFERENCES
AQS. 2012. Final Deseret Chemical Depot Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP). February.
AQS. 2017. Final Risk Assumptions Document Solid Waste Management Units and Other Corrective
Action Sites, Revision 5, Tooele Army Depot South Area, Tooele, Utah. March.
Brice Engineering, LLC (Brice). 2023. 2022 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot
South Area, Tooele, Utah. January.
Brice. 2024. 2023 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Tooele Army Depot South Area, Tooele, Utah.
February.
CB&I. 2016. Site-Specific Fina Report Tooele Army Depot – South, Stockton, UT. February.
Deseret Chemical Depot (DCD). 2012. Final Sampling and Analysis Plan, SWMU 5. June.
Gardner, P.M. and S.M. Kirby. 2011. “Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater
Resources in Rush Valley, Tooele County, Utah.” U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2011-5068.
Gardner, Philip. 2012. Personal communications between Jeffrey Fitzmayer and Philip Gardner.
6 August.
GeoInsight. 2016. Standard Operating Procedure: Sampling Groundwater with a HydraSleeve.
www.hydrasleeve.com.
GeoInsight. 2017. Heavy Duty Super/SkinnySleeve Assembly Instructions. www.hydrasleeve.com.
ITSI. 2014. Final Remedial Investigation Report DCD-001-R-01 (Combat training Area) and DCD-004-R-01
(Old Demolition Pit/SWMU 15). Deseret Chemical Depot, Utah. August.
Kemron. 2016. Site Specific Final Report, Interim Remedial Action, Solid Waste Management Unit
(SWMU) 2, Tooele Army Depot - South Area, Stockton, Utah.
North Wind. 2004. Draft Final Corrective Measures Completion Report for the SWMU 5 Building 600
Foundation, Drainage Pond, and Ditch. July.
Parsons. 2013. Final Hydrogeological Assessment and Recommendations Report, Deseret Chemical
Depot, Stockton, Utah. July.
Parsons. 2016. Final Long Term Monitoring of SWMU 2, SWMU 5, HWMU 31 and Implementation of the
Hydrogeologic Assessment and Recommendations Report Work Plan. Tooele Army Depot-South,
Tooele County, Utah. February.
Parsons. 2017a. Final Groundwater Management Plan, Tooele Army Depot South, Tooele County, Utah.
November.
Parsons. 2017b. Final 2016 Long Term Monitoring of SWMU 2, SWMU 3, SWMU 5, and HWMU 31
Annual Report. Tooele Army Depot-South, Tooele County, Utah. May.
Parsons. 2017c. Final Phase I RCRA Facility Investigation Report of Select Areas of Concern. Tooele Army
Depot-South, Tooele County, Utah. October.

Groundwater Management Plan Revision 3 6-2
Tooele Army Depot, Utah and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah
Parsons. 2018a. Revised Final Groundwater Management Plan, Tooele Army Depot South, Tooele
County, Utah. November.
Parsons. 2018b. Final Phase II Addendum RCRA Facility Investigation Report for SWMU 1 and SWMU 25,
Tooele Army Depot South, Tooele County, Utah. August.
Parsons. 2018c. Final Corrective Measures Implementation Plan for Solid Waste Management Unit 13,
Tooele Army Depot South, Tooele County, Utah. May.
Parsons. 2019a. Final Groundwater Management Plan, Revision Two, Tooele Army Depot South, Tooele
County, Utah. June.
Parsons. 2019b. Final Phase II RCRA Facility Investigation Repot of Select Areas of Concern, Tooele Army
Depot South, Tooele County, Utah. February.
Pika-Pirnie JV, LLC. 2015. Final Closure Verification Sampling Report for Area 10 Igloos; Area 2 Buildings
4104, 4105, 4107; Building 4536; and Site Investigation Sampling at the Area 10 Igloos and
Mustard Storage Yard, Deseret Chemical Depot, Stockton, Utah. January.
Plexus Scientific Corporation (Plexus). 2017. RCRA Facility Investigation Addendum, Solid Waste
Management Unit 26, Tooele Army Depot – South, Utah. July.
Plexus. 2018a. Final 2018 Long Term Monitoring of SWMU 2 Annual Report. September.
Plexus. 2018b. Final 2017 Long Term Monitoring of SWMU 2 and SWMU 5 Annual Report. February.
Plexus. 2020. Corrective Measures Implementation Completion Report, Solid Waste Management
Unit 26 West (Areas A through D), Tooele Army Depot – South, Tooele County, Utah. April.
Post V., H. Kooi, C. and Simmons. 2007. “Using hydraulic head measurements in variable-density ground
water flow analyses.” Groundwater 45:664-671.
Rust Environment and Infrastructure (Rust). 1997. Tooele Army Depot-South Area, Revised Final Phase II
RCRA Facility Investigation Report Known Releases SWMUs 13 and 17. April.
Stolp, B.J. and L.E. Brooks. 2009. “Hydrology and Simulation of Ground-Water Flow in the Tooele Valley
Ground-Water Basin, Tooele County, Utah.” U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2009-5154. https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5154/.
Tooele Army Depot (TEAD). 2019. Request for Alternative Remedy Strategy at Solid Waste Management
Unit 13, Tooele Army Depot South Area. June.
Tetra Tech. 2012. Final Corrective Measures Work Plan. 2012 Remedial Action at SWMU 5 Building 600
Foundation, Drainage Pond and Ditch. Desert Chemical Depot, Tooele, Utah. November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996a. How to Effectively Recover Free Product at Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Sites, A Guide for State Regulators. EPA 510-R-96-001. September.
EPA. 1996b. Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground-Water Sampling Procedures. EPA 540-S-95-501.
April.
Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). 1993. Deseret Chemical Depot RCRA Part B
Hazardous Waste Storage Permit. Reissued 2004.
Yeskis, D., and B. Zavala. 2002. Ground-Water Sampling Guidance for Superfund and RCRA Project
Managers. EPA Groundwater Forum Issue Paper, EPA 542-S-02-001. May.

TABLES

This page intentionally blank

Page 1 of 2
Table 4-1 SWMU 1 Long-Term Monitoring Program
MONITORING WELL
ID WELL LOCATION ASSOCIATED
SOIL BORING PLUME MONITORING TYPE SAMPLE
FREQUENCY
ANALYTICAL
SUITE COMMENTS
S-70-90 Buffer Zone NA NA Off-Post Non-Degradation
Perimeter Annually 8260C (VOCs)
Samples to be collected at
high groundwater levels
(May)
S-71-90 Buffer Zone NA NA Off-Post Non-Degradation
Perimeter Annually 8260C (VOCs)
Samples to be collected at
high groundwater levels
(May)
S-93-92 Buffer Zone NA NA Off-Post Non-Degradation
Perimeter Annually 8260C (VOCs)
Samples to be collected at
high groundwater levels
(May)
S-128-15 SWMU 1 01-SB-05 Mustard
Mountain Downgradient Annually 8260C (VOCs)
Samples to be collected at
high groundwater levels
(May)
S-127-15 SWMU 1 01-SB-04 Mustard
Mountain Source Area Annually 8260C (VOCs)
Samples to be collected at
high groundwater levels
(May)
S-135-16 SWMU 1 01-SB-64 Mustard
Mountain Source Area Annually 8260C (VOCs)
Shallow, Co-located with
S-136-16
Samples to be collected at
high groundwater levels
(May)
S-136-16 SWMU 1 01-SB-65 Mustard
Mountain Vertical Migration Annually 8260C (VOCs)
Deep, Co-located with
S-135-16
Samples to be collected at
high groundwater levels
(May)
S-129-15 SWMU 1 01-SB-03 Southern CTC Downgradient Annually 8260C (VOCs)
Samples to be collected at
high groundwater levels
(May)
S-137-16 SWMU 1 01-SB-66 Southern CTC Source Area Annually 8260C (VOCs)
Shallow, Co-located with
S-138-16
Samples to be collected at
high groundwater levels
(May)

Page 2 of 2
Table 4-1 SWMU 1 Long-Term Monitoring Program
MONITORING WELL
ID WELL LOCATION ASSOCIATED
SOIL BORING PLUME MONITORING TYPE SAMPLE
FREQUENCY
ANALYTICAL
SUITE COMMENTS
S-138-16 SWMU 1 01-SB-66 Southern CTC Vertical Migration Annually 8260C (VOCs)
Deep, Co-located with
S-137-16
Samples to be collected at
high groundwater levels
(May)
S-YYY-XX SWMU 1 NA NA IDF 1-152 Annually
8260C (VOCs);
7199 (Total
Chromium,
Cr[VI])
Proposed monitoring well,
information to be
presented during
installation, development,
and sampling.
Samples to be collected at
high groundwater levels
(May)
S-69-90, S-135-16,
S-136-16, S-127-15,
S-96-92, S-128-15,
S-137-16, S-138-16,
S-129-15, S-126-16,
S-97-92, S-125-15,
S-70-90, S-5-82,
S-71-90, S-4-82,
S-93-92, and
S-YYY-XX
SWMU 1 and
Buffer Zone NA NA Water levels Annually Electronic water
level meter
To be conducted
concurrently with the
annual sampling event
Notes:
For definitions, refer to the Acronyms and Abbreviations section.

Page 1 of 1
Table 4-2 SWMU 1 Well Data
MONITORING
WELL ID
ELEVATION OF TOC
(feet amsl)
SCREENED
INTERVAL
(feet bgs)
STRATIGRAPHIC
HORIZON AQUIFER TYPE1
TARGET
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(feet btoc)
S-4-82 5070.43 64-84 Silt and clay Confined NS
S-5-82 5041.15 10.3-20.3 Silt Confined NS
S-69-90 5107.82 112.7-122.7 Clay Confined NS
S-70-90 5064.19 40 – 50 Upper Clay Semi-confined 50
S-71-90 5059.49 58 – 68 Upper Clay Semi-confined 64.8
S-93-92 5076.45 136 – 151 Lower Clay Semi-confined 146
S-96-92 5075.30 99.5-114.5 Clayey silt, silty sand Confined NS
S-125-15 5080.67 59-69 Upper Clay Semi-confined NS
S-126-15 5075.71 54-64 Upper Clay Semi-confined NS
S-128-15 5075.82 95 – 105 Lower Clay Semi-confined 102.5
S-127-15 5083.54 105 – 115 Lower Clay Semi-confined 112.5
S-135-16 5131.92 175.5 – 185.5 Lower Clay Semi-confined 182
S-136-16 5131.94 236 – 246 Lower Clay Semi-confined 243.5
S-129-15 5064.40 96 – 106 Lower Clay Semi-confined 103.5
S-137-16 5067.75 116 – 126 Lower Clay Semi-confined 123.5
S-138-16 5067.79 185 – 195 Lower Clay Semi-confined 192.5
S-YYY-XX NA NA NA Semi-confined NA
Notes:
For definitions, refer to the Acronyms and Abbreviations section.
1 When water elevations are plotted as on the cross sections, it appears that at whatever elevation the water-bearing sand
is encountered in borehole sediments (which is highly variable), given enough time, static water will rise to roughly the
same elevation (approximately 5,022 ft amsl), indicating conditions site-wide are semi-confined (Parsons 2019b).

This page intentionally blank

Page 1 of 1
Table 4-3 SWMU 25 Long-Term Monitoring Program
MONITORING WELL ID WELL
LOCATION
ASSOCIATED
SOIL BORING PLUME MONITORING TYPE SAMPLE
FREQUENCY
ANALYTICAL
SUITE COMMENTS
S-67-90 Buffer Zone NA NA Off-Post Non-degradation
Perimeter Annually 8260C (VOCs) Samples to be collected at high
groundwater levels (May)
S-68-90 Buffer Zone NA NA Off-Post Non-degradation
Perimeter Annually 8260C (VOCs) Samples to be collected at high
groundwater levels (May)
S-95-92 Buffer Zone NA NA Off-Post Non-degradation
Perimeter Annually 8260C (VOCs) Samples to be collected at high
groundwater levels (May)
S-97-92 Buffer Zone NA NA Off-Post Non-degradation
Perimeter Annually 8260C (VOCs) Samples to be collected at high
groundwater levels (May)
S-141-17 SWMU 25 25-SB-79 Eastern
CTC Downgradient Annually 8260C (VOCs) Samples to be collected at high
groundwater levels (May)
S-139-17 SWMU 25 25-SB-39 Eastern
CTC Source Area Annually 8260C (VOCs)
Shallow, co-located with
S-140-17
Samples to be collected at high
groundwater levels (May)
S-140-17 SWMU 25 25-SB-39 Eastern
CTC Vertical Migration Annually 8260C (VOCs)
Deep, co-located with S-139-17
Samples to be collected at high
groundwater levels (May)
S-121-08 SWMU 25 NA Western
CTC Downgradient Annually 8260C (VOCs) Samples to be collected at high
groundwater levels (May)
S-120-08 SWMU 25 NA Western
CTC Source Area Annually 8260C (VOCs)
Co-located with S-142-17
Samples to be collected at high
groundwater levels (May)
S-142-17 SWMU 25 25-SB-80 Western
CTC Vertical Migration Annually 8260C (VOCs)
Co-located with S-120-08
Samples to be collected at high
groundwater levels (May)
S-P3-90, S-64-90, S-98-92,
S-100-92, S-66-90, S-7-82,
S-102-92, S-101-92, S-139-17,
S-141-17, S-99-92, S-142-17,
S-121-08, S-120-08, S-65-90,
S-6-82, S-68-90, S-95-92,
S-18-88, S-67-90, and S-19-88
SWMU 25 NA NA Water Level Annually
Electronic
water level
meter
To be conducted concurrently
with the annual sampling event
Notes:
For definitions, refer to the Acronyms and Abbreviations section.

This page intentionally blank

Page 1 of 1
Table 4-4 SWMU 25 Well Data
MONITORING
WELL ID
ELEVATION
OF TOC
(feet amsl)
SCREENED
INTERVAL
(feet bgs)
STRATIGRAPHIC
HORIZON AQUIFER TYPE1
TARGET SAMPLE
DEPTH
(feet btoc)
S-P3-90 5044.65 10-15 Upper Clay Semi-confined NS
S-6-82 5043.02 15.3-35.3 Upper Clay Semi-confined NS
S-7-82 5052.22 34-54 Upper Clay Semi-confined NS
S-18-88 5041.43 16.7-36.7 Upper Clay Semi-confined NS
S-19-88 5063.56 14.4-34.4 Upper Clay Semi-confined NS
S-64-90 5048.78 24.5-34.5 Upper Clay Semi-confined NS
S-65-90 5041.37 15-25 Upper Clay Semi-confined NS
S-66-90 5062.19 84-94 Upper Clay Semi-confined NS
S-67-90 5042.13 26 – 36 Upper Clay Semi-confined 33.5
S-68-90 5062.44 52.5 – 62.5 Upper Clay Semi-confined 60
S-95-92 5049.81 103 – 128 Transition Zone Semi-confined 118
S-97-92 5090.30 73 – 83 Upper Clay Semi-confined 80.5
S-98-92 5052.64 28.7-39.2 Upper Clay Semi-confined NS
S-99-92 5052.71 28-38 Upper Clay Semi-confined NS
S-100-92 5080.73 59.3-74.3 Upper Clay Semi-confined NS
S-101-92 5063.10 40-50.5 Upper Clay Semi-confined NS
S-102-92 5057.55 40-50.5 Upper Clay Semi-confined NS
S-120-08 5053.48 47 – 67 Upper Clay Semi-confined 59.5
S-121-08 5053.89 33 – 53 Upper Clay Semi-confined 45.5
S-139-17 5072.39 50 – 60 Upper Clay Semi-confined 59
S-140-17 5072.38 195 – 205 Lower Clay Semi-confined 197.5
S-141-17 5079.12 65 – 75 Upper Clay Semi-confined 72.5
S-142-17 5053.62 200 – 210 Lower Clay Semi-confined 207.5
Notes:
For definitions, refer to the Acronyms and Abbreviations section.
1 When water elevations are plotted as on the cross sections, it appears that at whatever elevation the water-bearing sand is
encountered in borehole sediments (which is highly variable), given enough time, static water will rise to roughly the same
elevation (approximately 5,022 feet amsl) indicating conditions site-wide are semi-confined (Parsons 2019b).

This page intentionally blank

Page 1 of 1
Table 4-5 SWMU 13 Long-Term Monitoring Program
DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVE TASKS METHODS FREQUENCY LOCATIONS
Monitor plume movement TPH-DRO and VOC
measurement
TPH-DRO: EPA 8015D
VOC: EPA 8260C
Annual, for a minimum of 5 years
Samples to be collected at high
groundwater levels (May)
MW: S-55-90, S-78-91, and S-91-91
Monitor vertical contamination TPH-DRO and VOC
measurement
TPH-DRO: EPA 8015D
VOC: EPA 8260C Annual, for a minimum of 5 years MW: S13-CAM-DW1
Monitor potentiometric
surface
Groundwater
elevation
measurement
TPH-DRO: EPA 8015D
VOC: EPA 8260C
Annual, for a minimum of 5 years (to be
collected concurrently with the analytical
sampling event)
MW: S-1-82, S-25-88, S-26-88, S-29-88,
S-30-88, S-54-90, S-55-90, S-56-90,
S-58-90, S-59-90, S-76-91, S-78-91,
S-81-91, S-82-91, S-83-91, S-84-91,
S-87-91, and S-91-91
Plume mapping TPH-DRO and VOC
measurement
TPH-DRO: EPA 8015D
VOC: EPA 8260C
One-time event at Year 5
Samples to be collected at high
groundwater levels (May)
MW: S-81-91, S-25-88, S-26-88,
S-CAM-2, S13-CAM-DW1, S-82-91,
S-55-90, S-CAM-1, S-78-91, S-29-88,
S-30-88, and S-91-91
Notes:
For definitions, refer to the Acronyms and Abbreviations section.
Source: Table 5-1, Request for an Alternative Remedy Strategy at SWMU 13 (TEAD 2019).

This page intentionally blank

Page 1 of 1
Table 4-6 SWMU 13 Well Data
MONITORING
WELL ID
ELEVATION OF
TOC
(feet amsl)
SCREENED
INTERVAL
(feet bgs)
STRATIGRAPHIC
HORIZON AQUIFER TYPE
TARGET
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(feet btoc)
S-1-82 5039.59 10.3-20.3 Silty sand Unconfined UBFAU NS
S-25-88 5043.03 9.5-19.5 Silty sand, silt Partially confined
UBFAU 16
S-26-88 5043.33 9.4-19.4 Clayey sand, silty
sand Unconfined UBFAU 16
S-29-88 5042.68 6-16 Silt, clayey sand Unconfined UBFAU 12
S-30-88 5041.56 5.4-15.4 Clayey sand, clay Unconfined UBFAU 12
S-54-90 5054.01 17.5-27.5 Clay Confined UBFAU NS
S-55-90 5045.75 8-18 Clay, silt, poorly
graded sand Confined UBFAU 15
S-56-90 5056.06 39-49 Poorly graded sand Unconfined UBFAU NS
S-58-90 5039.73 4-14 Clayey sand Unconfined UBFAU NS
S-59-90 5038.90 5-10 Clayey sand, poorly
graded sand, silt Unconfined UBFAU NS
S-76-91 5042.90 14.08-29.08 Poorly graded sand Unconfined UBFAU NS
S-78-91 5042.38 13.8-28.8 Silty sand Unconfined UBFAU 19
S-81-91 5044.87 7.7-22.7 Silty sand Unconfined UBFAU 17
S-82-91 5044.40 13-23 Silty sand Unconfined UBFAU 19
S-83-91 5041.89 13.5-23.5 Silty sand, poorly
graded sand Confined UBFAU NS
S-84-91 5040.15 5.4-25.4 Poorly graded sand,
silty sand Unconfined UBFAU NS
S-87-91 5045.29 7-17 Poorly graded gravel,
silty sand Unconfined UBFAU NS
S-91-91 5040.47 3.7-23.7 Silty sand, poorly
graded sand Unconfined UBFAU 18
S-92-91 5045.43 10.65-26.65 Silty sand, poorly
graded sand Unconfined UBFAU NS
S-105-93 5042.09 8.1-17.4 Silty sand Unconfined UBFAU NS
S-106-93 5044.48 41-51 Silty sand, well
graded gravel Unconfined UBFAU NS
S13-CAM-DW1 5044.75 54-59 NA NA 59
S-CAM-1 5043.41 5.6-21.60 Silty, silty sand, clay Unconfined UBFAU 15
S-CAM-2 5045.70 5.5-23.50 Clay Unconfined UBFAU 16
Notes:
For definitions, refer to the Acronyms and Abbreviations section.
Source: Final HARR, Table 3.7.1 (Parsons 2013).

This page intentionally blank

Page 1 of 1
Table 4-7 SWMU 26 Long-Term Monitoring Program
ELEMENT DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVE TASKS METHODS FREQUENCY LOCATIONS
Groundwater
Monitoring Monitor buried waste VOC analyses EPA 8260C (VOCs)
Annually, for a minimum for 5 years
Samples to be collected at high
groundwater levels (May)
Monitoring wells:
• S-38-90
• S-40-90
• S-150-20
Groundwater
Monitoring
Monitor potentiometric
surface
Groundwater elevation
measurements Electronic water level meter
Annually, for a minimum for 5 years
(to be collected concurrently with
the analytical sampling events)
Monitoring wells:
• S-35-90
• S-37-90
• S-38-90
• S-39-90
• S-40-90
• S-41-90
• S-118-08
• S-122-08
• S-124-13
• S-150-20
Notes:
For definitions, refer to the Acronyms and Abbreviations section.

This page intentionally blank

Page 1 of 1
Table 4-8 SWMU 26 Well Data
MONITORING
WELL ID
ELEVATION OF
TOC
(feet amsl)
SCREENED
INTERVAL
(feet bgs)
STRATIGRAPHIC
HORIZON AQUIFER TYPE
TARGET
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(feet btoc)
S-35-90 5373.75 266.6-276.6 Sand and gravel Unconfined UBFAU NS
S-37-90 5312.91 204-224 Silt and gravel Confined UBFAU NS
S-38-90 5323.31 210.5-230.5 Silty gravel Unconfined UBFAU 232
S-39-90 53373.11 235-255 Silty gravel Confined UBFAU NS
S-40-90 5354.80 250.95-270.95 Gravelly silt and sand Unconfined UBFAU 270
S-41-90 5382.30 286.5-306.5 Silty clay and gravel Unconfined UBFAU NS
S-118-08 5356.69 262-292 Silty sand and gravel Unconfined UBFAU NS
S-122-08 5377.06 288-308 Clay and gravel Confined UBFAU NS
S-124-13 5357.33 247.5-257.5 Silt and gravel Confined UBFAU NS
S-150-20 5355.34 291-301 NA NA 302
Notes:
For definitions, refer to the Acronyms and Abbreviations section.
Source: Final HARR, Table 3.7.1 (Parsons 2013).

This page intentionally blank

FIGURES

This page intentionally blank

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar
Geographics, and the GIS User Community
TOOELE ARMY
DEPOT SOUTH
S

K

U

L

L

V

A

L

L

E

Y
R U S H V A L L E Y
C

E

D

A

R

V

A

L

L

E

Y
TOOELE
O p h i r C a n yo n
M e r c u r C a n y o n
¬«199
¬«73
¬«36
RUSH VALLEY
STOCKTON
EAGLE
MOUNTAIN
CEDAR FORT
FAIRFIELD
HERRIMAN
1 INCH
1-1
A.C.
DRAWN:P.M.:
PROJECT No.:FIGURE:DATE:
770113 2/8/2024
O.C.
p
WGS84, UTM ZONE 12 N, METERS
HORIZONAL DATUM: WGS 1984 | VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

G
:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
B
E
N
G
\
A
R
M
Y
\
T
E
A
D
\
_
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
AL
S
\
T
E
A
D
_
S
_
G
W
M
P
_
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
_
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
_
G
I
S
\
0
1
_
M
X
D
\
F
0
1_
T
E
A
D
_
S
_
S
I
T
E
M
A
P
.
m
x
d
3 0 3 61.5
SCALE IN MILES
SALT LAKE CITY
TOOELE
Abbreviations
TEAD-S
UDOT
Tooele Army Depot South
Utah Department of Transportation
Notes
1. For conceptual purposes only. All locations are approximate.
2. Map produced using Esri ArcMap v. 10.7.
References
1. Basemap source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar, Geographics and the GIS User
Community.
Legend
Railroads
UDOT Roads
Tooele Army Depot South Boundary
Municipalities
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN,
REVISION 3
TOOELE, ARMY DEPOT-SOUTH, UTAH
TEAD-S SITE MAP
This page intentionally blank
!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U !U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U !U !U!U !U !U !U
!U
!U !U
!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U
!U
!U!U!U
!U!U!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U !U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!!A
!!A!!A
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U!U
!U!U!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U!U
!U!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
S-123-13
300
SEE INSET
S-124-13
870
S-130-16
1,400
S-134-16
10,000
S-120-08
20,000
S-141-17
8,300
S-125-15
12,000
S-126-15
3.900
S-135-16
4,200
S-96-92
4,400
S-128-15
4,700 S-137-16
5,400S-129-15
5,200
AOC 10
OSP-2
AOC 9
OSP-1A
AOC 5
AOC 2
AOC 6
AOC 3
AOC 24AOC 27
AOC 8
AOC 15
AOC 9
OSP-1B
AOC 7AOC 11
AOC 23
S-10-82
200
S-100-92
3,200
S-101-92
13,000
S-102-92
14,000
S-109-93
780
S-110-93
310
S-112-93
200
S-114-94
400
S-116-94
290
S-139-17
3,900
S-121-08
20,000
S-16-88
180S-17-88
2,400S-18-88
26,000S-19-88
10,000
S-2-82
200
S-20-88
1,600
S-21-88
71,000
S-22-88
3,800
S-3-82
11,000
S-31-88
30,000
S-4-82
6,100
S-40-90
720
S-42-90
560S-46-90
9,300
S-48-90
340
S-5-82
7,800
S-50-90
250
S-51-90
350
S-53-90
1,200
S-6-82
24,000
S-61-90
230S-62-90
200 S-63-90
200
S-64-90
28,000
S-65-90
8,500
S-66-90
9,600
S-67-90
22,000
S-68-90
11,000
S-69-90
2,000
S-7-82
8,900
S-70-90
9,400
S-71-90
8,600
S-93-92
4,600
S-95-92
7,600
S-127-15
4,400
S-97-92
12,000
S-98-92
33,000
S-99-92
15,000
S-BR-1
200
S-P3-90
4,200
S-P4-90
48,000
15-5138
WELL #1
WELL #2
1 INCH
1-2
A.C.
DRAWN:P.M.:
PROJECT No.:FIGURE:DATE:
770113 2/13/2024
O.C.
p
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

G
:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
B
E
N
G
\
A
R
M
Y
\
T
E
A
D
\
_
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
AL
S
\
T
E
A
D
_
S
_
G
W
M
P
_
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
_
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
_
G
I
S
\
0
1
_
M
X
D
\
F
1
-2
.
m
x
d
WGS84, UTM ZONE 12N, METERS
HORIZONAL DATUM: NAD83 (2011) | VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
3,300 0 3,300 6,6001,650
SCALE IN FEET
!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
S-92-91
4,600
S-91-91
8,600
S-78-91
8,100
S-76-91
4,900
S-56-90
36,000
S-104-93
17,000
SWMU 11 SWMU 20
SWMU
17
SWMU
29
SWMU
37
SWMU
14SWMU
32
SWMU
28
SWMU
27
SWMU
26
SWMU
22
SWMU
21
SWMU
5
SWMU
9
SWMU
34
SWMU
3
SWMU
8
HWMU
31
SWMU
23
SWMU 36
SWMU 1
BUFFER
ZONESWMU 25
SWMU 30
SWMU 13
SWMU 15
SWMU 2
O P H I R C R E E K
M E R C U R C R EEK
F A U S T C R E E K
SWMU 13 AND 30
TEAD-S
Abbreviations
AOC
mg/L
SMWU
TDS
TEAD-S
Area of Concern
milligrams per liter
Solid Waste Management Unit
total dissolved solids
Tooele Army Depot South
Notes
1. Groundwater quality data class boundaries drawn using 1998-2017 analytical
data as presented in TEAD-S Groundwater Management Plan Revision 2
(Parsons 2019).
2. For conceptual purposes only. All locations are approximate.
3. Map produced using Esri ArcMap v. 10.7.
References
1. Basemap source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar, Geographics and the GIS User
Community.
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN,
REVISION 3
TOOELE, ARMY DEPOT-SOUTH, UTAH
BASEWIDE GROUNDWATER
QUALITY MAP
CLASS IV
CLASS III
CLASS II
CLASS IA
CLASS IA
CLASS II
CLASS III
CLASS IV
CLASS IV
CLASS
III
CLASS
IV
Water Quality Class Breaks
Class IA - Pristine Groundwater
TDS < 500 mg/L
Class II - Drinking Water Quality Groundwater
500 mg/L < TDS < 3,000 mg/L
Class III - Limited Use Groundwater
3,000 mg/L < TDS < 10,000 mg/L
Class IV - Saline Groundwater
TDS > 10,000 mg/L
Legend
!U Monitoring Well Used For Water Quality
!!A Drinking Water Well
Groundwater Class Break (Dashed where Inferred)
Area Of Concern
SWMU Boundary
TEAD-S Installation Area
!U Other Monitoring Well
This page intentionally blank
!A
!A
!A!A!A
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U !U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U !U !U!U !U !U !U
!U
!U !U
!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U
!U
!U!U!U!U!U!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U !U!U!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U!U
!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
AOC 10
OSP-2
AOC 9 OSP-1A
AOC 5
AOC 6
AOC 3
AOC 24AOC 27
AOC 8
AOC 15
AOC 9 OSP-1B
AOC 7
AOC 11
AOC 23
AOC 2
15-5138
15-4096
WELL #1
WELL #2
15-79
1 INCH
1-3
A.C.
DRAWN:P.M.:
PROJECT No.:FIGURE:DATE:
770113 3/6/2024
O.C.
p
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

G
:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
B
E
N
G
\
A
R
M
Y
\
T
E
A
D
\
_
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
AL
S
\
T
E
A
D
_
S
_
G
W
M
P
_
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
_
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
_
G
I
S
\
0
1
_
M
X
D
\
F
1
-3
.
m
x
d
WGS84, UTM ZONE 12N, METERS
HORIZONAL DATUM: NAD83 (2011) | VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
4,200 0 4,200 8,4002,100
SCALE IN FEET
R U S H V A L L E Y G R O U N D W A T E R D IVI D E
SWMU
14
SWMU
26
SWMU
27
SWMU
32
SWMU
34
SWMU
5
SWMU
9
SWMU
3
SWMU
8
HWMU
31
SWMU
1
BUFFER
ZONESWMU
25
SWMU
30
SWMU
13
SWMU
15
SWMU
2
SWMU
11
SWMU
20
SWMU
36
SWMU
28
SWMU
29
SWMU
37
SWMU
21/22
TEAD-S
Abbreviations
TEAD-S
SMWU
AOC
Tooele Army Depot South
Solid Waste Management Unit
Area of Concern
Notes
1. Groundwater flow directions taken from TEAD-S Groundwater Management
Plan Revision 2 (Parsons 2019).
2. For conceptual purposes only. All locations are approximate.
3. Map produced using Esri ArcMap v. 10.7.
References
1. Basemap source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar, Geographics and the GIS User
Community.
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN,
REVISION 3
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT-SOUTH, UTAH
GENERAL GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION
AND DRINKING WATER WELLS
SWMU Boundary
Area Of Concern
TEAD-S Installation Area
!A Drinking Water Wells
Legend
!U Monitoring Well
Groundwater Divide
General Direction of Groundwater Movement
(Arrow thickness denotes flow potential)
This page intentionally blank
1 INCH
1-4
A.C.
DRAWN:P.M.:
PROJECT No.:FIGURE:DATE:
770113 2/8/2024
O.C.
p
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

G
:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
B
E
N
G
\
A
R
M
Y
\
T
E
A
D
\
_
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
AL
S
\
T
E
A
D
_
S
_
G
W
M
P
_
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
_
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
_
G
I
S
\
0
1
_
M
X
D
\
F
1
-4
.
m
x
d
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN,
REVISION 3
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT-SOUTH, UTAH
GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
BLOCK DIAGRAM OF TEAD-S
Abbreviations
TEAD-S
SWMU
Tooele Army Depot South
Solid Waste Management Unit
Notes
1. Block diagram taken from TEAD-S Groundwater Management Plan Revision 2
(Parsons 2019).
2. For conceptual purposes only. All locations are approximate.
3. Map produced using Esri ArcMap v. 10.7.
References
1. Basemap source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar, Geographics and the GIS User
Community.
Bedrock
Alluvial Sand and Gravel
Sand, Silty Sand
Lacustrine Clays, Silt, Sand of Bonneville Age
Clay with Continuous Clayey Sand Lenses
(Salt Lake Fm)
Groundwater Gradient/ Flow Direction
(Arrow thickness denotes flow potential)
SWMU Number
High Evapotranspiration Rates
Legend
This page intentionally blank
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U !U!U!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U!U!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U !U !U
!U!U!U
!U
!U!U
!U!U!U !U!U
!U !U!U!U!U
!U!U !U !U !U
!U !U!U !U!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U !U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U !U !U!U !U !U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U!U!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U !U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U!U
!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
G
R
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
D
I
S
C
H
A
R
G
E
A
R
E
A
G
R
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
R
E
C
H
A
R
G E A R E A
SWMU 30
SWMU 13
SWMU 2
SWMU 11
SWMU 20
SWMU 17
SWMU 19
SWMU 37
SWMU 29
SWMU 22
SWMU 21
SWMU 34
SWMU 5
SWMU 1SWMU 25
SWMU 3
HWMU 31
SWMU 8
SWMU 23
SWMU 36
SWMU 9
SWMU 26
SWMU 27
SWMU 28
SWMU 32
SWMU 14
SWMU 15
SWMU 33
AOC 10
OSP-2
AOC 9 OSP-1A
AOC 5
AOC 3
AOC
24
AOC 27
AOC 8
AOC 15
AOC 9 OSP-1B
AOC 7
AOC 11
AOC 23
AOC 2
AOC 6
1 INCH
1-5
A.C.
DRAWN:P.M.:
PROJECT No.:FIGURE:DATE:
770113 2/13/2024
O.C.
p
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

G
:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
B
E
N
G
\
A
R
M
Y
\
T
E
A
D
\
_
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
AL
S
\
T
E
A
D
_
S
_
G
W
M
P
_
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
_
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
_
G
I
S
\
0
1
_
M
X
D
\
F
1
-5
.
m
x
d
WGS84, UTM ZONE 12 N, METERS
HORIZONAL DATUM: NAD83 (2011) | VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
3,000 0 3,000 6,0001,500
SCALE IN FEET
K = 10 - 3 OR GREATER
K = 10 - 3 OR GREATER
K = 10 - 3 OR LESS
K = 10 - 3 OR GREATER
TEAD-S
Abbreviations
AOC
cm/sec
SWMU
TEAD-S
Area of Concern
centimeters per second
Solid Waste Management Unit
Tooele Army Depot South
Notes
1. Hydraulic conductivities and groundwater flow directions taken from TEAD-S
Groundwater Management Plan Revision 2 (Parsons 2019).
2. Approximate area of groundwater recharge on TEAD-S based on pronounced
fluctuations in monitoring well water levels and on proximity to Ophir Creek
recharge area mapped by Gardner and Kirby (2011).
3. Approximate area of groundwater discharge on TEAD-S based on mapped
Quaternary marsh deposits (Qsm) (Gardener 2012) and extent of
evapotranspiration units and shallow groundwater mapped by Gardner and
Kirby.
4. For conceptual purposes only. All locations are approximate.
5. Map produced using Esri ArcMap v. 10.7.
References
1. Basemap source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar, Geographics and the GIS User
Community.
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN,
REVISION 3
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT-SOUTH, UTAH
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND DISCHARGE
AREAS AND AERIAL DISTRIBUTION OF WELL
SCREEN HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES
Legend
!U Monitoring Well
Groundwater Divide
Hydraulic Conductivity Contour (K values in
cm/sec)
SWMU Boundary
TEAD-S Installation Area
General Direction of Groundwater Movement
(Arrow thickness denotes flow potential)
AOC
Approximate Area of Discharge at DCD
Approximate Area of GW Recharge at DCD
This page intentionally blank
!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U !U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U !U !U!U !U !U !U
!U
!U !U
!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U!U!U
!U
!U!U!U
!U!U!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U !U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!!A
!!A!!A
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U!U
!U!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
S-123-13
SEE INSET
S-124-13
S-44-90
S-117-98
S-130-16
AOC 10
OSP-2
AOC 9
OSP-1A
AOC 5
AOC 2
AOC 6
AOC 3
AOC 24AOC 27
AOC 8
AOC 15
AOC 9
OSP-1B
AOC 7AOC 11
AOC 23
S-10-82
S-100-92
S-101-92 S-102-92
S-103-93
S-106-93
S-108-93
S-109-93
S-110-93
S-111-93
S-112-93
S-113-94
S-114-94
S-115-94
S-116-94 S-118-08
S-119-03
S-139-17
S-140-17
S-121-08
S-122-08
S-12-88
S-14
S-16-88
S-17-88S-18-88S-19-88
S-2-82
S-20-88
S-21-88
S-22-88
S-23-88
S-24-88
S-3-82
S-31-88
S-32-90S-33-90 S-34-90 S-35-90
S-36-90
S-37-90
S-38-90 S-39-90
S-4-82
S-40-90 S-41-90
S-42-90
S-43-90
S-45-90
S-46-90
S-47-90
S-48-90
S-49-90
S-5-82
S-50-90
S-51-90
S-53-90
S-6-82
S-61-90
S-62-90 S-63-90
S-64-90
S-65-90
S-66-90
S-67-90 S-68-90
S-69-90
S-7-82
S-70-90 S-71-90
S-74-90
S-75-94
S-2-82
S-93-92
S-95-92
S-96-92
S-97-92
S-98-92
S-99-92
S-BR-1
S-P3-90
S-P4-90
S-P5-90
S-134-16
S-125-15
S-127-15
S-128-15
S-129-15
S-135-16
S-136-16
S-137-16
S-141-17S-120-08
S-126-15
15-5138
WELL #1
WELL #2
1 INCH
3-1
A.C.
DRAWN:P.M.:
PROJECT No.:FIGURE:DATE:
Legend
!!A Drinking Water Well
!U Monitoring Well
AOC
SWMU Boundary
TEAD-S Installation Area
770113 2/13/2024
O.C.
p
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

G
:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
B
E
N
G
\
A
R
M
Y
\
T
E
A
D
\
_
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
AL
S
\
T
E
A
D
_
S
_
G
W
M
P
_
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
_
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
_
G
I
S
\
0
1
_
M
X
D
\
F
3
-1
.
m
x
d
WGS84, UTM ZONE 12N, METERS
HORIZONAL DATUM: NAD83 (2011) | VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
3,300 0 3,300 6,6001,650
SCALE IN FEET
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
S-133-16
S-29-88
S-26-88S-25-88
S-82-91
S-28-88
S13-CAM-DW1
S-1-82
S-CAM-2
S-CAM-1
S-92-91
S-91-91
S-87-91
S-86-91
S-85-91
S-84-91
S-83-92
S-81-91
S-80-91
S-79-91
S-78-91
S-77-91
S-76-91
S-60-90
S-59-90
S-58-90
S-57-90
S-56-90
S-55-90
S-54-90
S-30-88
S-105-93
S-104-93
SWMU 11 SWMU 20
SWMU
17
SWMU
29
SWMU
37
SWMU
14SWMU
32
SWMU
28
SWMU
27
SWMU
26
SWMU
22
SWMU
21
SWMU
5
SWMU
9
SWMU
34
SWMU
3
SWMU
8
HWMU
31
SWMU
23
SWMU 36
SWMU 1
BUFFER
ZONESWMU 25
SWMU 30
SWMU 13
SWMU 15
SWMU 2
O P H I R C R E E K
M E R C U R C R EEK
F A U S T C R E E K
SWMU 13 AND 30
TEAD-S
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN,
REVISION 3
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT-SOUTH, UTAH
TEAD-S MONITORING WELL NETWORK
Abbreviations
AOC
SMWU
TEAD-S
Area of Concern
Solid Waste Management Unit
Tooele Army Depot South
Notes
1. For conceptual purposes only. All locations are approximate.
2. Map produced using Esri ArcMap v. 10.7.
References
1. Basemap source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar, Geographics and the GIS User
Community.
This page intentionally blank
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U !U !U
!U
!U
!U!U
!U!U
!U
!U
!U
!U !U !U
!U!U
!U!U
S-YYY-XX
S-125-15
S-126-15
S-4-82S-5-82
S-69-90
S-96-92
S-97-92
SWMU 25
BUFFER ZONE
SWMU 1
S-127-15
S-128-15
S-129-15
S-70-90 S-71-90 S-93-92
S-135-16
S-136-16
S-137-16S-138-16
1 INCH
4-1
A.C.
DRAWN:P.M.:
PROJECT No.:FIGURE:DATE:
770113 2/8/2024
O.C.
p
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

G
:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
B
E
N
G
\
A
R
M
Y
\
T
E
A
D
\
_
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
AL
S
\
T
E
A
D
_
S
_
G
W
M
P
_
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
_
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
_
G
I
S
\
0
1
_
M
X
D
\
F
4
-1
.
m
x
d
SWMU 25
SWMU 1
WGS84 ZONE12N, METERS
HORIZONAL DATUM: NAD83 (2011) | VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
550 0 550 1,100275
SCALE IN FEET
Abbreviations
TEAD-S
SWMU
Tooele Army Depot South
Solid Waste Management Unit
Notes
1. “YYY” is the next sequential well number and "XX" is the 2-digit year designation
when the monitoring well is installed.
2. For conceptual purposes only. All locations are approximate.
3. Map produced using Esri ArcMap v. 10.7.
References
1. Basemap source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar, Geographics and the GIS User
Community.
!´
Tooele Army Depot South Boundary
Legend
Source Area Monitoring
Vertical Migration Monitoring
Downgradient Monitoring
Off-Post Non-Degradation Perimeter Monitoring
Groundwater Well
Long-Term Monitoring Plan:
Proposed Monitoring Well
!´
!´
!´
!´
!´
Individual Disposal Feature
SWMU 1, SWMU 25, and Buffer Zone
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN,
REVISION 3
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT-SOUTH, UTAH
LONG-TERM MONITORING PLAN AT SWMU 1 AND
THE BUFFER ZONE
This page intentionally blank
U
U
U
UU
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UU
UU
U
U
!U
!U!U
!U
!U!U
!U!U
!U
!U
SMWU 25
BUFFER
ZONE
SMWU 1
S-97-92
S-P3-90
S-100-92
S-101-92
S-18-88
S-19-88
S-64-90
S-65-90
S-66-90
S-67-90
S-6-82
S-68-90
S-7-82
S-95-92
S-98-92
S-99-92
S-102-92
S-120-08
S-121-08
S-139-17
S-140-17
S-141-17
S-142-17
1 INCH
4-2
A.C.
DRAWN:P.M.:
PROJECT No.:FIGURE:DATE:
770113 2/8/2024
O.C.
p
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

G
:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
B
E
N
G
\
A
R
M
Y
\
T
E
A
D
\
_
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
AL
S
\
T
E
A
D
_
S
_
G
W
M
P
_
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
_
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
_
G
I
S
\
0
1
_
M
X
D
\
F
4
-2
.
m
x
d
1,000 0 1,000 2,000500
SCALE IN FEET
SMWU 25
SMWU 1
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN,
REVISION 3
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT-SOUTH, UTAH
LONG-TERM MONITORING PLAN AT SWMU 25
WGS84 ZONE12N, METERS
HORIZONAL DATUM: NAD83 (2011) | VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
Abbreviations
TEAD-S
SWMU
Tooele Army Depot South
Solid Waste Management Unit
Notes
1. For conceptual purposes only. All locations are approximate.
2. Map produced using Esri ArcMap v. 10.7.
References
1. Basemap source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar, Geographics and the GIS User
Community.
!´
Legend
Source Area Monitoring
Vertical Migration Monitoring
Downgradient Monitoring
Off-Post Non-Degradation Perimeter Monitoring
Groundwater Well
Long-Term Monitoring Plan:
Proposed Monitoring Well
!´
!´
!´
!´
!´
Individual Disposal Feature
Tooele Army Depot South Boundary
SWMU 1, SWMU 25, and Buffer Zone
This page intentionally blank
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
SWMU 13
S-1-82
S-105-93
S-106-93
S-25-88
S-26-88
S-29-88
S-30-88
S-54-90
S-55-90
S-56-90
S-58-90
S-59-90
S-76-91
S-78-91
S-81-91
S-82-91
S-83-91
S-84-91
S-86-91
S-87-91
S-91-91
S-92-91
S13-CAM-DW1
S-CAM-1
S-CAM-2
1 INCH
4-3
A.C.
DRAWN:P.M.:
PROJECT No.:FIGURE:DATE:
770113 2/8/2024
O.C.
p
WGS84, UTM ZONE 12 N, METERS
HORIZONAL DATUM: WGS 1984 | VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

G
:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
B
E
N
G
\
A
R
M
Y
\
T
E
A
D
\
_
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
AL
S
\
T
E
A
D
_
S
_
G
W
M
P
_
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
_
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
_
G
I
S
\
0
1
_
M
X
D
\
F
4
-3
.
m
x
d
240 0 240 480120
SCALE IN FEET
GROUNDWATER MANGEMENT PLAN,
REVISION 3
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT-SOUTH, UTAH
LONG-TERM MONITORING PLAN
AT SMWU 13
KEY MAPKEY MAP
FIGURE EXTENTFIGURE EXTENT
Abbreviations
LTM Long-Term Monitoring
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
Notes
1. For conceptual purposes only. All locations are approximate.
2. Map produced using Esri ArcMap v. 10.7.
References
1. Basemap source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar, Geographics and the GIS User
Community.
!U Year 5 Monitoring / Annual Water Level Measurement
Legend
!U Annual Monitoring / Water Level Measurement
!U Annual Water Level Measurement
!U Year 5 Monitoring / Water Level Measurement
Extent of Free Product (May 2017/Approximate)
Tooele Army Depot South Boundary
SWMU Boundary With LTM
This page intentionally blank
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
SWMU 27
S-35-90
S-37-90
S-38-90
S-39-90
S-40-90
S-41-90
S-118-08
S-122-08
S-124-13
S-150-20
SWMU 26
1 INCH
4-4
A.C.
DRAWN:P.M.:
PROJECT No.:FIGURE:DATE:
770113 2/8/2024
O.C.
p
WGS84, UTM ZONE 12 N, METERS
HORIZONAL DATUM: WGS 1984 | VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

G
:
\
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
B
E
N
G
\
A
R
M
Y
\
T
E
A
D
\
_
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
AL
S
\
T
E
A
D
_
S
_
G
W
M
P
_
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
_
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
_
G
I
S
\
0
1
_
M
X
D
\
F
4
-4
.
m
x
d
360 0 360 720180
Feet
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN,
REVISION 3
TOOELE ARMDY DEPOT-SOUTH, UTAH
LONG-TERM MONITORING PLAN
AT SWMU 26
KEY MAPKEY MAP
FIGURE EXTENTFIGURE EXTENT
Abbreviations
LTM Long-Term Monitoring
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
Notes
1. For conceptual purposes only. All locations are approximate.
2. Map produced using Esri ArcMap v. 10.7.
References
1. Basemap source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar, Geographics and the GIS User
Community.
Legend
Groundwater Flow Direction
SWMU Boundary With LTM
SWMU Boundary Without LTM
Tooele Army Depot South Boundary
!U Annual Water Level Measurement
!U Annual Sampling
This page intentionally blank