DDW-2025-000466

DRILLING, CONSTRUCTION, & AQUIFER TESTING, FOR THEEDEN CROSSING WELL 5, WITH EMPHASIS ON POTENTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH SURROUNDING SOURCES
WEBER COUNTY, UTAH
AUGUST 2024
PREPARED FOR:
The Utah Division of Water Rights
Eden Crossing PWS
Eden Water Works
Wolf Creek Irrigation
Wolf Creek Water and Sewer
& Other Stakeholders
PREPARED BY:
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................1
1.1. WATER RIGHT AND LOCATION .........................................................................................................................................................................3
1.2. SCHEDULE OF DRILLING, DEVELOPMENT AND AQUIFER TESTING .............................................................................3
2. GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3
2.1. WELL AND SPRING GEOLOGY .........................................................................................................................................................................5
3. WELL DRILLING AND CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................8
3.1. WELL DRILLING ............................................................................................................................................................................................................8
3.2 WELL CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................................................................8
4. DEVELOPMENT .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................8
5. AQUIFER TESTING ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................8
5.1. EAST WELL/BURNETT SPRINGS AREA ....................................................................................................................................................8
5.2 WARM SPRINGS AREA ...........................................................................................................................................................................................9
5.3 WARM SPRINGS WELL SHUT-IN TEST .....................................................................................................................................................12
5.4 EC 5 LONG TERM FLOW AND RECOVERY TEST ............................................................................................................................14
6. CHEMISTRY .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................21
7. DISCUSSION OF TESTING DATA .................................................................................................................................................................................21
8. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................................................................23
FIGURES
FIGURE 1. EC WELL 5 AREA LOCATION MAP ........................................................................................................................................................2
FIGURE 2. GEOLOGY MAP ....................................................................................................................................................................................................4
FIGURE 3. CROSS SECTIONS .............................................................................................................................................................................................6
FIGURE 4. WELL CONSTRUCTION AND WELL GEOLOGY ...........................................................................................................................7
FIGURE 5 CHANGE IN WATER ELEVATION DURING WARM SPRINGS WELL SHUT-IN TEST ..................................13
FIGURE 6. CHANGE IN WATER ELEVATION DURING EC 5 FLOW TEST ......................................................................................22
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: GEOPHYSICAL LOGS FROM EC 5 .............................................................................................................................................2 5
APPENDIX B: WELL LOGS OF WELLS OF INTEREST AND
ENGINEERS REPORT ON WARM SPRINGS WELL .................................................................................................................................28
APPENDIX C: EAST WELL REPORT ..............................................................................................................................................................................46
APPENDIX D: 1983 WARM SPRINGS MITIGATION AGREEMENT ........................................................................................................64
APPENDIX E: NEW SOURCE SAMPLE RESULTS FOR EC WELL 5 ....................................................................................................82
1123245Souor
1. INTRODUCTION

From May to July 2024, a well was drilled,
constructed, developed, and aquifer tested in
Eden, Utah for a future culinary well for the Eden
Crossing Public Water System (PWS). Eden
Crossing PWS is Utah Public Water System #29132.
The well will be known as the Eden Crossing Well
5 (EC 5) for this report (WS005, Utah Division of
Drinking Water facility name). Prior to drilling the
well, a Preliminary Evaluation Report (PER) and
Engineering Specifications Governing the Drilling
were submitted to Utah State Division of Drinking
Water (DDW) which were approved by DDW. The
well is designed to provide culinary water for new
development on land owned by Eden Crossing or
to be combined with other existing PWS’s.
A water right was filed on this new well which was
protested by local stakeholders. The Exchange
rights that were filed are E6595 (455 af) and E6596
(101 af).
Cascade Water Resources, namely John Files,
who has done the testing on the new EC 5 Well,
East Well, Powder Mountain, and others, not only
works for Eden Crossing PWS, but has worked
extensively for Wolf Creek Irrigation (WCI), Wolf
Creek Water and Sewer (WCWS) and Eden Water
Works (EWW), and numerus other stakeholders in
the Ogden Valley. With this in mind it was agreed
that the testing of the new well to evaluate for
interference would be done by Cascade Water
Resources as a neutral party. This report outlines
the results of the testing with regard to inference
from extractions from EC 5.
The target of the EC 5 was the quartzites that
underlie the Norwood Tuff. In this general area,
prior to aquifer testing there were only a few wells
and two springs (possibly sourced from quartzite)
that have been completed in or emanate from the
quartzites. The sources are as follows with the
distance and estimated geology. Refer to Figure 1
for the location of wells and springs of interest;
The monitoring for EC 5 testing used monitoring
network already in place. Prior to the drilling of EC
5, monitoring networks were set up in 2014-15 for
the Summit/Powder Mountain interference and
monitoring and mitigation agreement and the East
Well/Burnett Springs mitigation and monitoring. It
should be noted that the Warm Springs Complex
which consists of a flume to measure combined
Well or
Spring ID
Distance
from EC 5
Geology or
Screened Zone
Owner
East Well 3,610’Top of Caddy
Canyon
WCWS
Bowden/
Shaw
5,160 Top of Caddy
Canyon1
Private
Burnett
Springs
4,740 Top of Caddy
Canyon2
EWW
Warm
Springs
Well
5,850 Bottom of
Caddy Canyon3
WCWS
Warm
Springs
“Springs”
~5,900-
6,200
Bottom of
Caddy Canyon4
WCI
Highland
Well
6,900 Mutual WCWS
*1 The Bowden/Shaw Well has a very vague drillers
log and the geology is inferred from testing of the
East Well.
*2 Burnett Springs Geology was unknown but as
with the Bowden/Shaw Well the geology is inferred
from the testing of the East Well which showed
direct interference with Burnett Springs and
required mitigation.
*3 The Warm Springs Well Drillers log is very poor,
and geology is estimated from the pump testing.
*4 The Warm Springs “Springs” source water was
previously unknown, but is inferred to be the same
source as the Warm Springs Well as there is an
existing mitigation agreement between the two, and
during testing both Well and Springs responded
simultaneously.
2 1231245So2u5rSr53cer153
'''AAA
EdenCrossingWell 5
BurnettSprings
Highland Well
Belnap Well
Bowden/ShawWellWarmSpringsWell
East Well
Cobabe
Warm Spring
Warm Spring
Figure 1.Eden Crossing Well 5 and Other Wellsand Springs in the Wolf Creek Area
Project Manager:John FilesDate: August 2024Drawn By: RE 1:24,000
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
3123245Souor
flows of the Warm Springs Well and Springs was
not included in the Summit/Powder Mountain
monitoring plan as the flume is extremely inaccurate
and there is no way to determine how much flow is
from the Well and how much is from other sources.
Warm Springs historic lack of monitoring will be
discussed in more detail later in this report.
The aquifer testing consisted of two separate tests,
1. A 48 hour shut-in test of the Warm Springs Well
which has been allowed by WCWS to flow “wide
open” with or without a need for the water since
it was constructed in the 1980’s.
2. An 11-day flow test, where EC Well 5 was allowed
to flow at a constant rate of approximately 370
gpm. The test was scheduled to go longer than
11 days, but was shortened due to one of the
stakeholder’s legal adviser raising non-test
related issues.
This report summarizes the results of the testing
with regard to interference that took place during
the testing and potential for long term interference.

1.1. WATER RIGHT AND LOCATION
The well was drilled under the Utah State Division
of Water Rights (DWRi), “Test Well” approval
#22335015MOO. The well did not have a valid
water right at the time of drilling. This approach
was thought to be best by all stakeholders as all
were aware that there would be the potential of
interference if the target formation was hit. The well
was drilled by White Mountain Operating, Utah
driller’s license number 889. After the quartzite
target was encountered two exchange applications
were filed by Eden Crossing PWS, E6595 & E6596.
1.2. SCHEDULE OF DRILLING, DEVELOPMENT AND
AQUIFER TESTING
Below is the schedule of activities that took place
on EC 3.
February 2024 Auger Rig used to set casing and
sanitary seal to a depth of 110’.
May 2024, Drilling and Construction of EC 5.
May 29 through June 7, 2024, Development of EC 5.
June 10 to June 12 48 Hour Shut-in Test of Warm
Springs Well.
June 24 to July 7, EC 5 11-day aquifer test.
July 7 to July 24 Recovery part of EC 5 aquifer test.
2. GEOLOGY

Figure 2 is a local geology map of the EC 5 area.
The target of this well was a conceptual target
of the quartzites under the Norwood Tuff. Prior
to drilling the estimated depth of the quartzites
was approximately 600 to 700 feet. The term
“quartzites” is used loosely in this case to refer to
any of the quartzitic formations that may underlie
the Norwood Tuff. These formations could be
the Geertsen Canyon Quartzite, Browns Hole
Formation, Mutual Formation, and Caddy Canyon
Formation. Prior mapping and unit descriptions
by both the UGS and USGS in this area are vague
and inconsistent which made the determination
of actual formations very difficult until the distinct
Kelly Canyon Formation was encountered in EC 5.
This area has a swarm of northwest trending
faults, which the exact locations are not known but
projected and estimated. The Willard Thrust Fault
may also come into play in this immediate area.
While its precise location is unknown, it is mapped
to the west following the Wolf Creek drainage. The
thrust fault near the Wolf Creek drainage would be
a boundary to water movement as the quartzite’s
would be faulted away and not be continues.
With the new data available from the aquifer
testing of both the East and EC 5 Wells, a better
determination of the local geology can be made
and new cross sections have been constructed
in the area. It should be noted that the geology
in the Warm Springs area is completely inferred
from the recent testing and creative interpretation
of the Well Drillers Log. The Well Drillers Log for
the Warm Springs Well is very poor and inaccurate
in both geology and flows. The cross sections are
presented in Figure 3.
4 1231245So2u5rSr53cer153
s
o
o
o
o
o o
oo
o o
o
s s
s
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
::
:
:
::
:
::
:
A
A'
A
B
B
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
33
24
26
50 35
40
30
30
20
20
15
30
20
15
30
27
36
24
16 13
22
28
35
21
25
26
15
23
3433
14
Highland Monitoring Well
Bingham Aplegarth
Cobabe
Eden Irrigation
Jordan
EWC Reservoir Well
DASH
Shaum
Barfuss
Carver
Bowden/Shaw Well
Willardthrust,upperbranch
TnTn
Tn
Tn
Tn
Zm
Zm
_gcl
Tn
_gcl
_gcl
Zkc
Zmcc1
Zpu
_gcl
Zkc
Zmcc2
Zmcg
Zmcc1
Qm
Qm
Qm
Qm
Qm
Qm
Qm
QmQm
Qm
Qm
Qm
Qm
Qm
Qm
Qm
Qm
Qa
Qa
Qa
Qa
Qh
QTa
QTc
QTc
Tw
Qm
Qm
Qa
Qa
Qa
Qa
QTa
_gcu
_gcu
Ql
Ql Ql
Ql
Ql
Ql
QlQlQl
Ql
Ql
Ql
Ql
Ql
Qm
Ql
Ql
CottonwoodWell
East Well
Eden
CrossingWell 5
BurnettSpringsWarmSpring
Figure 2.Geology of theWolf Creek Area
!.Unconsolidated valley fill
!.Norwood Tuff
!.Mutual Formation
!.Caddy Canyon Quartzite
Alluvium
Human disturbance
Lacustrine deposit
Mass wasting deposit
Older alluvium
Norwood Tuff
Wasatch Formation
Geertsen Quartzite
Mutal Formation
Kelly Canyon Formation
Maple CanyonFormation
Perry CanyonFormation, upper unit
Geology Simplified fromthe Interim Geologic Mapof the Ogden 30' x 60'Quadrangle, Coogan andKing, 2016.
1:24,000
Project Manager:John FilesDate: August 2024Drawn By: RE
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
5123245Souor
It became very apparent in the testing of the East
Well and EC 5, that the local structural (faults)
and stratigraphic geology play a key role in the
connection of wells to wells and wells to springs.
Though the exact location of these faults is not
known, they can be inferred by the geohydrologic
connection where wells and springs respond to
pumping from distances of more than 5,000 feet
parallel to the faults but wells and springs 3,000
feet perpendicular to the faults show muted or no
response
Both the East Well and EC 5 are thought to be in the
Caddy Canyon Quartzite. As the descriptions on
different maps are not consistent for this formation,
the outcrop of the formation was walked in the
South Fork area. As was observed in outcrop in
the South Fork area, there is an extreme difference
in the characteristics of the quartzite of the Caddy
Canyon. Near the top of the formation, the quartzite
is very coarse, vitreous, and has abundant large
feldspar clasts and is tan, gray, and red. Near the
bottom of the formation the quartzite was fine-
grained iron red, with red siltstone interbedded. In
the case of EC 5, the Kelly Canyon Formation was
encountered which is a distinct black slate/shale
with abundant disseminated pyrite. This formation
is a good marker bed to determine which quartzite
formation you are in.
2.1. WELL AND SPRING GEOLOGY
2.1.1. EDEN CROSSING WELL 5
Below is a summary of geology encountered in the
EC 5 borehole. 10 Foot chip tray samples were taken
by the onsite Professional Licensed Geologist, John
Files, PG. The samples were logged as the hole was
drilled. The hole was also was geophysical logged
to a depth of 1360 feet. Appendix A includes the
geophysical logs. The hole caved below this depth.
The geophysical logging confirmed the geology
logged on site during drilling.
Depth in feet Lithology
0 to 15 Boulders and topsoil
15-1170 Norwood Tuff
1170-1230 Gradational contact between
Norwood Tuff and Caddy
Canyon
1230-1300 Red fine grained quartzite of
the Caddy Canyon
1300-1440 Red and tan fine and coarse
grained quartzite with
interbedded red siltstone of
the Cady Canyon
1440-1510 Kelly Canyon Formation,
black shale and slate with up
to 5% disseminated pyrite.
The well construction and geology for EC 5, Warm
Springs Well, and East Well are shown
on Figure 4.
Appendix B includes the Well Driller’s log for the
EC 5 and other wells of interest. It should be noted
that much of the information on the Warm Springs
Bowden/Shaw Wells is not correct. Included with
the Well Drillers Log is a 1983 Engineers Report
on the Warm Springs Well furnished by WCWS.
The information in the report appears much more
accurate than the Well Drillers log; however, the
report furnished by WCWS was cut off at page 9.
I requested the additional pages but received no
response from WCWS so it is not known if the
pages exist or not.
2.1.2. SURROUNDING WELL AND SPRING GEOLOGY

Below is a summary of the known and estimated
geology, it should be noted that the Warm
Springs Well and “Springs”, Burnett Springs, and
the Bowden Shaw Well are estimated based
on structural geology and the hydrogeologic
information collected during the testing of the East
and EC Well 5.
Well or Spring Geology (italics indicates
estimated geology)
East Well Top of Caddy Canyon
Burnett Springs Sourced from top of Caddy
canyon
Bowden/ Shaw Well Top of Caddy Canyon
$
'A
#
#
$
'A
$$$
#
#
$
$
$
$
$
$
Well 5
HighlandWellBurnett
Spring(Projected 400'from west)
CobabeWell
Bedrock aquifer potentiometric surface
Norwood aquiferpotentiometric surface
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
EastWell(Projected 1000'from east)
Well 5
WarmSpringsWellCobabeWell
Bedrock aquifer potentiometric surface
Norwood aquiferpotentiometric surface WarmSpringsB
A
B'
A
3500
3500
4500
4500
3500
3500
40004000
40004000
5000
5000
5500
5500
5000
5000
4500
4500
Zm
Tn
Qac Zi
Zi
Zi
Zi Zm
Zkc
Zcc
Zcc
Zcc Zcc
Tn
ZiZi
ZccZcc
Zcc
Qac
Zkc
Zkc
Qac
Zm
Scale = 1: 12,000
Figure 3.Cross Sections A-A' and B-B'Ogden Valley, Utah
No Vertical Exaggeration
Alluvium, undifferentiated
Norwood Tuff
Mutual Formation
Inkom Formation
Caddy Canyon Quartzite
Kelley Canyon/Papoose Creek Undivided
Well
$Fault
Screened oropen interval
Water table
Project Manager:John FilesDate: August 2024Drawn By: RE
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
6 CASCADE WATER RESOURCES
7123245Souor
éééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééé
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
#
#
Eden Crossing Well 5
+183.6' Staticwater leve 6/21/2024
+2' - 110'20" casing
0 -110' 30"boreholeandsanitary seal
110' - 1180'13⅜" Steelcasing
1180' - 1510'8⅝" 1.25' x 2"perforated casing
1510' TD
Collar elevation5108'
0 - 1180Neat cement
0 -1180'16" Borehole
1180' - 1510'12¼" Openborehole
1440' - 1510'Black shaleKelly CanyonFormation
1170' - 1440'Caddy CanyonQuartzite
15' - 1170'Norwood Tuff
0 - 15'Alluvium
+100' after flowing371 gpm for 11 days
éééééééééé é é ééééééééééééééééééééé
||||
|||||
|||||
||||
|||||
|||||
||||
||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
#
WCWSID Warm Springs Well +22' StaticWater Level6/11/2024*
220' - 400'6-12 gravel
+1.5' - 2108" Steel casing
400' TD
0 - 60'Clayeygravel
60' - 178'Norwood Tuff
178' - 400'CaddyCanyonQuartzite?
0 - 126Cementsanitaryseal
126' - 220'Openborehole
Geology inferred from Well Driller's Report which is not correct.Driller reported clay from 60' - 178' which is interpretted to be Norwood Tuff.Driller reported cobbles and boulders from 178' - 400'. Valley fill sediments arenot reported to be this deep in any other logs in the area and this interprettedto be fractured quartzite which can drill similarly to boulders.
*Water level after 48 hour shut-in test. Water level still recovering strongly.Water has flowed wide open since the well was drilled in 1982.
210' - 250'8" Perforated case250' - 330'8" Steel casing330' - 350'8" Perforated case350' - 370'8" Steel casing370' -390'8" Perforated case390' - 400'8" Steel casing
Collar elvation5225
||||
||||
||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
||||
||||
||||
||||
||||
||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
WCWSID East Well
10.7' StaticWater Level10/24/2022
0' - 110'14" casing
230' - TDGravel
67' - 110'18.75" Boreholeand sanitary seal
+1.5' - 242'7" casing
0' - 67'20" casing
0 - 67'30" borehole andsanitary seal
110' - 220'cement
220' - 230'Bentonite hole plug
Weld ring between7" and 14" casing
242' - 324'7" slotted casing
324' - 365'7" casing
365' - 529'7" slotted casing
529' - 539'7" casing with12" cement plugin bottom
540' TD
0 - 67'Clay
67' - 87'Clayeygravel
87' - 230'InkomFormation
230' - 540'CaddyCanyonQuartzite
First waterencounteredat 235'
Collar elvation5350
#
Vertical Scale: 1 inch equals 200 feetFigure 4.Well Construction Diagrams and Geology of WCWSIDWarm Springs Well, East Well, and Eden Crossing Well 5
Project Manager:John FilesDate: August 2024Drawn By: RE
8 1231245So2u5rSr53cer153
Highland Well Mutual Formation
Belnap Unknown
Warm Springs Well Bottom of Caddy Canyon
Warm Springs “Springs” Sourced from Bottom
of Caddy Canyon
3. WELL DRILLING AND CONSTRUCTION
White Mountain Operating drilled and constructed
EC 5 in May and June of 2024. Development was
performed by Eden Crossing and Cascade Water
Resources in June of 2024. Aquifer testing was
performed by Cascade Water Resources in June
and July of 2024. As the well had an artesian
pressure of 79 psi (182’ above casing) and could
maintain adequate flows just with the artesian
pressure, development and aquifer testing was
completed using just the artesian pressure and
flows.
3.1. WELL DRILLING
The well drilled fairly easily and fast through the
Norwood Tuff. However, when the quartzite was
encountered circulation and formation issues
hampered the drilling. On May 5th while the drill
rig was down for repairs the well started flowing
approximately 500 gpm. At this point equipment
was brought in to seal the well that would also allow
drilling. Given the artesian flow, the decision was
also made to seal the entire section of Norwood
Tuff so the only producing zones in the well would
be in the lower quartzite. This would also prevent
the Norwood Tuff from washing out.
3.2. WELL CONSTRUCTION
The EC 5 well was constructed as shown on Figure
4. Due to the artesian pressure and caving of the
formation the drillers were not able to install a
gravel pack. The grout seal through the Norwood
was installed using pressure-grouting method as
often used in the oil patch. The seal installation
went very smoothly.
4. DEVELOPMENT
The Well was developed by surging and then
allowing the well to flow. The flows were between
200 and 500 gpm. The efficiency of the well
improved during development, but due to no gravel
pack the well may have occasional turbidity issues.
Monitoring of all sources of interest took place
during development to determine which areas
needed closest monitoring. During development
it became apparent that the Warm Springs Well
and Springs would be the area that would see
the most influence during the long-term flow test.
No other areas seemed to be influenced during
development.
5. AQUIFER TESTING
Two separate aquifer tests were conducted on the
area wells. First, a 48-hour shut-in test of the Warm
Springs Well. Second, an 11-day, 370 gpm flow test
followed by a 19-day recovery was performed in
June and July of 2024. During the test the well was
allowed to flow without adjusting the valve, the flow
started out at 395 gpm and eventually stabilized at
370 gpm.
Before looking at the data created in the testing it
is critical to know the history and previous work
completed in the area. The areas of interest can
be divided into two separate geographic and
hydrogeologic compartments. One being the East
Well / Burnett area: the other being the Warm
Springs Complex area.
5.1. EAST WELL / BURNETT SPRINGS AREA
The East Well was drilled and tested in 2020 by
WCWS. This well interfered directly with the EWW
Burnett Springs and required mitigation from
WCWS to EWW. Appendix C includes the report
documenting the interference between the East
Well and the springs.
Monitoring in this area is thought to be reliable
with transducers in the wells and there have been
9123245Souor
no historic issues with the Burnett Spring flow
monitoring.
5.2. WARM SPRINGS AREA
The Warm Springs area has a more complicated
history than the East Well/Burnett area. However, it
is important that the history and lack of monitoring
of the Warm Springs complex be understood as
this is the area that EC 5 influenced.
The Warm Springs Well was drilled in 1982 by
the predecessor to WCWS. The Warm Springs
Well apparently interfered directly with the Warm
Springs “Springs” which were tributary to the WCI
senior water right. With interference acknowledged
by both sides a mitigation agreement was entered
into which was based on the agreed and determined
flow from the springs that were tributary to Wolf
Creek, this flow was 0.8 cfs (358 gpm). The original
agreement is included in Appendix D.
The original artesian flow of the well as stated on
the well log is 600 gpm with 4’ (1.7 psi) feet of static
head. However, this is not thought to be correct as
the 1983 engineer’s report states flows from the
Warm Springs Well as being 430 gpm as measured
in a weir. Unfortunately, the Engineers Report did
not give a static artesian pressure. But from recent
testing we know it was above 22 feet and still
climbing. Original static pressure was likely above
50 psi or 115’.
According to WCWS, the well has been allowed to
flow wide open with or without a beneficial use for
the water. Allowing an artesian well to flow wide
open is the equivalent to installing a pump in a well
and pumping to the water level to the pump intake
24/7/365. This is a very poor aquifer management
practice and aside from political and unfounded
hydrological fears of WCWS, there has been no
reasonable explanation given for this wasteful
practice for such a long period of time. Using
well base flows between 400 and 300 gpm, and
subtracting the culinary usage reported to DWRi of
the well in the WCWS system, in the non-irrigation
season, this well pulls approximately 298 to 371
acre-ft a year from the aquifer which is not needed
or used. This flow ends up in Pineview reservoir.
In addition to the groundwater that is wasted in the
winter-time, using well flows of 300 to 400 gpm,
WCWS has over delivered to WCI approximately 33
to 100 acre feet a year. There is no doubt that this
water is used in the irrigation system, especially
during the late summer months when WCWS
struggles to keep up with irrigation demand, but
the volume is not required as per the mitigation
agreement and should be reported to DWRi as
irrigation use on the WCWS exchange water right.
Aside from the poor management of the Warm
Springs Well flows, the individual actual measured
flows have never been able to be read directly
prior to the May of 2024 when a flow meter was
finally installed on the well. Estimated flows of the
Warm Springs area were always associated with a
changing narrative right up to the time a new flow
meter was installed.
Historically, the flows from the Warm Springs
“Springs”, Warm Springs Well, and storm water
flows, have all reported to a flume box with no way
of separating out the individual flows. In addition
to not being able to separate out the individual
flows, the flows are non-laminar, and the flume
is submerged the majority of the time. In May
of 2024 Cole Panter, who works for the DWRi
installing flumes, completed an evaluation of the
flume and found it not able to report accurate flows
and recommended changes. The poor quality
monitoring was documented in 2016 when WCWS
wanted to bring the flume data into the Powder
Mountain/Summit monitoring plan, but due to
the flume not being physically able to measure
accurate flows, and not knowing the individual
flows of the well and springs the flume was left out
of the monitoring plan. All SCADA plots of these
flows previous to May, 2024 are not correct and
cannot be used for anything except relative gross
changes.

Below is a schematic of how the flume measurement
box looked prior to changing.
10 1231245So2u5rSr53cer153
Figure 6.
Flow Diagram
Schematic A
• Prior to May 17th 2024, WCWS or WCI had no way to measure flows or
artesian pressure of the Warm Springs Well. Flow meter installed May
17 20% higher than Mag meter.
• Flows do not balance, when wet well is pumping to tank 190 gpm the
flume does not drop 190 gpm.
• Flume has note been historically accurate. Flume was submerged with
non-laminar flow.
• WCWS Has Allowed the Warm Springs to flow 24/7/365 even when there
is no use for water and has used water above the required mitigation with
WCI for irrigation without reporting.
• WCWS has historically reporting a flow of 1.1 cfs in 2016 that was a flow
that did not change. In 2022 they reported a flow of 0.97 cfs from their
engineer, when engineer was questioned, this was not based on flow
measurements, but on what was needed for source capacity. Historically,
WCWS has reported a flow to fit a narrative without actual flow measure-
ments of the Warm Springs Well.
Schematic when Flume Flows were submerged and non-laminar. Flume reading up to 3 times higher than actual flows.
Tank
Warm Spring Well
wet well
wet welloverow
stormdrainsystem
Warm Springs Springsstorm ow & misc.surface ows
Flume used byWCI & WCWShistorically
ow meterto tank onlyTo WCI
Flume
Turbine
Turbine meter reading 20% higher than Mag Meter, we assume Mag Meter is correct
Mag Flow Meter installed June 21,2024
New Flow Meter installed 05/21/24
Project Manager:
John Files
Date: July 2024
Drawn By: SE
Figure 6.Flow DiagramSchematic B
• Prior to May 17th 2024, WCWS or WCI had no way to measure flows or
artesian pressure of the Warm Springs Well. Flow meter installed May 17
20% higher than Mag meter.
• Flows do not balance, when wet well is pumping to tank 190 gpm the flume does not drop 190 gpm.
• Flume has note been historically accurate. Flume was submerged with
non-laminar flow.
• WCWS Has Allowed the Warm Springs to flow 24/7/365 even when there is no use for water and has used water above the required mitigation with WCI
for irrigation without reporting.
• WCWS has historically reporting a flow of 1.1 cfs in 2016 that was a flow
that did not change. In 2022 they reported a flow of 0.97 cfs from their
engineer, when engineer was questioned, this was not based on flow measurements, but on what was needed for source capacity. Historically, WCWS has reported a flow to fit a narrative without actual flow measure-ments of the Warm Springs Well.
• After discharge was moved, flume would stil start to be submerged at flows
above 50 gpm.
Schematic when Flume Flows were submerged and non-laminar.
Flume reading up to 3 times higher than actual flows.
Tank
Warm Spring Well
wet wellwet welloverow
Warm Springs Springsstorm ow & misc.surface ows
Flume used byWCI & WCWShistorically
ow meterto tank onlyTo WCI
Turbine
Turbine meter reading 20% higher than Mag Meter, we assume Mag Meter is correct
Discharge moved to below ume box
Mag Flow Meter installed June 21,2024
New Flow Meter installed 05/21/24
Project Manager:John FilesDate: July 2024Drawn By: SE
Flume
Below is a schematic of the changes that were made to give more accurate flow measurements.
Unfortunately, the changes in the reading of the
Springs flows were not made until halfway through
the EC 5 flow test. During the testing with close
oversight monitoring it became apparent right
away that there were issues and the flows did not
balance.
It should be noted that even after the changes there
are still issues with the Warm Springs monitoring.
The flows still do not balance. Even with the
well water separated out the flume starts to get
submerged at flows above 50 gpm, and manual
checks of the flume flow above 50 gpm indicate
the higher the flows the more the box is reading
too high. The new Mag Flow meter in the well
house that is located directly on the well discharge
11123245Souor
pipeline, does not match with the flow of the new
turbine flow meter of the same flows (as reported
by WCSW) entering the irrigation line. The turbine
meter reports approximately 20% higher than
the new mag meter. The mag meter is thought to
be correct. The other possibility is that there are
additional flows piped into the wet well overflow
pipeline that are not measured by the flow meter
in the building. WCWS was questionted about this
and did not answer.
When the new Mag Meter was installed in the
wellhouse the flow was 310 gpm. This is substantially
lower than the flows that WCWS has reported via
email, verbally, and documented to the Division of
Drinking Water for source capcity. The flows that
have been reported by WCWS in the past have
been 400 to 420 gpm. WCWS has claimed a flow
of 0.97 cfs (434 gpm) in a recent document in a
IFPP for funding which they also bring up in their
protest. When I questioned WCWS how they came
up with this they said it was their engineer. When
I questioned their engineer, he said he took no
measurements or did not look at any data but was
told that value by WCWS is what was “needed”.
Even with the issues of lack of accurate flow
monitoring and not being able to separate out the
flows, WCWS has continued to put out graphs
showing the flow of the flume even though the data
that is based on these graphs is far from being actual
flows. Below is a graph showing the flow in the flume
box for a similar time period from April through May
for variouis years. Though the flume is not reading
accurate flows, the data can be shown to show a
relative drop in the flow though the absolute drop
would not be known. This change is from allowing
the well to run wide open since drilling.
When this graph was presented to WCWS, and
asked about the relative drop in flows, they claimed
there has been no drop in flows and the 2015 flow
12 1231245So2u5rSr53cer153
measurements are bad due to the flow meters in
the well house reading high and needing to be
replaced. This makes no sense as the flow meters
in the well house have nothing to do with the flows
being read in the flume box. This does not fit with
the false narrative that WCWS has pushed that
the flows of the Warm Sprirgs Well do not change
seasonally or have not changed since the well
was constructed. With the new data available it
is obvious that due to the well running wide open
24/7 the artesian flows of the well has decreased
from 400 to 430 gpm to 310 to 290 gpm. This is
what would be expcted that any conined aqufier
well that is pumped or allowed to flow 24/7 from
the same level. The narrative from WCWS has also
been that there are no seasonal fluctuations on
the Warm Springs Well as there is on every other
well and spring in the area, now that monitoring is
installed on the well this does not appear to be the
case as the well appears to fluctuate seasonally.
Both the wasting of groundwater into Pineview and
lack of reliable monitoring has been a very strong
point of contention between myself and WCWS the
past 9 years and is very well documented in many
emails to WCWS. Reasons given by WCWS for both
lack of monitoring and wasting of groundwater, are
not based on operational, hydrological, mitigation
agreements, or use in the PWS system, but seem
to be based on local politics and unfounded and
incorrect hydrological theories.
As poor as the management and historic flow data
is for the Warm Springs Well and Springs, there
was still no question as to the influence on the
Warm Springs Well on EC 5 and EC 5 on the Warm
Springs flow. Having reliable historical data with
accurate seasonal fluctuations like the East Well/
Burnett Springs area would make the data easier
to interpret, but there is still no question as to the
influence.
5.3. WARM SPRINGS WELL SHUT-IN TEST

The Warm Springs Well had a planned shut-in test
for a week. However, as the Warm Springs Well
is the only source of water supply for WCWS and
several leaks occurred during the shut-in test, the
test had to be terminated at 48 hours. The data
collected during the shut-in test showed a direct
connection to EC 5. Below is a plot of the recovery
of the Warm Springs Well combined with a plot of
13123245Souor
'''AAA
2'
22'?
?
5
2
1
0
EdenCrossingWell 5
BurnettSprings
Highland Well
Belnap Well
Bowden/ShawWell
East Well
Cobabe
Warm Spring
Warm Spring
Project Manager:John FilesDate: August 2024Drawn By: RE 1:24,000
0 1,000 2,000 FeetFigure 5.Recovery Contour When Warm Springs Well Was Shut in for 48 Hours
Recharge contours estimated from observed drawdown at East Well and Warm Springs Well.
14 1231245So2u5rSr53cer153
EC 5 for both the recovery and re-opening (flow)
portion of the test. When the Warm Spring Well
was shut-in, it was flowing 310 gpm.
It did not appear that any other wells or Burnett
Springs recovered during the shut-in test,
preliminarily, it did originally appear the East Well
had a bit of recovery, but after closer review of the
data there did not appear to be a change outside
of the seasonal fluctuations taking place. Figure 5
is a contour of the recovery during the shut-in test.
5.4. EC 5 LONG TERM FLOW AND RECOVERY TEST
As was stated early in the introduction, the flow
portion of this test was cut short, however the
data collected did appear adequate to assess
any potential interference from EC 5 to any of the
sources monitored.
When reviewing this data it is important to keep in
mind that this area has major seasonal fluctuations
that are not part of the testing. For example, the
flows of Burnett Springs have typically decreased
25% to 35% during the months of May to July as
part of the normal seasonal fluctuations.
Below is a graph of the Bowden/Shaw well for
the last two years. The well is a private well and
is pumped by the owner; the vertical lines on the
graph indicate when the well is pumping. This graph
represents the seasonal trends that are observed in
all of the monitored wells and springs in the area. It
would be assumed that EC 5, Warm Springs Well,
and Warm Springs “Springs” would follow a similar
seasonal fluctuation pattern. It is important to note
that though all of the wells share the same fluctuation
pattern, not all of the wells peak and trough at the
same time. For example, the Belnap well peaked on
about August 1st of 2023 and the Bowden/Shaw
Well peaked on about May 28th 2023. It is not known
how allowing the Warm Springs Well to flow wide
open 24/7 affects the seasonal fluctuations, but it no
doubt has some influence on the trends.
15123245Souor
5.4.1. WELLS AND SPRINGS IN THE EAST WELL BURNETT SPRINGS AREA
It did not appear that wells and springs in the
East Well, Burnett Springs area were influenced
from the flowing or recovery of the EC 5 well. The
only exception would be the Bowden/Shaw Well
appeared to have a response to the EC 5 Well
during drilling when the well flowed for the first
time. This will be discussed later in the report.
Below is the plot of the activities of EC 5 and the Bowden/Shaw Well.
Below is a plot of the East Well and EC 5
16 1231245So2u5rSr53cer153
It did appear that when the artesian well first started
flowing during drilling, there was a response in the
Bowden/Shaw Well. This response is shown below;
This response was never duplicated during
development or testing of the EC Well 5. It is
possible the owner was test pumping this well at
this time, but he did not think he was. The only other
possibility is that this response took place before
the Norwood Tuff was sealed and it is possible the
Bowden/ Shaw well is somehow connected to the
Norwood.
Burnett Springs did not have a visible response to
the flowing of EC 5. However, there appeared to be
a malfunction in the monitoring of the spring flows.
The flow increased the day after the EC 5 flow test
started, then the flows decreased a day after the
test ended. This resposne was documented with
two sperate flow meters and manual checks, so
we believe the change in flow was real, though
unexplained. This odd response was not mimicked
in either the Bowden/Shaw Well or the East Well.
Typically when the flows have changed in Burnett
Sprnigs due to outside factors, the Bowden/Shaw
well will mimic the changes in the spring flows.
As this does not appear to be a hydrological
phenomena but more of an issue with the
infrastructure.
It did appear that when the artesian well first started flowing during drilling, there was a response in the
Bowden/Shaw Well. This response is shown below;
17123245Souor
Below is a plot of the Burnett Spring Flows with the depth to water of the EC 5 Well.
5.4.2. WARM SPRINGS AREA
The Warm Springs consists of only two monitoring
points, the Warm Springs Well and the Warm
Springs “Springs”. The history and difficulty with
these monitoring locations was discussed earlier in
this report. Without any reliable historic monitoring,
the assumption is made that the Well and the
Springs both have a similar seasonal fluctuation
as other wells and springs in the area. The data
collected during the test seems to collaborate this
as it appears that both the well and the springs are
on a downward seasonal trend that is not due to
any activities at EC 5.
Below is a graph that will be used in this throughout
this section of the report that has the artesian flow
of the EC 5 Well, flow of Warm Springs “Springs”,
artesian flow of the Warm Springs Well, and the
water level in the EC 5 Well.
5.4.2.1. WARM SPRINGS “SPRINGS”
Unfortunately, the Warm Springs “Springs” did not
get reliable monitoring until 4 days into the flow
portion of the test. Even with the unreliable data
early in the test, it was obvious the spring flows were
dropping as a result of the EC 5 flowing. The low
flow that was reached during the testing was 11.75
gpm. The flow appeared to have started to stabilize,
18 1231245So2u5rSr53cer153
but had not fully stabilized when the test ended a
bit prematurely. When viewing the collection box at
these low flows, it appeared that about 70% of the
flow was coming from the historic spring area and
about 30% was from shallower recharge from the
opposite direction of the historic springs and likely
shallow recharge from sprinklers from the resort
and golf course that are above and lateral of the
collection box. I am confident that if the well would
have been allowed to flow the remaining irrigation
season that the actual spring flow associated with
the collection box would have completely dried up.
Any data prior to June 28, 2024 that is presented,
would not be accurate, and can only be interpreted
as relative changes; all actual values would be
incorrect. Namely, this would be any plots created
from the WCWS SCADA data.
Below is a schematic showing the historic spring
areas in relation to where the current well is. The
historic hydrographic map is also showing some
of the historic springs that would be tributary to
Wolf Creek located below the collection box. The
majority of the current flow that is coming into this
box is from the area above the collection area that
was historically associated with the flow through
now non-existent fish ponds.
During recovery, the flows recovered to a flow of 70
gpm and stabilized at this flow.
Given the above average snowpack for the winter
previous to the test, the assumption can be made
that this 70 gpm is flow that could be considered the
high base flow under the current mode of operation
of the Warm Springs Well at a wide open setting. If
the well is throttled back as it should be when there
is no use for the water, the base flow of the spring
will likely also increase due to the direct connection
between the Warm Springs Well and the Warm
Springs “Springs”, though it is not a 1 to 1 ratio.
19123245Souor
20 1231245So2u5rSr53cer153
The conductivity of the spring water was checked
periodically during the testing. When the flow was
at a low of 11.75 gpm, the conductivity of the water
was 1,100 us/sec. As the flow increased during the
recovery test, the conductivity of the spring water
dropped as it was being recharged with “cleaner”
water. The final conductivity at a flow of 70 gpm
was 250 us/sec. This could indicate a leak in the
seal of the well or just a direct connection from the
spring to the well. There is an outside chance it
could be an historic plumbing connection between
the well and the springs. I have asked WCWS and
WCI for any info on the flume, tables of the flume,
calibration of the flume, drawings of the collection
area, or drawings of the well house. The response
was that it was WCI’s engineer that is responsible
for this information, but it does not appear WCI has
an engineer that has this information.
5.4.2.2. WARM SPRINGS WELL

As shown on the above plot, the artesian flows
of the Warm Springs Well decreased from 310 to
230 gpm during the flow portion of the test. The
artesian flows did appear to stabilize near the end
of the test. During recovery the flows stabilized at
a flow of 292 gpm, which as is the case with the
springs, is assumed to be the static flow with the
seasonal fluctuation, under the normal mode of
operation of the well. With seasonal fluctuations,
the overall change in the flow would be a decrease
of approximately 65 to 70 gpm.
As this is a well not a spring, four separate shut-in
tests were completed on the well in an attempt to
quantify the change in water level of the well that
corresponds with the drop in flow. The first shut-in
test was 48 hours, which made it apparent it would
be impossible to reach a 48 hours shut in again
during the testing, for this reason three additional
12 hour shut-in tests were performed in lieu of 48
hour tests. Two shut-in tests during the flow portion
of the testing and one after the Warm Springs Well
artesian flow had recovered and stabilized. Below
is a plot of the level of EC 5 and the Warm Springs
Well water level.
21123245Souor
With the assumption that the shut-in tests
performed when EC 5 and Warm Springs Well were
at static conditions before and after the test and
the seasonal trend is downward. The estimated
drawdown in the Warm Springs Well during the
flow portion of the test was approximately 8.2 feet
of drawdown with the decline of flow of 65 to 70
gpm.
Given the operation of this well of being ran wide
open all of the time, it is not like a normal operation
of a well that is used when needed, then allowed
to recover back to static, an example of normal
well operation would be the long term plot of the
Bowden / Shaw well, where the extraction times
are very apparent, but so is the trend of the static
elevation. Unfortunately due to the operation
methods of the Warm Springs Well the only way
to calculate the drop in head is to periodically do
shut-in tests of the same time frame.
Figure 6 is the plot of maximum drawdown for the
EC 5 flow tests. Only one monitoring well observed
any measurable or visible drawdown, the Warm
Springs Well. This is unusual as it is at a greater
distance from the flowing well than the East Well,
Burnett Springs, and the Bowden / Shaw Well. This
is likely do to a structural (faults) and stratigraphic
(bottom of Caddy Canyon). This structural and
stratigraphic connection provides the “plumbing”
for a direct connection from EC 5 to the Warm
Springs “Springs” and Well. It appears that both
the Warm Springs Well and Springs responded to
the extractions from EC 5 in only 4 hours. This is
similar to the response between the East Well and
Burnett Springs, both thought to share the same
structural and stratigraphic settings.
6. CHEMISTRY

The Division of Drinking Water required New
Source Sample results are attached in Appendix E.
Isotope samples from the EC 5, Warm Springs
Well, and Warm Springs “Springs” were taken
and delivered to BYU for analysis. The isotope
results will likely not be available until November
or December of 2024 and will be submitted as an
addendum to this report at that time. However,
given drawdown data and flow data, the isotope
information will be an interesting bit of data, but
not really needed to determine interference.
7. DISCUSSION OF TESTING DATA

In the area of this study, there appears to be two
distinct compartmentalized confined aquifers both
structurally and stratigraphically controlled. The
first is the top of the Caddy Canyon which the East
Well, Bowden/ Shaw Well, and Burnett Springs are
located. The second is the bottom of the Caddy
Canyon which EC 5, Warm Springs Well, and Warm
Springs “Springs” are sourced. It is not known if
there is an indirect hydrologic connection between
the two, but given that the Warm Springs Well
has been allowed to flow wide open for the past
40 years it would be assumed that if there was a
connection between the two the equilibrium would
have been reached by now.
The Burnett Springs data during the test was not
clean, and it is very difficult to tell if there was any
sort of interference in the springs from observing
the spring flow alone. However, from the East Well
testing and historic data from the Bowden/Shaw
Well that show the direct connection between
these wells and Burnett Springs, the conclusion
can be drawn that there is not a direct connection
between EC 5 and the Burnett Springs Area.
It is important to keep in mind that this test was
just a snapshot of what might occur long term.
With the addition of extractions from EC 5 and
the East Well, there is the possibility of an aquifer
boundary being reached that would allow water
to move more freely between the upper and lower
portions of the Caddy Canyon.
There is a direct connection that allows extractions
from EC 5 to interfere directly with the base flows
of the Warm Springs “Springs” There is no question
that under the flows tested, the actual spring flows
22 1231245So2u5rSr53cer153
'''AAA
?
?
??
??
-83'
-8
-5
-2
0
-5
0
EdenCrossingWell 5
BurnettSprings
Highland Well
Belnap Well
Bowden/ShawWell
Warm SpringsWell
East Well
Cobabe
Warm Spring
Warm Spring
Project Manager:John FilesDate: August 2024Drawn By: RE 1:24,000
0 1,000 2,000 FeetFigure 6.Estimated Drawdown of Caddy Canyon AquiferEden Crossing Well 5 Pumping at 371 gpm for 11 days
Drawdown contours estimated from observed drawdown at East Well and Warm Springs Well.Drawdown uncertain to the southeast where hydrogeology is unknown.
23123245Souor
would decrease from the base flow of 70 gpm to
next to nothing with only the small surficial flows
coming into the collection box. This connection can
be equated to the connection between the East
Well and Burnett Springs, in both cases, no matter
how low of a flow was extracted from the extraction
well, the flows of the spring will decrease.
There is a direct connection between the EC 5 well
and the Warm Springs well. The flow decreased
approximately 65 to 70 gpm with a corresponding
decline in the Warm Springs Well water level of
approximately 8.2 feet. Again, I would use the
analogy of the East Well testing which dropped
the flow of the Burnett Springs, but also dropped
the level of the Bowden/Shaw Well 2 to 5 feet
depending on the flow the East Well was tested at.
This test indicated a direct connection between the
EC 5 Well and the Warm Springs Well and artesian
well decline is similar to a reasonable decline in
any non-artesian well. Nevertheless, the question
of interference between the two wells appears to
be a legal question not a scientific question. The
data is now there for the legal parties to decide.
8. RECOMMENDATIONS

Keeping in mind that the recent testing was just a
snapshot to help predict what will happen in the
future if EC 5 is put into production. The flow that
was selected for the testing was the full water right
based on a 24/7/365 scenario. The lack of reliable
monitoring and mode of operation of the Warm
Springs Complex have added a layer of grayness
that is not typically in evaluations. But given
the data that has been collected the following
recommendations can be made.
1. The Warm Springs “Spring” flows will need to
be mitigated for, as the base flow appeared
to be 70 gpm that is what should be used for
mitigated flow.
2. The Warm Springs Well will be interfered with
but the question of mitigation will be a legal
question.
3. WCWS appears to have started to operate their
well more responsibly, but they have claimed
they would in the past and have not. It would
be highly recommended that they set their
politics aside and operate the well in a manner
in which they only pull the water they need
from the aquifer and become more transparent
about their withdrawals and operations. There
is no need to fill Pineview with Warm Springs
Well aquifer water.
4. The recommendation for WCWS not to ever
pump the Warm Springs Well has historically
been made by me. But based on the recent
reliable data collected, it appears that given
the mode of operation, the Warm Springs Well
require pumping with or without EC 5 going
into production if WCWS hopes to maintain the
current capacity or regain the original capacity.
5. The total rights applied for on EC 5 are 546
acre-ft, which equates to an annual flow rate
of 338.5 gpm. The testing was completed at a
flow of 370 gpm, with the Warm Springs Well
operating under the worst-case scenario for
the past 40 years. Perhaps, a compromise on
the water right would be a good start with
monitoring put into place. A volume of 400
acre feet with a stipulation that the flow of EC
5 not go above 250 gpm would be a good start
with a pathway to increased production if no
negative impacts are observed in the Burnett
springs area.
6. Monitoring into the future would obviously
be critical. Much of the working monitoring
network is already in place. However, it would
be recommended that Cole Panter install
DWRi monitoring on both the Warm Springs
“Springs” and flow from the well to the WCI
system. The monitoring method on the Warm
Springs Complex should be rebuilt so it is
measuring accurately at all flows.
APPENDIX A
GEOPHYSICAL LOGS
APPENDIX B
WELL DRILLERS LOGSWARM SPRINGS WELL 1983 ENGINEERS REPORT
pineer within30 moor,82d filed with the State Eng neer,in accordance with the laws of Utah.
‘titutes «2iiea wita the State Engineer within 80 days after the completion or se of the well,Failure to file such
reports constitutes a misdemeanor.)
(1).WELL 0
NameAdiren beype(2)LOCATION OF WELL:County.(Chek...“reendveeaeaedALO.1mHOOtu tombe bere
of Section.QO”><a7.fen:z a)Daeoutwordsnotneeded)
(3)NATURE OF WORK (check):New Well fyReplacementWell2DeepeningCjRepair(J Abandon [JIfabandonment,describe material aud procedure MessealaeccesasOeOerwscien
(4)NATURE OF USE (check):|
Domestic [Industrial [J Municipal pe Stockwater (JIrrigation(j Mining §=(]Other=og Tet Well(5)TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION (check);
|ty Dug oO :
Retary
dotted oOCableODriver.Oo Bored oO(0fASINGSOEEDUEwoaysn.’Dinan trom...)tautto.SA)tennamstteonae"Diam.from.__nnfet to.fet Gage.onBees*Diam.from...feet COfeet GageNewRajectUsed J(7)PERFORATIONS:Perforated?Yes []No meTypeofDerforatorusedtheeseteneaictnanehametiaaevenees
~aSizeofperforations...inches by ~-neaCHESwrits--raeeeDD Orforations from.feet tofeat“wretssseoeeae DDOPforations from feet to.featsriaetigs~----perforations from.«ne -sron LOBE tohaatrowee—eee-DORforations from.....fear togeet |~—+-+-—.....perforations from...feat to.haatarvanaeeneste,————(8)SCREENS:el)screen installed?Yes BM No Ofanufacturer’s Name folio vncyecriteMeeesesseecmeeeee,Model No.iam.Oo.7 .Slot sizeC20)set from...ft to.on&m gosion sie20)__set trom.)CONSTRUCTION:
+well grave}packed?Yes No [>Size of aravel:CoSod'el placed from...GIIO feet to....._.YOO...+neet@surfacesea)provided ?Yes m No C7‘Oo what depth?__
fal used in seal: (2y¥strata contain unusable water?Yeu Tj No mefwater:__Fret creceres teen 6.Depth of strata.of sealing Strate off:a ee
face casing used Tf Yes Li No oetmentedinplace?Yes {)No C}————eken scopingVATERLEVELS:
et “oufeet below Jand surface eeeressure.4/feet above land surface Dated.“JO-§Q.—CEIVED:|(11)FLOWING WELL:
PEPEmeee ,Controlled by (rha-b)wre 8 ~s
(12)WELL TESTS:Drandown &Gre distance in feet the water level is low.
_Temperature of water.~Was &chemical analysis made?No(13)WELL Log:
Was @ pump test Inade?l Yes Re No ©Ig sco,by whom?_.___“Yield...Ge gal./min.withoo|feet drawdown after...hoursbi
@ 1 Woes Aéewanste weartes So.)=
SAMOS oeomenreme cenewmesecee =ONS
CCNSane
teeta ™=sremtas$(eeeeor exaincad cacenye om
PteT eenees ememmecmenn cereus *CLOSo0eseen
eLIES
od‘Baller test.gal./min.With...teat drawdown afterhemesArtesianflow...OO)em Date“IO-FR
Depth drilled...YOY)-~-~-feet..Depth ofcompleted welSO)tansNOTE:Place an “X"in the space or combination ofOrcombinationofmaterialsencounteredfneachdepdesirablenotesastooccurrenceofwaterandthecounteredineachdepthinterval,Use additional
MATERIAL
(14)PUMP:
A Ye O
Viameter of well.__a .inekes
th interval Under Sneakmake any$color,size,nature,ete.,of ranterial
REMARKS
Manufacturer's Name .Bl wicca odds aceanctin datisd,
euiaaiais
Depth to pump or bowles
pac
arenasannatanaibaneanieprtecaees eemeCnn
CNP
reese
car
Well Driller’s Statement:
.feet
This well was drilled under my supervision,and this report is true tothebestofmyknowledgeandbelief.Name LDYT t Abs on.+(freon,firm,OY cCornoratian i HirD t aA ing
APPENDIX C
EAST WELL REPORT
Pump Testing of the Wolf Creek Water &Sewer
East Well with Emphasis on Interference wit
Eden Water Works Burnett Springs
iea
Wolf Creek
‘ahDivision of Wa

November, 2022 EastWell_Burnett.doc
-i-
CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Water Right..........................................................................................................................1
2.0 Aquifer Test ............................................................................................................................1
3.0 Conclusions & Recomomdations...........................................................................................2

FIGURES

Well and Burnett Springs Location Map
Geologic Map of Area
Well Construction Diagram

APPENDICES

APPENDIX: Tech Memo outlining East Well development activities and interference with
Burnett Springs

DDW Letter stating safe yield of East Well

November, 2022 EastWell_Burnett.doc
-1-

1.0 INTRODUCTION
In early March of 2022, Wolf Creek Water and Sewer (WCWS) completed a new well
known as the East Well, refer for Figures for a location map. After completion of the well,
the drillers began development of the well by airlifting approximately 550 gpm. Prior to
drilling this well and due to the close proximity of Eden Water Works (EWW) Burnett
Springs a monitoring plan had been established where flows of the spring would be
monitored. During the development of the East Well, it became apparent that there was a
direct connection between the East Well extractions and flows from Burnett Springs.
Included in Attachments is a Technical Memo outlining the observed interference during
development.

With the known interference in Burnett Springs, WCWS and EWW came to an agreement for
a path forward for first establishing a Utah Division of Drinking Water (DDW) “safe yield”
of the well, then an understanding of a framework of a mitigation agreement based on the
DDW “safe yield”. In late May to early June, 2022 an aquifer pumping and recovery test
was performed on the East Well at a flow of 426 gpm. Due to the DDW 2/3, rule this pump
test gave the East Well a DDW safe yield capacity of 284 gpm. The DDW letter granting
this source capacity is included in Attachments.

After the DDW safe yield was established, WCWS and EWW proceeded with a mitigation
agreement for the use of the East Well. This agreement has been finalized and signed and is
now part of the Water Right file on the East Well’s water right. This report simply
documents the interference observed during the 426 gpm aquifer test for future reference if
the interference is ever questioned.
1.1 Water Right
The East Well was drilled on a “Test Hole” start card. The reason for drilling on a test well
start card was EWW had protested the exchange application on the East Well fearing
interference, and both EWW and WCWS agreed to drill the well and test it to confirm if
there is interference. The exchange application that is on the East Well is E6310.
2.0 AQUIFER TEST
The East Well was pumped at an average 426 gpm between May 24 and May 26th, 2022.
After the pumping, recovery was also monitored. During the pumping the East Well drew
down a total of 26 feet and the daily average flow in Burnett Springs declined from 144 to 25
gpm. Below is a plot of the depth to water in the East Well and the flow of Burnett Springs
during the aquifer test.

November, 2022 EastWell_Burnett.doc
-2-
Depth to Water in East Well and Flows from Burnett Springs During Constant Rate Test
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
5/24/22 0:00 5/25/22 0:00 5/26/22 0:00 5/27/22 0:00 5/28/22 0:00 5/29/22 0:00 5/30/22 0:00 5/31/22 0:00 6/1/22 0:00 6/2/22 0:00
Date / Time
De
p
t
h

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

(
f
t
.

t
o
c
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Bu
r
n
e
t
t

F
l
o
w

(
g
p
m
)
Depth to Water in East Well
Average Hourly Flow in Burnett Springs
Flow from Totalizer in East Well 426 gpm

3.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
From the development and aquifer testing activates on the East Well, there is now doubt that pumping
this well at nearly any useful flow rate will interfere directly with Burnett Springs. Now that WCWS
and EWW have signed a mitigation agreement; it is both parties best interest to continue monitoring
flows and water levels in the area. In addition it would be strongly advised that for the East Well is
only pumped as a last resort and for culinary use only.

November, 2022 EastWell_Burnett.doc
-3-

Figures

!.&3&3&3&3&3'A'A&3&3
East Well
&3
&3
&3
&3&3 'A
'A
&3
&3
27
24
16
13
11
22
28
10
21
12
2526
15
23
09
14
Belnap Well
Eden WaterWorks
CottonwoodWell
Bowden Well
WarmSpringsWell
BurnettSprings
PatioSprings#1-3
HighlandMonitoringWell
East Well
Figure 1.Location of East Well and OtherSignificant Water Sources in theWolf Creek Area
0 0.50.25 Mile
1:24,000
Drawn By:G3 Mapping
Rich Emerson
[e-mail] Date: May 2022
Project Manager:
John Files
'A'A
&3
&3
&3
&3&3 'A
'A
&3
&3
A'
A
27
16
29
22
28
35
20 21
26
15
23
3432
33
1417
Willard thru
s
t
,

u
p
p
e
r

b
r
a
n
c
h
Tn
Tn
Tn
_gcl
Zkc
Qm
Qm
Qm
Qm
Qm
Qm
Qm
Qm
Qa
Qa
Qh
QTa QTc
Qm
Qm
Qa
Qa
Qa
QTa
_gcu
Ql
Ql
Ql
QlQl
Ql
Ql
Ql
Ql
Ql
Ql
Zmcg
Qm
Qm
Ql
Ql
33
24
26
40
30
40
45
20
15
20
30
Eccles WestSprings
EcclesHouseSprings
Belnap Well
EdenWaterWorks
CottonwoodWell
Bowden Well
WarmSprings Well BurnettSprings
PatioSprings#1-3
HighlandMonitoringWell
East Well
Figure 2.Geology of the Wolf Creek Area Human disturbance
Alluvium
Lacustrine deposit
Mass wasting deposit
Alluvium and gravel
Older colluvium
Norwood Tuff
Geertsen Canyon
Quartzite - upper unit
Geertsen Canyon Quartzit- lower unit
Mutual Formation
Kelly Canyon Formation
Maple Canyon Formation,upper conglomeratemember
Maple Canyon Formation,
green arcose member
Formation of PerryCanyon - upper member
Project Manager:
John Files
Date: May 2022Drawn By:Rich Emerson
Geology Simplified from the Interim GeologicMap of the Ogden 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Cooganand King, 2016.
0 2,0001,000 Feet
1 in = 2,000 ft
|||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||
#
Well Construction Diagram
16' StaticWater Level
0' - 110'14" casing
230' - TDGravel
67' - 110'18.75" Boreholeand sanitary seal
+1.5' - 242'7" casing
0' - 67'20" casing
0 - 67'30" borehole andsanitary seal
105' - 220'cement
220' - 230'Bentonite hole plug
Weld ring between7" and 14" casing
242' - 324'7" slotted casing
324' - 365'7" casing
365' - 529'7" slotted casing
529' - 539'7" casing with12" cement plugin bottom 540' TD
0 - 67' Clay
67' - 87'Clayey gravel
87' - 230'Argellite withthin quartzitebeds (Inkom?)
230' - 540'Various types ofquartzitefine-grainedto vitreous
RES (64N)OHM-M
CALIPERINCH0
0 300
40
Lithology Geophysical Log
550
0
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
50
500
Vertical Scale: 1 inch equals 90 feetAs-Built Well Construction DiagramWolf Creek East Well,Lithology and Geophysical Log
Drawn By:G3 Mapping
Rich Emerson
[e-mail] Date: May 2022
Project Manager:
John Files

November 2022 EastWell_Burnett.doc

APPENDIX:

Tech Memo outlining East Well development activates and interference
with Burnett Springs

DDW Safe Yield letter for the East Well

March 6, 2022
Technical Memorandum prepared for:
Wolf Creek Water and Sewer &
Eden Water Works
Subject: Proposed aquifer testing of the Wolf Creek Water and Sewer East Well
with respect to gaining aquifer parameters without interfering with flows
from Eden Water Works Burnett Springs.

Wolf Creek Water and Sewer (WCWS) recently completed a new well located in its
service area named the East Well (refer to attached figure for location). The well was
completed the night of March 2, 2022. The well is screened in highly fractured quartzite bedrock. Between 15:00 on March 2 and 6:00 am March 3, 2022 airlfiting of
the well took place. While the physical airlifting was taking place a flow of
approximately 550 gpm was being extracted from the aquifer. However, the drillers
discharge pump could not keep up with the flow to keep their storage tank from
overfilling. The airlifting was shut down approximately every 45 minutes to empty the tank. The resulting flow for this 15 hour period was approximately 300 gpm. As the
airlifting was taking place using conventional drilling rod, there was no physical way
to measure the water level in the well, it could only be estimated from air pressure
readings.
Given the close proximity of the well to Eden Waterworks Burnett Spring, a monitoring plan had been put in place with monitoring in the Bowden/Shaw Well,
Highland Well, and of course with Eden Water Works personnel to monitor the flows
in the spring. The morning of March 3, WCWS personnel were advised by
Waterworks personnel that thee flows in the spring had dropped significantly
overnight and water was now surging through the line at flows from 0 to 120 gpm instead of flowing smoothly as it normally does. According to Waterworks personnel,
the average flow had dropped from 110-120 gpm, to 40 gpm average (flows were
fluctuating between zero and 120 gpm. At this point, data was downloaded from the
Bowden/Shaw Well. This data indicated that the water level in the Bowden/Shaw
Well had started to drop at approximately 18:00 on March 2, three hours after airlifting started. The total drawdown before recovery started on the Bowden/Shaw
well was 1.7 feet.
Below is a plot of the level in the Bowden/Shaw Well during the airlifting of the East
Well. Included on the plot is the daily average flow data from Burnett Springs as well
as the data every minute for the time the flows were decreasing. It should be noted that March 7 through 9th data is not included as a new flow meter was being installed
on the spring at this time.
Cascade
Water Resources
Hydrogeology, Geologic, & Environmental Consultants PO Box 982948 Park City, UT 84098 801.573.8507 Email: [e-mail]
 Page 2 March 16, 2022

Water Level in Highland Well & 7 Day Average Flow from Burnett Springs
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
2/
2
8
/
2
0
2
2
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
3/
2
/
2
0
2
2
3/
3
/
2
0
2
2
3/
4
/
2
0
2
2
3/
5
/
2
0
2
2
3/
6
/
2
0
2
2
3/
7
/
2
0
2
2
3/
8
/
2
0
2
2
3/
9
/
2
0
2
2
3/
1
0
/
2
0
2
2
Date
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 in
 Bo
w
d
e
n
/
S
h
a
w
 Mo
n
i
t
o
r
 We
l
l
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Bu
r
n
e
t
t
 flo
w
 (g
p
m
)
Bowden
Burnett Flow SCADA daily
Flow GPM
60 per. Mov. Avg. (Flow GPM)

The morning of March 4, 2022, Eden Water Works and WCWS personnel met to discuss the existing data at the time and how to proceed with the East Well. At the time of the meeting WCWS personnel were informed that the flow of Burnett Springs
had recovered to 98 to 102 gpm. The consensus of the meeting was to move ahead
with aquifer testing the East Well at low flows to better determine the aquifer
characteristics and enable WCWS to gain approval of the East Well as a New Source with DDW at a limited flow rate.
From the data collected on the Bowden/Shaw well an estimated aquifer
transmissivity of 1,572 ft2/day was calculated between the Bowden/Shaw well,
Burnett Springs, and the East Well. Using this value, estimated drawdown’s were calculated at various pumping and time scenarios. Using this data, the following
aquifer test is proposed.

A 24 hour test of 30 gpm, and at the end of 24 hours an assessment is made as to if
the test can continue. Data from the East Well, Burnett Springs, and the Bowden Shaw Well will be evaluated and if all parties are comfortable the test will continue
with possible changes to the flow rate made based on the data collected.

Testing will be done with a temporary pump that will be set by Zimmerman Well
Services. It appears from data collected by EWW and WCWS that both the Burnett
 Page 3 March 16, 2022
Spring flows and Bowden/Shaw water levels have recovered higher than pre-
development activities at the East Well.

The test’s duration and flow would of course be dynamic and test would be adjusted
or stopped if data indicated.
The procedures for the 24 hour test are as follows. Transducers are already installed
in the Bowden/Shaw and the Highland Well. A transducer will be installed in the East
Well as soon s the drillers have completed the well head configuration.
1. Test will start early in the morning.
2. Flows at Burnett Spring will be checked via the SCADA System
constantly (or minimum of every two hours) by Waterworks
personnel. If needed WCWS personell or myself can manually
check the flows during the night. 3. Transducer data in the East Well will be downloaded every two
hours, if needed adjustments to flow and time period of test can
be made based on drawdown observed in the pumping well if
drawdown varies significantly over modeled levels. In addition
to the downloads, the data will be visually observed during most of time the well is pumping. The estimated drawdown for the 24
hour test in the East Well will be approximately 15 feet.
4. The transducer data in the Bowden/Shaw Well will be
downloaded every two hours, which may be adjusted based on
drawdown observed in the East Well. 5. Highland Well data will be downloaded at the end of the test.
6. At the end of the 24 hour period, data will be evaluated as to if
the test should end or what conditions it can continue under.
Collection of this data will allow more precise estimations to be made of the type of
aquifer.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at [phone]
Sincerely,

John Files, PG Cascade Water Resources.

cc: Gary Brimley, DWRi Regional Engineer, WR File E3610

 Page 4 March 16, 2022

ATTACHMENTS
!.'A'A&3&3&3&3&3'A'A'A&3&3
East Well
'A'A
&3
&3
&3
&3&3 'A
'A
'A
&3
&3
27
24
16
13
11
22
28
10
21
12
2526
15
23
09
14
Eccles WestSprings
EcclesHouseSprings
Belnap Well
Eden WaterWorks
CottonwoodWell
Bowden Well
WarmSpringsWell
BurnettSprings
PatioSprings#1-3
Eccles EastSprings
HighlandMonitoringWell
East Well
Figure 1.Location of East Well and OtherSignificant Wells and Springs in the WolfCreek Area
0 0.50.25 Mile
1:24,000
Drawn By:G3 Mapping
Rich [e-mail] Date: March 2022
Project Manager:
John Files
#
Well Construction Diagram
16' StaticWater Level
0' - 110'14" casing
230' - TDGravel
67' - 110'18.75" Boreholeand sanitary seal
+1.5' - 242'7" casing
0' - 67'20" casing
0 - 67'30" borehole andsanitary seal
105' - 220'cement
220' - 230'Bentonite hole plug
Weld ring between7" and 14" casing
242' - 324'7" slotted casing
324' - 365'7" casing
365' - 529'7" slotted casing
529' - 539'7" casing with12" cement plugin bottom 540' TD
0 - 67' Clay
67' - 87'Clayey gravel
87' - 230'Argellite withthin quartzitebeds (Inkom?)
230' - 540'Various types ofquartzitefine-grainedto vitreous
RES (64N)OHM-M
CALIPERINCH0
0 300
40
Lithology Geophysical Log
550
0
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
50
500
Vertical Scale: 1 inch equals 90 feetAs-Built Well Construction DiagramWolf Creek East Well,Lithology and Geophysical Log
Drawn By:G3 Mapping
Rich [e-mail] Date: March 2022
Project Manager:
John Files

State of Utah

SPENCER J. COX
Governor

DEIDRE HENDERSON
Lieutenant Governor

Department of
Environmental Quality

Kimberly D. Shelley
Executive Director

DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER
Tim Davis
Director
June 1, 2022 Rob Thomas Wolf Creek Water and Sewer P.O. Box 658 Eden, Utah 84310 Subject: Safe Yield, East Well (WS006); Wolf Creek Water and Sewer, System #29013, File #12818
This is not Plan Approval for Construction Dear Rob Thomas: The Division of Drinking Water (the Division) received the constant-rate test results from your consultant John Files, P.G., of Cascade Water Resources, on May 26, 2022. The test was run at a flow rate of 426 gallons per minute (gpm) for just over 38 hours. The drawdown stabilized at approximately 25 feet in the last six hours of the test. Per R309-515-6(10)(c), “If the aquifer drawdown test data show that the drawdown has stabilized, the Director will consider 2/3 of the pumping rate used in the constant-rate test as the safe yield of the well.” The safe yield of the East Well will be rated at 284 gpm, which is calculated based on two-thirds of the constant-rate aquifer drawdown test results at 426 gpm. The safe yield of 284 gpm is the basis for determining the maximum number of connections that the East Well (WS006) can serve. Drinking Water Source Protection Requirement
A full Drinking Water Source Protection (DWSP) plan is due by January 26, 2023. The maximum pumping rate of the well must be used in the delineation calculations. The safe yield of the well cannot be used in the delineation calculations unless it matches the equipped pumping rate. If you have questions about the source protection requirements, please contact Deidre Beck at [phone] or via email at [e-mail]. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Dani Zebelean, of this office, at [phone], or me at [phone].
Rob Thomas Page 2 of 2 June, 2022 Sincerely, Michael Newberry, P.E. Engineering Manager cc: Michelle Cooke, Weber-Morgan Health Department, [e-mail] John Files, Cascade Water Resources, [e-mail] Rob Thomas, Wolf Creek Water and Sewer, [e-mail] Miranda Menzies, Wolf Creek Water and Sewer, [e-mail] Deidre Beck, Division of Drinking Water, [e-mail] Dani Zebelean, Division of Drinking Water, [e-mail] DDW-2022-020393

APPENDIX D
1983 WARM SPRINGS MITIGATION AGREEMENT
APPENDIX E
NEW SOURCE SAMPLE RESULTS FOR EDEN CROSSING WELL 5
The analyses presented on this report were performed in accordance with the
National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) unless
noted in the comments, flags, or case narrative. If the report is to be used for
regulatory compliance, it should be presented in its entirety, and not be
altered.
Client Service Contact: 801.262.7299
Cascade Water Resource
Attn: John Files
PO Box 982948
Park City, UT 84098
Work Order: 24G0117
Project: [none]
7/12/2024
Approved By:
Andrew Royer, Project Manager
9632 South 500 West Sandy, Utah 84070
Serving the Intermountain West since 1953
801.262.7299 Main 866.792.0093 Fax www.ChemtechFord.com
Page 1 of 8
Certificate of Analysis
24G0117-01Lab Sample No.:
Name:
Sample Site:
Sample Matrix:
Sample Date:
Receipt Date:
Sampler:
Eden Crossing Well 5
Drinking Water
John Files
7/2/2024 9:00 AM
7/2/2024 10:43 AM

Comments:
PO Number:
Project:
Source Code:Sample Point:Report to State:
System No.:UTAH29132
WS005 WS005 Y
Cascade Water Resource
Minimum
Reporting
LimitParameterSample
Result Units
Analytical
Method
Analysis
Date/Time Flag
Preparation
Date/Time
EPA Max
Contaminant
Level (MCL)
Calculations
Langelier Index @ 22 Deg. C None 07/11/202407/11/2024 -1.3 Calculation
Hardness, Total as CaCO3 6.68 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/2024 67.0 SM 2340 B/[CALC]
Inorganic
Alkalinity - Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)1.0 mg/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 73.6 SM 2320 B
Alkalinity - Carbonate (as CaCO3)1.0 mg/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND SM 2320 B
Alkalinity - Hydroxide (as CaCO3)1.0 mg/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND SM 2320 B
Alkalinity - Total (as CaCO3)1.0 mg/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 73.6 SM 2320 B
Ammonia as N 0.20 mg/L 07/08/202407/08/2024 ND SM 4500 NH3 H
Chloride 1.00 mg/L 07/02/202407/02/202425016.6 EPA 300.0
Color 0 Color Units 07/02/2024 13:5407/02/2024 13:031510SM 2120 B
Conductivity 1.00 umho/cm 07/05/202407/05/2024 249 EPA 120.1
Cyanide, Free 0.016 mg/L 07/03/202407/03/20240.2ND EPA 335.4
Fluoride 0.100 mg/L 07/03/202407/03/202440.195 EPA 300.0
MBAS Surfactants 0.10 mg/L 07/02/2024 12:4107/02/2024 12:290.5ND SM 5540 C
Nitrate as N 0.10 mg/L 07/02/2024 16:0107/02/2024 12:3110NDEPA 300.0
Nitrite as N 0.10 mg/L 07/02/2024 16:0107/02/2024 12:311NDEPA 300.0
Odor 0 T.O.N.07/02/2024 13:4207/02/2024 13:023NDSM 2150 B
pH 0.1 SPHpH Units 07/02/2024 16:1507/02/2024 15:34 7.1 SM 4500 H-B
Phosphate, ortho as P 0.02 mg/L 07/02/2024 12:4007/02/2024 11:16 0.02 SM 4500 P-E
Sulfate 1.00 mg/L 07/02/202407/02/202425016.5 EPA 300.0
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)20 mg/L 07/03/202407/03/2024100072SM 2540 C
Turbidity 0.05 NTU 07/02/2024 12:0407/02/2024 11:1658.9 EPA 180.1
Metals
Aluminum, Total 0.06 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/20240.20.1 EPA 200.7/200.2
Antimony, Total 0.0005 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/20240.006ND EPA 200.8/200.2
Arsenic, Total 0.0005 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/20240.010.0052 EPA 200.8/200.2
Barium, Total 0.005 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/202420.142 EPA 200.7/200.2
Beryllium, Total 0.002 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/20240.004ND EPA 200.7/200.2
Boron, Total 0.05 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/2024 ND EPA 200.7/200.2
Cadmium, Total 0.0002 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/20240.005ND EPA 200.8/200.2
Calcium, Total 0.2 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/2024 15.1 EPA 200.7/200.2
Chromium, Total 0.005 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/20240.1ND EPA 200.7/200.2
Copper, Total 0.0012 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/20241.3ND EPA 200.8/200.2
Iron, Total 0.03 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/20240.30.84 EPA 200.7/200.2
Lead, Total 0.0005 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/20240.015ND EPA 200.8/200.2
Page 2 of 89632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070801-262-7299 Office
www.ChemtechFord.com
Page 2 of 8
Certificate of Analysis
24G0117-01Lab Sample No.:
Name:
Sample Site:
Sample Matrix:
Sample Date:
Receipt Date:
Sampler:
Eden Crossing Well 5
Drinking Water
John Files
7/2/2024 9:00 AM
7/2/2024 10:43 AM

Comments:
PO Number:
Project:
Source Code:Sample Point:Report to State:
System No.:UTAH29132
WS005 WS005 Y
Cascade Water Resource
Minimum
Reporting
LimitParameterSample
Result Units
Analytical
Method
Analysis
Date/Time Flag
Preparation
Date/Time
EPA Max
Contaminant
Level (MCL)
Metals (cont.)
Magnesium, Total 1.5 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/2024 7.1 EPA 200.7/200.2
Manganese, Total 0.006 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/20240.050.313 EPA 200.7/200.2
Mercury, Total 0.00016 mg/L 07/10/202407/09/20240.002ND EPA 245.1
Nickel, Total 0.005 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/20240.1ND EPA 200.7/200.2
Potassium, Total 0.5 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/2024 3.8 EPA 200.7/200.2
Selenium, Total 0.0007 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/20240.05ND EPA 200.8/200.2
Silica, (as SiO2) Total 0.2 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/2024 15.6 EPA 200.7/200.2
Silver, Total 0.0005 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/20240.1ND EPA 200.8/200.2
Sodium, Total 2.0 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/2024 19.9 EPA 200.7/200.2
Thallium, Total 0.0002 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/20240.002ND EPA 200.8/200.2
Zinc, Total 0.01 mg/L 07/08/202407/03/20245NDEPA 200.7/200.2
Carbamates
3-Hydroxycarbofuran 1 ug/L 07/11/202407/11/2024 ND EPA 531.1
Aldicarb 1 ug/L 07/11/202407/11/2024 ND EPA 531.1
Aldicarb sulfone 1 ug/L 07/11/202407/11/2024 ND EPA 531.1
Aldicarb sulfoxide 1 ug/L 07/11/202407/11/2024 ND EPA 531.1
Carbaryl 1 ug/L 07/11/202407/11/2024 ND EPA 531.1
Carbofuran 1 ug/L 07/11/202407/11/202440NDEPA 531.1
Methomyl 1 ug/L 07/11/202407/11/2024 ND EPA 531.1
Oxamyl 1 ug/L 07/11/202407/11/2024200NDEPA 531.1
Herbicides
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)0.440 ug/L 07/03/202407/02/202450NDEPA 515.3
2,4-D 0.220 ug/L 07/03/202407/02/202470NDEPA 515.3
Dalapon 2.20 ug/L 07/03/202407/02/2024200NDEPA 515.3
Dicamba 1.00 ug/L 07/03/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 515.3
Dinoseb 0.440 ug/L 07/03/202407/02/20247NDEPA 515.3
Pentachlorophenol 0.088 ug/L 07/03/202407/02/20241NDEPA 515.3
Picloram 0.220 ug/L 07/03/202407/02/2024500NDEPA 515.3
Pesticides
Endrin 0.022 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20242NDEPA 508.1
Heptachlor 0.088 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20240.4ND EPA 508.1
Heptachlor epoxide 0.044 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20240.2ND EPA 508.1
Lindane 0.044 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20240.2ND EPA 508.1
Methoxychlor 0.22 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/202440NDEPA 508.1
Page 3 of 89632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070801-262-7299 Office
www.ChemtechFord.com
Page 3 of 8
Certificate of Analysis
24G0117-01Lab Sample No.:
Name:
Sample Site:
Sample Matrix:
Sample Date:
Receipt Date:
Sampler:
Eden Crossing Well 5
Drinking Water
John Files
7/2/2024 9:00 AM
7/2/2024 10:43 AM

Comments:
PO Number:
Project:
Source Code:Sample Point:Report to State:
System No.:UTAH29132
WS005 WS005 Y
Cascade Water Resource
Minimum
Reporting
LimitParameterSample
Result Units
Analytical
Method
Analysis
Date/Time Flag
Preparation
Date/Time
EPA Max
Contaminant
Level (MCL)
Pesticides (cont.)
PCB-1016 0.20 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20240.2ND EPA 508.1
PCB-1221 0.20 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20240.5ND EPA 508.1
PCB-1232 0.20 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20240.5ND EPA 508.1
PCB-1242 0.50 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20240.5ND EPA 508.1
PCB-1248 0.50 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20240.5ND EPA 508.1
PCB-1254 0.50 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20240.5ND EPA 508.1
PCB-1260 0.50 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20240.5ND EPA 508.1
PCB - Total 0.50 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20240.5ND EPA 508.1
Toxaphene 2.2 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20243NDEPA 508.1
Semi-Volatile Compounds
Alachlor 0.44 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20242NDEPA 525.2
Aldrin 2.00 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/2024 ND EPA 525.2
Atrazine 0.22 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20243NDEPA 525.2
Benzo (a) pyrene 0.04 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20240.2ND EPA 525.2
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Adipate 1.30 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/2024400NDEPA 525.2
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate 1.30 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20246NDEPA 525.2
Butachlor 0.50 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/2024 ND EPA 525.2
alpha-Chlordane 0.44 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20242NDEPA 525.2
gamma-Chlordane 0.44 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20242NDEPA 525.2
Chlordane - Total 0.44 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20242NDEPA 525.2
Dieldrin 1.00 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/2024 ND EPA 525.2
Hexachlorobenzene 0.22 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20241NDEPA 525.2
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.22 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/202450NDEPA 525.2
Metolachlor 0.50 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/2024 ND EPA 525.2
Metribuzin 0.50 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/2024 ND EPA 525.2
Propachlor 0.50 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/2024 ND EPA 525.2
Simazine 0.15 ug/L 07/08/202407/05/20244NDEPA 525.2
Volatile Organic Compounds
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024200NDEPA 524.2
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/20245NDEPA 524.2
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
1,1-Dichloroethane 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
1,1-Dichloroethene 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/20247NDEPA 524.2
Page 4 of 89632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070801-262-7299 Office
www.ChemtechFord.com
Page 4 of 8
Certificate of Analysis
24G0117-01Lab Sample No.:
Name:
Sample Site:
Sample Matrix:
Sample Date:
Receipt Date:
Sampler:
Eden Crossing Well 5
Drinking Water
John Files
7/2/2024 9:00 AM
7/2/2024 10:43 AM

Comments:
PO Number:
Project:
Source Code:Sample Point:Report to State:
System No.:UTAH29132
WS005 WS005 Y
Cascade Water Resource
Minimum
Reporting
LimitParameterSample
Result Units
Analytical
Method
Analysis
Date/Time Flag
Preparation
Date/Time
EPA Max
Contaminant
Level (MCL)
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
1,1-Dichloropropene 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/202470NDEPA 524.2
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/202470NDEPA 524.2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024600NDEPA 524.2
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/20245NDEPA 524.2
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/20245NDEPA 524.2
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
1,3-Dichloropropane 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/202475NDEPA 524.2
2,2-Dichloropropane 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
2-Chlorotoluene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
4-Chlorotoluene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Benzene 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/20245NDEPA 524.2
Bromobenzene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Bromochloromethane 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Bromodichloromethane 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Bromoform 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Bromomethane 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Carbon Tetrachloride 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/20245NDEPA 524.2
Chlorobenzene 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024100NDEPA 524.2
Chloroethane 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Chloroform 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Chloromethane 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/202470NDEPA 524.2
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Dibromochloromethane 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Dibromomethane 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/20245NDEPA 524.2
Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Ethyl Benzene 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024700NDEPA 524.2
Hexachlorobutadiene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Isopropylbenzene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Methylene Chloride 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/20245NDEPA 524.2
Page 5 of 89632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070801-262-7299 Office
www.ChemtechFord.com
Page 5 of 8
Certificate of Analysis
24G0117-01Lab Sample No.:
Name:
Sample Site:
Sample Matrix:
Sample Date:
Receipt Date:
Sampler:
Eden Crossing Well 5
Drinking Water
John Files
7/2/2024 9:00 AM
7/2/2024 10:43 AM

Comments:
PO Number:
Project:
Source Code:Sample Point:Report to State:
System No.:UTAH29132
WS005 WS005 Y
Cascade Water Resource
Minimum
Reporting
LimitParameterSample
Result Units
Analytical
Method
Analysis
Date/Time Flag
Preparation
Date/Time
EPA Max
Contaminant
Level (MCL)
Volatile Organic Compounds (cont.)
Naphthalene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
n-Butyl Benzene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
n-Propyl Benzene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
p-Isopropyltoluene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
sec-Butyl Benzene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Styrene 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024100NDEPA 524.2
tert-Butylbenzene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Tetrachloroethene 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/20245NDEPA 524.2
Toluene 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/20241000NDEPA 524.2
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024100NDEPA 524.2
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Trichloroethene 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/20245NDEPA 524.2
Trichlorofluoromethane 1.0 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/2024 ND EPA 524.2
Vinyl Chloride 0.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/20242NDEPA 524.2
Xylenes, total 1.5 ug/L 07/02/202407/02/202410000NDEPA 524.2
Page 6 of 89632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070801-262-7299 Office
www.ChemtechFord.com
Page 6 of 8
Certificate of Analysis
Report Footnotes
Abbreviations
ND = Not detected at the corresponding Minimum Reporting Limit.
1 mg/L = one milligram per liter or 1 mg/Kg = one milligram per kilogram = 1 part per million.
1 ug/L = one microgram per liter or 1 ug/Kg = one microgram per kilogram = 1 part per billion.
1 ng/L = one nanogram per liter or 1 ng/Kg = one nanogram per kilogram = 1 part per trillion.
Values reported in RED exceed Primary Drinking Water standards.
Values reported in BLUE exceed Secondary Drinking Water standards.
BLANK values in the MCL column indicate no standard.
On calculated parameters, there may be a slight difference between
summing the rounded values shown on the report vs the unrounded
values used in the calculation.
Data Comparisons
Flag Descriptions
SPH = Sample submitted past method specified holding time.
Page 7 of 89632 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070801-262-7299 Office
www.ChemtechFord.com
Page 7 of 8
Page 8 of 8