DSHW-2025-002367

Close Window
Print This Page
ADoc-114052

Application Document
Name ADoc-114052 Owner Neil Schwendiman
Application A-162181 Internal Comments
Document Name 1) Facility Map or Maps 2) Facility Legal
Description 3) Plan of Operation 4)
Waste Description 5) Ground Water
Report 6) Closure Design 7) Cost
Estimates 8) Financial Assurance 9)
Documents required by UCA 19-6-108(9)
and 10 10) or Additional documents
External Comments
Status Submitted Link to gdrive file File not present
Application
Recordtype Document Type
Gdrive file id
Application Report
Account North Pointe Solid Waste Special
Service District

Created By Neil Schwendiman, 4/21/2025, 4:01 PM Last Modified By Neil Schwendiman, 4/21/2025, 4:07 PM
Files
PartIII (April 15 Final)
Last Modified 4/21/2025, 4:01 PM
Created By Neil Schwendiman
Appendix A - K
Last Modified 4/21/2025, 4:01 PM
Created By Neil Schwendiman
Combined Part I
Last Modified 4/21/2025, 4:01 PM
Created By Neil Schwendiman
Part II (April 15 Final)
Last Modified 4/21/2025, 4:01 PM
Created By Neil Schwendiman
Copyright © 2000-2025 salesforce.com, inc. All rights reserved.
5/8/25, 10:11 AM ADoc-114052 ~ Salesforce - Unlimited Edition
https://utahdeqorg.my.salesforce.com/a03eq00000XC5ifAAD/p 1/1

NPSWSSD CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION (C&D)
2025 LANDFILL REPERMIT
APPLICATION

Submitted by:

Prepared by

IGES, INC.
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10
Salt Lake City, Utah 84119

April 15, 2025
ANNOTATED TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part Title

Introduction
Includes summary of permit with technical and operational issues
highlighted

I. General Information
Includes State of Utah Solid Waste Permit Application
forms

II. General Report
Includes information required by Utah Administrative
Rule R315-305

III. Technical Report
Includes information required by Utah Administrative
Rule R315-305

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – PERMIT DRAWINGS
APPENDIX B – ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX C – PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
APPENDIX D – LANDFILL FORMS
APPENDIX E – DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
APPENDIX F – HYDROLOGY
APPENDIX G – GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN CEDAR VALLEY
APPENDIX H – HISTORIC PRESERVATION
APPENDIX I – 2024 FINAL COVER QA/QC PLAN
APPENDIX J – CLOSURE / POST-CLOSURE CARE COSTS
APPENDIX K – FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
INTRODUCTION
This document presents an application to repermit and operate a construction and demolition
(C&D) landfill south of Fairfield in Utah County, Utah. The landfill is on land owned by North
Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District (NPSWSSD) and operated by NPSWSSD personnel. The
Class IVb Landfill is currently operated under permit number 0012R3 issued by the Utah Division
of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) Board.

The area to be permitted is in the west quarter Section 5, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, Salt
Lake Baseline and Meridian, Utah County, Utah. Drawing 1 (Appendix A) shows the location of
the landfill.

Part I of this document duplicates the standard form outlining General Information pertaining to
the site. Part II is a General Report that includes a facility description and landfill operations plan.
Part III is the Technical Report and includes details on the design of the site closure, post-closure
care and financial assurance.

PART I – GENERAL INFORMATION

Utah Class IV and VI Landfill Facility Permit Application Checklist
1 Revision Date: Jan 23, 2025.
Always refer to current rules to verify requirements.

PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: PLEASE COMPLETE ALL SECTIONS
I. Landfill Type ☐ Class IVa ☒ Class IVb ☐ Class VI
II. Application Type ☐ New Application ☐ Major Modification (see R315-311-2(1)(c))
☒ Renewal Application ☒ Minor Modification (see R315-311-2(1)(a))
For Renewal Applications, Facility Expansion Applications, and Modifications Applications, enter current permit number:
0012R3.
III. Facility Name and Location
Legal Name of Facility
North Pointe C&D Landfill
Facility Address (Street or Directions to Facility) 480 N 18150 W
County Utah
City
Fairfield
Zip Code
84043
Telephone
Click or tap here to
enter text.
Township
7S
Range
2W
Section
5&8
Quarter Section
Click or tap to enter text.
Quarter/Quarter Section
Click or tap to enter text.
Main Gate Latitude: 40d 14m 28s Longitude: 112d 5m 49s
IV. Facility Owner(s) Information
Name of Facility Owner North Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
Mailing Address 2000 West 200 South
City
Lindon
State
UT
Zip Code
84042
Telephone
[phone]
V. Facility Operator(s) Information
Name of Facility Operator
Same as Above
Mailing Address
Click or tap here to enter text.
City
Click or tap to enter text.
State
Click or tap to enter text.
Zip Code
Click or tap to enter text.
Telephone
Click or tap to enter text.
VI. Property Owner(s) Information
Name of Property Owner
Same as Above
Mailing Address Click or tap to enter text.
City Click or tap to enter text.
State Click or tap to enter text.
Zip Code Click or tap to enter text.
Telephone Click or tap to enter text.
Utah Class IV and VI Landfill Facility Permit Application Checklist
2 Revision Date: Jan 23, 2025.
Always refer to current rules to verify requirements.
VII. Designated Contact Information
Facility Owner Designated Contact (if different than above) Neil Schwendiman
Title District Manager
Mailing Address 2000 West 200 South
City
Lindon
State
UT
Zip Code
84042
Telephone
[phone]
Email Address
[e-mail]
Alternative Telephone (cell phone or other)
[phone]
Facility Operator Designated Contact (if different than
above)
Click or tap to enter text.
Title
Click or tap to enter text.
Mailing Address Click or tap to enter text.
City Click or tap to enter text.
State Click or tap to enter text.
Zip Code Click or tap to enter text.
Telephone Click or tap to enter text.
Email Address Click or tap to enter text.
Alternative Telephone (cell phone or other) Click or tap to enter text.
Property Owner Contact (if different than above)
Click or tap to enter text.
Title
Click or tap to enter text.
Mailing Address
Click or tap to enter text.
City
Click or tap to enter text.
State
Click or tap to enter text.
Zip Code
Click or tap to enter text.
Telephone
Click or tap to enter text.
Email Address
Click or tap to enter text.
Alternative Telephone (cell phone or other)
Click or tap to enter text.
VIII. Waste Types IX. Facility Area
☒ Landfill will accept all wastes allowed in Class IV or VI landfills OR landfill will
accept only the following wastes:

Waste Type Combined Disposal Unit Monofil Unit
☐ Construction and Demolition ................................... ☐ ........................ ☐
☐ Tires (Not for disposal/ burial) ................................. ☐ ........................ ☐
☐ Yard Waste ............................................................. ☐ ........................ ☐
☐ Dead Animals .......................................................... ☐ ........................ ☐
☐ Contaminated Soil ................................................... ☐ ........................ ☐
☐ Other: Click or tap here to enter text. ............. ☐ ........................ ☐

Note: Disposal of dead animals must be approved by the Director
Facility Area: 298 Acres

Disposal Area: 49 Acres

Design Capacity: 40 Years
15,000,000 Cubic Yards
15,000,000 Tons

Utah Class IV and VI Landfill Facility Permit Application Checklist
3 Revision Date: Jan 23, 2025.
Always refer to current rules to verify requirements.
PART II - APPLICATION CHECKLIST
Description of Item Rule(s) Cited Included in Submission Location in the Document/ Comments
IIa. Requirements For All Facilities
Complete Part I - General
Information R315-310-3(1)(a) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part I
General facility descriptions
including maps, plans, and
drawings.
R315-310-3(1)(b) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 1, Appendix A
Legal description of the property,
proof of ownership, lease
agreement, or other mechanism
R315-310-3(1)(c) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 2, Appendix C
Waste type, anticipated daily
volume, and area served by the
facility
R315-310-3(1)(d) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 1.1 and Section 1.2.
Part III, Section 2.3, Appendix B
Plan of Operation as required by
R315-302-2(2) R315-310-3(1)(e) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 3
Form used to record weights or
volumes of waste received required
by R315-302-2(3)(a)(i)
R315-310-3(1)(f) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Appendix D
Inspection schedule and inspection
log as required by R315-302-2(5)(a) R315-310-3(1)(g) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 3.3
Closure and post-closure plans
required by Section R315-302-3 R315-310-3(1)(h) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part III, Section 2 and Section 3
Documentation to show that any
wastewater treatment facility, such
as run-off or a leachate treatment
system is being reviewed by the
Division of Water Quality
R315-310-3(1)(i) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain
Not a new facility nor a landfill expanding
beyond the existing property boundaries
outlined in the current permit.
Proposed financial assurance plan
that meets the requirements of R-
315-309
R315-310-3(1)(j) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part III, Section 4.0
Historical and archeological
identification efforts R315-310-3(1)(k) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Appendix H
An application for a new facility that
is owned or operated by a local
government shall include financial
information that discloses the costs
of establishing and operating the
facility
R315-310-3(1)(l) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new facility nor a landfill expanding
beyond the existing property boundaries
outlined in the current permit.
IIb. Public Participation Requirements for New or Expanded Class IVa Landfill Facility
Name and address of all owners of
the property within 1,000 feet of the
proposed facility
R315-310-3(2)(a)(i) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Documentation that a notice of
intent to apply for a permit for a solid
waste facility has been sent to all
property owners identified in R315-
310-3(2)(a)(i)
R315-310-3(2)(a)(ii) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Name of the local government with
jurisdiction over the site and the
mailing address of that local
government office
R315-310-3(2)(a)(iii) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Utah Class IV and VI Landfill Facility Permit Application Checklist
4 Revision Date: Jan 23, 2025.
Always refer to current rules to verify requirements.
IIc. Special Requirements for a Commercial (For-Profit) Solid Waste Disposal Facility
Is this a commercial facility? ☐ Yes, complete Section IIc. ☒ No, skip Section IIc.
Information required by 19-6-
108(10), including evidence of:
● A proven market, including
waste sources, quantity, pricing,
waste generation trends, and
competing facilities;
● Public benefits, including
meeting a capacity need,
recovery of energy and
resources, and reduction of less
suitable waste management
methods; and
● An acceptable compliance
history;

And, information to demonstrate that
the requirements of 19-6-108(11)
are satisfied, including evidence
that:
● The probable environmental
effect outweighs the probable
adverse environmental effect;
and
● The facility serves an industry
need in the state.
R315-310-3(3)(a) ☐ Yes ☐ No, explain Click or tap here to enter text.
After the issuance of a solid waste
permit, a commercial nonhazardous
solid waste disposal facility shall
meet the requirements of 19-6-
108(3)(c) and provide
documentation to the Director that
the facility is approved by the local
government, the Legislature, and
the governor
R315-310-3(3)(b) ☐ Yes ☐ No, explain Click or tap here to enter text.
Demonstrate that construction will
not begin until the requirements of
R315-310-3(2)(b) are met and
approval to begin construction has
been granted by the Director
R315-310-3(3)(c) ☐ Yes ☐ No, explain Click or tap here to enter text.
IId. Location Standards for a New or Expanded Class IVa Landfill Facility
Evidence the facility is not located
within 1000 feet of a national, state,
country, or city park, monument, or
recreation area, a designated
wilderness or wilderness study area,
a wild and scenic river area, or a
stream, lake or reservoir
R315-302-1(2)(a)(i) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Documentation that the facility is not
within ecologically or scientifically
significant natural areas, wildlife
management areas, or habitats for
threatened or endangered species.
R315-302-1(2)(a)(ii) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Evidence the facility is not located
within ¼ mile of existing permanent
dwellings, residential areas, and
other incompatible structures such
R315-302-1(2)(a)(iii) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Utah Class IV and VI Landfill Facility Permit Application Checklist
5 Revision Date: Jan 23, 2025.
Always refer to current rules to verify requirements.
as schools or churches unless
otherwise allowed by local zoning or
ordinance; and historic structures or
properties listed or eligible to be
listed in the State or National
Register of Historic Places.
Evidence the facility is at least ten
thousand feet of any airport runway
end used by turbojet aircraft or
within 5,000 feet of any airport
runway end used by only piston-
type aircraft unless the owner or
operator demonstrates that the
facility design and operation will not
increase the likelihood of bird or
aircraft collisions.
R315-302-1(2)(a)(iv) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Evidence the facility is not located
within a subsidence area, a dam
failure flood area, above an
underground mine, above a salt
dome, above a salt bed, or on or
adjacent to geologic features that
could compromise the structural
integrity of the facility.
R315-302-1(2)(b)(i) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Evidence the facility is not located
within 200 feet of a Holocene fault
unless the owner or operator
demonstrates to the director that an
alternative setback distance of less
than 200 feet will prevent damage to
the structural integrity of the unit and
will be protective of human health
and the environment.
R315-302-1(2)(b)(ii) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Evidence the facility is not located
within a seismic impact zone unless
the owner or operator demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the director that
any containment structures,
including liners, leachate collection
systems, and surface water control
systems, are designed to resist the
maximum horizontal acceleration in
lithified earth material for the site.
R315-302-1(2)(b)(iii) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
If the facility is located within an
unstable area, the owner or operator
shall demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the director that engineering
measures have been incorporated
into the facility design to ensure that
integrity of the structural
components of the facility will not be
disrupted.
R315-302-1(2)(b)(iv) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Evidence the facility is not located
on public land that is being used by
a public water system for watershed
control for municipal drinking water
purposes.
R315-302-1(2)(c)(i) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Evidence the facility is not located
within a floodplain unless the owner
or operator demonstrates to the
director that the unit will not restrict
R315-302-1(2)(c)(ii) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Utah Class IV and VI Landfill Facility Permit Application Checklist
6 Revision Date: Jan 23, 2025.
Always refer to current rules to verify requirements.
the flow of the 100-year flood,
reduce the temporary water storage
capacity of the floodplain, or result
in a washout of solid waste so as to
pose a hazard to human health or
the environment.
Evidence the facility is not located
within wetlands R315-302-1(2)(d) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Evidence that the bottom of the
lowest liner is more than five feet
from the historical high level of
groundwater.
R315-302-1(2)(e)(i)(A) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Evidence (if the facility is not lined)
that the lowest level of waste shall
be at least ten feet above the
historical high level of groundwater.
R315-302-1(2)(e)(i)(B) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Evidence the facility is not located
over a sole source aquifer as
designated in 40 CFR 149.
R315-302-1(2)(e)(ii) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Evidence the facility is not located
over groundwater classed as IB
under Section R317-6-3.3.
R315-302-1(2)(e)(iii) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
The applicant for the proposed
facility will make the demonstration
of groundwater quality necessary to
determine the appropriate aquifer
classification.
R315-302-
1(2)(e)(iv)(C) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Evidence the facility is not located in
a designated drinking water source
protection area or, if no source
protection area is designated, within
a distance to existing drinking water
wells or springs for public water
supplies of 250 days groundwater
travel time.
R315-302-1(2)(e)(v) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Evidence historic preservation
survey requirements have been
met.
R315-302-1(2)(f) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Evidence traffic impact study
requirements have been met. R315-302-1(2)(g) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Provide a topographic map of the
landfill unit drawn to a scale of 200
feet to the inch containing five-foot
contour intervals where the relief
exceeds 20 feet and two foot
contour intervals where the relief is
less than 20 feet, showing the
boundaries of the landfill unit,
groundwater monitoring wells,
landfill gas monitoring points, and
borrow and fill areas.
R315-310-4(2)(a)(i) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Provide the most recent full size
U.S. Geological Survey topographic
map, 7-1/2 minute series, if printed,
or other recent topographic survey
of equivalent detail of the area,
showing the waste facility boundary,
the property boundary, surface
drainage channels, existing utilities,
R315-310-4(2)(ii) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Utah Class IV and VI Landfill Facility Permit Application Checklist
7 Revision Date: Jan 23, 2025.
Always refer to current rules to verify requirements.
and structures within one-fourth mile
of the facility site, and the direction
of the prevailing winds.
Provide a geohydrological
assessment of the facility. R315-310-4(2)(b) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Provide engineering report, plans,
specifications and calculations. R315-310-4(2)(c) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Provide design and location of the
run-on and run-off control systems. R315-310-5(2)(b) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
Area to be served by the facility. R315-310-5(2)(d) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
How the facility will meet the
requirements of Rule R315-305 R315-310-5(2)(e) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a new or expanding Class IVa Landfill
IIe. Location Standards for a New or Expanding Class IVb or Class VI Landfill
Evidence the facility is not located
within a floodplain unless the owner
or operator demonstrates to the
director that the unit will not restrict
the flow of the 100-year flood,
reduce the temporary water storage
capacity of the floodplain, or result
in a washout of solid waste so as to
pose a hazard to human health or
the environment.
R315-302-1(2)(c)(ii) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain
Not a new Class IVb Landfill nor a landfill
expanding beyond the existing property
boundaries outlined in the current permit.
Evidence the facility is not located
within wetlands R315-302-1(2)(d) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain
Not a new Class IVb Landfill nor a landfill
expanding beyond the existing property
boundaries outlined in the current permit.
Evidence (if the facility is not lined)
that the lowest level of waste shall
be at least ten feet above the
historical high level of groundwater.
R315-302-1(2)(e)(i)(B) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain
Not a new Class IVb Landfill nor a landfill
expanding beyond the existing property
boundaries outlined in the current permit.
Evidence the facility is not located
within a subsidence area, a dam
failure flood area, above an
underground mine, above a salt
dome, above a salt bed, or on or
adjacent to geologic features that
could compromise the structural
integrity of the facility.
R315-302-1(2)(b)(i) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain
Not a new Class IVb Landfill nor a landfill
expanding beyond the existing property
boundaries outlined in the current permit.
If the facility is located within an
unstable area, the owner or operator
shall demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the director that engineering
measures have been incorporated
into the facility design to ensure that
integrity of the structural
components of the facility will not be
disrupted.
R315-302-1(2)(b)(iv) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain
Not a new Class IVb Landfill nor a landfill
expanding beyond the existing property
boundaries outlined in the current permit.
IIf. Standards for Performance
For a Class Iva landfill: Plan to
monitor groundwater as specified in
Rule R315-308
R315-305-4(4) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a Class IVa Landfill
Utah Class IV and VI Landfill Facility Permit Application Checklist
8 Revision Date: Jan 23, 2025.
Always refer to current rules to verify requirements.
Plan that demonstrates
concentrations of explosive gases
generated by the facility shall not
exceed twenty-five percent of the
lower explosive limit for explosive
gases in facility structures,
excluding gas control or recovery
system components
R315-303-2(2)(a)(i) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 3.5 (This facility is not
required to monitor landfill gas)
Plan that demonstrates
concentrations of explosive gases
generated by the facility shall not
exceed the lower explosive limit for
explosive gases at the property
boundary or beyond
R315-303-2(2)(a)(ii) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 3.5 (This facility is not
required to monitor landfill gas)
Plan to prevent violations of any
Utah Pollution Discharge Elimination
System permit or standard from
discharges of surface run-off,
leachate or any liquid associated
with the facility
R315-303-2(3)(a) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part III, Section 1.2 , Appendix F
Plan to maintain compliance under
the Clean Water Act for any
discharge as well as in compliance
with any area-wide or state-wide
plan under Section 208 or 319 of the
Clean Water Act.
R315-303-2(3)(b) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part III Section 1.2, Appendix F
IIg. Standards for Design
Evidence the facility is designed to
minimize liquids by applying cover
according to Subsection R315-303-
4(4).
R315-303-3(1)(a) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 3.2.4.8, Part III, Section
1.1.2 and 1.1.3
Evidence the facility will prohibit the
disposal of containerized liquids
larger than household size,
noncontainerized liquids, sludge
containing free liquids, or any waste
containing free liquids in containers
larger than household size.
R315-303-3(1)(b) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 3
Evidence the facility is designed to
prevent run-on of all surface waters
resulting from a maximum flow of a
25-year storm into the active area of
the landfill.
R315-303-3(1)(c) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part III, Section 1.2, Appendix F
Design for final cover of the landfill
which will be placed upon closure of
the landfill or a landfill cell.
R315-303-3(4) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part III, Section 1.1.4
Design drawings as appropriate
including: engineered structures,
landfill liners, leachate collection
systems, run-on/run-off control
systems, final covers, groundwater
monitoring systems, and gas
collections systems. Design
drawings shall be signed and sealed
by a professional engineer
registered in the State of Utah.
R315-303-3(8) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Appendix A
For a Class Iva Landfill: evidence
groundwater beneath the landfill will R315-305-4(4) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain Not a Class IVa Landfill
Utah Class IV and VI Landfill Facility Permit Application Checklist
9 Revision Date: Jan 23, 2025.
Always refer to current rules to verify requirements.
be monitored as specified in Rule
R315-308.
IIh. Plan of Operation for Class IV and VI Facilities
An intended schedule of
construction R315-302-2(2)(a) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Appendix E
Description of on-site solid waste
handling procedures R315-302-2(2)(b) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 3.2
Example of the form that will be
used to record weights or volumes
of waste received as required by R-
315-302-2(3)(a)(i)
R315-310-3(1)(f) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Appendix D
Schedule for conducting inspections
and monitoring R315-302-2(2)(c) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 3.3 and Section 3.4
Contingency plans in the event of a
fire or explosion R315-302-2(2)(d) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 3.5
Corrective action programs to be
initiated if groundwater is
contaminated
R315-302-2(2)(e) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 3.5.4
Contingency plans for other
releases, for example, release of
explosive gases or failure of run-off
containment system
R315-302-2(2)(f) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 3.5
Plan to control fugitive dust R315-302-2(2)(g) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 3.8.6
Plan to control wind-blown litter R315-302-2(2)(h) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 3.8.7
Description of maintenance of
installed equipment including
leachate and gas collection
systems, and groundwater
monitoring systems
R315-302-2(2)(i) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain
This landfill is exempt from groundwater
monitoring, leachate collection, and
landfill gas collection and therefore has no
equipment installed.
Procedures for excluding the receipt
of prohibited hazardous waste or
prohibited waste containing PCBs
R315-302-2(2)(j) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 3.2 and Section 3.3
Procedures for controlling disease
vectors R315-302-2(2)(k) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 3.8
Plan for an alternative waste
handling or disposal system during
periods when the solid waste facility
is not able to dispose of solid waste,
including procedures to be followed
in case of equipment breakdown
R315-302-2(2)(l) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 3.6
Closure and post-closure care plans R315-302-2(2)(m) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part III, Section 2.0 and Section 3.0
Cost estimates and financial
assurance information R315-302-2(2)(n) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part III, Section 4.0 and Appendix J and
Appendix K
Training plan for site operations R315-302-2(2)(o) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II, Section 3.10
III. High Liquid Waste Management
A High Liquid Waste Management
Plan, if applicable, that includes:
1) Waste acceptance criteria R315-303-3(2)(a) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain High liquid wastes are not permitted at the
North Pointe C&D Landfill
Utah Class IV and VI Landfill Facility Permit Application Checklist
10 Revision Date: Jan 23, 2025.
Always refer to current rules to verify requirements.
2) Dewatering unit design and
techniques
3) Other stabilization or treatment
techniques;
4) A communication plan to
inform customers of high liquid
waste acceptance criteria
For a facility that utilizes dewatering,
stabilization, or treatment
techniques, proof that:
1) A containment system having
a permeability of no more than
1 x 10^-7 cm/sec that
maintains integrity under the
operation of heavy equipment
will be installed and
maintained for: unloading
areas and structures; staging
areas; and dewatering,
stabilization, and treatment
areas.
2) Leachates derived from
dewatering or stabilization will
be appropriately managed.
R315-303-3(2)(b) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain High liquid wastes are not permitted at the
North Pointe C&D Landfill
If required, appropriate engineering
reports demonstrating that disposal
of dewatered high liquid wastes will
not result in unacceptable
geotechnical risks or landfill cell
failures.
R315-303-3(2)(c) ☐ Yes ☒ No, explain High liquid wastes are not permitted at the
North Pointe C&D Landfill
IV. Closure and Post Closure Care Requirements for Class IV and VI Facilities
Closure plan as required by R315-
302-3 meeting the requirements of
R315-305-5(5).
R315-310-3(1)(h)
R315-302-2(2)(m) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part III, Section 2.0
Closure plan shall project time
intervals at which sequential partial
closure, if applicable, is to be
implemented and identify closure
cost estimates and projected fund
withdrawal intervals for the
associated closure costs from the
approved financial assurance
instrument required by Rule R315-
309.
R315-302-3(3)(c) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part III, Section 2.0 and Appendix I.
Part III, Section 4.0
Post-closure care plan as required
by R315-302-3.
R315-310-3(1)(h)
R315-302-2(2)(m)
R315-302-3(6)
☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part III, Section 3.0
Information required by Subsections
R315-310-4(2)(d) and R315-310-
4(2)(e)
R315-310-5(2)(c) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part II and Part III
V. Financial Assurance Requirements for Class IV and VI Facilities
Financial assurance plan, including
the assurance mechanism proposed
for use.
R315-309-2(1) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part III, Section 4.0
Utah Class IV and VI Landfill Facility Permit Application Checklist
11 Revision Date: Jan 23, 2025.
Always refer to current rules to verify requirements.
Financial assurance cost estimates
based on a third-party performing
closure or post-closure care.
R315-309-2(3) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Appendix J
Identification of a financial
assurance mechanism, which will
cover the costs of post-closure care.
R315-309-2(4) ☒ Yes ☐ No, explain Part III, Section 4.0, Appendix K

PART II - GENERAL REPORT

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 - FACILITY DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 AREA SERVED .............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 WASTE TYPES .............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 FACILITY HOURS .......................................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 LANDFILL EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................................................ 3
1.5 LANDFILL PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................. 3
2.0 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................................. 5
3.0 – NORTH POINTE C&D LANDFILL OPERATIONS PLAN ............................................................................................ 7
3.1 SCHEDULE OF CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF WASTE HANDLING PROCEDURES ................................................................................... 7
3.2.1 General ................................................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.2 Waste Acceptance Records .................................................................................................................... 9
3.2.3 Waste Disposal ....................................................................................................................................... 9
3.2.4 Special Wastes – Wastes Excluded from the Landfill .......................................................................... 10
3.2.4.1 Used Oil and Batteries ................................................................................................................ 10
3.2.4.2 Appliances ................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2.4.3 Tires ............................................................................................................................................ 10
3.2.4.4 Dead Animals .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.2.4.5 Asbestos Waste .......................................................................................................................... 10
3.2.4.6 Grease By-Products ..................................................................................................................... 10
3.2.4.7 Sewer Sludge ............................................................................................................................... 10
3.2.4.8 High Liquid Wastes ..................................................................................................................... 11
3.3 WASTE INSPECTION .................................................................................................................................. 11
3.3.1 Landfill Spotting ................................................................................................................................... 11
3.3.2 Random Waste Screening .................................................................................................................... 11
3.3.3 Removal of Hazardous or Prohibited Waste ........................................................................................ 12
3.3.4 Hazardous or Prohibited Waste Discovered After the Fact ................................................................. 12
3.3.5 Notification Procedures ....................................................................................................................... 13
3.4 FACILITY MONITORING AND INSPECTION ................................................................................................ 13
3.4.1 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................................ 13
3.4.2 Surface Water ...................................................................................................................................... 14
3.4.3 Leachate Collection .............................................................................................................................. 14
3.4.4 Landfill Gas ........................................................................................................................................... 14
3.4.5 General Inspections ............................................................................................................................. 14
3.5 CONTIGENCY AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS ....................................................................................... 15
3.5.1 Fire ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
3.5.2 Explosion .............................................................................................................................................. 16

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
ii
3.5.3 Failure of Run-On/Run-Off Containment ............................................................................................. 16
3.5.4 Groundwater Contamination ............................................................................................................... 17
3.6 CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE HANDLING ................................................................... 17
3.7 MAINTENANCE PLAN ................................................................................................................................ 17
3.7.1 Groundwater Monitoring System ........................................................................................................ 17
3.7.2 Leachate Collection and Recovery System .......................................................................................... 18
3.7.3 Gas Monitoring System ........................................................................................................................ 18
3.8 DISEASE AND VECTOR CONTROL .............................................................................................................. 18
3.8.1 Insects .................................................................................................................................................. 18
3.8.2 Rodents ................................................................................................................................................ 18
3.8.3 Birds ...................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.8.4 Household Pets .................................................................................................................................... 19
3.8.5 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................. 19
3.8.6 Fugitive Dust ......................................................................................................................................... 19
3.8.7 Litter Control ........................................................................................................................................ 20
3.9 RECYCLING ................................................................................................................................................ 20
3.10 TRAINING PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................ 20
3.11 RECORDKEEPING ....................................................................................................................................... 20
3.12 SUBMITTAL OF ANNUAL REPORT ............................................................................................................. 21
3.13 INSPECTIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 21
3.14 RECORDING WITH COUNTY RECORDER .................................................................................................... 22
3.15 STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................................... 22
3.16 SAFETY ....................................................................................................................................................... 22
3.17 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES ....................................................................................................................... 22

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
1
1.0 - FACILITY DESCRIPTION
The North Point Construction and Demolition (C&D) Landfill is located in the Town of Fairfield in
Utah County. The facility is located 1.5 miles south of the center of town. The facility is a Class
IVb landfill that receives yard waste, inert waste, and construction and demolition (C&D) waste.
The landfill consists of 298 acres of property which is flat and generally sloping to the south and
east with approximately 70 acres of the property currently fenced. Of the 70 acres currently
fenced, 6 acres have been closed with 49 acres currently being utilized for disposal. Site
structures include a scale and scale house, small office, and a diesel fuel tank. The landfill site is
operated by excavating each cell below grade to provide both airspace for waste disposal as
well as to provide soils for landfill operations. The location of the Landfill is presented in
Appendix A – Permit Drawings.
1.1 AREA SERVED
The Landfill primarily serves the residents and businesses located in the western side of Utah
County and receives the C&D wastes transferred from the North Pointe Transfer Station in Lindon.
1.2 WASTE TYPES
The 2024 Annual Report for the Cedar Valley Landfill showed that the facility received
approximately 244,000 tons of C&D waste. Based on 254 operational days per year, the daily
C&D waste delivered to the landfill is approximately 960 tons. A copy of the 2024 Annual
Report is included in Appendix B – Annual Report.

The waste diverted into the Landfill shall be limited to the following wastes:
§ Yard Waste – brush, branches, clippings, leaves and grass.
§ Construction Wastes – waste generated from construction and includes building
materials used in construction. Construction related materials include packaging
materials from products, waste lumber, wallboard, boxes from appliances, empty paint

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
2
cans, empty caulking tubes, and empty sealer and adhesive cans. “EMPTY” means that
no more than 10% of the product remains inside the container.
§ Demolition Wastes – waste generated from the destruction or remodeling of buildings
and houses. Demolition Wastes may include furnaces, pipes, ducting and water heaters.
Furniture and other materials that are not part of the building structure must be
removed before demolition.
§ Untreated wood, including pallets and crates
§ Asphalt from roads and other surfaces

Waste materials that are specifically prohibited from the landfill include the following:
§ Household Wastes (Municipal Solid Waste)
§ Contaminated Soils
§ Friable asbestos
§ Tanks of any kind
§ Railroad ties
§ Cardboard not directly generated from construction or demolition activities
§ Furniture of all kind
§ Metal not directly generated from construction or demolition activities
§ Electronics of all kind
§ Treated lumber
1.3 FACILITY HOURS
The operating hours for the facility are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. year-round. The facility is open
Monday through Friday with the following holidays being observed:

§ New Year’s Day
§ Memorial Day
§ Independence Day (July 4th)
§ Labor Day

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
3
§ Thanksgiving Day
§ Christmas Day

The following facility information is posted at the gate:

§ Landfill Owner
§ Days of Landfill Operation
§ Hours of Landfill Operation
§ Instructional Signs (no scavenging, no hazardous materials, etc.)
§ Emergency Telephone Numbers
1.4 LANDFILL EQUIPMENT
The following equipment is on site and used in Landfill operations:
§ Caterpillar Dozer
§ Caterpillar Loader
§ Caterpillar Compactor
§ Caterpillar Scraper
§ Water Truck
§ Fuel Truck
§ Dump Truck
1.5 LANDFILL PERSONNEL
The following briefly presents the responsibilities for all on-site Landfill personnel at the
Landfill:

District Manager - The District Manager (Manager) is responsible for all matters relating to the
solid waste program for the Landfill. The Manager is responsible for the landfill operations
meeting all Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) permit
requirements. The Manager conducts regular facility inspections and monitors all Landfill

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
4
activities. The Manager is responsible for all operational documentation including the
preparation of the annual reports to DWMRC.

Landfill Supervisor - The Landfill Supervisor (Supervisor) is responsible for all matters relating to
the day-to-day solid waste program for the Landfill, including the overall landfill operations,
equipment operations, waste management and site development. The Supervisor is
responsible that the Landfill operations meet all DWMRC permit requirements. The Supervisor
conducts regular facility inspections and monitors all Landfill activities.

Landfill Operators – The Landfill Operators (Operators) are responsible for all day-to-day
equipment and waste placement activities at the Landfill. These responsibilities include, waste
acceptance and placement, traffic control, visual inspection of incoming waste, random waste
screening operations, and general construction as it pertains to Landfill operations.

Scale House Attendant – The Scale House Attendants (Attendants) are responsible for the initial
screening of all incoming waste. The Attendants track all incoming waste and updates Landfill
records as required. The Attendants are also responsible for all transactions at the scale house,
and the receipt of all monies.

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
5
2.0 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The landfill is located on property currently owned by North Pointe Solid Waste Special Service
District. The facility is located in Township 7 South, Range 2 West, Sections 5 & 8, Salt Lake
Baseline Meridian, Utah County, Utah.

The overall legal description is as follows:

Commencing at a point in the center land of a county road, said point being located
N00°45'22"W along the Section Line 1343.60 feet, and East 1257.45 feet from the West Quarter
Corner of Section 5, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, thence
S89°42'06"E, 74.22 feet, thence S00°16'40"E, 1347.56 feet, thence S89°48'26"E along the
quarter section line 1320.48 feet to the center of Section 5, thence S00°12'08"W, along the
quarter section line 2646.06 feet to the quarter corner common to Section 5 and Section 8,
thence S00°20'54"W along the quarter section line 2707.93 feet to the center off said section 8,
Township 7 South, Range 2 West, thence N89°32'40"E, along the quarter section line 1327.91
feet, thence S00°20'12"W, 1325.56 feet, thence N89°34'40"E, 1328.17 feet, thence
S00°19'3l"W, along the section line 1326.33 feet to the Southeast Corner off said Section 8,
thence S89°36'40"W, along the section line 2656.85 feet to the South Quarter Corner off said
Section 8, thence S89°36'21 "W, along the Section line 837.61 feet to the center line of a county
road, thence along the center line of said county road as follows N00°12'43"E, 302.92 feet,
thence N00°39'59"E, 1196.28 feet, thence N00°37'44"E, 2427.90 feet, thence N00°35'40"E,
1861.44 feet, thence N00°52' l 2"E, 405.93 feet, thence along the arc of a 400.00 foot radius
curve to the left 316.45 feet (chord bears N21 °47'38"W, 308.26 feet), thence N44°27'28"W,
473.22 feet, thence N45°02'02"W, 137.61 feet, thence N44°56'18"W, 131.01 feet, thence
N42°46'2l"W, 92.34 feet, thence along the arc of a 360.00 foot radius curve to the right, 313.28
feet (chord bears Nl7°50'34"W, 303.49 feet), thence N07°05'14"E, 428.46 feet, thence
N05°05'24"E, 201.10 feet, thence N04°53'03"E, 678.65 feet, thence N06°19'16"E, 569.05 feet,

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
6
thence along the arc of a 2550.00 foot radius curve to the left, 130.05 feet (chord bears N04°51
'36"E, 130.04 feet) to the point of beginning Less and exempting the following:
Beginning at a point in the center line of a county road said point being located N00°45'22"W,
along the Section Line 1343.60 feet, and East 1257.45 feet from the West Quarter Corner of
Section 5, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian and running thence
S89°42'06"E, 74.22 feet, thence S00°16'40"E, 447.43 feet to a fence line, thence S 89°59'07"W
122.66 feet along said fence line and the extension thereof to the center of said county road,
thence N06°19' 16"E, 320.22 feet along the center line of said county road, thence northerly
130.06 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 2550.00 feet ( chord bears
N04°51 '36"E, 130.037 feet) to the point of beginning.

Evidence of ownership is included as Appendix C – Property Ownership.

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
7

3.0 – NORTH POINTE C&D LANDFILL OPERATIONS PLAN
The Operation Plan for the Landfill has been written to address the requirements of Utah State
Solid Waste Regulations and describes the ongoing operations of the North Pointe C&D Landfill.

The general arrangement of the Landfill is as indicated on Drawing 2 (Appendix A). The
following section details the operational specifics of the Landfill. Forms used to document the
operations of the Landfill are included in Appendix D – Landfill Forms.
3.1 SCHEDULE OF CONSTRUCTION
The Landfill was an ongoing C&D landfill operation owned by Cedar Valley Landfill LC that
started operation in 2002 and was purchased by NPSWSSD on January 31, 2012. NPSWSSD
began day-to-day operation of the landfill in the spring of 2012 with the formal permit to
operate the facility being transferred to NPSWSSD on May 2, 2012.

The construction of the Landfill started at the north property boundary with the scale house
and scale operation and the initial landfill operations just south of the existing entrance. The
Landfill operation continues to move south with plans to relocate the scale house and scale
southward at some point in the future.

The development of the landfill moving forward is summarized in the Cedar Valley Landfill
Development Summary that is included in Appendix E – Development Summary.
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF WASTE HANDLING PROCEDURES
3.2.1 General
The waste control program is designed to detect and deter attempts to dispose of hazardous,
municipal solid waste or other unacceptable wastes at the Landfill. The program is designed to

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
8
protect the health and safety of employees, customers, and the general public, as well as to
protect against the contamination of the environment.

The Landfill is open for public and private disposal. Signs are posted along the Landfill access
road to clearly indicate (1) the types of wastes that are accepted at the C&D facility; (2) the
types of wastes not accepted at the site; and (3) the penalty for illegal disposal.

§ All vehicles delivering wastes enter through the scale house area and are met by the
Scale House Attendant. The Attendant inquires as to the contents of each incoming
load and enter the description of the vehicle and waste content into the scale software
program.
§ Any vehicle suspected of carrying unacceptable materials (liquid waste, sludges, or
hazardous waste) will be prevented from entering the disposal areas unless the driver
can provide evidence that the waste is acceptable for disposal at the site. NPSWSSD
reserves the right to refuse service to any suspect load. Vehicles carrying unacceptable
materials will be required to exit the site without discharging their loads.

§ Loads will be regularly surveyed at the tipping area. If a discharged load contains
inappropriate or unacceptable material, the discharger will be required to reload the
material and remove it from the Landfill. If the discharger is not immediately identified,
the area where the unacceptable material was discharged will be cordoned off.
Unacceptable material will be moved to a designated area for identification and
preparation for proper disposal.

No open burning or smoking is allowed near the work face.

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
9
3.2.2 Waste Acceptance Records
A monthly summary of all landfill transactions is created and kept on file at the Landfill or at the
NPSWSSD operations at the Lindon Transfer Station as part of the monthly billing activities.
Any or all transactions may be retrieved as necessary.
3.2.3 Waste Disposal
Ideally, the C&D wastes will be dumped at the toe of the work face when possible and spread
up the slope in one to two-foot lifts, keeping the slope at a typical five to one (horizontal to
vertical) configuration. Depending on the configuration of the working face and site access, the
waste will occasionally be pushed downslope into the working face.

Work face dimensions will be kept narrow enough to minimize blowing litter and reduce the
amount of soil needed for cover.

Typically, the Compactor is operated with the blade facing uphill. Equipment operations across
the slope are avoided to minimize the potential of equipment tipping over. In addition to
safety concerns, a toe of slope to crest of slope working orientation provides the following
benefits:

§ Increases effective compaction.
§ Increased visibility for waste placement and compaction.
§ More uniform waste distribution.

The wastes will be compacted by making three to five passes up and down the slope.
Compaction reduces litter, differential settlement, and the quantities of cover soil needed.
Compaction also extends the life of the site, reduces unit costs, and leaves fewer voids to help
reduce potential vector problems. Care is taken that no holes are left in the compacted waste.
Voids are filled with additional waste as they develop. At a minimum, cover soils will be applied

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
10
to all areas of the active cell at a minimum of every 30 days. Historically, the waste has been
covered with soil weekly to minimize the impact of any potential landfill fires.
3.2.4 Special Wastes – Wastes Excluded from the Landfill
3.2.4.1 Used Oil and Batteries
Used Oil and Batteries are not accepted at the Landfill. NPSWSSD directs patrons with used oil
to "Used Oil Recycling Centers."
3.2.4.2 Appliances
White goods are not accepted at the Landfill.
3.2.4.3 Tires
The Landfill accepts small quantities of tires from the general public.
3.2.4.4 Dead Animals
Dead animals are not accepted at the Landfill.
3.2.4.5 Asbestos Waste
Asbestos waste is not accepted at the Landfill.
3.2.4.6 Grease By-Products
Grease By-Product wastes are not accepted at the Landfill.
3.2.4.7 Sewer Sludge
Sewer sludge of any nature (wet or dry) is not accepted at the Landfill.

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
11
3.2.4.8 High Liquid Wastes
Wastes containing high concentrations of liquid are not accepted at the Landfill.
3.3 WASTE INSPECTION
3.3.1 Landfill Spotting
Learning to identify and exclude prohibited and hazardous waste from the Landfill is required to
maintain the Class IVb classification and necessary for the safe operation of the Landfill. The
Operators are required to receive initial and periodic hazardous waste screening inspection
training. Waste screening certificates of the training received are kept in the personnel files.
3.3.2 Random Waste Screening
Random inspections of incoming loads are conducted at least weekly or on a minimum of 1% of
incoming loads (whichever is greater). If frequent violations are detected, additional random
checks will be scheduled at the discretion of the Supervisor.

If a suspicious or unknown waste is encountered, the Operators proceeds with the waste
screening as follows:

§ The driver of the vehicle containing the suspect material is directed to the waste screening
area.
§ The Random Load Inspection form (Appendix D) is completed.
§ The suspect material is spread out with landfill equipment or hand tools and visually
examined. Suspicious marking or materials, like the ones listed below, are investigated
further:
- Containers labeled hazardous
- Material with unusual amounts of moisture
- Biomedical (red bag) waste

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
12
- Unidentified powders, smoke, or vapors
- Liquids, sludges, pastes, or slurries
- Asbestos or asbestos contaminated materials
- Batteries
- Other wastes not accepted by the Landfill
§ The District Manager is called if unstable wastes that cannot be handled safely or
radioactive wastes are discovered or suspected.
3.3.3 Removal of Hazardous or Prohibited Waste
Should hazardous or prohibited wastes be discovered during random waste screening or during
tipping, the waste will be removed from the Landfill as follows:

§ The waste will be loaded back on the hauler’s vehicle. The hauler is then informed of the
proper disposal options.
§ If the hauler or generator is no longer on the premises and is known, they will be asked to
retrieve the waste and informed of the proper disposal options.
§ The Supervisor will arrange to have the waste transported to the proper disposal site and
then bill the original hauler or generator.

A record of the removal of all hazardous or prohibited wastes will be kept in the site operational
records.
3.3.4 Hazardous or Prohibited Waste Discovered After the Fact
If hazardous or prohibited wastes are discovered at the Landfill after the hauler has left the
premises, the following procedure will be used to remove them:

§ Access to the area will be restricted.
§ The Manager will be immediately notified.

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
13
§ The Operator will remove the waste from the working face if it is safe to do so.
§ The waste will be isolated in a secure area of the Landfill and the area cordoned off.
§ Local authorities will be notified as appropriate.

The DWMRC, the hauler (if known), and the generator (if known) will be notified within 24 hours
of the discovery. The generator (if known) will be responsible for the proper cleanup,
transportation, and disposal of the waste.
3.3.5 Notification Procedures
The following agencies and people are contacted if any hazardous materials are discovered at the
Landfill:

§ Neil Schwendiman, District Manager ....................................... [phone]
§ Utah County Central Dispatch ................................................................ 911
§ Utah County Fire Department ............................................. [phone]
§ Utah County Health Department ............................................. [phone]
§ Director, DWMRC ...................................................................... [phone]

A record of conversation will be completed as each of the entities is contacted. The record of
conversation will be kept in the site operational records.
3.4 FACILITY MONITORING AND INSPECTION
3.4.1 Groundwater
The Landfill is not required to monitor groundwater.

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
14
3.4.2 Surface Water
Run-on diversion structures have been installed around the perimeter of the active Landfill
during the initial construction. The diversion structures include both ditches and berms.
Potential run-on waters will be diverted away from the working face of the Landfill.

In general, surface water that falls within the Landfill will naturally be contained in the active
area of the landfill. All potential run-on will be directed away from the Landfill via berms.

Run-off from the final cover will be managed by a combination of berms and ditches. The
berms will be placed to divert the water around the active area to ditches. The Drawings
(Appendix A) illustrate the locations and details of the run-off diversion berms and detention
ponds.

Facility staff will inspect the drainage system monthly. Temporary repairs will be made as
required to any observed deficiencies until permanent repairs can be scheduled. NPSWSSD or a
licensed general contractor will repair drainage facilities as required.
3.4.3 Leachate Collection
The Landfill is not required to collect or monitor leachate.
3.4.4 Landfill Gas
The Landfill is not required to monitor landfill gas.
3.4.5 General Inspections
Routine inspections are necessary to prevent malfunctions and deterioration, operator errors,
and discharges that may cause or lead to release of wastes to the environment or a threat to
human health. Operators are responsible for conducting and recording routine inspections of
the landfill facilities according to the following schedule:

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
15
§ Operators perform pre-operational inspections of all equipment daily. A post-
operational inspection is performed at the end of each shift while equipment is cooling
down.
§ All equipment is on a regular maintenance schedule. A logbook is maintained on each
piece of equipment and any repairs and comments concerning the inspection are
contained in the log.
§ Facility inspections are completed on a quarterly basis. Any needed corrective action
items are recorded, and the Operators complete needed repairs. If a problem is of an
urgent nature, the problem will be corrected immediately.
3.5 CONTIGENCY AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS
The Utah County Fire Department will be contacted in all cases where hazardous materials are
suspected to be involved. The following sections outline procedures to be followed in case of fire,
explosion, run-on/run-off contamination, or suspected groundwater contamination:
3.5.1 Fire
The potential for fire is a concern in any landfill. The Landfill staff follows a waste handling
procedure to minimize the potential for a landfill fire. If any load comes to the Landfill on fire,
the driver of the vehicle will be directed to a pre-designated area away from the working face.
The burning waste will be unloaded, spread out, and immediately covered with sufficient
amounts of soil to smother the fire. Once the burning waste cools and is deemed safe, the
material will then be incorporated into the working face. Some loads coming to the Landfill
may be on fire but not detected until after being unloaded at the working face. If a load of
waste that is on fire is unloaded at the working face, the load of waste will be immediately
removed from the working face, spread out, and covered with soil.

The Utah County Fire department will be called if it appears that Landfill personnel and
equipment cannot contain any fire at the Landfill. The Utah County Fire department will also be
called if a fire is burning below the Landfill surface or is difficult to reach or isolate.

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
16

In case of fire, the District Manager will be notified immediately. A written report detailing the
event will be placed in the operating record within seven days, including any corrective action
taken.
3.5.2 Explosion
If an explosion occurs or seems possible, all personnel and customers will be accounted for and
the Landfill evacuated. Corrective action will be immediately evaluated and implemented as
soon as practicable.

The District Manager will be notified immediately and the Utah County Fire department called.
The DWMRC Director will be notified immediately.
3.5.3 Failure of Run-On/Run-Off Containment
The purpose of the run-on/run-off control systems is to manage the stormwater falling in or
near the Landfill. Where possible, water will be diverted away from the Landfill by utilizing
ditches and berms. These ditches will be inspected on a regular basis and repaired as needed.
All precipitation falling near the Landfill will flow around the perimeter of the Landfill and
eventually towards the center of Cedar Valley.

If a run-off ditch or berm fails, temporary berms or ditches will be constructed until a
permanent run-off structure can be repaired.

Any temporary berms or other structures will be checked at least every 2 hours during the
storm event until storm water flow has stopped. Permanent improvements or repairs will be
made as soon as practicable.

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
17
The Supervisor will be notified immediately if a failure of the run-off systems is discovered. The
event will be fully documented in the operating record, including corrective action within 14
days.
3.5.4 Groundwater Contamination
The Landfill has no ground water monitoring wells. If ground water contamination is ever
suspected, studies to evaluate the potential contamination will be conducted and the existence
and/or extent of contamination will be documented. This program may include the installation
of ground water monitoring wells. A ground water monitoring program would be developed
and corrective action taken as deemed necessary, with the approval of the DWMRC Director.
3.6 CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE HANDLING
The most probable reason for a disruption in the waste handling procedures at the Landfill will
be weather related. The Landfill may close during periods of inclement weather such as high
winds, heavy rain, snow, flooding, or any other weather-related condition that would make
travel or operations dangerous. The Landfill may also close for other reasons like fire, natural
disaster, etc. In general, the NPSWSSD staff minimizes the possibility of disruption of waste
disposal services from an operational standpoint.

In case of equipment failure, replacement equipment will be mobilized from the NPSWSSD
Transfer Station operations or leased to continue operations while repairs are being made.
3.7 MAINTENANCE PLAN
3.7.1 Groundwater Monitoring System
The Landfill is currently exempt from requirements for groundwater monitoring. As a result, no
groundwater monitoring system is planned.

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
18
3.7.2 Leachate Collection and Recovery System
The Landfill is currently exempt from requirements for leachate collection. As a result, no leachate
collection and recovery system is planned.
3.7.3 Gas Monitoring System
The Landfill is currently exempt from requirements for a landfill gas monitoring system. No gas
collection system is planned.
3.8 DISEASE AND VECTOR CONTROL
The vectors encountered at the Landfill are flies, birds, mosquitoes, rodents, skunks, and snakes.
Due to the rural location of the landfill, stray house pets are occasionally encountered at the
landfill. The program for controlling these vectors is as follows:
3.8.1 Insects
The elimination of breeding areas is essential in the control of insects. Landfill staff will minimize
the breeding areas by covering the waste with soil at a minimum of every 30 days and maintaining
surfaces to reduce ponded water.
3.8.2 Rodents
Reducing potential food sources minimizes rodent populations at the Landfill. Due to the nature
of the C&D wastes, no significant numbers of mice or rats have been observed.

In the unlikely event of a significant increase in the number of rodents at the Landfill, a
professional exterminator will be contacted. The exterminator would then establish an
appropriate protocol for pest control in accordance with all county, state and federal
regulations.

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
19
3.8.3 Birds
The Landfill has had minimal problems with birds. Good landfilling practices of waste
compaction, daily covering of working faces, the minimization of ponded water, and the nature
of the waste at the site has alleviated most of the bird problems. If the occasional need arises,
the birds will be encouraged to leave by using cracker and whistler shells.
3.8.4 Household Pets
Because of the Landfills location, some stray cats and dogs may wander onto Landfill property.
When stray animals are encountered (and can be caught), they are turned over to the animal
shelter. If the Operators are unable to apprehend the animals, they are chased off the
property.
3.8.5 Wildlife
The Landfill has a variety of wildlife located on or near the landfill property. Wildlife includes
deer, snakes, foxes, skunks, and coyotes. If problem skunks or snakes are encountered, they
will be exterminated. If other site wildlife becomes a problem, the Landfill staff will coordinate
with the Division of Wildlife Resources to provide methods and means to eliminate the
problem.

In the event that any of these vectors become an unmanageable problem, the services of a
professional exterminator will be employed.
3.8.6 Fugitive Dust
The roads leading to the Landfill are paved, however; access roads to the working face are
improved dirt/gravel roads and will need occasional dust control measures. General
operational activities and site access by vehicles compounded by the occasional high wind may
present a fugitive dust problem. If the dust problem elevates above the “minimum avoidable
dust level”, the Operators will apply water to problem areas.

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
20
3.8.7 Litter Control
The nature of the C&D waste received at the Landfill is such that will naturally minimize the
blowing of litter. However, due to the nature of Landfilling operations, blowing litter will still be
an occasional problem. Landfill personnel perform routine litter cleanup to keep the Landfill
and surrounding properties clear of windblown debris.

Whenever possible, the working face is placed downwind so that blowing litter is worked into
the operating face. During windy conditions, landfill personnel minimize the spreading of the
waste to reduce the amount of windblown debris.
3.9 RECYCLING
Currently, no recycling activities are conducted in conjunction with the ongoing C&D
operations. Recycling opportunities exist at the Lindon Transfer Station.
3.10 TRAINING PROGRAM
All personnel associated with the operation of the Landfill receive site specific training annually.
The "Sanitary Landfill Operator Training Course" offered by the Solid Waste Association of
North America (SWANA) is required by all employees. SWANA waste screening is also required
of all Operators. Certificates of completion are kept in personnel files.

Regular safety and equipment maintenance training sessions are held to ensure that employees
are aware of the latest technologies and that good safety practices are used at all times.
3.11 RECORDKEEPING
An operating record is maintained as part of a permanent record on the following items:

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
21
§ Number of vehicles entering the landfill and types of wastes received on a monthly
basis. Daily logs forms are submitted to the NPSWSSD Transfer Station operations for
processing.
§ Deviations from the approved Plan of Operation.
§ Personnel training and notification procedures.
§ Random load inspection log.
3.12 SUBMITTAL OF ANNUAL REPORT
NPSWSSD staff will submit a copy of its annual report to the Director by March 1 of each year
for the most recent calendar or fiscal year of facility operation. The annual report will include
facility activities during the previous year and will include, at a minimum, the following:

§ Name and address of facility.
§ Calendar or fiscal year covered by the annual report.
§ Annual quantity, in tons or volume, in cubic yards, and estimated in-place density in
pounds per cubic yard of solid waste.
§ Annual update of required financial assurances mechanism pursuant to Utah
Administrative Code.
§ Training programs completed.
3.13 INSPECTIONS
The District Manager, or his/her designee, will inspect the facility to minimize malfunctions and
deterioration, operator errors, and discharges that may cause or lead to the release of wastes to
the environment or to a threat to human health. These inspections will be conducted on a
quarterly basis, at a minimum. A Facility Inspection Sheet (Appendix D) will be kept as part of the
operating record. This log includes at least the date and time of inspection, the printed name and
handwritten signature of the inspector, a notation of observations made, and the date and nature
of any repairs or corrective actions. Inspection records are available to the DWMRC Director or an
authorized representative upon request.

2025 North Point C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part II April 15, 2025
22
3.14 RECORDING WITH COUNTY RECORDER
Plats and other data, as required by the County Recorder, will be recorded with the Utah County
Recorder as part of the record of title no later than 60 days after certification of closure.
3.15 STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS
The Landfill personnel will maintain compliance with all applicable state and local requirements
including zoning, fire protection, water pollution prevention, air pollution prevention, and
nuisance control.
3.16 SAFETY
Landfill personnel are required to participate in an ongoing safety program. This program
complies with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) regulations as applicable. This program is
designed to make the site and equipment as secure as possible and to educate landfill
personnel about safe work practices.
3.17 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES
In the event of an accident or any other emergency situation, the Operator will immediately
contact the Supervisor and proceeds as directed. If the Supervisor is not available, the
Operator will call the District Manager or appropriate emergency number posted by the
telephone. The emergency telephone numbers are:

§ Neil Schwendiman, District Manager ....................................... [phone]
§ Utah County Central Dispatch ................................................................ 911
§ Utah County Fire Department ............................................. [phone]
§ Utah County Health Department ............................................. [phone]
§ Director, DWMRC ...................................................................... [phone]

PART III - TECHNICAL REPORT

2025 North Pointe C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part III April 15, 2025
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 – ENGINEERING REPORT ..............................................................................................................1
1.1 CELL DESIGN ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1.1 Fill Method ................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1.2 Interim Cover ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1.3 Final Cover .................................................................................................................................................. 2
1.1.4 Final Cover Elevations ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.2 DESIGN AND LOCATION OF RUN-ON/RUN-OFF CONTROL SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 2
1.3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 SITE SOILS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 FLOODPLAIN ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.6 WETLANDS ................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.7 GROUND WATER .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION ............................................................................................................................................. 4
2.0 – CLOSURE PLAN ...........................................................................................................................5
2.1 CLOSURE SCHEDULE .................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 DESIGN OF FINAL COVER ............................................................................................................................................ 5
2.3 CAPACITY OF SITE IN VOLUME AND TONNAGE .......................................................................................................... 6
2.4 CLOSURE COSTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.5 FINAL INSPECTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 – POST-CLOSURE CARE PLAN .......................................................................................................7
3.1 SITE MONITORING ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 POST-CLOSURE CARE COSTS ....................................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 CHANGES TO RECORD OF TITLE, LAND USE AND ZONING ......................................................................................... 8
3.3 MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
3.4 POST-CLOSURE CONTACTS ......................................................................................................................................... 8
4.0 – FINANCIAL ASSURANCE .............................................................................................................9
4.1 CLOSURE COSTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
4.2 POST CLOSURE CARE COSTS ....................................................................................................................................... 9
4.3 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM ........................................................................................................................ 9

2025 North Pointe C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part III April 15, 2025
1
1.0 – ENGINEERING REPORT
1.1 CELL DESIGN
The North Pointe Construction and Demolition Landfill (Landfill) is an ongoing C&D landfill
operation located south of Fairfield in Utah County. The landfill is operated as a continuous
cell with no specific boundaries to indicate individual landfill cells. The operation of the
landfill is progressing from north to south while bringing the elevation of the final waste to
design final cover elevations. Permit Drawings (Appendix A) shows the general arrangement
and conceptual final cover topography of the landfill.

The landfill is designed such that operational soils are excavated some 15 feet to 20 feet
below the existing grade to generate operational soils for monthly soil cover, landfill berms
and final cover construction. The excavation of the 15 to 20 feet of operational soil is also
shallow enough to ensure that the bottom of the landfill is more than 10 feet above the
highest ground water elevations projected for the site. A Central Valley Water Reclamation
stock water well located immediately west of the landfill shows ground water at 32 feet
below the ground surface.
1.1.1 Fill Method
As described in Section 3.2.3 of Part II – General Report, waste is dumped at the toe of the
working face and pushed uphill into place where possible. The C&D wastes will continue to
be dumped at the toe of the work face when possible and spread up the slope in one to two-
foot lifts, keeping the slope at a typical five to one (horizontal to vertical) configuration. The
C&D wastes will then be compacted by making three to five passes up and down the slope.
Site specific geometries and access road configurations may require that waste may need to
be place at the top of the working face and pushed downhill for processing.
1.1.2 Interim Cover
Interim cover will be placed in compliance with the DWMRC Class IVb requirements. Section
R315-305 stipulates that timbers, wood, and other combustible waste be covered as needed
to avoid a fire.

2025 North Pointe C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part III April 15, 2025
2
1.1.3 Final Cover
As specified in Rule R315-305-5, the final cover will consist of a minimum of two feet of soil,
the upper six inches of which will be topsoil material capable of sustaining native vegetation.
The topsoil layer will then be seeded with indigenous grasses and other shallow rooted
vegetation.
1.1.4 Final Cover Elevations
The northern portion of the Cedar Valley Landfill is near final maximum design elevation at
approximately 65 feet above the surround topography. The central area of the landfill will
be approximately 45 feet above the surround grade with the southern landfill area reaching
a final cover elevation of approximately 100 feet above surrounding grade. The top of the
final covers will slope a minimum of 5% from the center to the perimeter to provide for a
positive drainage of the final cover after potential settlement. The side slopes of all future
final covers will be no steeper than to 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). These slopes will allow for
some settlement without compromising the run-off characteristics of the cover soil. The
Permit Drawings (Appendix A) details the topography of the final cover.
1.2 DESIGN AND LOCATION OF RUN-ON/RUN-OFF CONTROL SYSTEMS
Run-on control berms and ditches have been installed to intercept potential run-on
precipitation from areas surrounding the Landfill. Given the nature of C&D debris, most of
the precipitation falling within the operating area of the Landfill will infiltrate or be stored on
site until the precipitation evaporates. Any precipitation that does not infiltrate or
evaporate will be contained by the run-off diversion berms the direct the run-off to
detention ponds. The run-off diversion berms and detention ponds are as indicated on the
Permit Drawings (Appendix A).

The Landfill operation has had all perimeter berms and ditches installed associated with the
initial landfill operations. All precipitation that falls on the site will remain on the site. As the
landfill operations continues to be developed to the south, additional perimeter ditches and
berms will be constructed to route any storm water from the Landfill’s operational face but
maintain the water on-site.

The design of the final cover will incorporate a run-off control system that will divert the
surface flows resulting from a 25-year,24-hour storm (2.08 inches – NOAA Atlas 14) that falls

2025 North Pointe C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part III April 15, 2025
3
on the landfill cover. The final cover surface will be divided into several sub-areas by grading
of the cover. Diversion berms and associated ditches located on the final cover of the landfill
will collect run-off from the final cover and transport it to detention ponds located around
the perimeter of the landfill property. Calculations of the flow rates from the predicted
runoff used for design of the storm water collection ditches are provided in Appendix F -
Hydrology. The individual drainage areas that match the storm water calculations are also
included in Appendix F.

Surface water that flows off the intermediate cover will be intercepted by diversion berms
and will be treated as non-contact run-off water. The intermediate cover will be graded to
minimize the amount of precipitation that would infiltrate into the waste materials.
Additional berms and ditches will be incorporated into the active landfill areas to direct the
precipitation away from the working face.

NPSWSSD personnel are responsible for the maintenance of the slopes and drainage systems
to ensure the efficient operation of the run-off system.
1.3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Landfill is located in Cedar Valley in Utah County. Information on the regional geology,
hydrology and groundwater can be see in Appendix G – Groundwater Conditions. Appendix
G – Groundwater Conditions presents the Utah State Engineer Technical Publication No. 16
entitled Ground-Water Conditions in Cedar Valley, Utah County, Utah.
1.4 SITE SOILS
Excavations across the site that were made in conjunction with the development of the
Landfill indicate that the site is predominantly silty fine sand or fine sandy silts. Geologic
maps identify the soils as:

Qlf: Lacustrine fine-grained deposits (upper Pleistocene)
Sand, silt, marl, and calcareous clay of Lake Bonneville; thinly to very thick bedded;
locally includes the white marl of Gilbert (1890); thickness to 100 feet (30 m) or
more.
Additional information on the site soils and geology can be found in Appendix G –
Groundwater Conditions.

2025 North Pointe C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part III April 15, 2025
4
1.5 FLOODPLAIN
The Landfill is not located in a floodplain.
1.6 WETLANDS
The Landfill is not located in or near wetlands.
1.7 GROUND WATER
The depth to ground water; measured in the Central Valley Water Reclamation stock water
well located immediately west of the landfill indicates ground water at approximately 32
feet below the ground surface. Additional information on the ground water resources in the
Cedar Valley can be found in Appendix G – Groundwater Conditions in Cedar Valley.

1.8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Since the landfill operations will ultimately expand onto NPSWSSD lands to the south of the
existing operations, the District Manager had a Cultural Resources Inventory performed on
the district owned property south of the existing landfill operations. The Cultural Resources
Inventory concluded that no cultural resources sites were identified on the property. The
entire Cultural Resources Inventory for the Cedar Valley Landfill is presented in Appendix H –
Historic Preservation.

2025 North Pointe C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part III April 15, 2025
5
2.0 – CLOSURE PLAN
2.1 CLOSURE SCHEDULE
The Landfill will be closed incrementally as portions of the landfill reach final grade.
Currently, six acres of the landfill have been closed while 49 acres are currently being
operated for C&D waste disposal. Based on facility life calculations final closure of the facility
is expected to be more than 40 years in the future.
2.2 DESIGN OF FINAL COVER
As discussed previously, the final cover will consist of a minimum of two feet of soil six
inches of which will consist of a topsoil material. The future side slopes of the final cover will
be no steeper than a 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) with no portion of the final cover less than a
5% slope. The cover soil will be seeded with indigenous grasses.

Final cover closure construction will be governed by a quality assurance / quality control
(QA/QC) plan for the landfill. The QA/QC plan will help to ensure that the final cover is
constructed as designed. A copy of the QA/QC plan is included as Appendix I – 2024 Final
Cover QA/QC Plan.

2025 North Pointe C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part III April 15, 2025
6
2.3 CAPACITY OF SITE IN VOLUME AND TONNAGE
The Landfill capacity and projected life are as follows:

Available airspace – 15,000,000 cubic yards
2024 tons per year – 244,088
Assumed yearly increase in waste volume – 2%
Landfill Life – approximately 40 years
2.4 CLOSURE COSTS
The closure costs at the Cedar Valley Landfill are primarily the costs associated with the final
grading of wastes and the placement of final cover soils. Seeding and erosion control
features are also included in the closure cost estimates. Appendix J – Closure / Post-Closure
Care Costs detail the closure costs.

2.5 FINAL INSPECTION
A final inspection will be performed at the Landfill site at the termination of landfilling
activities. The final inspection will determine if the Landfill meets all the closure
requirements as outlined in the permit and closure plans. The final inspection will be
performed by both NPSWSSD and State of Utah DWMRC personnel.

2025 North Pointe C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part III April 15, 2025
7
3.0 – POST-CLOSURE CARE PLAN

3.1 SITE MONITORING
There are no post-closure monitoring requirements for ground water, leachate, or landfill
gas at the Landfill since there are no ground water, leachate or gas collection systems at the
facility. However, the landfill cover and other physical aspects of the Landfill will be
monitored on a quarterly basis during the post-closure care period.

Landfill topography shall be visually checked for depressions that could result in ponding or
rapid erosion. Irregularities in the surface of the final cover will be regraded and revegetated
as needed to protect the surface from erosion and to eliminate ponding.

Side slopes will be maintained or regraded to original slopes and the top slopes will be
maintained or regraded to prevent ponding. The frequency of monitoring may be reduced
only after a successful demonstration to the DWMRC Director that the closed Landfill has
stabilized.

During the post-closure care period, run-off from the covered Landfill will be directed toward
ditches constructed to collect and transport runoff to natural drainages east and southeast
of the site. The ditches will be inspected quarterly through the post-closure period. Repairs to
the ditches will be completed as part of the maintenance activities.

3.2 POST-CLOSURE CARE COSTS
The post-closure care costs are for a period 30 years. The post-closure care costs are
primarily associated with the maintenance of the final cover and general site drainage
structures. Post-closure care costs include costs for any SWPPP, UPDES, or DEQ permitting
as required. The Post-closure care costs are presented in Appendix J – Closure / Post-
Closure Care Costs.

2025 North Pointe C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part III April 15, 2025
8
3.2 CHANGES TO RECORD OF TITLE, LAND USE AND ZONING
The Utah County Recorder will be provided plats and a statement of fact concerning the
location of any disposal site no later than 60-days after certification of closure. If necessary,
the closed Landfill will be rezoned to conform to the existing Utah County zoning regulations
after final closure. A description of the Landfill history and filled areas will be permanently
appended to the record of title. Land use restrictions will be assigned to the site in
compliance with existing regulations for closed landfills at the time of closure.
3.3 MAINTENANCE
Post-closure maintenance activities will be designed and implemented under the direction of
a licensed professional engineer in response to results of inspections. Results of post-closure
maintenance shall be reported to the DWMRC Director by a professional engineer licensed
in the state of Utah.

Because of the arid climate in Utah County, maintenance of final covers and run-on/run-off
systems should be minimal. Final cover and control structures will be inspected quarterly as
indicated previously.

Run-on/run-off control structures and final covers could be damaged by an unusually intense
storm. Consequently, an unscheduled inspection may be required after any occurrence of an
unusual storm event within a five-mile radius of the site. If the post-storm inspection
discloses damage, the damage will be appraised by a licensed engineer. NPSWSSD staff will
solicit bids if necessary and supervise repair construction as necessary. Funds for payment
for the repair work will be disbursed from the Financial Assurance Funds after approval by
the DWMRC Director.

3.4 POST-CLOSURE CONTACTS

North Pointe SWSSD ....................................................................... [phone]

2025 North Pointe C&D Landfill Repermit Application Part III April 15, 2025
9
4.0 – FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
4.1 CLOSURE COSTS
The North Pointe Construction and Demolition (C&D) Landfill will be closed as portions of
the Landfill reach final grade. The typical size of each closure is anticipated to be no larger
than 10–acres. The closure cost estimates are based on the cost to close the largest area
open which is the existing 49 acres. Closure cost estimates include the cost of obtaining,
moving and placing the cover material, final grading, placing topsoil, fertilizing and seeding.
4.2 POST CLOSURE CARE COSTS
The post-closure estimate must be the cost for completing care reasonably expected during
the 30-year post-closure period. These tasks include site inspections, maintenance, and
record keeping.
4.3 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM
Financial assurance mechanism in place is a PTIF fund with the state of Utah. The PTIF fund
(account 7363) paperwork are presented in Appendix K – Financial Assurance.

NPSWSSD is able to fund any closure /post-closure care costs not currently in the PTIF fund
through the Local Government Financial Test detailed in R315-309-8.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A – PERMIT DRAWINGS
APPENDIX B – ANNUAL REPORT
APPENDIX C – PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
APPENDIX D – LANDFILL FORMS
APPENDIX E – DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
APPENDIX F – HYDROLOGY
APPENDIX G – GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN CEDAR VALLEY
APPENDIX H – HISTORIC PRESERVATION
APPENDIX I – 2024 FINAL COVER QA/QC PLAN
APPENDIX J – CLOSURE / POST-CLOSURE CARE COSTS
APPENDIX K – FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
APPENDIX A – PERMIT DRAWINGS

A
B'
A'
B
C C'
D D'
E E'
F
G H
G'H'
F'
A
B'
A'
B
C C'
D D'
E E'
F
G H
G'H'
F'
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
8/28/24 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
1
SHEET TITLE
TITLE SHEET
CLOSURE AREAS ARE
APPROXIMATE AND MAY VARY
DUE TO COVER SOIL
AVAILABILITY.
BY
:
RE
M
Y
T

8/2
8
/
2
0
2
4

\\
S
L
C
-
D
C
1
6
\
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
0
0
8
5
3

-

N
P
S
W
S
S
D
\
0
1
1
-
C
E
D
A
R

V
A
L
L
E
Y

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
\
2
0
2
5

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
O
I
N
T

C
H
E
C
K
\
2
0
2
4

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L

C
L
O
S
U
R
E

N
O
R
T
H
-
R
A
I
S
E
D

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
.
D
W
G
REFERENCE:
BACKGROUND IMAGES: USGS TOPO MAP (7.5 MIN SERIES)
PROVIDED BY UTAH AGRC
VICINITY MAP
INDEX
1 TITLE SHEET
2 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
3 FINAL GRADE NORTH
4 FINAL GRADE CENTRAL
5 FINAL GRADE SOUTH
6 NORTH SECTIONS
7 CENTRAL SECTIONS
8 SOUTH SECTIONS
9 DETAILS
LOCATION MAP
SITE MAP
(NOT TO SCALE)
CEDAR VALLEY
CLASS IVb LANDFILL
2025 PERMIT APPLICATION
GATE
SCALEHOUSE
ACTIVELANDFILL
WEST DESERTAIRPARK
18
1
5
0

W
E
S
T
PROPERTYBOUNDARYPROPERTYBOUNDARY
REFERENCE:
BACKGROUND IMAGES: 2018 NAIP,
PROVIDED BY UTAH AGRC
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
2
SHEET TITLE
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
8/28/24 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
NS
E
W
NORTH AREA
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
CLOSURE AREAS ARE
APPROXIMATE AND MAY VARY
DUE TO COVER SOIL
AVAILABILITY.
BY
:
RE
M
Y
T
8/2
8
/
2
0
2
4
\\
S
L
C
-
D
C
1
6
\
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
0
0
8
5
3

-

N
P
S
W
S
S
D
\
0
1
1
-
C
E
D
A
R

V
A
L
L
E
Y

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
\
2
0
2
5

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
O
I
N
T

C
H
E
C
K
\
2
0
2
4

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L

C
L
O
S
U
R
E

N
O
R
T
H
-
R
A
I
S
E
D

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
.
D
W
G
Feet
0 800 1600
CENTRAL AREA
SOUTH AREA
MAIN GATESCALE HOUSE
A
B'
A'
B
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
3+
0
0
4+
0
0
5+
0
0
6+
0
0
7+
0
0
8+
0
0
9+
0
0
10
+
0
0
11
+
0
0
12
+
0
0
13
+
0
0
14
+
0
0
15
+
0
0
16
+
0
0
16
+
8
1
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+0018+43
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
3
SHEET TITLE
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
8/28/24 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
NS
E
W
NORTH AREA FILL VOLUME:185,350 CUYD
Feet
0 200 400
FINAL GRADE
(NORTH AREA)
ACTUAL SLOPES AND ELEVATIONS
MAY VARY DUE TO EARLY CLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS
BY
:
RE
M
Y
T
8/2
8
/
2
0
2
4
\\
S
L
C
-
D
C
1
6
\
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
0
0
8
5
3

-

N
P
S
W
S
S
D
\
0
1
1
-
C
E
D
A
R

V
A
L
L
E
Y

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
\
2
0
2
5

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
O
I
N
T

C
H
E
C
K
\
2
0
2
4

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L

C
L
O
S
U
R
E

N
O
R
T
H
-
R
A
I
S
E
D

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
.
D
W
G
DIVERSION BERMS
DETENTION PONDS
-5.0%
B
C
C'
D
D'
E
E'
G'
0+00 1+00 2+000+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
3+
0
0
4+
0
0
5+
0
0
6+
0
0
7+
0
0
8+
0
0
9+
0
0
10
+
0
0
11
+
0
0
11
+
9
0
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
3+
0
0
4+
0
0
5+
0
0
6+
0
0
7+
0
0
8+
0
0
9+
0
0
10
+
0
0
11
+
0
0
11
+
9
0
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
3+
0
0
4+
0
0
5+
0
0
6+
0
0
7+
0
0
8+
0
0
9+
0
0
10
+
0
0
11
+
0
0
11
+
9
0
26+00 27+00 28+00 28+97
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
4
SHEET TITLE
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
8/28/24 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
NS
E
W
FINAL GRADE
(CENTRAL AREA)
ACTUAL SLOPES AND ELEVATIONS
MAY VARY DUE TO EARLY CLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS
BY
:
RE
M
Y
T
8/2
8
/
2
0
2
4
\\
S
L
C
-
D
C
1
6
\
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
0
0
8
5
3

-

N
P
S
W
S
S
D
\
0
1
1
-
C
E
D
A
R

V
A
L
L
E
Y

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
\
2
0
2
5

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
O
I
N
T

C
H
E
C
K
\
2
0
2
4

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L

C
L
O
S
U
R
E

N
O
R
T
H
-
R
A
I
S
E
D

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
.
D
W
G
Feet
0 300 600
CENTRAL AREA FILL VOLUME:2,424,680 CUYD
DIVERSION BERMS
DETENTION PONDS
4860.00
4870.00
4856.00
4858.00
4862.00
4864.00
4866.00
4868.00
4872.0
0
E
E'
F
G
H
G'
H'
F'
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
3+
0
0
4+
0
0
5+
0
0
6+
0
0
7+
0
0
8+
0
0
9+
0
0
10
+
0
0
11
+
0
0
11
+
9
0
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
3+
0
0
4+
0
0
5+
0
0
6+
0
0
7+
0
0
8+
0
0
9+
0
0
10
+
0
0
11
+
0
0
12
+
0
0
13
+
0
0
14
+
0
0
15
+
0
0
16
+
0
0
17
+
0
0
18
+
0
0
19
+
0
0
20
+
0
0
21
+
0
0
22
+
0
0
23
+
0
0
24
+
0
0
25
+
0
0
26
+
0
0
27
+
0
0
28
+
0
0
29
+
0
0
30
+
0
0
31
+
0
0
32
+
0
0
33
+
0
0
34
+
0
0
35
+
0
0
35
+
4
6
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+0028+97
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+0029+09
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
5
SHEET TITLE
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
8/28/24 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
NS
E
W
FINAL GRADE
(SOUTH AREA)
ACTUAL SLOPES AND ELEVATIONS
MAY VARY DUE TO EARLY CLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS
BY
:
RE
M
Y
T
8/2
8
/
2
0
2
4
\\
S
L
C
-
D
C
1
6
\
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
0
0
8
5
3

-

N
P
S
W
S
S
D
\
0
1
1
-
C
E
D
A
R

V
A
L
L
E
Y

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
\
2
0
2
5

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
O
I
N
T

C
H
E
C
K
\
2
0
2
4

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L

C
L
O
S
U
R
E

N
O
R
T
H
-
R
A
I
S
E
D

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
.
D
W
G
Feet
0 300 600
SOUTH AREA FILL VOLUME:12,544,447 CUYD
DIVERSION BERMS
DETENTION PONDS
Section A-A'
4800
4825
4850
4875
4900
4925
4950
4975
5000
4800
4825
4850
4875
4900
4925
4950
4975
5000
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00
Section B-B'
4800
4825
4850
4875
4900
4925
4950
4975
5000
4800
4825
4850
4875
4900
4925
4950
4975
5000
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
6
SHEET TITLE
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
8/28/24 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
NORTH AREA
SECTIONS
BY
:
RE
M
Y
T
8/2
8
/
2
0
2
4
\\
S
L
C
-
D
C
1
6
\
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
0
0
8
5
3

-

N
P
S
W
S
S
D
\
0
1
1
-
C
E
D
A
R

V
A
L
L
E
Y

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
\
2
0
2
5

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
O
I
N
T

C
H
E
C
K
\
2
0
2
4

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L

C
L
O
S
U
R
E

N
O
R
T
H
-
R
A
I
S
E
D

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
.
D
W
G
DT-02
9
DT-02
9
Section C-C'
4800
4825
4850
4875
4900
4925
4950
4800
4825
4850
4875
4900
4925
4950
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 11+90
Section D-D'
4800
4825
4850
4875
4900
4925
4950
4800
4825
4850
4875
4900
4925
4950
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 11+90
Section E-E'
4800
4825
4850
4875
4900
4925
4800
4825
4850
4875
4900
4925
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 11+90
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
7
SHEET TITLE
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
8/28/24 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
CENTRAL AREA
SECTIONS
BY
:
RE
M
Y
T
8/2
8
/
2
0
2
4
\\
S
L
C
-
D
C
1
6
\
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
0
0
8
5
3

-

N
P
S
W
S
S
D
\
0
1
1
-
C
E
D
A
R

V
A
L
L
E
Y

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
\
2
0
2
5

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
O
I
N
T

C
H
E
C
K
\
2
0
2
4

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L

C
L
O
S
U
R
E

N
O
R
T
H
-
R
A
I
S
E
D

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
.
D
W
G
DT-02
9
DT-02
9
DT-02
9
Section F-F'
4800
4825
4850
4875
4900
4925
4950
4975
5000
4800
4825
4850
4875
4900
4925
4950
4975
5000
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00
Section G-G'
4800
4825
4850
4875
4900
4925
4950
4975
5000
4800
4825
4850
4875
4900
4925
4950
4975
5000
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00
Section H-H'
4800
4825
4850
4875
4900
4925
4950
4975
5000
4800
4825
4850
4875
4900
4925
4950
4975
5000
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
8
SHEET TITLE
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
8/28/24 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
SOUTH AREA
SECTIONS
DT-02
9
BY
:
RE
M
Y
T
8/2
8
/
2
0
2
4
\\
S
L
C
-
D
C
1
6
\
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
0
0
8
5
3

-

N
P
S
W
S
S
D
\
0
1
1
-
C
E
D
A
R

V
A
L
L
E
Y

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
\
2
0
2
5

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
O
I
N
T

C
H
E
C
K
\
2
0
2
4

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L

C
L
O
S
U
R
E

N
O
R
T
H
-
R
A
I
S
E
D

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
.
D
W
G
DT-02
9
DT-02
9
TOPSOIL
COVER SOILS
WASTE
1
1
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
9
SHEET TITLE
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
8/28/24 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
DETAILS
BY
:
RE
M
Y
T
8/2
8
/
2
0
2
4
\\
S
L
C
-
D
C
1
6
\
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
0
0
8
5
3

-

N
P
S
W
S
S
D
\
0
1
1
-
C
E
D
A
R

V
A
L
L
E
Y

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
\
2
0
2
5

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
O
I
N
T

C
H
E
C
K
\
2
0
2
4

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L

C
L
O
S
U
R
E

N
O
R
T
H
-
R
A
I
S
E
D

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
.
D
W
G
APPENDIX B – ANNUAL REPORT

Summary
Neil SchwendimanCreated By: Feb 25, 2025Submitted Date/Time:
Total waste tires sent to combustion with energy recovery in reporting period. (in Tons)0.00
Total waste tires recycled in reporting period. (in Tons)0.00
Total waste tires currently stored at facility. (in Number)0.00
Total waste tires recycled in reporting period. (in Number)0.00
Calendar Year 2024
Total waste tires sent for landfilling in reporting period. (in Tons)0.00
TOTAL WASTE TIRES MANAGED BY OTHER MEANS IN REPORTING PERIOD (NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN OTHER MATERIAL MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES). (IN TONS)0.00
Total waste tires stored (in Tons)0.00
Total waste tires managed by other means in reporting period (not included in above). (in Number)0.00
Total waste tires sent to combustion with energy recovery in reporting period. (in Number)0.00
Total waste tires sent for landfilling in reporting period. (in Number)0.00
Facility Name North Pointe C&D Landfill
Street 480 North 18150 West (Allen Ranch Road)
City Fairfield
Zip Code 84013
County Utah
Latitude Degrees 40.24105556
Longitude Degrees -112.0972889
Permit No.0012R3
Facility Website utahcountygarbage.org
Facility Phone No.8012258538
Are materials accepted for drop-off by the public at this location?Yes
Currently in Operation Yes
Facility operates separate cells for C/D and municipal waste.No
Will an authorized representative conduct self-inspections of the facility this year, according to R315-301-7?No
Provide percent of materials received from outside of Utah and from each county in Utah during the reporting period. Total must add up to 100%:(Utah County)
Utah County 100.00
Total Materials received in reporting period. (in Tons)244088.36
Total Materials recycled, sent off-site, or managed by other means. (in Tons)244088.36
Conversion Factor Used to Report Tons.None
Total tons received at facility for disposal. (in Tons)244088.36
Total Municipal Waste In-State and Out-of-State. (in Tons)0.00
Total Industrial Waste In-State and Out-of-State. (in Tons)0.00
Total C/D Waste In-State and Out-of-State. (in Tons)244088.36
Current Landfill Remaining Capacity (In Tons)603217.00
Current Landfill Remaining Capacity (In Cubic Yards)591679.00
Current Landfill Remaining Capacity (In Years)2.13
Current Landfill Remaining Capacity (In Acres)10.00
Acres Currently Open 49.00
Acres Currently Closed 6.00
Current Closure Cost Estimate 724944.00
The closure cost estimate includes obtaining, moving, and placing cover material; final grading of cover material; obtaining, moving, and placing topsoil; fertilizing, seeding, mulching; removal of stored materials, buildings, and equipment.Yes
Capacity opened since last estimate (in Tons)0.00
Capacity to be opened in the coming year (in Tons)0.00
Capacity closed since last estimate (in Tons)0.00
Other
Comments
Enter the year in which the market pricing for materials and labor were obtained.2022
The cost estimate is based on how many acres of landfill area that does not yet have final cover approval from the Director49.00
The cost estimate has been adjusted for inflation each year. The inflation factor can be obtained each year from the Division's main web page under News and Announcements.Yes
Current Post-Closure Cost Estimate 353583.00
The post-closure cost estimate includes any required groundwater monitoring; leachate monitoring and treatment; cover stabilization, repair, erosion control, and reseeding as necessary.Yes
Enter the year in which the market pricing for materials and labor were obtained.2022
The cost estimate has been adjusted for inflation each year. The inflation factor can be obtained each year from the Division's main web page under News and Announcements.Yes
Comments
Current Amount or Balance in Mechanism (If facility has been operating for 10 years or more and balance does not equal or exceed total for closure and post-closure care, please contact the Division)488047.61
Current Financial Assurance Mechanism(ie. Bond, Trust Fund, Corporate or government Test etc.)PTIF & Government Test
Mechanism Holder and Account Number((ie. Name of Bond Company, Bank etc. Account number)North Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
A report of all training programs or procedures completed by facility personnel during the year is available to upload?Yes
Does the facility have a landfill gas collection system? If yes please briefly describe use of gas, e.g., flared or used for electricity generationno
Disposal Fees Paid for Calendar Year 51528.55
Disposal Fees Unpaid for Calendar Year (if any)0.00
Annual Disposal
MUNICIPAL
WASTE WITH
ORIGIN
IN-STATE (IN
TONS)
MUNICIPAL
WASTE WITH
ORIGIN
OUT-OF-STATE
(IN TONS)
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE WITH
ORIGIN
IN-STATE (IN
TONS)
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE WITH
ORIGIN
OUT-OF-STATE
(IN TONS)
C&D WASTE
WITH ORIGIN
IN-STATE (IN
TONS)
C&D WASTE
WITH ORIGIN
OUT-OF-STATE
(IN TONS)
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 244088.36 0.00
Facility Operator Contact and Address
FIRST NAME LAST NAME PHONE EMAIL
FACILITY
OPERATOR
STREET
FACILITY
OPERATOR
CITY
Neil Schwendiman [phone] [e-mail]2000 West 200 SouthLindon
Facility Owner Contact and Address
FIRST NAME LAST NAME PHONE EMAIL
FACILITY
OWNER
STREET
FACILITY
OWNER CITY
Neil Schwendiman [phone] [e-mail]2000 West 200 SouthLindon
Total Materials Received and Recycled
TOTAL
MATERIALS
RECEIVED IN
REPORTING
PERIOD. (IN
TONS)
TOTAL
MATERIALS
RECYCLED IN
REPORTING
PERIOD. (IN
TONS)
TOTAL
MATERIALS
SENT FOR
LANDFILLING
IN REPORTING
PERIOD. (IN
TONS)
TOTAL
MATERIALS
SENT TO
COMPOSTING
IN REPORTING
PERIOD. (IN
TONS)
TOTAL
MATERIALS
SENT TO
COMBUSTION
WITH ENERGY
RECOVERY IN
REPORTING
PERIOD. (IN
TONS)
TOTAL
MATERIALS
MANAGED BY
OTHER
MEANS IN
REPORTING
PERIOD (NOT
ACCOUNTED
FOR IN OTHER
MATERIAL
MANAGEMENT
CATEGORIES).
(IN TONS)
244088.36 0.00 244088.36 0.00 0.00 0.00
Documents
DOCUMENT NAME UPLOADED
DOCUMENTS
EXTERNAL
COMMENTS
INTERNAL
COMMENTS
Supplemental Documents - You may attach 1 or more documents in the following formats: JPG, JPEG, PNG, PDF, XLS, XLSX, DOC, or DOCX. Max document size is 2 GB per document. Call the Division if you have documents that exceed this size 801-536-0200.2024 Training Topics.xlsx
APPENDIX C – PROPERTY OWNERSHIP

APPENDIX D – LANDFILL FORMS

Section 1
Date 2025-03-25
Time 12:04 PM (-6 GMT)
Inspector Name Sample
x This inspection sheet is used to document the condition of the facility on a Monthly
basis.
Scales:Sample
Corrective Action:Sample
Tool/Storage Container:Sample
Corrective Action:Sample
Fuel Station:Sample
Corrective Action:Sample
Side Slopes/Cover:Sample
Corrective Action:Sample
Litter:Sample
Corrective Action:Sample
Perimeter Fences:Sample
Corrective Action:Sample
Roadways:Sample
Corrective Action:Sample
Fire Extinguishers & Other items:Sample
Corrective Action:Sample
Signature
Date Submitted: 2025-03-25 12:05 PM
Submitted By: [e-mail]
LF Facility Inspection Sheet
Page 1 of 1
Landfill Waste Screening/Random Load Inspection
Inspector Information
Employee/Inspector's Name
Date
Time
Type of Inspection
Photo Documentation -Takes Pictures of Customers Load
Inspection Checklist
Vehlcle Type
Date Submitted: 2025-03-18 12:42 PM Submitted By: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 2
APPENDIX E – DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY

Cedar Valley Landfill
Development Summary
Section 1 – General Information
Cedar Valley Landfill is a Construction and Demolition (C&D) landfill comprised of 298.6 acres of land
located approximately 1.5 miles south of Fairfield in Utah County. The Cedar Valley Landfill was
purchased by North Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District (North Pointe) on January 31, 2012,
and had approximately 21 acres of (C&D) waste placed to approximately 65 feet above the
surrounding grade when the landfill was purchased. North Pointe began day-to-day operations of
the facility in March of 2012 and immediately closed the west slopes of the existing landfill. The first
closure activity at the landfill was documented in an IGES, Inc. report entitled Phase 1 Closure
(West Slope), Cedar Valley C&D Landfill, issued to the State of Utah Department of Environmental
Quality dated March 28, 2012.
The layout of the Cedar Valley Landfill is as presented on Drawing 1 – Property Boundary. All drawings
are included in Attachment 1.
Section 2 – Current Operations
North Pointe concentrated the C&D waste disposal from the initial acquisition of the property in 2012
through the late summer of 2023 in the area of the property identified as Existing Landfill on Drawing
1 – Property Boundary. Starting in late summer of 2023, waste disposal operations were moved to
Area 1 as indicated on Drawing 2 – Current Operations. Soil utilized for daily operations as well as for
use in the final cover construction of the Existing Landfill are being excavated from Area 2.
Landfilling operations will move to Area 2 and Area 3 once Area 1 is filled to the design capacity. Areas
1, 2, and 3 have a combined waste disposal capacity of approximately 1.6 million cubic yards that will
provide approximately 5 years at the current waste disposal rates.
Section 3 – Existing Landfill Closure Plan
Concurrent with the operation of Areas 1, 2, and 3, provisions for the closure of the Existing Landfill
(Drawing 1 – Property Boundary) are being made. Areas 2 and 3 will be excavated to at most 20 feet
below the existing grade in order to develop airspace for waste disposal. Soils generated from the
excavation of Area 2 and Area 3 will be used for operational soil in Area 1 with the rest of the soils
being utilized for the final cover construction of the Existing Landfill.
The excavation of Area 2 and Area 3 will produce approximately 330,000 cubic yards of soil to be used
for operations and final cover construction. The excavated soil will provide approximately 170,000
cubic yards to be used for the final cover construction of approximately 51 acres of the Existing Landfill

2
(Drawing 1 – Property Boundary) and operational soil in Area 2 and Area 3 for approximately 4 years.
Drawing 3 – Landfill Closure shows the location of each of the annual closure Stages associated with
the closure of the Existing Landfill.
Section 4 – Landfill Development
Concurrent with the closure of the Existing Landfill (Drawing 1 – Property Boundary), the Central and
Southern areas of the landfill property will be developed. Major developments will include moving the
landfill entrance and developing a new disposal area.
Central Expansion
Drawing 4 – Proposed Grade (Central) show the proposed final cover elevations as well as the
operational areas associated with the Central Area of Cedar Valley Landfill. A new entrance,
scale house, scale and support facilities is scheduled to be established in calendar year 2026.
The Central area of the landfill will be utilized for waste disposal once the Southern Area reaches
capacity and is conceptually planned to be limited to a final elevation that is approximately 45
feet about the surrounding area.
Southern Expansion
Landfilling operations will begin in the Southern Area (Area 4) once the new entrance to the
facility is established in approximately 2026. The topography of the Southern Area is
presented on Drawing 5 – Final Grade (100’ Height) and is limited to a height above the
existing grade of approximately 100 feet. The conceptual final cover contours are shown with
two peaks with a saddle between the peaks to keep the height of the landfill lower in the path
of aircraft that may be using the airport at the northern end of the landfill property.
Section 5 – Cedar Valley Landfill Development Timeline
The landfill development timeline was generated by assessing landfill operations, making engineering
calculations, developing a conceptual landfill topography and making estimates of future waste
disposal requirements for the facility. Based on the operational assessments and engineering
calculations, the following summarizes the timeline that was developed for the Cedar Valley Landfill:
2023
• C&D waste disposal ended on the historic landfill footprint in late summer of 2023 with disposal
operations being moved to Area 1.
• Operation agreement with Fairfield City has been negotiated during the fall of 2023 and is
anticipated to be finalize by the end of 2023.
2024
• Area 1 will continue to be utilized for C&D waste disposal with Area 2 and Area 3 being
excavated for operational soil and for the use in the Stage 1 Cover construction of the Existing
Landfill.

3
2025
• Area 1 and Area 2 will be utilized for C&D waste disposal with Area 3 being excavated for
operational soil and for the use in the Stage 2 Cover construction.
2026
• Area 2 and Area 3 will be utilized for C&D waste disposal with the Southern Area (Area 4) being
excavated for operational soil.
• Stage 3 Cover will be constructed using soil stockpiled from the excavation of Areas 2 and 3.
• Main landfill entrance, scale house, and support operations will be moved to the Central area
of the landfill.
2027
• The Southern Area (Area 4) will be utilized for C&D waste disposal.
• Stage 4 Cover will be constructed using soil stockpiled from the excavation of Areas 2 and 3.
2028
• Area 4 will be utilized for C&D waste disposal and operational soil.
• Stage 5 Cover will be constructed using soil stockpiled from the excavation of Areas 2 and 3.
• Final cover will be placed in Area 1 and Area 2 with soils from the Southern Area.
2029
• The final cover will be completed over Area 3 using soil from the Southern area of the landfill.
Attachment 2 visually presents the Cedar Valley Landfill Development Timeline. The actual timing of
the events listed in the timeline are estimates and will depend upon the actual waste volume delivered
to the landfill and the assumptions presented in Section 6.
Section 6 – Assumptions and Limitations
The anticipated development, landfill operations, and closures stages at the Cedar Valley Landfill are
predicated on the evaluation of current data and the predictions of future operations. The
development timeline and associated landfill milestones are based on the following:
• Incoming waste – approximately 175,000 tons per year
• Annual waste growth rate – 2%
• Minimum depth of excavation – 20 feet
• 15 percent soil use
• Maximum landfill height – approximately 100 feet in Southern Area and 45 feet in the Central
Area.
• Final cover topography – as presented on Drawing 4 and Drawing 5.
The projected landfill capacity is over 28 million cubic yards with a projected landfill life of
approximately 53 years. The assumptions above are the major criteria in the prediction of landfill use
and landfill life. Any changes to the above listed assumptions will have a direct impact to the life of the
landfill. This document is currently the best estimate of the landfill life but will need to be periodically
updated to reflect actual landfill operations.
ATTACHMENT 1
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
REFERENCE:
ADAPTED FROM MAP
PROVIDED BY CLIENT.
BOUNDARY
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
PROPERTY
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
1
SHEET TITLE
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
5/1/23 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
NS
E
W
Feet
0 800 1600
CENTRAL EXPANSION
EXISTING
LANDFILL
SOUTHERN
EXPANSION
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
REFERENCE:
ADAPTED FROM MAP
PROVIDED BY CLIENT.
OPERATIONS
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
CURRENT
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
2
SHEET TITLE
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
5/1/23 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
NS
E
W
Feet
0 400 800
1
2
3
AREA 1 - CURRENTLY BEING UTILIZED FOR C+D DISPOSAL
AREA 2 - CURRENTLY BEING UTILIZED FOR OPERATIONAL SOIL
AREA 3 - OPERATIONAL SOIL TO BE USED FOR C+D DISPOSAL AND
FINAL COVER CONSTRUCTION
CLOSED LANDFILL - AREA OF LANDFILL CLOSED IN 2012
CLOSED LANDFIL
L
LANDFILL
ENTRANCESCALEHOUSE/SCALE
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
REFERENCE:
ADAPTED FROM MAP
PROVIDED BY CLIENT.
CLOSURE
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
LANDFILL
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
3
SHEET TITLE
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
5/1/23 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
NS
E
W
Feet
0 200 400
STAGE 1
CLOSURESTAGE 2
CLOSURE
STAGE 3
CLOSUREST
A
G
E

4
CL
O
S
U
R
E
STAGE 5
CLOSURE
CLO
S
E
D

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L

(
2
0
1
2
)
2708'
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
REFERENCE:
ADAPTED FROM MAP
PROVIDED BY CLIENT.
(CENTRAL)
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
PROPOSED GRADE
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
4
SHEET TITLE
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
5/1/23 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
NS
E
W
Feet
0 400 800
STORM WATER
PONDS
SCALEHOUSE/
SCALE
NEW
ENTRANCEBERM
Approximate Airspace
2,164,000 cu-yd
ACCESS ROAD
1
2
3
FUTURE RUNWAY4
103050
60
60
70
70
70
80
80
90
90
90
100
100
100
100
0204060
80
10305070
90
0204060
80
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
REFERENCE:
ADAPTED FROM MAP
PROVIDED BY CLIENT.
(100' HEIGHT)
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
FINAL GRADE
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
5
SHEET TITLE
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
5/1/23 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
NS
E
W
Approximate Airspace
24,366,000 cu-yd
Feet
0 400 800
STORM WATER
PONDS

ATTACHMENT 2
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Stage 1
Cover Construction
Areas 1, 2, & 3
Fully Excavated
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE
Move Entrance
Agreementwith
Fairfield City
Stage 2
Cover Construction
Stage 3
Cover Construction
Stage 4
Cover Construction
Stage 5
Cover Construction
Start Excavationin
Area 4
Area 3
Cover Construction
Move LandfillOperations
To Area 4
Disposal Starts
in Area 1
Excavate
Areas 2 and 3
Area 1 & 2
Cover Construction
APPENDIX F – HYDROLOGY

AREA 1
AREA 2AREA 3
AREA 4
AREA 5
AREA 6AREA 7
AREA 8
AREA 9
AREA 10
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
8/28/24 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
NS
E
W
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
10
SHEET TITLE
HYDROLOGY MAP
CLOSURE AREAS ARE
APPROXIMATE AND MAY VARY
DUE TO COVER SOIL
AVAILABILITY.
BY
:
RE
M
Y
T
8/2
8
/
2
0
2
4
\\
S
L
C
-
D
C
1
6
\
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
0
0
8
5
3

-

N
P
S
W
S
S
D
\
0
1
1
-
C
E
D
A
R

V
A
L
L
E
Y

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
\
2
0
2
5

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
O
I
N
T

C
H
E
C
K
\
2
0
2
4

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L

C
L
O
S
U
R
E

N
O
R
T
H
-
R
A
I
S
E
D

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
.
D
W
G
Feet
0 800 1600
by duration for ARI (years):5-min:10-min:15-min:30-min:60-min:2-hr:3-hr:6-hr:12-hr:
1 0.136 0.207 0.256 0.345 0.427 0.508 0.558 0.69 0.842
2 0.173 0.263 0.326 0.439 0.543 0.646 0.694 0.851 1.04
5 0.241 0.367 0.456 0.614 0.76 0.844 0.893 1.05 1.25
10 0.304 0.462 0.573 0.772 0.955 1.04 1.07 1.22 1.44
25 0.397 0.605 0.75 1.01 1.25 1.33 1.34 1.47 1.69
50 0.486 0.739 0.916 1.23 1.53 1.6 1.62 1.68 1.89
100 0.585 0.891 1.1 1.49 1.84 1.92 1.94 1.96 2.12
200 0.708 1.08 1.34 1.8 2.23 2.31 2.33 2.36 2.45
500 0.902 1.37 1.7 2.29 2.84 2.91 2.94 2.97 2.98
1000 1.08 1.64 2.03 2.73 3.38 3.49 3.52 3.56 3.6
24-hr:2-day:3-day:4-day:7-day:10-day:20-day:30-day:45-day:60-day:
0.979 1.1 1.21 1.32 1.54 1.73 2.26 2.65 3.3 3.84
1.2 1.34 1.48 1.61 1.89 2.12 2.78 3.25 4.04 4.7
1.44 1.61 1.78 1.95 2.27 2.54 3.3 3.87 4.76 5.53
1.63 1.82 2.02 2.22 2.58 2.87 3.7 4.35 5.32 6.16
1.89 2.12 2.36 2.61 3 3.31 4.22 5 6.04 6.96
2.08 2.34 2.63 2.92 3.33 3.65 4.6 5.47 6.57 7.53
2.28 2.59 2.92 3.24 3.67 3.99 4.98 5.96 7.06 8.08
2.48 2.83 3.2 3.58 4.01 4.33 5.34 6.42 7.54 8.61
3.01 3.15 3.6 4.04 4.47 4.78 5.8 7.04 8.12 9.24
3.63 3.67 4.04 4.42 4.83 5.12 6.14 7.49 8.55 9.68
3 day value added
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Runoff Curve Number and Runoff
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Developed Comments:
1. Runoff Curve Number
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
2
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
3
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
4
D-heavy plastic clay 88 11.30 994.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS:11.3 994.4
CN Weighted: 994.4 88 8811.3
2. Runoff
ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration
25 24-hr 100 24-hr
Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
S in 1.3636364 1.3636364
Ia in 0.2727273 0.2727273
Runoff (Q)in 0.8774407 1.1952692
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
S(Area)==Use CNS(CNxArea)
Natural Desert landscaping
Cedar Valley Landfill North Area Runoff
Cedar Valley, Utah
Soil Name and
Hydrologic Soil Group
RMT
JAH
Cover Description
4/1/25
4/1/25
CN
Area 1
Area
(acres)CNxArea
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Time of Concentration(Tc) or Travel Time (Tt)
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
Sheet Flow
Segment ID A
1 Surface Description (Table 3-1)Smooth Surfaces
2 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n (Table 3-1)0.011
3 Flow Length, L (Total L< 300 ft)ft 300
4 2-year, 24-hr Ranifall, P2 in 1.2
5 Land Slope ft/ft 0.0366667
6 Tt hr 0.0623175 0.0623175
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Segment ID B
7 Surface Description Unpaved
8 Flow Length, L ft 650
9 Land Slope ft/ft 0.0615385
10 Average Velocity, V (figure 3-1)5
11 Tt hr 0.0361111 0.0361111
Channel Flow
Segment ID C
Flow Depth 0.9567016
Channel Side Slopes ?h:1V 2.5
12 Cross Section flow area, a ft2 2.2881948
13 Wetted Perimeter, Pw ft 3.5796495
14 Hydraulic Radius, r ft 0.6392231
15 Channel Slope, s ft/ft 0.0253333
Channel Material Earth 0.02
Degree of Irregularity Minor 0.005
Relative effect of Obstruction Negligible 0
Vegetation Low 0.0075
Degree of Meandering Minor 1
16 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n 0.0325
17 Velocity, V ft/sec 5.4148205
18 Flow Length, L ft 1500
19 Tt hr 0.0769493 0.0769493
20 Watershed or Subarea Tc hr 0.1753779 11
Cedar Valley Landfill North Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
Area 1
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Graphical Peak Discharge Method
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
1 Data
Drainage Area, Am mi2
Runoff curve number CN
Tc hr
Rainfall Distribution
Pond or Swamp Areas % of Am
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
Frequency yr 25 100
Duration 24-hr 24-hr
3 Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
4 Initial Abstraction, Ia in 0.272727 0.272727
5 Compute Ia/P 0.1443 0.119617
Tc hr 0.175378 0.175378
6 Unit peak discharge, qu csm/in 800 850
7 Runoff, Q in 0.877441 1.195269
8 Pond and Swamp Factor, Fp 1 1
9 Peak Discharge ft3/sec 12.39385 17.93838
0.01765625
88
0.175377911
2
II
0.0
Area 1
Cedar Valley Landfill North Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Runoff Curve Number and Runoff
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Developed Comments:
1. Runoff Curve Number
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
2
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
3
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
4
D-heavy plastic clay 88 8.40 739.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS:8.4 739.2
CN Weighted: 739.2 88 888.4
2. Runoff
ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration
25 24-hr 100 24-hr
Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
S in 1.3636364 1.3636364
Ia in 0.2727273 0.2727273
Runoff (Q)in 0.8774407 1.1952692
4/1/25
4/1/25
CN
Area 2
Area
(acres)CNxArea
Cedar Valley Landfill North Area Runoff
Cedar Valley, Utah
Soil Name and
Hydrologic Soil Group
RMT
JAH
Cover Description
Natural Desert landscaping
S(Area)==Use CNS(CNxArea)
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Time of Concentration(Tc) or Travel Time (Tt)
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
Sheet Flow
Segment ID A
1 Surface Description (Table 3-1)Smooth Surfaces
2 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n (Table 3-1)0.011
3 Flow Length, L (Total L< 300 ft)ft 300
4 2-year, 24-hr Ranifall, P2 in 1.2
5 Land Slope ft/ft 0.03
6 Tt hr 0.0675259 0.0675259
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Segment ID B
7 Surface Description Unpaved
8 Flow Length, L ft 200
9 Land Slope ft/ft 0.045
10 Average Velocity, V (figure 3-1)3
11 Tt hr 0.0185185 0.0185185
Channel Flow
Segment ID C
Flow Depth 0.8732313
Channel Side Slopes ?h:1V 2.5
12 Cross Section flow area, a ft2 1.9063325
13 Wetted Perimeter, Pw ft 3.2673325
14 Hydraulic Radius, r ft 0.5834522
15 Channel Slope, s ft/ft 0.02
Channel Material Earth 0.02
Degree of Irregularity Minor 0.005
Relative effect of Obstruction Negligible 0
Vegetation Low 0.0075
Degree of Meandering Minor 1
16 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n 0.0325
17 Velocity, V ft/sec 4.5271141
18 Flow Length, L ft 2000
19 Tt hr 0.1227174 0.1227174
20 Watershed or Subarea Tc hr 0.2087617 13
Area 2
Cedar Valley Landfill North Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Graphical Peak Discharge Method
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
1 Data
Drainage Area, Am mi2
Runoff curve number CN
Tc hr
Rainfall Distribution
Pond or Swamp Areas % of Am
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
Frequency yr 25 100
Duration 24-hr 24-hr
3 Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
4 Initial Abstraction, Ia in 0.272727 0.272727
5 Compute Ia/P 0.1443 0.119617
Tc hr 0.208762 0.208762
6 Unit peak discharge, qu csm/in 750 770
7 Runoff, Q in 0.877441 1.195269
8 Pond and Swamp Factor, Fp 1 1
9 Peak Discharge ft3/sec 8.637307 12.07969
Area 2
Cedar Valley Landfill North Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
0.013125
88
0.208761743
2
II
0.0
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Runoff Curve Number and Runoff
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Developed Comments:
1. Runoff Curve Number
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
2
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
3
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
4
D-heavy plastic clay 88 35.00 3080
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS:35 3080
CN Weighted: 3080 88 8835
2. Runoff
ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration
25 24-hr 100 24-hr
Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
S in 1.3636364 1.3636364
Ia in 0.2727273 0.2727273
Runoff (Q)in 0.8774407 1.1952692
4/1/25
4/1/25
CN
Area 3
Area
(acres)CNxArea
Cedar Valley Landfill Central Area Runoff
Cedar Valley, Utah
Soil Name and
Hydrologic Soil Group
RMT
JAH
Cover Description
Natural Desert landscaping
S(Area)==Use CNS(CNxArea)
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Time of Concentration(Tc) or Travel Time (Tt)
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
Sheet Flow
Segment ID A
1 Surface Description (Table 3-1)Smooth Surfaces
2 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n (Table 3-1)0.011
3 Flow Length, L (Total L< 300 ft)ft 300
4 2-year, 24-hr Ranifall, P2 in 1.2
5 Land Slope ft/ft 0.01
6 Tt hr 0.1047897 0.1047897
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Segment ID B
7 Surface Description Unpaved
8 Flow Length, L ft 1200
9 Land Slope ft/ft 0.0408333
10 Average Velocity, V (figure 3-1)3
11 Tt hr 0.1111111 0.1111111
Channel Flow
Segment ID C
Flow Depth 1.3861222
Channel Side Slopes ?h:1V 2.5
12 Cross Section flow area, a ft2 4.8033366
13 Wetted Perimeter, Pw ft 5.1863942
14 Hydraulic Radius, r ft 0.9261418
15 Channel Slope, s ft/ft 0.0222222
Channel Material Earth 0.02
Degree of Irregularity Minor 0.005
Relative effect of Obstruction Negligible 0
Vegetation Low 0.0075
Degree of Meandering Minor 1
16 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n 0.0325
17 Velocity, V ft/sec 6.4935419
18 Flow Length, L ft 1800
19 Tt hr 0.0769996 0.0769996
20 Watershed or Subarea Tc hr 0.2929004 18
Area 3
Cedar Valley Landfill Central Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Graphical Peak Discharge Method
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
1 Data
Drainage Area, Am mi2
Runoff curve number CN
Tc hr
Rainfall Distribution
Pond or Swamp Areas % of Am
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
Frequency yr 25 100
Duration 24-hr 24-hr
3 Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
4 Initial Abstraction, Ia in 0.272727 0.272727
5 Compute Ia/P 0.1443 0.119617
Tc hr 0.2929 0.2929
6 Unit peak discharge, qu csm/in 650 675
7 Runoff, Q in 0.877441 1.195269
8 Pond and Swamp Factor, Fp 1 1
9 Peak Discharge ft3/sec 31.19028 44.12224
Area 3
Cedar Valley Landfill Central Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
0.0546875
88
0.292900384
2
II
0.0
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Runoff Curve Number and Runoff
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Developed Comments:
1. Runoff Curve Number
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
2
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
3
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
4
D-heavy plastic clay 88 10.50 924
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS:10.5 924
CN Weighted: 924 88 8810.5
2. Runoff
ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration
25 24-hr 100 24-hr
Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
S in 1.3636364 1.3636364
Ia in 0.2727273 0.2727273
Runoff (Q)in 0.8774407 1.1952692
4/1/25
4/1/25
CN
Area 4
Area
(acres)CNxArea
Cedar Valley Landfill Central Area Runoff
Cedar Valley, Utah
Soil Name and
Hydrologic Soil Group
RMT
JAH
Cover Description
Natural Desert landscaping
S(Area)==Use CNS(CNxArea)
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Time of Concentration(Tc) or Travel Time (Tt)
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
Sheet Flow
Segment ID A
1 Surface Description (Table 3-1)Smooth Surfaces
2 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n (Table 3-1)0.011
3 Flow Length, L (Total L< 300 ft)ft 200
4 2-year, 24-hr Ranifall, P2 in 1.2
5 Land Slope ft/ft 0.2
6 Tt hr 0.0228578 0.0228578
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Segment ID B
7 Surface Description Unpaved
8 Flow Length, L ft 0
9 Land Slope ft/ft #DIV/0!
10 Average Velocity, V (figure 3-1)3
11 Tt hr 0 0
Channel Flow
Segment ID C
Flow Depth 1.2056025
Channel Side Slopes ?h:1V 2.5
12 Cross Section flow area, a ft2 3.6336933
13 Wetted Perimeter, Pw ft 4.5109514
14 Hydraulic Radius, r ft 0.805527
15 Channel Slope, s ft/ft 0.008
Channel Material Earth 0.02
Degree of Irregularity Minor 0.005
Relative effect of Obstruction Negligible 0
Vegetation Low 0.0075
Degree of Meandering Minor 1
16 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n 0.0325
17 Velocity, V ft/sec 3.5500514
18 Flow Length, L ft 1500
19 Tt hr 0.1173692 0.1173692
20 Watershed or Subarea Tc hr 0.1402269 8.4
Area 4
Cedar Valley Landfill Central Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Graphical Peak Discharge Method
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
1 Data
Drainage Area, Am mi2
Runoff curve number CN
Tc hr
Rainfall Distribution
Pond or Swamp Areas % of Am
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
Frequency yr 25 100
Duration 24-hr 24-hr
3 Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
4 Initial Abstraction, Ia in 0.272727 0.272727
5 Compute Ia/P 0.1443 0.119617
Tc hr 0.140227 0.140227
6 Unit peak discharge, qu csm/in 900 950
7 Runoff, Q in 0.877441 1.195269
8 Pond and Swamp Factor, Fp 1 1
9 Peak Discharge ft3/sec 12.95596 18.62939
Area 4
Cedar Valley Landfill Central Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
0.01640625
88
0.140226946
2
II
0.0
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Runoff Curve Number and Runoff
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Developed Comments:
1. Runoff Curve Number
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
2
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
3
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
4
D-heavy plastic clay 88 44.40 3907.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS:44.4 3907.2
CN Weighted: 3907.2 88 8844.4
2. Runoff
ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration
25 24-hr 100 24-hr
Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
S in 1.3636364 1.3636364
Ia in 0.2727273 0.2727273
Runoff (Q)in 0.8774407 1.1952692
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
S(Area)==Use CNS(CNxArea)
Natural Desert landscaping
Cedar Valley Landfill Central Area Runoff
Cedar Valley, Utah
Soil Name and
Hydrologic Soil Group
RMT
JAH
Cover Description
4/1/25
4/1/25
CN
Area 5
Area
(acres)CNxArea
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Time of Concentration(Tc) or Travel Time (Tt)
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
Sheet Flow
Segment ID A
1 Surface Description (Table 3-1)Smooth Surfaces
2 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n (Table 3-1)0.011
3 Flow Length, L (Total L< 300 ft)ft 300
4 2-year, 24-hr Ranifall, P2 in 1.2
5 Land Slope ft/ft 0.02
6 Tt hr 0.0794157 0.0794157
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Segment ID B
7 Surface Description Unpaved
8 Flow Length, L ft 1200
9 Land Slope ft/ft 0.0408333
10 Average Velocity, V (figure 3-1)3.2
11 Tt hr 0.1041667 0.1041667
Channel Flow
Segment ID C
Flow Depth 2.2354637
Channel Side Slopes ?h:1V 2.5
12 Cross Section flow area, a ft2 12.493245
13 Wetted Perimeter, Pw ft 8.3643393
14 Hydraulic Radius, r ft 1.493632
15 Channel Slope, s ft/ft 0.002
Channel Material Earth 0.02
Degree of Irregularity Minor 0.005
Relative effect of Obstruction Negligible 0
Vegetation Low 0.0075
Degree of Meandering Minor 1
16 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n 0.0325
17 Velocity, V ft/sec 2.6790469
18 Flow Length, L ft 2000
19 Tt hr 0.2073706 0.2073706
20 Watershed or Subarea Tc hr 0.390953 23
Cedar Valley Landfill Central Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
Area 5
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Graphical Peak Discharge Method
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
1 Data
Drainage Area, Am mi2
Runoff curve number CN
Tc hr
Rainfall Distribution
Pond or Swamp Areas % of Am
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
Frequency yr 25 100
Duration 24-hr 24-hr
3 Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
4 Initial Abstraction, Ia in 0.272727 0.272727
5 Compute Ia/P 0.1443 0.119617
Tc hr 0.390953 0.390953
6 Unit peak discharge, qu csm/in 550 600
7 Runoff, Q in 0.877441 1.195269
8 Pond and Swamp Factor, Fp 1 1
9 Peak Discharge ft3/sec 33.47985 49.75308
0.069375
88
0.390953002
2
II
0.0
Area 5
Cedar Valley Landfill Central Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Runoff Curve Number and Runoff
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Developed Comments:
1. Runoff Curve Number
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
2
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
3
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
4
D-heavy plastic clay 88 6.00 528
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS:6 528
CN Weighted: 528 88 886
2. Runoff
ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration
25 24-hr 100 24-hr
Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
S in 1.3636364 1.3636364
Ia in 0.2727273 0.2727273
Runoff (Q)in 0.8774407 1.1952692
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
S(Area)==Use CNS(CNxArea)
Natural Desert landscaping
Cedar Valley Landfill Central Area Runoff
Cedar Valley, Utah
Soil Name and
Hydrologic Soil Group
RMT
JAH
Cover Description
4/1/25
4/1/25
CN
Area 6
Area
(acres)CNxArea
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Time of Concentration(Tc) or Travel Time (Tt)
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
Sheet Flow
Segment ID A
1 Surface Description (Table 3-1)Smooth Surfaces
2 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n (Table 3-1)0.011
3 Flow Length, L (Total L< 300 ft)ft 200
4 2-year, 24-hr Ranifall, P2 in 1.2
5 Land Slope ft/ft 0.2
6 Tt hr 0.0228578 0.0228578
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Segment ID B
7 Surface Description Unpaved
8 Flow Length, L ft 0
9 Land Slope ft/ft #DIV/0!
10 Average Velocity, V (figure 3-1)3.2
11 Tt hr 0 0
Channel Flow
Segment ID C
Flow Depth 1.0834486
Channel Side Slopes ?h:1V 2.5
12 Cross Section flow area, a ft2 2.9346519
13 Wetted Perimeter, Pw ft 4.0538933
14 Hydraulic Radius, r ft 0.7239095
15 Channel Slope, s ft/ft 0.0046667
Channel Material Earth 0.02
Degree of Irregularity Minor 0.005
Relative effect of Obstruction Negligible 0
Vegetation Low 0.0075
Degree of Meandering Minor 1
16 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n 0.0325
17 Velocity, V ft/sec 2.5250064
18 Flow Length, L ft 1500
19 Tt hr 0.1650161 0.1650161
20 Watershed or Subarea Tc hr 0.1878738 11
Cedar Valley Landfill Central Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
Area 6
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Graphical Peak Discharge Method
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
1 Data
Drainage Area, Am mi2
Runoff curve number CN
Tc hr
Rainfall Distribution
Pond or Swamp Areas % of Am
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
Frequency yr 25 100
Duration 24-hr 24-hr
3 Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
4 Initial Abstraction, Ia in 0.272727 0.272727
5 Compute Ia/P 0.1443 0.119617
Tc hr 0.187874 0.187874
6 Unit peak discharge, qu csm/in 900 950
7 Runoff, Q in 0.877441 1.195269
8 Pond and Swamp Factor, Fp 1 1
9 Peak Discharge ft3/sec 7.403406 10.64537
0.009375
88
0.187873836
2
II
0.0
Area 6
Cedar Valley Landfill Central Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Runoff Curve Number and Runoff
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Developed Comments:
1. Runoff Curve Number
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
2
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
3
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
4
D-heavy plastic clay 88 25.20 2217.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS:25.2 2217.6
CN Weighted: 2217.6 88 8825.2
2. Runoff
ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration
25 24-hr 100 24-hr
Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
S in 1.3636364 1.3636364
Ia in 0.2727273 0.2727273
Runoff (Q)in 0.8774407 1.1952692
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
S(Area)==Use CNS(CNxArea)
Natural Desert landscaping
Cedar Valley Landfill Southern Area Runoff
Cedar Valley, Utah
Soil Name and
Hydrologic Soil Group
RMT
JAH
Cover Description
4/1/25
4/1/25
CN
Area 7
Area
(acres)CNxArea
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Time of Concentration(Tc) or Travel Time (Tt)
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
Sheet Flow
Segment ID A
1 Surface Description (Table 3-1)Smooth Surfaces
2 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n (Table 3-1)0.011
3 Flow Length, L (Total L< 300 ft)ft 300
4 2-year, 24-hr Ranifall, P2 in 1.2
5 Land Slope ft/ft 0.1333333
6 Tt hr 0.0371829 0.0371829
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Segment ID B
7 Surface Description Unpaved
8 Flow Length, L ft 300
9 Land Slope ft/ft 0.2
10 Average Velocity, V (figure 3-1)2.1
11 Tt hr 0.0396825 0.0396825
Channel Flow
Segment ID C
Flow Depth 1.9195658
Channel Side Slopes ?h:1V 2.5
12 Cross Section flow area, a ft2 9.2118323
13 Wetted Perimeter, Pw ft 7.1823576
14 Hydraulic Radius, r ft 1.2825639
15 Channel Slope, s ft/ft 0.0012
Channel Material Earth 0.02
Degree of Irregularity Minor 0.005
Relative effect of Obstruction Negligible 0
Vegetation Low 0.0075
Degree of Meandering Minor 1
16 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n 0.0325
17 Velocity, V ft/sec 1.8747622
18 Flow Length, L ft 2500
19 Tt hr 0.3704173 0.3704173
20 Watershed or Subarea Tc hr 0.4472828 27
Cedar Valley Landfill Southern Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
Area 7
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Graphical Peak Discharge Method
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
1 Data
Drainage Area, Am mi2
Runoff curve number CN
Tc hr
Rainfall Distribution
Pond or Swamp Areas % of Am
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
Frequency yr 25 100
Duration 24-hr 24-hr
3 Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
4 Initial Abstraction, Ia in 0.272727 0.272727
5 Compute Ia/P 0.1443 0.119617
Tc hr 0.447283 0.447283
6 Unit peak discharge, qu csm/in 500 550
7 Runoff, Q in 0.877441 1.195269
8 Pond and Swamp Factor, Fp 1 1
9 Peak Discharge ft3/sec 17.27461 25.88505
0.039375
88
0.447282767
2
II
0.0
Area 7
Cedar Valley Landfill Southern Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Runoff Curve Number and Runoff
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Developed Comments:
1. Runoff Curve Number
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
2
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
3
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
4
D-heavy plastic clay 88 35.70 3141.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS:35.7 3141.6
CN Weighted: 3141.6 88 8835.7
2. Runoff
ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration
25 24-hr 100 24-hr
Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
S in 1.3636364 1.3636364
Ia in 0.2727273 0.2727273
Runoff (Q)in 0.8774407 1.1952692
4/1/25
4/1/25
CN
Area 8
Area
(acres)CNxArea
Cedar Valley Landfill Southern Area Runoff
Cedar Valley, Utah
Soil Name and
Hydrologic Soil Group
RMT
JAH
Cover Description
Natural Desert landscaping
S(Area)==Use CNS(CNxArea)
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Time of Concentration(Tc) or Travel Time (Tt)
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
Sheet Flow
Segment ID A
1 Surface Description (Table 3-1)Smooth Surfaces
2 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n (Table 3-1)0.011
3 Flow Length, L (Total L< 300 ft)ft 300
4 2-year, 24-hr Ranifall, P2 in 1.2
5 Land Slope ft/ft 0.24
6 Tt hr 0.0293923 0.0293923
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Segment ID B
7 Surface Description Unpaved
8 Flow Length, L ft 1000
9 Land Slope ft/ft 0.045
10 Average Velocity, V (figure 3-1)3.2
11 Tt hr 0.0868056 0.0868056
Channel Flow
Segment ID C
Flow Depth 1.948757
Channel Side Slopes ?h:1V 2.5
12 Cross Section flow area, a ft2 9.4941345
13 Wetted Perimeter, Pw ft 7.291581
14 Hydraulic Radius, r ft 1.302068
15 Channel Slope, s ft/ft 0.005
Channel Material Earth 0.02
Degree of Irregularity Minor 0.005
Relative effect of Obstruction Negligible 0
Vegetation Low 0.0075
Degree of Meandering Minor 1
16 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n 0.0325
17 Velocity, V ft/sec 3.8655417
18 Flow Length, L ft 1200
19 Tt hr 0.086232 0.086232
20 Watershed or Subarea Tc hr 0.2024299 12
Area 8
Cedar Valley Landfill Southern Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Graphical Peak Discharge Method
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
1 Data
Drainage Area, Am mi2
Runoff curve number CN
Tc hr
Rainfall Distribution
Pond or Swamp Areas % of Am
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
Frequency yr 25 100
Duration 24-hr 24-hr
3 Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
4 Initial Abstraction, Ia in 0.272727 0.272727
5 Compute Ia/P 0.1443 0.119617
Tc hr 0.20243 0.20243
6 Unit peak discharge, qu csm/in 750 800
7 Runoff, Q in 0.877441 1.195269
8 Pond and Swamp Factor, Fp 1 1
9 Peak Discharge ft3/sec 36.70856 53.33889
Area 8
Cedar Valley Landfill Southern Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
0.05578125
88
0.202429875
2
II
0.0
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Runoff Curve Number and Runoff
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Developed Comments:
1. Runoff Curve Number
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
2
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
3
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
4
D-heavy plastic clay 88 25.60 2252.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS:25.6 2252.8
CN Weighted: 2252.8 88 8825.6
2. Runoff
ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration
25 24-hr 100 24-hr
Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
S in 1.3636364 1.3636364
Ia in 0.2727273 0.2727273
Runoff (Q)in 0.8774407 1.1952692
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
S(Area)==Use CNS(CNxArea)
Natural Desert landscaping
Cedar Valley Landfill Southern Area Runoff
Cedar Valley, Utah
Soil Name and
Hydrologic Soil Group
RMT
JAH
Cover Description
4/1/25
4/1/25
CN
Area 9
Area
(acres)CNxArea
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Time of Concentration(Tc) or Travel Time (Tt)
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
Sheet Flow
Segment ID A
1 Surface Description (Table 3-1)Smooth Surfaces
2 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n (Table 3-1)0.011
3 Flow Length, L (Total L< 300 ft)ft 300
4 2-year, 24-hr Ranifall, P2 in 1.2
5 Land Slope ft/ft 0.1333333
6 Tt hr 0.0371829 0.0371829
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Segment ID B
7 Surface Description Unpaved
8 Flow Length, L ft 200
9 Land Slope ft/ft 0.3
10 Average Velocity, V (figure 3-1)9
11 Tt hr 0.0061728 0.0061728
Channel Flow
Segment ID C
Flow Depth 1.7801745
Channel Side Slopes ?h:1V 2.5
12 Cross Section flow area, a ft2 7.9225529
13 Wetted Perimeter, Pw ft 6.660803
14 Hydraulic Radius, r ft 1.1894291
15 Channel Slope, s ft/ft 0.0041667
Channel Material Earth 0.02
Degree of Irregularity Minor 0.005
Relative effect of Obstruction Negligible 0
Vegetation Low 0.0075
Degree of Meandering Minor 1
16 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n 0.0325
17 Velocity, V ft/sec 3.3221787
18 Flow Length, L ft 2400
19 Tt hr 0.2006715 0.2006715
20 Watershed or Subarea Tc hr 0.2440272 15
Cedar Valley Landfill Southern Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
Area 9
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Graphical Peak Discharge Method
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
1 Data
Drainage Area, Am mi2
Runoff curve number CN
Tc hr
Rainfall Distribution
Pond or Swamp Areas % of Am
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
Frequency yr 25 100
Duration 24-hr 24-hr
3 Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
4 Initial Abstraction, Ia in 0.272727 0.272727
5 Compute Ia/P 0.1443 0.119617
Tc hr 0.244027 0.244027
6 Unit peak discharge, qu csm/in 750 800
7 Runoff, Q in 0.877441 1.195269
8 Pond and Swamp Factor, Fp 1 1
9 Peak Discharge ft3/sec 26.32322 38.24861
0.04
88
0.244027247
2
II
0.0
Area 9
Cedar Valley Landfill Southern Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Runoff Curve Number and Runoff
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Developed Comments:
1. Runoff Curve Number
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
2
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
3
Ta
b
l
e

2
-
4
D-heavy plastic clay 88 20.20 1777.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS:20.2 1777.6
CN Weighted: 1777.6 88 8820.2
2. Runoff
ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration ARI (Year)Duration
25 24-hr 100 24-hr
Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
S in 1.3636364 1.3636364
Ia in 0.2727273 0.2727273
Runoff (Q)in 0.8774407 1.1952692
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
S(Area)==Use CNS(CNxArea)
Natural Desert landscaping
Cedar Valley Landfill Southern Area Runoff
Cedar Valley, Utah
Soil Name and
Hydrologic Soil Group
RMT
JAH
Cover Description
4/1/25
4/1/25
CN
Area 10
Area
(acres)CNxArea
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Time of Concentration(Tc) or Travel Time (Tt)
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
Sheet Flow
Segment ID A
1 Surface Description (Table 3-1)Smooth Surfaces
2 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n (Table 3-1)0.011
3 Flow Length, L (Total L< 300 ft)ft 300
4 2-year, 24-hr Ranifall, P2 in 1.2
5 Land Slope ft/ft 0.1
6 Tt hr 0.0417175 0.0417175
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Segment ID B
7 Surface Description Unpaved
8 Flow Length, L ft 300
9 Land Slope ft/ft 0.2333333
10 Average Velocity, V (figure 3-1)7
11 Tt hr 0.0119048 0.0119048
Channel Flow
Segment ID C
Flow Depth 1.6437679
Channel Side Slopes ?h:1V 2.5
12 Cross Section flow area, a ft2 6.754932
13 Wetted Perimeter, Pw ft 6.1504162
14 Hydraulic Radius, r ft 1.0982886
15 Channel Slope, s ft/ft 0.0057143
Channel Material Earth 0.02
Degree of Irregularity Minor 0.005
Relative effect of Obstruction Negligible 0
Vegetation Low 0.0075
Degree of Meandering Minor 1
16 Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n 0.0325
17 Velocity, V ft/sec 3.689166
18 Flow Length, L ft 1400
19 Tt hr 0.1054138 0.1054138
20 Watershed or Subarea Tc hr 0.1590361 9.5
Cedar Valley Landfill Southern Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
Area 10
Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Graphical Peak Discharge Method
Project:By:Date:
Location:Checked:Date:
Condition: Existing Comments:
1 Data
Drainage Area, Am mi2
Runoff curve number CN
Tc hr
Rainfall Distribution
Pond or Swamp Areas % of Am
Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3
Frequency yr 25 100
Duration 24-hr 24-hr
3 Rainfall, P in 1.89 2.28
4 Initial Abstraction, Ia in 0.272727 0.272727
5 Compute Ia/P 0.1443 0.119617
Tc hr 0.159036 0.159036
6 Unit peak discharge, qu csm/in 900 920
7 Runoff, Q in 0.877441 1.195269
8 Pond and Swamp Factor, Fp 1 1
9 Peak Discharge ft3/sec 24.9248 34.70763
0.0315625
88
0.159036057
2
II
0.0
Area 10
Cedar Valley Landfill Southern Area Runoff RMT 4/1/25
Cedar Valley, Utah JAH 4/1/25
APPENDIX G – GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN CEDAR VALLEY

UTAH STATE ENGINEER
Technical Publication No.16
CiROUND-WATER CONDITIONS IN CEDAR VALLEY,
UTAH COUNTY,UTAH
by R.D.Feltis
Geologist,U.S.Geological Survey
Prepared by the U.S.Geological Survey
in cooperation with
The Utah State Engineer
1967
CONTENTS
Abstract _
Introduction ----_
Purpose and scope _
Location of the area _
Acknowledgments_____
Well-numbering system used in Utah _
Geology _
Consolidated rocks of Paleozoic age _
Sedimentary and igneous rocks of Tertiary age
Sedimentary rocks _
Igneous rocks _
Unconsolidated rocks of Quaternary age _
Structure _
Water resources __
Volume of precipitation____
Surface water _
Ground water _
Recharge _
Occurrence _
Movement of ground water _
Water-level fluctuations _
Water-bearing characteristics of the aquifers _
Discharge _ _
Test-well drilling __
Chemical quality of water _
Summary and conclusions _
Selected references __
Publications of the Utah State Engineer's Office _
- 1 -
Page
____________________5
5
5
6
__6
(j
6
(j
9
9
9
9
10
11
_11
11
11
__11
12
12
13
15
__15
19
20
_22
__23
32
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1.Index map 7
2.Diagram showing well-numbering system 8
3.Geologic map_In pocket
4.Map showing normal annual precipitation for the period 1931-60,
approximate recharge area,water-table contours of March 1966,
the line of reference used in calculating subsurface outflow,and
locations of wells _In pocket
5.Hydrographs of selected wells,discharge of Fairfield Spring,and
cumulative departure from the 1943-65 average annual precipita-
tion at Fairfield 14
G.Map showing changes of water levels in the artesian aquifer,
March-April 1964 to March-April 1966 in part of Cedar Valley __16
7.Map showing the chemical composition and the dissolved-solids
concentration of water __In pocket
8.Diagram showing classification of water for irrigation 21
TABLES
Table Page
1.Annual precipitation over the recharge area and estimated water
available for recharge to the ground-water reservoir in Cedar
Valley____________________________11
2.Records of selected wells in Cedar Valley __24
3.Records of selected springs in Cedar Valley ____26
4.Chemical analyses of water from wells and springs in Cedar Valley 27
5.Water levels in observation wells in Cedar Valley __28
G.Selected drillers'logs of wells in Cedar Valley _30
7.Logs of test wells in Cedar Valley ___31
- 3 -
GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS IN CEDAR VALLEY,
UTAH COUNTY,UTAH
by R.D.Feltis
Geologist,U.S.Geological Survey
ABSTRACT
Cedar Valley is in north-central Utah about 20 miles west of Provo in Utah County.The
valley is mostly a topographically closed basin,developed in a structural trough caused prin-
cipally by faulting,and is bordered by mountains largely composed of Paleozoic sedimentary
rock.The valley is filled with semiconsolidated to unconsolidated alluvial,colluvial,lacus-
trine,and eolian deposits of Tertiary and Quaternary age.
Ground water occurs under both water-table and artesian conditions,but most of the
wells are developed in the artesian aquifer.The source of most recharge to the ground-water
reservoir is in the Oquirrh Mountains in the northwest corner of the valley.After seeping
into the ground,water moves directly from the bedrock in the valley fill,thence east and
southeast across the valley.The estimated subsurface outflow along the east edge of the val-
ley ranges from about 10,000 to 20,000 acre-feet per year.
Water levels and spring discharges generally fluctuate in response to variations of pre-
cipitation,but they have declined markedly in response to pumping at nearby irrigation
wells.During 1965,about 1,900 acre-feet of water was pumped from eight irrigation wells
in the valley.
The coefficient of transmissibility of the artesian aquifer in the north-central part of the
valley,as determined by pumping and recovery tests at wells,ranges from about 5,000 to
26,000 gallons per day per foot.The specific capacities of irrigation wells in the center of
the basin range from about 1 to 7 gallons per minute per foot of drawdown,but two wells
at the west edge of the basin had specific capacities of 30 and 37 gallons per minute per foot
of drawdown.
Most of the ground water in the north half and southwest corner of the valley is of good
chemical quality,containing less than 500 parts per million of dissolved solids.In the south-
east part of the valley,the water is of poor quality,containing more than 1,000 parts per
million of dissolved solids.
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Scope
This study of the ground-water conditions in Cedar Valley,Utah,was made by the U.S.
Geological Survey in cooperation with the Utah State Engineer during the period July 1965-
July 1966.The purposes of the study were to estimate the recharge to and the yield of the
ground-water reservoir and to determine the direction of ground-water movement through
Cedar Valley.
Water levels nave been measured in observation wells in Cedar Valley from time to time
since 1943.During the present investigation,water-level measurements were made in 38
observation wells,and 5 test wells were drilled to provide additional observation wells and
- 5 -
also to provide information that would be helpful in understanding the subsurface geology
of the valley.Geophysical logs were run in several wells and test wells to aid in interpreting
the subsurface geology and to show the occurrence of ground-water aquifers.Tables 2-7
contain the basic data collected for the investigation and include:records of selected wells
and springs,chemical analyses of water,water-level measurements,drillers'logs of wells,
and logs of test wells.The locations of wells are shown in figure 4 and of springs in figure 7.
Location of the area
Cedar Valley is in the northwest corner of Utah County,Utah,about 20 miles west of
Provo,and lies between 39°58'and 40°29'north latitude and between 111°55'and 112°13'west
longitude (figure 1).The drainage basin for the valley includes about 300 square miles,but
the valley proper includes only about 140 square miles.The valley has a maximum north-
south length of about 25 miles and a maximum east-west width of about 8 miles.The valley
is a topographically closed basin except at the extreme north end where the surface drain-
age is into northern Utah Valley.The valley is almost completely surrounded by moun-
tains or low hills,and altitudes range from about 4,840 feet on the valley floor to 10,626 feet
in the Oquirrh Mountains along the northwest edge of the valley.Mountains on the east
side and south end of the valley reach altitudes of 7,647 and 7,828 feet.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks are owed to the residents and landowners of Cedar Valley who furnished or
permitted the collection of hydrologic data and water samples from wells and springs and
who gave permission to construct test holes for the collection of geologic and hydrologic data.
Well-numbering system used in Utah
The system of numbering wells in Utah is based on the cadastral land-survey system of
the Federal Government.The well number,in addition to designating the well,locates its
position to the nearest 10-acre tract in the land net.By this system the State is divided into
four quadrants by the Salt Lake base and meridian,and these quadrants are designated
by the capital letters A,B,C,and D.A is the northeast quadrant,B is the northwest,C
is the southwest,and D is the southeast.Numbers designating the township and range
follow the quadrant letter,and all three are enclosed in parentheses.The number after the
parentheses designates the section,and the lowercase letters give the location of the well
within the section.The first letter indicates the quarter section,which is generally a tract
of 160 acres,the second letter indicates the 40-acre tract,and the third letter indicates the
10-acre tract.The number following the letters indicates the serial number of the well with-
in the 10-acre tract.Thus,well (C-6-2)l3caa-l in Utah County is in the NE74NEl,4SWl,4 sec.
13,T.6 S.,R.2 W.,and is the first well constructed or visited in that tract.Figure 2 shows
the method of numbering wells as described above.In this report springs and sampling
sites are also located by using this system,but the serial number within a 10-acre-tract is
omitted.
GEOLOGY
Consolidated rocks of Paleozoic age
The mountains surrounding Cedar Valley contain mostly rocks of Paleozoic age that in-
clude limestone,dolomite,quartzite,conglomerate, sandstone,and shale (figure 3).Each
rock type is generally present in each mountain range,but limestone and dolomite predomi-
- 6 -
37"
60 Miles
I
Mont(cell~0
''l~()
\i I\./1
,.·1
~
I
40I20I
•
oI
Area of investigation
111 "
25I
113"
o
Figure 1._Index map of Utah showing location of the Cedar
Valley drainage basin.
oT
!
40·lT~~_Ic-~-~~J---~~=--.--i_...,di
I---)-------
Il
114"113"42",-.
)
)"!B 0 X
)
?
l
I ~I41"
·7·
Sections within a township Tracts within a section
R.2 W.Section 13
d
Well
d
I b I ae
IbI---a
I
I----cI
J---f#-----I mil e --------1
b a
(C-6-2)13caa-1
6 5 4 I~2 I
7 8 9 I~II 12
\4 Well
18 17 16 15 ........3."
.~20 21 22 2\24\
""'-.
30 2~K 27 26 1\25
31 32 33 ~35 ~t"--
I 6 mi les ..............'1
~
T
6
S
c D
w'"..
...J
':i..lJl
Figure 2.-Well-numbering system used In Utah.
- 8 -
nate.The age of the formations ranges from Devonian to Permian in the Lake Mountains,
from Cambrian to Permian in the East Tintic Mountains,and from Mississippian to Permian
in the Oquirrh and Traverse Mountains.
Sedimentary and igneous rocks of Tertiary age
Sedimentary rocks.-Scattered exposures of limestone and fresh and argillized tuff in the
low hills southwest of the Lake Mountains is part of an unnamed sequence believed to be
of early Tertiary-probably late or middle or early late Eocene-age (Morris and Lovering,
1961,p.126).The limestone is fine to medium grained.The argillized tuff,where it has
been mined,consists of halloysite and montmorillonite.
The Salt Lake Formation of Pliocene age probably occurs along the mountain fronts and
in the subsurface of Cedar Valley,although it has not been mapped within the drainage basin
of Cedar Valley by those who have described the geology of the surrounding mountains.
The formation has been described by Morris and Lovering (1961,p.126-127)in Rush and Tin-
tic Valleys to the west and southwest of Cedar Valley as "** *marly limestone,bentonitic
tuff,sandy silt,and gravel * **."In the Jordan Narrows,northeast of Cedar Valley,it is
described by Hunt and others (1953,p.13),as "** *alternating dark-gray silt and white or
light-gray,firm,ledge-forming beds that probably are cemented,reworked tuffs.The in-
dividual beds range from 2 to 20 feet in thickness;included with them are a few,very thin,
clay partings.* * *These light-colored beds are overlain unconformably by a series of buff
beds with a basal conglomerate * **.The basal conglomerate is about 15 feet thick * **.
Above this is 50 feet of moderately consolidated buff sand and silt,which apparently is re-
worked crystal tuff partly cemented by lime carbonate."
The upper part of the Salt Lake Formation is not easily distinguished from younger al-
luvial deposits.Some of the partly indurated alluvium around the edges of the valley and
in canyons of the mountains,that is mapped as unconsolidated Quaternary deposits in figure
3,may be Salt Lake Formation.
Igneous rocks.-Most of the igneous rocks around Cedar Valley crop out in the Traverse
Mountains,northeast of the valley,and the East Tintic Mountains,in the southwest corner
of the valley.Gilluly (1932,p.41)described the extrusive igneous rocks in the Traverse
Mountains as "* * *chiefly latite and quartz latite,with some minor flows of basalt,rhyo-
lite obsidian,and nephelite basalt.Among the extrusive rocks,flows,although numerous,
are quantitatively subordinate to breccias."The intrusive igneous rocks of the Traverse Moun-
tains are several small rhyolite plugs.
Morris and Lovering (1961,p.124)described the igneous rocks of the East Tintic Moun-
tains as "* * *deeply eroded remnants of a large composite volcano * **."These igneous
rocks include intrusive bodies and thick lava flows as well as the bedded tuffs,breccias,
agglomerates,and volcanic gravels that can be considered to be,in part at least,sedimen-
tary deposits."The extrusive rocks are latite tuffs,flows,agglomerates,volcanic gravels,
quartz latite,and basalt flows.The intrusive rocks consist of quartz monzonite,monzonite,
monzonite porphyry,lamprophyre,andesite,and diabase.
Unconsolidated rocks of Quaternary age
The Quaternary deposits of the basin fill of Cedar Valley consist mostly of alluvial fans,
lacustrine clay,silt,sand,and gravel,and eolian sand and silt.
The alluvial fans,composed largely of silt,sand,and gravel,extend from within the
canyons of the mountains toward the center of the basin,where they interfinger with lake
- 9 -
and eolian deposits.The fans range in age from early Pleistocene to Recent and in some
areas may be lithologically similar to and indistinguishable from the upper part of the Salt
Lake Formation of late Pliocene age.The individual fans coalesce along the mountain front
to form a continuous undulating surface around the edge of the valley.The fans are generally
very coarse grained and permeable near the mountains but become finer grained and less
permeable toward the center of the valley.A large alluvial fan in the north end of Cedar
Valley extends from the mouth of West Canyon southward to the latitude of Cedar Fort.
It has overlapped the bedrock in the northeast corner of the valley,diverting the West Canyon
drainage into Utah Valley.
Lakes have probably occupied Cedar Valley during the several periods of glaciation of
the Pleistocene Epoch.The resultant lacustrine deposits are mostly impermeable,well-
sorted,tabular beds of lake-bottom silt and clay,with some permeable lenticular beds of
shoreline sand and gravel deposits.Few large deposits of sand and gravel are present,
because no large perennial streams carried coarse debris into the lakes and because the
sheltered nature of the valley prevented strong lake currents which could have deposited ma-
terial on the lakeshore.Lake Bonneville was the last of the Pleistocene lakes that occupied
the valley,and its shoreline can be seen etched in the alluvium around the basin.
Active sand dunes as much as 15 feet thick are present about 2 miles south of Fairfield.
Goode (in Morris and Lovering,1961,p.,137)reports that the dunes probably were formed
during or immediately after the recession of Lake Bonneville and are now being reattacked
by the wind.Blowouts in low stabilized dunes and in underlying lake beds are common
across the floor of the valley and result in scattered,shifting masses of silt and sand.
Other Quaternary deposits in the valley include colluvium,talus,and landslide debris
which occur along the edges of the valley and in the canyons of the mountains.Glacial
moraines are at the heads of West Canyon and the Left Fork of West Canyon in the Oquirrh
Mountains.
Structure
Cedar Valley is a basin similar in structure to the many basins of the Basin and Range
physiographic province in Utah and Nevada.It is principally a graben produced by a system
of faults that has uplifted and tilted the surrounding mountain blocks relative to the valley
floor.A gravity map of Cedar Valley (Cook and Berg,1961,pI.13)shows the north-central
part of the basin (T.6 S.,R.2 W.)to be deepest.The fault system that produced the basins
of western Utah is still active;therefore,Cedar Valley may still be in the process of develop-
ment.
The rocks in the mountains surrounding the basin generally have been folded into broad,
north to northwest trending folds (figure 3).These broad folds and their subsidiary faults
and folds were probably made during Cretaceous and early Tertiary time,prior to develop-
ment of the Cedar Valley graben.The structural elements of the bedrock are of great im-
portance to the hydrology of the valley because of their partial control of movement of ground
water into and from Cedar Valley.
-10 -
WATER RESOURCES
Volume of precipitation
The range in the normal annual precipitation in Cedar Valley and surrounding mountains
is generally from 12 to 40 inches.The isohyetal lines of figure 4 show that the greatest pre-
cipitation is on the Oquirrh Mountains,from which most of the surface and ground water in
Cedar Valley is derived.
Not all precipitation in the Cedar Valley drainage basin is available to recharge the ground-
water reservoir.It is assumed that only areas above the 12-inch isohyetal line on the west
side of the basin receive precipitation that is effective in recharging the reservoir.Precipi-
tation directly on the valley floor is used by vegetation or evaporated back to the atmosphere,
and water from precipitation on the Lake Mountains moves eastward away from Cedar Valley
(see p.12).
The normal annual precipitation that falls above the 12-inch isohyetal line in the Cedar
Valley drainage basin is about 150,000 acre-feet (table 1).Of this amount about 80,000 acre-
feet falls above the 16-inch isohyetal line in the Oquirrh Mountains.
Surface water
The only perennial stream in Cedqr Valley is in West Canyon in the Oquirrh Mountains,
and all the water is diverted in sec.7,T.5 S.,R.2 W.,for irrigation near Cedar Fort.The
discharge from West Canyon from July 1965 through June 1966,as determined at a gaging
station in sec.7,T.5 S.,R.2 W.,was 2,100 acre-feet of water.Although the stream channel
crosses the north end of Cedar Valley and drains into northern Utah Valley,surface water
leaves the valley only in flash floods or as runoff from local snowmelt.
Ground water
Recharge.-The principal recharge area of the ground-water reservoir in Cedar Valley is
in the Oquirrh Mountains along the northwest edge of the valley,where snowmelt percolates
directly into fractures and solution channels of the rock.The alignment of springs (C-4-3)
20dba,(C-4-3)26cbd,(C-4-3)26dda,and (C-4-3)27bab,and springs (C-5-3)36cba,(C-6-2)6cad,and
(C-6-3)laad,along the strike of the bedrock,shows that some strata transmit water more
readily than others.(See figures 3 and 7.)Some precipitation also enters the alluvial and
glacial deposits in the mountain valleys.Most of the water in the basin fill throughout Cedar
Valley entered the ground in the Oquirrh Mountains (figure 4).
Average annual
precipitation
'(feet)
Area
(acres)
Interval of
annual
precipitation
(inches)
Table 1.-Annual precipitation over the recharge area and estimated water
available for recharge to the ground-water reservoir in Cedar Valley
Quantity of Estimated water
water from Estimated available for
precipitation percentage of recharge to
(acre~feet,precipitation ground-water
rounded)as recharge reservoir
(acre-feet,
rounded)
12-16 60,500 1.17 70,800 5 3,500
16-20 16,400 1.50 24,600 15 3,700
20-25 7,600 1.88 14,300 20 2,900
25-30 6,000 2.29 13,700 27 3,700
30-40 6,500 2.92 19,000 35 6,600
More than 40 2,700 3.33 9,000 40 3,600
Totals (rounded)151,000 24,000
-11 -
Other areas of recharge are the East Tintic Mountains,Topliff Hill,Thorpe Hills,and
alluvial fans along the west side and north end of the valley above the 12-inch isohyetal
line.At the north end of the valley,discharge from West Canyon is a source of recharge be-
ginning near the mouth of the canyon,extending south along the West Canyon ditch,and
ending in the irrigated land east of Cedar Fort.
The estimated water available for recharge to the ground-water reservoir from precipi-
tation is about 24,000 acre-feet (table 1).The percentages used in the calculations are based
on the method used by Eakin and Maxey (1951,p.79-81)in which an increased percentage
of water from precipitation becomes available for recharge as the total precipitation in-
creases with an increase in altitude of a mountain mass (isohyetal intervals of figure 4).Of
the 24,000 acre-feet of water available for recharge,about 20,500 acre-feet originates above
the 16-inch isohyetal line in the Oquirrh Mountains.
The amount of recharge to the ground-water reservoir from West Canyon is probably less
than 5 percent of the total recharge.The valley fill in the area crossed by the stream,the
West Canyon ditch,and the irrigated fields consists of permeable alluvial-fan deposits,and
it is estimated that 50 percent of the water is recharged to the ground-water reservoir.The
recharge from streamflow in West Canyon for 1965-66 (See p.11)amounts to about 1,000
acre-feet.
Occurrence.-Ground water in the unconsolidated deposits in Cedar Valley occurs under
both water-table (unconfined)and artesian (confined)conditions.Water-table conditions pre-
dominate in the southern part of the valley,where stock wells have been hand dug to depths
of more than 200 feet.In the central part of the basin,south and east of Fairfield,water in
the shallow beds in unconfined,and these beds extend from the land surface to depths of
about 100 feet.Water-table conditions occur around the edges of the basin fill as indicated
by the water levels in wells (C-5-2)31dcd-1,(C-6-1)l8dca-1,and (C-6-1)31dab-1.
Artesian aquifers are present in the valley fill opposite the drainages of Pole and Mann-
ing Canyons,and possibly in the alluvial fan of West Canyon.Permeable and impermeable
beds in the lower parts of the alluvial fans in Pole and Manning Canyons form the aquifers
and confining beds of the artesian system on the west side of the valley in sees.17,29,32,
and 33,T.6 S.,R.2 W.Toward the center of the valley,as in sees.13,14,15,and 26,T.6
S.,R.2 W.,fine-grained lake-bottom deposits overlap the alluvial deposits and act as the con-
fining beds for the artesian system.The artesian aquifers between Cedar Fort and Fairfield,
extending eastward across the basin,have had the greatest development as sources of ground
water in Cedar Valley.In the town of Fairfield,wells flow from the artesian aquifer at
depths ranging from 100 to 824 feet.Although the artesian system may extend across the
central part of the basin,artesian pressures are not sufficient to cause wells in the center
or topographically low parts of the basin to flow.The low artesian pressure may be due to
the discharge of water from the basin fill into the bedrock along the east edge of the valley.
Artesian conditions may occur at depths exceeding 200 feet in the southern part of the valley,
but no substantiating data are available.
Movement of ground water.-The ground water in Cedar Valley moves generally from
the west to the east side of the valley.Figure 4 shows contour lines connecting points of
equal altitude on the water surface in March 1966.Because ground water moves from points
of higher altitude to points of lower altitude,the contours indicate the direction of movement
and the areas of ground-water recharge and discharge.
Altitudes of the water surface are highest near Fairfield and Cedar Fort,where water
from the Oquirrh Mountains enters the basin fill.Nearly all the ground water in the cen-
tral and southern parts of the valley has infiltrated along the Pole Canyop syncline (figure
3),and moved through fractures and solution channels in the rock,down the syncline,and
into the valley fill.
-12-
The lowest altitudes of the water surface are along the east edge and southeast corner
of the valley.Along the base of the Lake Mountains from about sec.24,T.5 S.,R.2 W.,
southward to sec.8,T.7 S.,R.1 W.,the beds of the west limb of the Lake Mountains syn-
cline (figure 3)dip toward the east and water leaves Cedar Valley along the bedding planes
and through fractures and solution channels in the rocks.The water may discharge in
springs and seeps on the east side of the Lake Mountains,in the bottom of Utah Lake,or to
the alluvium northeast of the Lake Mountains on the west side of northern Utah Valley.
Ground water also leaves Cedar Valley through bedrock in the low pass between the
Lake and Traverse Mountains.This movement is indicated by the difference of water levels
in test wells (C-5-1)20ddc-l and (C-5-2)24aab-l,which are completed in bedrock at the north
end of the Lake Mountains.
The ground-water trough extending southwest of sec.25,T.5 S.,R.2 W.(figure 4),is
probably caused by ground water draining from the basin in the northeast corner of the
valley and by pumping irrigation wells in sees.13,14,and 15,T.6 S.,R.2 W.
Ground water may also leave the southeast corner of Cedar Valley through the bed-
rock of the eastern East Tintic Mountains in Tps.8 and 9 S.,R.2 W.This water may move
into the alluvium on the west side of Goshen Valley.
Water in bedrock in the western East Tintic Mountains in Tps.8 and 9 S.,R.3 W.,prob-
ably moves to the west and east,controlled by the structure of the North Tintic anticline
(figure 3).Water from the west limb of the anticline probably moves into Rush Valley,
whereas water from the east limb moves into the valley fill in the southern end of Cedar
Valley.
Water-level fluctuations.-Water levels in observation wells in Cedar Valley rise and fall
in response to recharge to and discharge from the ground-water reservoir.
The hydrograph of well (C-6-2)29cac-l (figure 5)shows three general water-level con-
ditions:a relatively steady trend of high water levels from 1943 through 1952,a generally de-
clining trend from 1953 to 1964,and rising water levels during 1965 and the spring of 1966.
These trends generally follow the curve of the cumulative departure from the 1943-65 aver-
age annual precipitation at Fairfield (figure 5).Lines trending upward on the cumulative-
departure curve indicate periods of above-average precipitation,when recharge to the ground-
water reservoir is comparatively great;and lines trending downward indicate periods of
below-average precipitation,when recharge is comparatively small.
Precipitation was above average for most of the period 1944 through 1952;but water
levels in well (C-6-2)29cac-1 did not rise continuously because the discharge of nearby Fair-
field Spring,(C-6-2)29ccc,had a damping effect.
From 1952 to 1962,however,the nearly continuous below-average precipitation resulted in
a nearly continuous decline in water levels.This decline was accentuated in 1963-64 by the
pumping of irrigation wells in sees.17 and 32,T.6 S.,R.2 W.
Water levels rose in 1965 and early in 1966 because of a combination of above-average
precipitation from 1963 to 1965 and cessation of pumping at the irrigation wells in sees.17
and 32,T.6 S.,R.2 W.
The hydrographs of wells (C-6-2)14cba-l and (C-6-2)16baa-l (figure 5)show the decline of
water levels from 1954 to 1966 in an area 3 miles northeast of Fairfield where irrigation wells
have been pumped annually during the entire period of the hydrograph.Although water levels
rose in 1965,they declined in the pumping season of 1966 to record lows at each observation
well.
-13 -
Town of Fairfield
r'",,,
Stationmoved
o
(C-6-2)16baa-1
_...........----LI_(_C-......~-_2_)2......~c_a_c-......II_......=_:.....<>-_-_-.....--_-_--...L.-/_..L---_--...L.-_--_~.....I _.....1_......1-_-_--......1-<>-_-_--......1_......................._......................._......................._L...--l
2
6
8
z:
-80
UJ
C,.)«~0::-90::::>
(I)
0z:-100«....J
3:0 110....JUJ -50a:l
0::
0
UJ -60>0a:l«
I--70
UJUJ~
z:-80
(I)-90....JUJ +l>UJ....J
0::
UJI-«3:
-10
6.0
I-UJUJ~5.0
C,.)
a:l oB~4-.o
z.~
-(I)
u,jo::3.0
c:l UJ
0::0-«::c 2.0C,.)
(I)
0
1.0
10
UJ0::::::>I-0::«0-UJo
UJ>
I-«....J~-2::::>C,.)
1966
Figure 5.-Hydrographs of selected wells,discharge of Fairfield Spring,and
cumulative departure from the 1943-65 average annual precipitation at Fairfield.
-14-
g--g---
0-1 foot
~1-2 feet
8More than2feet
EXPLANATION
•Obse rvat ion we II
Itti:::::ii:ii:::::i:::i:/
3-1t feet!<..•.•.•<.••i1
2-3 feet
[<pi
1-2 feet
~~0-1 foot
-More thanItfeet
-+1-_
Line showing change of water level,in feet,March-April 1961t to March-April 1966:dashed where approximate
Rise Decl ine
T.
6
S.
12
2526
-2
R.2 W.112°05'
I--~-----~=~---Y---""""------..,..,..-r-----n -40°20'
T.
6
S.
Base from U.S.Geological Survey
quadrangles:Fairfield,1915;
Fivemile Pass,191t7.
I
112°05'
o
1""1,",
R.2 W.
2 MILES
I Hydrology by R.D.Feltis,1966.
Figure 6.-Changes of water levels in the artesian aquifer,March-April 1964
to March-April 1966 in part of Cedar Valley.
•16 -
The effects of pumping an irrigation well,(C-6-2)26cbb-1,on two wells of different depths
are indicated by water-level measurements in table 5.The water level in well (C-6-2)27ccc-1
declined 11.1 feet from April 7 to June 9,1966,while the irrigation well was being pumped.
The wells are about 1 mile apart,and both are 505 feet deep.During the same period,how-
ever,water levels in well (C-6-2)27ccc-2,which is 100 feet deep,did not decline but rose 0.2
foot.
Figure 6 shows the change of water levels in north-central Cedar Valley from March-
April 1964 to March-April 1966.The rise of water levels in the western part of the valley re-
flects above-average precipitation in the recharge area from 1963 to 1965 and a cessation of
pumping at the irr~igation wells in sees.17 and 32,T.6 S.,R.2 W.,in 1965.The decline of
water levels in the central part of the basin is the result of continued withdrawal of water for
irrigation in that area.(See well (C-6-2)14aba-1 in table 5.)
Water-bearing characteristics of the aquifers.-Information on the water-bearing charac-
teristics of the aquifers in Cedar Valley is based on data obtained from a pumping test of
well (C-6-2)14cac-1 and recovery tests of wells (C-6-2)13caa-1 and (C-6-2)26cbb-1 and calcula-
tions of specific capacities of wells in various sections of T.6 S.,R.2 W.
Data from the pumping test were used to determine the coefficients of transmissibility!
and storage2 of the aquifer.Well (C-6-2)14cac-1 was pumped at an average rate of 600 gpm
(gallons per minute)from March 28 to April 1,1966,at the beginning of the irrigation season
and prior to the pumping of other irrigation wells.Water-level fluctuations were observed in
wells (C-6-2)14aba-1,(C-6-2)14cba-1,and (C-6-2)14dba-1.The coefficients of transmissibility and
storage were computed using the nonequilibrium formula (Theis,1935).The respective de-
termined values for T at wells (C-6-2)14aba-1,(C-6-2)14cba-1,and (C-6-2)14dba-1 were 26,000,
12,000,and 8,000 gpd per ft (gallons per day per foot)and for S were 0.002,0.001,and 0.0005.
At the end of the 1965 pumping season,recovery tests were made at wells (C-6-2)26cbb-1
and (C-6-2)13caa-1 on September 15 and 17,respectively.The coefficients of transmissibility
were computed using the Theis recovery formula (Theis,1935).The coefficient of trans-
missibility was 9,000 gpd per ft at well (C-6-2)26cbb-1 and 5,000 gpd per ft at well (C-6-2)13caa-1.
The specific capacities of irrigation wells in Cedar Valley range from 0.7 to 37 gpm per
foot of drawdown (table 2).This wide range is due mostly to the variation in the compo-
sition of the aquifers.Wells (C-6-2)17dcc-1 and (C-6-2)17dcc-2,which have respective spe-
cific capacities of 30 and 37 gpm per foot of drawdown,are developed in coarse-grained aqui-
fers of the alluvial fan of Pole Canyon.Wells in the central part of the basin,with specific
capacities of 0.7 to 6.8 gpm per foot of drawdown,are developed in fine-grained lacustrine,
eolian,and alluvial deposits.Some of the lower specific capacities can be attributed to cav-
ing around the well,and several wells have been abandoned because of caving.
Data from the pumping test,recovery tests,and specific capacities of wells indicate
an increase in the coefficient of transmissibility from the center of the basin toward the
north end and west side of the basin.
Discharge.-Water is discharged from the ground-water reservoir in Cedar Valley by
springs,by wells,by evapotranspiration,and by subsurface outflow from the basin.
IThe coefficient of transmissibility,'1',is the rate of flow of water,in gallons pel'day,at the prevailing
water temperature,through a vertical strip of the aquifer 1-foot wide extending the full saturated height
of the aquifer under a hydraulic gradcient of 100 percent.
2The coefficient of storage,S,of an aquifer is the volume of water released or taken into storage per
unit surface area of the aquifer pel'unit change in the component of head normal to that surface.
-15 -
Fairfield Spring,(C-6-2)29ccc,at the west edge of Fairfield,is the largest spring in Cedar
Valley.It discharges water that is derived from precipitation on the Oquirrh Mountains.The
permeable coarse-grained aquifers at the head of the alluvial fans of Manning and Pole Can-
yons readily transmit the water;but increasingly finer grained deposits toward the toe of
the fan and in the lake beds in the center of the basin retard the flow,forcing some of the
water to the surface.This discharges at the spring,which is at the break in slope of the
alluvial fan with the valley floor.
Fairfield Spring generally discharges between 3 and 5 cfs (cubic feet per second),and the
maximum discharge on record is 5.96 cis (figure 5).A comparison of the spring hydro-
graph with the curve showing the cumulative departure from average annual precipitation
at Fairfield (figure 5)shows the time lag between precipitation on the Oquirrh Mountains
and discharge from the spring.For example,the above-average precipitation of 1957 re-
sulted in a record high discharge of Fairfield Spring in late 1958.The sharp decrease in
yield of the spring during the irrigation seasons of 1962-64 was due to pumping of irrigation
wells in sec.17,T.6 S.,R.2 W.,which tap the same or interconnected aquifers.
The water from Fairfield Spring is used mostly for irrigation near Fairfield in the sum-
mer and for irrigation of native pasture,from Fairfield southeast to the Sinks,during the
winter.The upper part of the valley fill between Fairfeld and the Sinks consists of fine-
grained lake beds with low permeability.Much of the water applied for irrigation,therefore,
is discharged by evapotranspiration.Assuming an average discharge of 4 cis from the spring,
it is estimated that 70 percent of the water,or about 2.8 cis (2,000 acre-feet per year),is con-
sumed by evapotranspiration.
The total annual discharge of three springs west of Cedar Fort,based upon measurements
made in October 1965,was about 800 acre-feet.About 50 percent of this water is returned to
the ground-water reservoir;the remainder is consumed by evapotranspiration.
Numerous springs discharge in the mountains,but their yields are generally less than
15 gpm.They are used for stock watering.
During 1965,about 10 acre-feet of water was withdrawn from small-diameter wells for
domestic and stock use,and about 1,900 acre-feet of water was pumped at 8 large-diameter
irrigation wells in sees.13 (1 well),14 (3 wells),15 (3 wells),and 26 (1 well),T.6 S.,R.2 W.
The yield of the wells ranged from 130 to 1,115 gpm.All the pumps are driven by electric
motor,and the annual well discharge was computed from the amount of water discharged
per 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity used in 1965.
During 1964,about 3,800 acre-feet of water was pumped at 11 irrigation wells.These in-
cluded the eight large-diameter irrigation wells mentioned above and three additional wells
in sees.17 (2 wells)and 32 (1 well),T.6 S.,R.2 W.The two wells in sec.17 reportedly
yielded 2,000 and 3,600 gpm upon their completion in 1961-62.The three wells in sees.17
and 32 produced 2,700 acre-feet of water in 1964 compared to 1,100 acre-feet from the 8
wells in secs.13,14, 15,and 26.The wells in secs.17 and 32 tap more permeable,coarse-
grained aquifers in alluvial fans along the west edge of the basin as compared to the fine-
grained aquifers tapped by wells in sees.13,14,15,and 26 in the center of the basin.
Evapotranspiration in secs.13, 14,15,26,and 32,T.6 S.,R.2 W.,probably consumes 90
percent of the water pumped for irrigation because the low permeability of the surface de-
posits prevents rapid downward percolation.Thus in 1965,when the pumpage in these sec-
tions was about 1,900 acre-feet,approximately 1,700 acre-feet was consumed by evapotrans-
piration.The rate of evapotranspiration is probably lower in sec.17,T.6 S.,R.2 W.,be-
cause the surface deposits consist of alluvial-fan sediments which permit a greater rate of
infiltration.
-17 -
18,320,rounded to 20,000 gpd per ft.
Two methods were used to estimate the subsurface outflow of water along the east edge
of the basin.The first method was based on transmissibility data obtained from aquifer
tests and the hydraulic gradient of March 1966,determined from the water-table contour
map (figure 4).The second method was a water budget for the ground-water reservoir.
In the first method,the parts of the ground-water reservoir to which the calculations
apply are shown by the line of reference in figure 4.The transmissibility and hydraulic gradient
along each section of the line were assumed to be uniform.The subsurface outflow beneath
each segment of the line of reference was calculated using the formula:
Q =0.00112 T I W
where Q is the outflow,in acre-feet per year;0.00112 is a factor that converts gallons per
day to acre-feet per year;T is the coefficient of transmissibility,in gallons per day per foot;
I is the hydraulic gradient,in feet per mile;and W is the length of the segment,in miles.
No aquifer test data are available for the southern part of Cedar Valley.The valley
fill is relatively fine grained,however,and the coefficient of transmissibility along segment
1 is estimated to be about 7,000 gpd per ft.The hydraulic gradient is about 8 feet per mile.
Along segment 2,the hydraulic gradient is about 31 feet per mile.The coefficient of
transmissibility based on data obtained during the recovery test at well (C-6-2)26cbb-1 is
9,000 gpd per ft.
Segment 3 is across an area where the depression of ground-water contours has been ac-
centuated by pumping irrigation wells in secs.13,14,and 15,T.6 S.,R.2 W.The transmis-
sibility along this segment is based on the change in hydraulic gradient across the segment
for an annual rate of discharge from wells of 1,500 acre-feet per year.The formula used to
calculate the transmissibility of the segment is:
T-Q
0.00112 (I-I')W
where T is the transmissibility,in gallons per day per foot;Q is the discharge of wells,
1,500 acre-feet per year;0.00112 is a factor converting gallons per day to acre-feet per year;
I is the average hydraulic gradient as determined from figure 4,50 feet per mile;l'is the
estimated average hydraulic gradient before pumping began,33 feet per mile;and W is
the length of the segment,4.3 miles or
T =.1,500
0.00112 (50-33)4.3
Aquifer-test data are not available for the north end of Cedar Valley'however the val-
ley fill in this area consists of coarse-grained sediments of the West C~nyon allu~ial fanwh~ch are as.sumed ~o be as permeable as the sediments of the Pole Canyon alluvial fan:
WhICh und~rhe the lme of segment 3.The coefficient of transmissibility along segment 4,
therefore,IS assumed to be 20,000 gpd per ft.The hydraulic gradient is 73 feet per mile.
Underflow for the four segments is presented in the following table:
Segment
(location
shown in
figure 4)
Coefficient of
transmissibility
(gallons pel'day
per foot)
Hydraulic
gradient
(feet per mile)
Length
of
segment
(miles)
Subsurface
outflow past
the segment
(acre-feet
per year)
Total (rounded)
1
2
3
4
7,000
9,000
20,000
20,000
8
31
33
73
6.1 400
8.4 2,600
4.3 3,200
2.2 3,600
10,000
Thus the total subsurface outflow along the east
acre-feet per year.
-18 -
edge of the basin is estimated to be 10,000
The second method used to estimate subsurface outflow was a water budget of the ground-
water reservoir in Cedar Valley.This budget is only an approximation of true conditions,
however,because few data are available for rates of precipitation,evapotranspiration,and re-
charge in irrigated and nonirrigated areas.
It is assumed that all the water leaving the basin along the eastern margin (figure 4)
is subsurface outflow from the basin and is a constant quantity.On this basis,the equation
of the hydrologic budget is as follows:subsurface outflow (S)from the basin equals recharge
from precipitation (Rp),minus evapotranspiration of surface water from West Canyon (Es),
and of ground water from Fairfield Spring (Ef)and the three springs west of Cedar Fort
(Eel.and of water pumped from wells (Ep),or
S =Rp -(Es +Ef +Ec +Ep)
Substituting values determined in previous sections of this report,
S =24,000 -(1,000 +2,000 +400 +1,700)
S =19,000 acre-feet per year (rounded)
Thus the subsurface outflow along the east edge of the basin is estimated by the budget
method to be 19,000 acre-feet per year.Although this is almost twice as much as the out-
flow calculated by the first method,the two figures are of the same order of magnitude and
they are a good indication of the magnitude of the actual quantity of outflow.
Test-well drilling.-Five test wells were drilled at four sites in Cedar Valley to construct
water-level observation wells and to obtain additional data about the aquifers in parts of
the valley.Descriptive data,water-level measurements,and logs for the test wells are given
in tables 2,5,and 7.Electric and gamma-ray logs for four of the wells are in the files of
the U.S.Geological Survey in Salt Lake City.
Test wells (C-5-l}20ddc-1 and (C-5-2)24aab-1 were drilled in the pass between the Lake
Mountains and the Traverse Mountains to determine the thickness of the alluvium,the depth
to water,and whether or not water moves from Cedar Valley to Utah Valley through the al-
luvium.The alluvium was found to be 70 feet thick in well (C-5-1)20ddc-1 and 60 feet thick
in well (C-5-2)24aab-1 (table 7).Water levels in the two test wells in May 1966 were 94 and
127 feet below the land surface,respectively.This indicates that the water does not leave
Cedar Valley through the alluvium,but it does move through the bedrock.
Test well (C-6-2)1acc-1 was drilled to provide water-level data for the northeast corner
of the valley and to define more closely the water-level contour lines of that area (figure 4).
The test well was dl'illed entirely in unconsolidated valley-fill deposits,mostly sandy and
clayey silt with occasional beds of fine to medium-grained sand or silty sand,ranging in
thickness from 2 to 8 feet.The water level in the well was 175 feet below the land surface
in March 1966.
Two test wells,about 15 feet apart,were drilled in sec.27,T.6 S"R.2 W.Test well
(C-6-2)27ccc-1 was drilled to a depth of 505 feet for observation of water levels in the deep
artesian aquifer.It was drilled entirely in unconsolidated valley-fill deposits,mostly clayey
and sandy silt with occasional beds of fine-grained sand or silty sand,ranging in thickness
from 2 to 10 feet.Test well (C-6-2)27ccc-2 was drilled to a depth of 100 feet to provide water-
level measurements in the shallow unconfined aquifer.A plug was installed in the annulus
of the deep test well at a depth of 150 feet in an attempt to isolate the deep and shallow
aquifet's.Water levels in the shallow test well and the annulus of the deep test well were
at the same level and almost 3 feet higher than the level within the deep test well itself dur-
ing April 1966.
-19 -
Chemical quality of water
The concentration of dissolved solids in the water in Cedar Valley ranges from 225 to
2,020 ppm (parts per million).Figure 7 shows the areal distribution of dissolved-solids con-
centrations and also illustrates the chemical composition of the water with lined diagrams.
Differences in chemical composition are shown by the differences in the slope and length of
lines comprising the diagrams.
The water from most of the wells and springs in the northern and south-western parts
of the valley contains less than 500 ppm of dissolved solids,and the principal chemical con-
stituents are calcium and bicarbonate.The springs in the principal recharge area (Oquirrh
Mountain slopes,west and northwest of Cedar Fort)yield a calcium bicarbonate type of
water chemically similar to that of ground water in the north-central part of the valley.The
wells in the southeastern part of the valley yield water containing the highest concentration
of dissolved solids,and the principal chemical constituents are sodium and sulfate.
Most of the water in the valley is very hard (more than 180 ppm),but generally the
chemical constituents do not exceed the recommended maximum concentrations of the U.S.
Public Health Service (1962,p.7)as given below:
Constituent
Recommended maximum
concentration
(parts per million)
Dissolved solids 500
Chloride (Cl)250
Sulfate (SO.)250
Nitrate (NOa)45
Thirty water samples from wells and springs in Cedar Valley were evaluated for suita-
bility for irrigation by using a method devised by the U.S.Salinity Laboratory Staff (1954,
p.80).The water was classified in regard to salinity hazard and sodium hazard by plotting
the specific conductance versus the sodium-adsorption ratio (figure 8).The interpretation of
these quality-class ratings plotted in figure 8 are summarized by the U.S.Salinity Labora-
tory Staff (1954,p.79-81)as follows:
"Medium-salinity water (C2)can be used if a moderate amount of leaching occurs.
Plants with moderate salt tolerance can be grown in most cases without special practices
for salinity control.
"High-salinity water (C3)cannot be used on soils with restricted drainage.Even with
adequate drainage,special management for salinity control may be required and plants
with good salt tolerance should be selected.
"Very high salinity water (C4)is not suitable for irrigation under ordinary conditions,
but may be used occasionally under very special circumstances.The soils must be perme-
able,drainage must be adequate,irrigation water must be applied in excess to provide con-
siderable leaching,and very salt-tolerant crops should be selected.
"Low-sodium water (Sl)can be used for irrigation on almost all soils with little danger
of the development of harmful levels of exchangeable sodium.However,sodium-sensitive
crops such as stone-fruit trees and avocados may accumulate injurious concentrations of so-
dium.
"Medium-sodium water (S2)will present an appreciable sodium hazard in fine-textured soils
having high cation-exchange-capacity,especially under low-leaching conditions,unless gyp-
sum is present in the soil.This water may be used on coarse-textured or organic soils with
good permeability.
-20 -
EXPLANATION
I.(C-4--2)26cbc
2.(C-4--3)20dba
3.(C-Ij.-3 )26dda
4-.(C-5-1)17bdc
5.(C-5-2 )26bbb-1
6.(C-5-3)36cba
7.(C-6-1 )18dca-1
8.(C-6-1 )3Idab-1
9.(C-6-2)6cad
10.(C-6-2)13caa-1
II.(C-6-2)I4-cac-1
12.(C-6-2)I4-cba-1
13.(C-6-2)l4-dba-1
14-.(C-6-2)15bbb-1
15.(C-6-2)15bcb-1
16.(C-6-2)15cbb-1
17.(C-6-2)26cbb-1
18.(C-6-2)29bdd-1
19.(C-6-2)29ccc-1
20.(C-6-2)29ccc
21.(C-6-2)32bbd-1
22.(C-6-2)32cbc-1
23.(C-6-2)33bcb-1
24-.(C-6-3)laad
25.(C-6-3)15bad
26.(C-7-2)25bdb-1
27.(C-7-2)35bcc-1
28.(C-8-2)15aad-1
29.(C-8-2)18bcb-1
30.(C-8-2)3Iadb-1
10
C4-
VERY HIGH
C3
HIGH
C2
MEDIUM
250 750 2250
CONDUCTIVITY (micromhos/cm at 25°C)
8
~(I)6...J
Ij.
2
0
100
CI
LOW
100 5000
>ox0::c:l :::I"w-(I)>x 30 30
28
::cc:l M
(I)::c
22
20 20
<::>0
0::i=<[N <[
<[0::::c Iz:0
::::t:b::";ii ~N
..:.:<::>(I)0::
W 0
<[::::t:(I).......<::><[
::::t::!:jlj.~~;;-
0 <::>0(I)(I)
12
SALINITY HAZARD
Figure 8.Classification of water for irrigation In Cedar Valley
(method of U.S.Salinity Lab.Staff,1954,p.80).
Numbers refer to analyses in table 4.
·21·
"High-sodium water (S3)may produce harmful levels of exchangeable sodium in most
soils and will require special soil management-good drainage,high leaching,and organic
matter additions.Gypsiferous soils may not develop harmful levels of exchangeable sodium
from such waters.Chemical amendments may be required for replacement of exchangeable
sodium,except that amendments may not be feasible with waters of very high salinity."
Water from most of the wells and springs that were sampled in Cedar Valley has a low-
sodium hazard and a medium-salinity hazard (figure 8).The analyses of water from the
three wells that were sampled in the southern part of the valley,however,suggests that
water in a large area southeast of Fairfield probably has a very high salinity hazard and
medium to high-sodium hazard.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Most of the water in the ground-water reservoir of Cedar Valley is derived from precipi-
tation on the Oquirrh Mountains northwest of the valley.After seeping into the ground,the
water moves directly from the bedrock of the mountains into the aquifers of the valley fill,
thence east and southeast across the valley.
Most of the wells in the valley tap artesian aquifers in the north-central part of the
basin and yield water of good quality for domestic use and irrigation.Stock wells in the
southeast part of the basin yield water of poor quality from aquifers under water-table con-
ditions.In the southwest comer of the valley,where some recharge occurs at the base of
the East Tintic Mountains,stock wells yield water of good quality.
During 1965,eight irrigation wells in sees.13, 14,15,and 26,T.6 S.,R.2 W.,discharged a
total of 1,900 acre-feet of water.The yields of the wells ranged from 130 to 1,115 gpm,and
specific capacities ranged from 0.7 to 6.8 gpm per ft of drawdown.During 1964,the eight
wells discharged only 1,100 acre-feet of water,but three wells in sees.17 and 32 discharged
an additional 2,700 acre-feet of water.Two of the wells in sec.17,reportedly yielded 2,000
and 3,600 gpm,with specific capacities of about 30 and 37 gpm per ft of drawdown upon
their completion in 1961-62.The difference in well performance in the two areas is an indi-
cation of more permeable aquifers on the west edge of the basin.
Water levels in the valley generally fluctuate in response to variations of precipitation.
In sees.14 and 15,T.6 S.,R.2 W.,however,where nine irrigation wells were drilled during
1951-64,water levels have declined as much as 21 feet during the period 1954-66.Water levels
in wells near Fairfield and the discharge of Fairfield Spring declined during the period 1962-
64 when large irrigation wells in sec.17,T.6 S.,R.2 W.,were pumped in the same or inter-
connected aquifers.
The estimated subsurface outflow of water from Cedar Valley along the east edge of the
basin ranges from about 10,000 to 20,000 acre-feet per year.Some of this water could be
recovered in the valley by an increased withdrawal of water from wells,principally along
the west edge of the basin in T.6 S.,R.2 W.,where most of the recharge enters the valley
fill from the bedrock in the Oquirrh Mountains.The aquifers in this area are the most perme-
able known in the basin;they are under artesian conditions,and the quality of the water
is good.The altitude of the area would permit gravitational flow of the water to nearly any
area now being irrigated.A long-terrn effect of pumping the wells,however,would be a
decrease in the artesian pressure of the aquifers and a resultant decrease in or cessation of
discharge from flowing wells and springs in the Fairfield area.
Another area of potential ground-water development is the alluvial fan of West Canyon.
No well or water-level data are available for the large area north of Utah Highway 73,but
permeable matedaIs should be prescnt in the fan which was built by the only perennial
stream in the valley.
-22 -
SELECTED REFERENCES
Bissell,H.J.,1963,Lake Bonneville:Geology of southern Utah Valley,Utah:U.S.Geol.
Survey Prof.Paper 257-B.
Bullock,K.C.,1951,Geology of Lake Mountain,Utah:Utah Geol.and Mineralog.Survey Bull.
41.
Cook,K.L.,and Berg,J.W.,Jr.,1961,Regional gravity survey along the central and south-
ern Wasatch front,Utah:U.S.Geol.Survey Prof.Paper 316-E.
Disbrow,A.E.,1957,Preliminary geologic map of the Fivemile Pass quadrangle,Tooele and
Utah Counties,Utah:U.S.Geol.Survey Mineral lnv.Field Studies Map MF-131.
__1961,Geology of the Boulter Peak quadrangle,Utah:U.S.Geol.Survey Geol.Quad.Map
GQ-141.
Eakin,T.E.,and Maxey,G.B.,1951,Ground water in Ruby Valley,Elko and White Pine
Counties,Nevada,in Contributions to the hydrology of eastern Nevada:Nevada State En-
gineer Water Resources Bull.12.
Gilluly,James,1932,Geology and ore deposits of the Stockton and Fairfield quadrangles,Utah:
U.S.Geol.Survey Prof.Paper 173.
Hunt,C.B.,Varnes,H.D.,and Thomas,H.E.,1953,Lake Bonneville:Geology of north-
ern Utah Valley,Utah:U.S.Geol.Survey Prof.Paper 257-A.
Morris,H.T.,1964,Geology of the Tintic Junction quadrangle,Tooele,Juab,and Utah Count-
ies,Utah:U.S.Geol.Survey Bull.1142-L.
________1964,Geology of the Eureka quadrangle,Utah and Juab Counties,Utah:U.S.Geol.
Survey Bull.1142-K.
Morris,H.T.,and Lovering,T.S.,1961,Stratigraphy of the East Tintic Mountains,Utah,
with a section on Quaternary deposits by H.D.Goode:U.S.Geol.Survey Prof.Paper 361.
Proctor,P.D.,and others,1956,Preliminary geologic map of the AlIens Ranch quadrangle,
Utah:U.S.Geol.Survey Mineral lnv.Field Studies Map MF-45.
Rigby,J.K.,1952,Geology of the Selma Hills,Utah County,Utah:Utah Geol.and Mineralog.
Survey Bull.45.
Snyder,C.T.,1963,Hydrology of stock-water development on the public domain of western
Utah:U.S.Geol.Survey Water-Supply Paper 1475-N.
Stokes,W.L.,ed.,1963,Geologic map of Utah,NW1f.1:Utah Univ.
Theis,C.V.,1935,The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate
and duration of discharge of a well using ground-water storage:Am.Geophys.Union
Trans.,v.16,p.519-524.
U.S.Public Health Service,1962,Drinking water standards:Public Health Service Pub.956.
U.S.Salinity Laboratory Staff,1954,Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils:
U.S.Dept.Agriculture Handb.60.
-23-
Table 2.-Records of selected wells in Cedar Valley
Well number:See text for description of numbering system.Lucations are shown in figure 4.
Type of well:Dr,drilled;Du,dug.
Altitude of land-surface datluu:Surveyed altitudes from U.S.Geological Survey are given in feet and tentlHJ;altitudes interpolated [rom topographic maps are given
in feet.
Measuring point:Description -Ahp,access hole in pump;Apc,access pipe on casing:Bpb,bottom of pwnp base;Edp,end of discharge pipe:Hca.hole in casing;
Hpb,hole in pump base;Hpc,hole in plate over casing;Tca,top of casing;Tee,top of cap on casing;Tee,top of elbow on casing;Tfe,top of flange on casing:
Tpe,top of pipe coupling;Tre,top of reducer un casing;Ttc,top of tee on easing.
Water level:Measured distances to water levels are given in feet and tenths;reported distances are given in feet.
Method of lift:Cy,cylinder pump;F,well;N,no pump and well does not flow;T,turbine pump;Ts,suhmersible turbine pump.
Yield (gpm,gallons per minute):B,bailed;natural flow;P,pumped;e,estimated;m,measured;r,reported.
Specific capacity:gpm/ft,gallons per minute per foot of drawdown.
Use of water in 1965:0,domestic;I,irrigation;N,none;Nt,none,drilled as test well;S,stock.
Temperature:r,reported.Remarks and other Jata available:C,chemical analysis (tahle 4);EGR,electrical and ganuna-ray in files of U.S.Geological Survey,Salt Lake City;H,hydro-
graph (fig.5);L,driller's log (table 6);perf.,casi.ng perforated;TW,test well;TWL,log (table 7);W,water-level measurements (table 5).
Well
number OWner or user
MeasurLng
point Water level
~o
Yield
..Q
Drawdown ~
>..0'
U 0it~~~~
.~8.~r:
"'
Remarks and other
data available
(C-5-1)
19dbb-l 1963 Dr 105 10,6 105 4,900 Dry 8-4-65 N N
20ddc-1 U.S.Geological 1966 Dr 300 1 220 4,795 Tca +0.5 -93.5 5-3-66 N Nt TW 3.PerL 60-70,90-100,210-220
Survey ft.EGR,TWL,w.
(C-5-2)
24aab-l do 1966 Dr 155 1554,989.7 Tca -127.3 5-3-66 N Nt TW 2.Perf.55-65,145-155 ft.EGR,
TWL,W.
26bbb-1 State of Utah 1916 Dr 448 448 5,082.9 -361 6-22-60 Cy 18Pr 6-22-60 53 C.
31dcd-1 G.s.Cook 1963 Dr 325 321 5,181.4 Tea +1.4 -296.8 2-28-66 N Bailer test April 1963;yield 12
gpm,no drawdown after 1 hr.Perf.
300-320 ft.L,W.
34dab-l 1943 Dr 280 6,4 280 4,962.2 Tca +.9 -249.0 3-26-66 N No perforations reported.Water
level 250 ft in Apri1 1943 reported
by well driller.W.
(C-6-1)
l8dca-l Cooperat ive Security 1948 Dr 264 264 4,887.9 Tca -230.0 3-lLf-66 Cy 12Pm 8-31.-65 S 81 Perf•235-264 ft.C,L,W.
Corp.
3ldab-l do 1947 Dr 223 223 4,875 Tca +1.1 -195.3 3-lLf-66 Cy 6Prn 7-21-65 S 61 Perf.190-223 ft.C,W.
(C-6-2)
1acc-l U.S.Geological 1966 Dr 300 300 4,891.5 Tca -174.6 3-30-66 N Nt TW1.Perf.200-210, 230-240,280-
Survey 290 ft.EGR,TWL,W.
5cad-l 193-Dr 105 4,972.8 Tca -3.3 -82.9 2-28-66 N Local resident reported well drilled
i.n early 1930's as drought relief
we 11 to depth of about 200 ft.Well
wa,never used.W.
13caa-l Cooperative Security 1962 Dr 525 10 339 4,856.6 Ape +1.5 -119.8 3-28-66 T 400Pm 5-3-66 72 (1)5.5 1 61 We11 was grave1 packed 15-339 ft;
Corp.perf.0-339 ft;sealed 0-15 ft
with bentonite in 20-inch surface
casing.C,L,W.
14aba-l do 1954 Dc 1,258 20,12 l,254 4,865.7 Tca -121.7 3-28-66 N 90Pr 2--54 N Perf.150-300,306-1,254 ft.L,w.
14aca-1 do 1954 Or 1,014 20,12 1,014 4,862.6 Tea 0 -109.7 2-28-66 N N Perf.150-274,280-1,014 ft.W.
l4cac-l do 1951 Dr 1,250 14,10 1,250 4,855 .1 Edp +14.4 -87.1 3-28-66 T 530Pm 5-3-66 1 59 Perf.below 300 ft.C,W.
l4cba-l do 1954 Dr 1,007 16 1,007 4,856.7 Hea -1.0 -99.2 3-28-66 T 330Pm 5-3-66 0,1 59 Perf.98-1,007 ft.C,H,W.
l4dba-l do 1964 Dr 810 20,12 600 4,858.4 Bpb +1.9 -97.3 3-28-66 T 130Pm 5-3-66 174 (1).7 1 64 Casing:20-inch from 0-556 ft,12-
10 inch from 0-350 ft,and lO-inch
from 350 to 600 ft.Perf.120-556
ft in 20-inch casing,170-600 ft in
12-and lO-inch casing.Gravel
packed between 20-inch and 12-and
lO-inch casing 0-600 ft.C,W.
15abb-l do 1961 Dr 2;366 16,10,2,085 4,864.9 Tca -120.4 3-27-66 N 470Pm 7-1-63 We11 deepened from 460 to 890 it in
8 1959 and from 890 to 2,366 ft in
1961.Perf.222-440,985-995,
1,045-1,075,1,440-],485,1,844-
2,070 ft.L,W
15bbb-1 do 1957 Dr 835 16 835 4,871.7 Apc a -11.8.9 2-28-66 T 515Pm 5-3-66 134 33 .3 .8 53 Perf.below 185 ft.C,W.
15bcb-l do 1959 Dr 955 L6,1O 955 4,864.6 Apc +2.5 -88.9 3-24-66 T 390Pm 5-3-66 140 (1)2.8 53 Perf.27B-955 ft.C,W.
15cbb-l do 1957 Dr 455 16 415 4,860.5 Apc +1.5 -71.4 3-28-66 T 500Pm 5-3-66 138 (1)3.6 53 Perf.190-340,395-405 ft.C,W.
16baa-l M.K.White 1951 Dr 505 10 505 4,876.5 Hpb +1.3 -67.9 4-1-66 T 335Pm 7-10-63 Perf.below 80 ft.H,W.
17dcc-1 do ]961 Dr 600 16 562 4,913.6 Ahp +.5 -20.7 3-31-66 T 2,000Pr 12-30-61 67 2.6 30 Perf.150-175,237-246,350-376,
2,890Pm 7-1-64 422-432, 445-492,525-555 ft.The
south well of two wells.L,W.
l7dcc-2 do 1962 Dr 595 16 595 4,920.9 Ahp +.5 -27.9 3-31-66 T 3,600Pr 2-24-62 97 J 37 Perf.170-174,238-248,325-350,
2,765Pm 7-1-64 365-371,410-440, 465-481,488-
493,530-544, 550-574,582-587 ft.
The north we11 of twowells.W.
25cbc-1 Cooperative Security Dr 4,838.8 Tca +1.7 -68.9 3-30-66 Cy W.
Corp.
26cbb-l do 1962 Dr 505 18 505 4,844.1 Apc +3.3 -59.2 4-7-66 T l,1l5Pm 5-3-66 164 26 6.8 1 53 Perf.210-505 ft.C,L,W.
27cca-1 S.D.NichLlles 1953 Dr 80 6 804,842.8 Tcc +.6 -34.6 4-7-66 N N Perf.below 35 ft.W.
27ccc-l U.S.Geological 1966 Dr 505 1 505 4,843.2 Tca 0 -27.9 4-7-66 N Nt TW 4.Perf.265-275,455-465,485-
495 ft.EGR,TWL,W.
27ccc-2 1966 Dr 100 100 4,843.2 Tea -25.1 4-7-66 N Nt TW 5.Perf.90-100 ft.Located 15 ft
from well (C-6-2)27ccc-1.W.
28bac-l S.D.Nicholes 1953 Dr 80 6 804,858.1 Tee +.5 -20.0 3-11-66 N N Perf.below 20 ft.W.
29hdd-l E.R.Carson Dr L50 3 150 4,875.1 Trc +1.2 +13.1 4-7-66 F 1.8Fm 7-30-65 S 51 C,W.
29cac-l L.N.Meinzer -Dr 350 4 350 4,888.4 Tea 0 +.9 4-6-66 F <lFe 4-6-66 s 50 C,H,w.
29cac-2 do 1953 Dr 220 4 220 4,888.7 Tea +.5 -.4 ,-6-66 N N L,W.
29ccc-1E.R.Carson -Dr 189 3 189 4,886.7 Ttc +1.8 +2.8 3-11-66 F 1.7Fm 9-9-65 1,S 52 C,w.
32bbd-l M.K.White 1964 Dr 613 16 601 4,880 F 42.8Fm 9-10-65 1 Perf.at 14 intervals between 205 and
T 750Pr 3-14-64 145 1.3 5.2 595 ft.C,L.
-24-
Table 2.-Records of selected wells in Cedar Valley -Continued
Measuring Water level Yield Drawclownpoint ~~
~"""~§~~~.~'"t~E "i"."~~.,.-,~~~e·..ij~~o •.:l.~.i~~~~"~~~~~".,o •t1~~~~-~~"Well ~"'5 w ~~0 "·B".i j o •.~e.number Owner oe user "0 B.~o~]~~"~".~"·~Remarks and other0.0 ~".~!,
"~J~~-0 .0 '.0.~~!data available·~.~et:<'~~~·~~i]0 ::!0 0
"E-<"2i :;;j ~~2i ..·,"~""~~~~".":::
(C-6-2)
32cbc-l Utah State Parks and D'64 64 4,890 6P,C.
Recreation Comrn.
33bcb-l Rulon Carson De 525 525 4,862.4 Tee +2.0 +10.6 4-7-66 F <1Fe 4-7-66 0,I C,W.
34bac-l S.D.Nicholes 1953 D'275 804,843.5 Tea +1.7 -30.9 3-11-66 N 25Pr 8--53 N Well depth sounded at 55 it below
the top of casing in May 1963.
Perf.below 30 ft.W.
(C-7-2)
Scbc-l W.McKinney Do 5',72x72 lj,.902 -45 Water level reported by Snyder
(1963,p.522).
23bcc-l R.J.McKinney 1948 0,220 220 4,835 Hpe -114 6 3-11-66 Cy lOPr 7-22-48 58,L,W.
25bdb-l do Du 200 200 4,846 Cy 54 Original dug well backfilled around
6-inch tile casing with 4-inch
steel pump column.C.
29dbc-l L.A.Fitzgerald -Du 198 4,860 Tfc +.3 -169.0 3-11-66 Ts Original dug well backfilled around
6-inch tile casing with 4-inch
steel pump column.W.
35bcc-l R.J.McKinney 1948 Dr 225 225 4,852 Tea -180.4 3-11-66 Cy lOBr 7-14-48 S 60,C.W.
(C-8-2)
lSaad-l J.H.Allen Du 275 4,895 Tpe +.6 -240.8 3-11-66 Cy Original dug well backfilled around
6-inch tile casing with 4-inch
steel pl.U1lp column.C,W.
IBbcb-l do Du 29D 72x72 4,930 Cy C.
31adb-l do Du 365 5,D16 Tea +.8 -343.0 3-11-66 Cy Original dug well backfilled around
6-inch steel casing with 4-inch
pump column.C,W•
.!I Well had been pumped for about 1 month since the beginning of the irrigation season.
-25-
Table 3.-Records of selected springs in Cedar Valley
Location:See figure 7.
Geologic source:Oquirrh Formation is of Pennsylvanian and Permian age.
Use of water:D,domestic,I,irrigation;S,stock.
Dependability:G,good;F,fair.
Yield (gpm,gallons per minute):e.estimated;m,measured.
Remarks and other data available:C,chemical analysis (table 4);H,hydrograph (fig.5);K,specific conductance (table 4).
Location Owner or ~ame
Geologic
Fonnation Nature
of
type of rock openings
Remarks and other
data available
(C-4-2)26cbc
(C-4-3)20dba
26cbd
Tickville Spring Alluvillln in Large seep area in
contact with stream channel
igneous rock
of Tertiary
age
Oquirrh Forma-Joints and solution
ti.on channels in lime-
stone
Cottonwood Spring do do
45
51
None
do
Water
trough
lOe None C.
4-7-66
15m do C.
11-)-65
l5e Tufa K.
11-3-65
26dda do do 49 do 15m
11-3-65
do C.
27bab do do 48 G None 17m
11-3-65
do K.
(C-S-l)17bdc Alluvium Seep area in stream
channe1
Water
trough
<le None C.
8-25-65
36cba Cedar Fort
Irrigation
Co.
Oquirrh Forma-Joints and solution
tion channels in lime-
stone
Alluvium Seep area in canyon
fill
Oquirrh Forma-Joints and solution
tion channels in lime-
stone
Pipeline 5m do Water piped about half
and trough 11-2-65 a mile to water
trough.K.
None 300e Tufa C.
7-22-65
C.H.
C.
C.
C.
K.doIDe
ll-2-65
>88m Tufa
7-22-65
>124m None
7-22-65
7m None
6-21-65
2,07Om do
3-11-66
None
Headhouse,
pipeline,
and diver-
sion system
Tunneland
pipeline
None
G Headhouse
and pipe-
line
50
52
42 G
44
52
46
47
I,S
0,1,5
0,1,5
0,1,5
Large seep and
spring area at toe
of alluvial fan
Joints and solution
channels in lime-
stone
do
Oquirrh Forma-
tion
Alluvium over-
lying the
Oquirrh
Formation
Alluvial fan
do
Fairfield Spring
do
FairfieId
Irrigation
Co.
Cedar Fort
Irrigation
Co.
4dcd
15bad
29ccc
(C-S-3)4cdc
(C-6-2)6cad
(0-6-3)laad
(C-9-2)29b
and 32c
J.H.Allen AlluviLlm Seep area D,S Pipeline
and tanks
Water piped about 4
miles from two spring
sites to ranch house
and several stock
tanks.K.
-26-
Table 4.-Chemical analyses of water from wells and springs in Cedar Valley
Dissolved solids'Residue on evaporation at 180°C unless indicated otherwise.
Parts per million 0
u ~;;
E Na +K ~e ~,
~~".§~:
i~,u 00 .g •",~""00 M ..e~"L "'0 "000 g Ul (""\~{Sampling site ~~~.~.~u~'M~u~"U '&2l~oo~!j~e M ..."~•M '0 e •~00 0 ge~§~u •"""~o 00 ~e .33 "0 'M ');U ""U.~~u 61e 'M •oo~"U ~u .~C ~•e •'0Q'3 8.i1~'Oz 00,",.~e "~<3 0 •00 u'Ou .'M"
:l'!g~~~.~Z 00 Ol.e "
J ~~m u o •...'"Z~8..~~~
(C-4-2)26cbc 4-7-66 48 77 10 41 220 0 33 76 0,8 431 234 54 1,2 634 7,7
(C-4-3)20dba 11-3-65 45 7,0 95 13 10 330 0 25 11 ,3 323 290 19 ,3 558 7,6
26cbd 11-3-65 51 ---- ---771 -
26dda 11-3-65 49 12 130 28 47 447 0 58 80 ,I 558 438 71 1,0 1,000 7,7
27bab 11-3-65 48 - - -- - - -670
(C-5-1)17bdc 8-25-65 -49 148 30 57 148 12 56 295 2,1 853 494 353 1,1 1,360 8,5
(C-5-2)26bbb-l 6-30-65 53 19 80 14 21 262 0 37 34 1,1 337 257 42 ,6 572 7,6
(C-S-3)4cdc 11-2-65 45 - ---- -- -477 -
4dcd 11-2·65 42 -------- --- --518 -
36cba 7-22-65 46 6,5 62 16 2,9 240 0 15 8,0 3,5 227 220 23 ,I 424 7,6
(C-6-1)IBdca-l 7-1-65 81 21 75 25 35 240 0 70 66 1,4 421 288 91 ,9 706 7,7
31dab-1.!/7-1-65 61 46 82 116 179 324 0 291 355 .7 1.!t,230 680 414 3,0 2.060 7,8
(C-6-2)6cad 7-22-65 50 8,0 88 12 5,5 288 0 27 11 2.1 290 269 33 .1 520 7,7
13caa-l 7-1-65 61 55 35 18 37 208 0 38 21 .4 300 160 0 1,3 461 8,0
14cac-l 6-8-65 59 53 31 14 20 170 0 14 16 1,0 229 134 0 ,7 344 8.0
14cba-l 6-8-65 59 48 27 13 26 174 0 14 14 .2 225 120 0 1,0 346 7.6
14dba-l 6-9-65 64 46 29 13 36 198 0 22 14 .0 253 126 0 1,4 393 8.1
lSbbb-l 6-8-65 53 40 80 32 14 263 0 36 78 .7 451 332 116 .3 709 7.7
15bcb-l 6-8-65 53 38 55 26 16 248 0 37 26 .0 313 244 41 .4 512 8,1
15cbb-l 6-8-65 53 40 46 20 8.6 194 6 23 17 2.1 273 200 41 .3 434 8,4
26cbb-l 7-1-65 53 53 36 30 20 246 0 27 19 .2 298 212 10 .6 470 8,2
29bdd-l 7-30-65 51 11 58 17 5,9 228 0 17 15 2.7 235 215 28 ,2 430 7,6
29cac-l 1-3-66 50 - --- --17 -----421 -
29ccc-l 9-9-65 52 11 57 18 9.2 232 0 18 17 1,4 262 214 24 ,3 444 7,7
29ccc 6-3-65 10 59 20 8.7 236 0 29 18 2.3 253 232 38 ,3 457 8.1
32bbd-l 6-30-65 14 56 27 12 248 0 40 21 1,0 290 250 47 ,3 507 8.1
32cbc-l 10-4-65 -19 67 30 31 325 0 49 29 .1 380 292 26 .8 647 7.9
33bcb-l 1-3-66 -15 32 16 33 193 0 34 16 .3 237 146 0 1,2 424 8.0
(C-6-3)laad 7-22-65 47 6.8 65 16 4.0 248 0 17 8.7 3.2 235 227 24 .1 436 8.2
15bad 6-21-65 52 6.9 67 29 12 303 0 38 20 .2 321 289 41 .3 586 7,7
(C -7-2)25bdb-12.1 3-31-66 54 32 28 135 426 I 54 518 0 941 140 ,4 lh,020 625 200 7,4 2,870 8,1
35bcc-l 3-29-66 23 42 114 383 487 0 842 94 .4 2/1 740 575 176 7.0 2,430 7.8
(C-8-2)15aad-l 3--66 52 30 92 439 764 0 638 84 ,5 :~h>lO 455 0 8.9 2,410 8.1
IBbcb-l 3--66 10 31 24 75 226 0 72 56 1,5 391 176 0 2.5 668 7,8
31adb-l 3--66 38 26 19 101 228 0 64 79 .5 448 146 0 3,6 717 7.7
(C-9-2)29b and 32c - ---- ----581
1/Analysis includes 2.2 ppm fluoride.
2/Calculated from determined constituents.1/Analysis includes 0.00 ppm iron (at time of analysis),4.0 ppm fluoride.and 1.3 ppm boron.
-27-
Table 5.-Water levels in observation wells in Cedar Valley
Water levels in feet below land-surface datum are designated by a minus (-)sign immediately before the first entry in each column
in t11€tahle,those above land-surface datum are designated si.milarly by a plus (+)sign.The sign applied to any water level applies
to all succeeding water levels until a change is indicated.
An asterisk (*)immediately after a measurement indicates that the measurement is [rom data supplied by the Office of the Utah
State Engineer;a dagger (t)after a measurement indicates that:the measurement is from data supplied by private consultant;all other
measurements were made by the U.S.Geological Survey.
(C-5-1)20ddc-1.Records available 1966 (C-b-Z)14cba-l -Continued
Mar.18,19661-49.7 Mar.30,1966 .?-88.I May 3,1966 1 -93.5 Aug.25,19659-139.6 Sept.19,1965--g-130.7 Mar.1,1966 -96.3
Mar.21 Y 60.0 Apr.1 3/42.4 June 9 93.3 Aug.31 ';./123.8 Oct.4 111.8 Mar.28 96.1
Mar.26 1/80.8 Anr.7 'j/57.9 Sept.9 ';./121.5 Oct.29 103.2 Mar.29 6/102.2
Sept.16 :>.1 218.4 Nov.30 99.3 Mar.30 6/104.6
(C-5-2)24aab-l.Records availabIe 1966 Sept.17 ';./154.5 Jan.3,1966 98.3 Mar.31 6/106.6
Mar,26,1966 1 -67.0 Apr.'.1966l!-101.2 June 9,1966 1/-131.0 Sept.18 4/143.3 Feb.1 4/100.7 Apr.I 6/107.9
Mar.30 .!J 96.7 May 3 y 127.3 (C-6-2\14dba-l.Records available 1964-66
(C-5-2)31dcd-1.Records available 1965-66 Oct.10,1964 -101.9 Sept.18,1965 -148.8 Mar.I,1966 -97.5
Aug.3,1965 -299.9 Oct.29,1965 -298.6 Feb.I.1966 -297.1 Dec.16 105.3 Sept.19 139.1 Mar.28 97.3
Aug.31 299.7 Nov.30 297.9 Feh.28 296.7 Mar.9,1965 102.4 Sept.20 133.3 Mar.29 '2/102.7
Oct.4 299.0 Jan.3,1966 297.4 Apr.12 120.2 Oct.4 112.6 Mar.30 2.1 105.9
July 1 169.7 Oct.29 104.4 Mar.31 '!./108.5
(C-5-2)34dab-l.Records available 1966 Aug.25 147.1 Nov.30 100.6 Apr.I §./110.0
May 26,1966 -249.0 Aug.31 128.6 Jan.3,1966 99.1 May 3 lJ 271.2
Seot.17 195.8 Feb.I 98.2
(C-6-1)18dca-1.Records available 1964-66 (C -6-2)15ab6-1.Records available 1964-66
Apr.28,1964 -227.I July 21,1965 -229.9 Oct.4,1965 -229,9 Mar.25,1964 -123.9 Aug.31,1965 -136.3 Oct.29,1965 -123.9Nov.9 228.8 Aug.3 229.7 Oct.29 230,0
Mar.9,1965 229.6 Aug.12 9 230.2 Mar.14,1966 230.0 Nov.10 122.0 Sept.16 135.3 Nov.30 122.4
Apr.12 232.8 Sept.3 229.9 Dec.16 121.2 Sept.17 134.9 Jan.3,1966 121.6
Mar.9,1965 121.5 Sept.18 134.3 Feb.1 121.1
(C-6-1)3ldab-l.Records available 1964-66 Apr.12 124.9 Sept.19 133.6 Feb.28 120.7
July 1 136.1 Sept.20 132.8 Mar.27 120.4
Apr.28,1964 -194.2 Aug.12,1965 -194.9 Nov.30,1965 -195.3 July 30 137.3 Sept.27 128.8 May 4 133.1
Dec.16 194.7 Sept.3 195.0 Jan.4,1966 195.3 Au".12 138.5 Oct.4 126.9
Mar.26,1965 194.6 Oct,4 195.1 Mar.14 195.3
Aug.3 194.9 Oct.29 195.2 (C-6-2)15bbb-1.Records available 1958-61 1964-66
(C-6-2)lace-I.Records available 1966 Mar.14,1958 -101.9 Nov.6,1964 -120.9*Oct.4,1965 -127.4
1966 li-136.0
Dec.24,1959 107.6 Nov.10 120.4 Oct.29 123.1
Mar.21,Mar.30,1966 -174.6 May 3,1966 -174.8 Mar.25,19602)123.7 Dec.16 119.1 Nov.30 121.4
Mar.22 l!154.2 Apr.1 174.5 June 9 174.6 Dec.7 111.2 Apr.12,1965 124.1 Jan.3,1966 120.2
Mar.26 174.5 Apr.7 174.5 Mar.22,1961 118.1 Aug.24 145.0 Feb.1 119.4
(C-G-2)5cad-1.Mar.25,1964 116.6 Sept.9 l.l 240.2 Feb.28 119.0Recordsavailable1965-66 Oct.2 126.0'1<Sept.16 165.8 Mar.30 118.6
Aug.17,1965 85.6 Oct.29,1965 -83.5 Feh.I,1966 -82.8 Oct.22 122.0*Sept.20 141.9 May 3 5/252.1
Aug.31 84.5 Nov.30 83.4 Feb.28 82.6
Oct.4 83.7 (C-6-2)lSbcb-l.Records available 1963-66
Mar.23,1963 -96.5*Dec.16,1964 -90.1 Oct.29,1965 -96.0(C-6-2)13ca.a-1.Records available 1963-66 July 3 '!J 127.4 Mar.9,1965 96.8 Nov.30 93.2
Mar.29,1963 -117.l~r Apr.12,1965 4(119.5 Nov.30,1965 -122.8 Mar.25,1964 88.4 Apr.12 97.9 Jan.3,1966 92.2
Apr.5 117.4*Sept.9 ~/i~~::Jan.3,1966 121.4 Oct.2 102.4*Sept.19 4/152.1 Feb.1 90.0
June 6 4/156.6 Sept.17 Feb.I 120.6 Oct.22 95.0*Sept.20 ~/145.3 Mar.I 89.2
July 10 ~/133.1 Sept.18 ';./141.9 Mar.14 120.0 Nov.6 93.0*Oct.4 103.9 Mar.30 88.8
Mar.25,1964 118.1 Sept.19 ';./136.6 Mar.27 119.8 ".,n no "
Oct.10 122.3 Sept,20 ';./134.1 Mar.28 119.8 (C-6-2\15c6b-l.Dec.16 120.6 Oct,4 127.4 May 3 lJ 192.1 Records available 1963-66
Mar.9,1965 120.1 Oct,29 124.6 Mar.23,19632.1-74.fJk Apr.29,1964 '!./-78.8*Sept.18,1965 ';./-124.8
Mar.26 4/124.6 Mar.29 6/79.4*Oct.22 78.7*19 ';./118.0~/Sept.
(C-6-2)14aba-l.Apr.5 93.0*Nov.6 76.6*Sept.20 ';./113.2Recordsavailable1954-55 1963-66 Apr.30 91.;ri'Nov.10 75.6 Oct.4 86.9
Dec.9,1954 -111.0 Mar.25,1964 -118.9 July 31,1965 -139.3 May 7 '!./98.5*Dec.16 73.6 Oct.29 78.4
Apr.12,1955 109.1 Oct.I 129.6 Aug.31 134.9 May 11 95.8*Mar.9,1965 72.2 Nov.30 75.2
Mar.23,1963 119.9"~Nov.10 123.7 Sept.17 133.2 June 6 94.2 Apr.12 6/79.3 Jan.3,1966 73.4
Mar.29 122.4>',De,"".16 122.3 Sept.30 129.9 June 15 §J 102.21,Sept.9 4/114.4 Feb.1 72.5
Apr.5 127.0*Dec.31 122.0 Oct,31 125.2 July 3 95.3*Sept.15 5/213.8 Mar.1 71.7
Apr.30 129.5*Jan.31,1965 121.6 Nov.30 123.7 July 20 2.1 117.?"Sept.16 4/140.8 Mar.24 71.5
May 7 129.9>',Feb.25 121.4 Dec.31 122.8 Mar.25,1964 72.8 Sept.17 4/133.5 Mar.28 71.4
May 11 130.7*Mar.1 121.2 Feb.1,1966 122.3 (C-6-2\16baa-1.May 23 132.4*Mar.31 128.8 Mar.1 121.9 Records available 1954-61 1965-66
June 6 133.1 Apr.30 129.6 Mar.28 121.7 Dec.9,1954 -53.7 Dec.7,1960 -70.6 Sept.19,1965 -85.2June15132.1*May 31 131.8 May 3 135.0 Apr.12,1955 53.8 Dec.20,1961 71.8 Oct.4 75.9July3128.41,June 30 136.7 June 9 136.3 Dec.22 58.0 July I,19652.1 87.7 Oct.29 72.7July20132.61'Mar.28,1956 58.3 July 30 6/87.5 Nov.30 71.2
(C-6-2)14aca-l.Jan.2,1957 60.4 Aug.12 6/88.5 Jan.3,1966 70.3Recordsavailable1954-55 1963-66 Dec.6 64.7 Aug.25 6/84.8 Feb.1 69.7
Dec.9,1954 98.4 Mar.25,1964 -109.3 Oct.4,1965 -120.1 Mar.14,1958 64.6 Aug.31 6/87.7 Feb.28 69.2
Apr.12,1955 95.7 Mar.9,1965 109.7 Oct.29 114.7 Apr.13,1959 69.6 Sept.16 ~/87.7 Apr.1 67.9
Mar.23,1963 110.6''''1 145.4 Nov.30 112.3 Dec.24 68.3 Sept.17 87.0 May 3 84.2
Mar.29 120.1-1'30 150.5 Jan.3,1966 111.1 Mar.25 1960 71.8 Se~t.18 86.3 June 9 88.9
Apr.5 133.U<Aug.12 155.4 Feh.1 110.2
Apr.30 130.0",Aug.31 131.5 Mar.1 109.7 (C-6-2)17dcc-l.Records available 1963-66
June 6 139.2 Sept.17 135.7 Mar,2,1963 -23.6~'Nov.I,1964 29.4t July 3,1965 23.8t
(C-6-2)14cac-1.Mar.23 23.Tic Nov.6 29.O~,July 10 23.6tRecordsavailable.1951-55,1964-66 Har.29 23,3'"Nov.7 28.9t July 30 23.2
May 17,1951 76.8 Dec.22,1955 -82.7 DeL,29,1965 -92.7 Apr,5 23.3"Nov.13 28.8 Aug.12 22.8
June 6 76.-;Har.25,1964 86.6 Nov.30 89.7 Apr.30 23.2"k Dec.17 27.6 Aug.25 22.9
Apr.22,1952 77.6 Oct.2 100.B~'Jan.3,1966 88.6 May 7 23.1*Feb,17,1965 25.8*Aug.31 22.3
Dec.31 78.2 Oct.22 92.]1"Feh.I 87.8 May 11 23.l~<Mar.9 25.8 Oct.4 21.5
Apr.22,1953 77 .8 Nov.10 91.1 Har.I 87.3 May 23 23.2;<Apr,2 25.2~<Oct.29 21.2
May 14 77 .8 Dec.16 89.2 Mar.28 87.1 June 3 23.6 Apr.10 25.1*Nov.30 20.8
Dec.9 1954 79.2 Ape.12 1965 Y 108.1 I~::i~3 23 •1)~Apr.12 25.6 Jan.3,1966 20.7
20 23.2i<Apr.17 25.2t Feb.2 20.8
(C-6-2)14cba-l.Records available 1954-60 1962-66 Apr.8,1964 24.2 June 5 24.3t Feb.28 20.7
Dec.9,1954 87.1 Mar.13,1959 Y -110.2 Apr.30,1963 ';./-150.3"Apr.29 24.01"June 19 24.tt Mar.28 20.7
Apr.12,1955 84.9 Dec.24 96.4 Dec.5 101.3 Oct.31 29.7t JulY 1 23.8 Mar.31 20.7
Dec.22 91.6 Mar.25,1960 95.6 Mar.25,1964 96.7 (C-6-2)17dcc-2.Mar.28,1956 89.6 Dec.7 100.8 Nov.10 100.1 Records available 1963-66
Jan.2,1957 93.8 Mar.5,1962 92.0 Dec.16 99.0 Mar.2,1963 30.-;,~Apr.5,1963 30.5i,May 11,1963 30.4i:
Dec.6 98.0 Dec.4 100.8 Apr.12,1965 Y 116.0 Mar.23 30.5'~Apr.30 30.5*May 23 30.Si<
Mar.14,1958 93.5 Mar.23,1963 99.31'(July 1 ~/161.6 Mar.29 30.6if Ma 7 30.4*June 3 31.0
-28-
Table 6.-Selected drillers'logs of wells in Cedar Valley
(Surveyed altitudes of land surface at the well by U.S.Geological Survey a,e given in feet and tenths;a 1titudes
interpulated [rom topographic maps a'e glven in feet .)
Thickness:Gi yen in feet.
Depth:Given in feet below Land surface.
Thickness Depth Thickness Depth Thickness Depth
(C-5-2)31ded-1.Log by E.W.(C-6-2)lSabb-l.Lug by Robinson (C-6-2)lSabb-l Continued
Hale.Alto 5,181.4 ft.Drilling Co.Alt.4.864.9 ft.Clay,brown 1,940
Boulders 15 15 Clay,yellow 42 42 Sand and fine grave1.,lI2-inch
Clay and sand0 50 65 Clay.[)lue 11 53 gravel 15 1,955
Boulders 2 67 Clay.yellow 29 82 Sand and gravel,3/4-Lnch
Clay 9 76 Gravel,4 86 gravel 10 1,965
Boulders 2 78 Clay,31 117 Sand and gravel,I-inch gravel 35 2,000
Clay 17 95 Sand,;making water 4 121 Sand,hard 5 2,005
Hardpan.1 96 Clay and gravel,sandy,yellow 6 127 Sand and gravel,I-inch gravel 20 2,025
Clay and sand.22 118 Sand,fine 10 137 Bentonite.5 2,030
Boulders 3 121 Sand and 9 146 Sand and gravel.5 2,035
Clay 3 124 Clay,56 202 Clay,sand,and gravel mixed 5 2,040
Boulders 2 126 Clay,22 224 Sand and gravel.2 2,042
Clay 10 136 Clay,20 241+Gravel,clay,and sand 3 2,045
Boulders 1 137 Clay,grave1.28 272 Clay,blue,and ,<;and ,<;hells.5 2,050
Clay and sand.27 164 Clay,sticky 10 282 Clay,hlue 6 2,056
Boulders 2 166 Clay,sandy.6 288 Sand,hard 4 2,060
Clay 26 192 Clay,sUcky 3 29l Shale,blue,hard and sticky 5 2,065
Boulders 1 193 Clay and rine gravel 3 29(+Sand,hard,and gravel 5 2,070
Clay 26 219 Clay,sticky 3 297 Shale,blue,hard and sticky 5 2,075
Clay and sand.31 250 Clay and fine grave1 3 300 Shale,blue,with hard sand
Boulders 2 252 Clay,sticky,light brown.8 308 shell.15 2,090
Clay 24 276 Clay,sandy,light brown 28 336 Limestone,gray,hard and
Boulders 2 278 Clay and grave1.11 347 sharp.38 2,128
Clay 16 294 Clay,sticky,light brown.4 351 Sand,hard and sharp 8 2,136
Boulders 2 296 Gravel 9 360 Lime,gray,hard 3 2,139
Clay 4 300 Clay,sticky,light brown.5 365 Sand,hard 9 2,148
Sand and gravel;water 25 325 Clay,sandy,light brown 37 402 Lime,gray,hard 53 2,201
Sand and cobbles 4 406 Limestone,different colors,
(C-6-l)18dca-1.Log by L.E.Clay,light brown 5 411 extra hard 3 2,204
Hale.Alt.4,887.9 ft.Sand and hard 2 413 Limestone,hard,brown 3 2,207
Sand and clay.70 70 Clay,sticky,brown.29 442 Limestone,gray.12 2,219
Clay with gravel 159 229 Clay,Hhite,4 ~46 Limestone,gray,extra hard and
Gravel 5 234 Clay,stLcky,hrown.54 500 sharp.36 2,255
Clay 4 238 Clay,yellow 34 531+Shale,gray,with lime shells.18 2,273
Sand 5 243 Clay,blue 4 538 Limestone,gray,hard.18 2,291
Clay 7 250 Clay,yellow 22 560 Fault,fractured zone,gray
Quicksand.2 252 Gravel and clay.5 565 limestone.18 2,309
Gravel 12 264 Clay,yellow 15 580 Gravel,3/4-inch diameter.1 2,310
Gravel and clay.10 590 Fault zone,limestone.5 2,315
(C-6-2)13eaa-l.Log by Robinson Clay,yellow 12 602 Lime,gray 51 2,366
Drilling Co.Alt.4,856.6 ft.Gravel and clay.4 606
Silt 2 2 Clay,yellow 29 635 (C-6-2)17dcc-l.Lug by J.S.Lee
Clay and hardpan 2 4 Sand,hard 8 643 and Sons.Alt.4,913.6 ft.
Clay,blue 41 45 Clay,yellow 19 662 Top soil 2 2
Clay,yellow 50 95 Clay,blue 4 666 Clay 3 5
Clay and sand.10 105 Clay,yellow 109 775 Grave1 5 10
Clay,yellow 40 145 Clay,yellow,with some fine Clay 50 60
Clay,gray 3 148 grave1 40 815 Sand;surface water.5 65
Clay and gravel;small amount Clay,yellow 15 830 Clay 82 147
of water 2 150 Clay and gravel.8 838 Sand and gravel.8 155
Clay,gray 10 160 Clay,brown.35 873 Clay and gravel.20 175
Clay,yellow 30 190 Sand,hard,hrown.12 885 Clay 35 210
Clay,hlue 15 205 Clay,sticky,yellow 32 917 CIa}'and gravel.15 225
Clay,yellow 47 252 Clay,sticky,blue 69 986 Sand and grave1.10 235
Sand 16 268 Gravel and sand,l-inch gravel 10 996 Gravel,cemented 11 246
Clay and sand.82 350 Clay,yellow 49 1,045 Clay 39 285
Clay and sand,hard and soft Clay,yellow,sandy.30 1,075 Gravel,cemented 10 295
streaks.45 395 Clay,hlue 27 1,102 Clay 20 315
Clay and sand.40 435 Clay,ye11ow 13 1,115 Silt 30 345
Clay and gravel,mixed 8 443 Clay,sticky,brown.327 1,442 Gravel 31 376
Clay and sand.82 525 Sand,hrown,and stands up 23 1,465 Clay 34 410
Clay,hrown and white.5 1,470 Clay and gravel.5 415
(C-6-2)14aba-l.Lug by Roscoe Clay,white and red.5 1,475 Conglomerate 10 425
Moss Drilling Co.Alt.Clay,sandy,yellow.10 1,485 Gravel 7 432
4,865.7 Et.Clay,sticky,brown.230 1,715 Clay and gravel.13 445
Soil 4 4 brown,and grave1 mixed,Grave1 16 461
Clay,gray 66 70 gravel.10 1,725 Conglomerate 19 480
Clay,brown,sandy 147 217 hrown.10 1,735 Gravel and boulders.12 492
Clay,brown.508 725 hrown,and fine grave1 Clay 29 521
Sand,gravel,and clay 13 738 l/4-inch gravel 10 1,745 Conglomerate 61.585
Clay,hard,sandy.17 755 hrown.20 1,765 CIa)'15 600
Clay,soft.29 7S'brown 10 1,775
Clay,hrnwn,hard,sandy (,790 35 1,810 Log loy Robinson
Clay,hrnwn,sort,streaks of brown.15 1,82')Alt.4,844.1 [to
sand 20 310 15 1,HifO 30 30
Clay,hlue,:.;ort 15 82'i 25 5')
Clay,brown,soft.15 H40 30 1,870 13 68
Clay,brown,hard,20 860 small amount of
Clay,streaks sand 27 887 10 1,880 \v'uter 2 70
Clay,15 902 Cla.y,10 80
Clay,streaks of sand.101 1,003 25 L,<)Q')Cla)-',30 110
Clay,soft.102 l,105 8 1,913 Clay and sand.15 125
Sand and gravel,streaks of 12 1,925 Clay,35 160
clay 50 1,155 Clay,15 175
Sand and grave1,hard,clay 1,930 Clay,35 210
streaks.71 L,226 1,935 Clay,and sand 1.0 250
Sand and gravel,hard.32 1,258 1,937 Clay,yeIlow 5 255
-30-
Table S.-Water levels in observation wells in Cedar Valley -Continued
Ct'(C 6 2)29(e 6 2)17dcc-on ~nue cac-onlnue
July 3,1963 -30,4*Jan.16,1965 -33,6t July 10,1965 30,8t July 3,1963 1.0*Nov.9,1964 5,8 Aug,31,1965 -0.7
July 20 30.5*Feh.13 33.1t July 30 30.5 July 9 1.0 Dec.16 4.4 Jan.3,1966 +.8
Mar.24,1964 32,0 Feb.17 33.0*Aug.12 30.1 July 27 1.8*Mar.9,1965 3.3 Feb.2 .8
Apr.8 31.5 Mar.9 33.1 Aug,25 30.1 July 29 2.2*Apr.12 3.0 Feb.28 .9
Apr.29 31.3*Apr.2 32.5*Aug.31 29.6 Aug.21 2.0 June 9 2.0 Apr.6 1.0
Oct.31 36.9+Apr.3 32.6t Oct.4 28.7 Dec.5 2.6 Aug.12 1.0 May 3 1.1
Nov.1 36.7+Apr.10 32.3*Oct.29 28.4 Apr.29,1964 4.4*
Nov.6 36.3*Apr.12 32.9 Nov.30 28.0
Nov.7 36.2+Apr.17 32.5t Jan.3,1966 27 .9 (C-6-2)29cac-2.Records available 1954,1958,1960-66
Nov.13 36.1 June 5 31.6+Feb.2 28.1 Oct.9,1954 +2.0 Sept.14,1964 -7.9+Feb.17,1965 4.3*
Nov.14 35.7+June 19 31.3+Feb.28 27.9 Mar.14,1958 .0 Sept.19 8.0+Mar.9 4.1
Nov.21 35.31 July 1 31.1 Mar.28 28.0 Mar.25,1960 +.1 Sept.26 B.lt Apr.2 3.9*
Dec.17 34.9 July 3 31.0+Mar.31 27.9 Dec.7 -.1 Oct.2 8.1*Apr.10 3.7*
Dec 26 34.0r Mar.22,1961 .4 Oct.3 8.2t Apr.12 3.7
(e-6-2)25cbc-1.
Dec.20 1.5 Oct.10 8.1*June 9 2.8
Records avai1able 1964-66 Mar.5,1962 1.9 Oct.17 8.3t June 30 2.6
Dec.17,1964 -67.8 Aug.12,1965 68.4 Jan.4,1966 68.9 Dec.4 2.2 Oct.18 8.2t July 21 2.3
Mar.9,1965 67.9 Aug.31 68.2 Feb.1 68.9 Mar.8,1963 1.8 Oct.20 8.0t July 30 2.2
Apr.20 68.7 Oct,4 68.7 Mar.11 68.9 May 23 1.7*Oct,22 7.8*Aug.12 2.0
July 1 68.0 Oct.29 68.7 Mar.30 68.9 June 5 1.6 Oct.23 8.3t Aug.31 1.7
July 30 68.0 Nov.30 68.9 June 15 1.6*Oct.29 7.4*Oct.4 .8
July 3 1.7*Oct.31 8.4t Oct.29 .6
(C-6-2)26cbb-l.Records available 1963-66 July 9 1.7 Nov.1 7.2t Nov.30 .5
Mar.2,1963 -53.1*Apr.12,1965 5B.1 Feb.1,1966 -60.5 July 20 1.7*Nov.6 6.7*Jan.3,1966 .5
Apr.30 9 62.7*June 5 10/62.7t Mar.11 59.5 July 27 2.5*Nov.7 6.7t Jan.3 L!.2
May 7 60.7*Sept.15 2.1 225.7 Mar.28 59.2 July 29 2.7 Nov.9 6.5 Jan.4 .6
Mar.24,1964 58.1 Sept.16 9107.2 Mar.29 59.3 Aug.21 2.5 Nov.14 6.2t Feh.I .6
Apr.29 57.8*Sept.18 9 97.1 Mar.30 59.2 Dec.5 3.1 Nov.21 6.0t Mar.27 .6
Oct.2 68.3*Sept.19 10/92.4 Mar.31 59.2 Mar.24,1964 2.5 Dec.5 5.6t Apr.6 .5
Oct.22 63.6*Sept.20 10/88.4 Apr.I 59.1 Apr.29 2.3*Dec.16 5.2 Apr.6 1).4
Nov.6 62.0*Oct.4 74.0 Apr.6 59.2 Aug.13 7.2*Dec.26 4.9t May 3 .4
Nov.10 61.6 Oct.29 72.3 Apr.7 59.2 Sept.5 7,9t Jan.16,1965 4.6t May 3 L!.3
Dec.17 59.8 Nov.30 63.9 May 3 2/222.8 Sept.12 8.ot Feh.13 4.3t June 9 .3
Mar.9 1965 58.0 Jan.4,1966 61.5 I(C-6-2)29ccc-1.Records available 1965-66
(e-6-2)27cca-1.Records available 1963-66 Sept.9,1965 +1.7 Nov.30,1965 +2.9 Feb.2,1966 +2.8
May 7,1963 31.2*Apr.29,1964 32.9*July 30,1965 -34.6 Oct.4 2.3 Jan.4,1966 2.9 Mar.11 2.8
May 11 31.2*Oct.2 34.2*Aug.12 34.7 I(e-6-2)33bcb-1.May 22 31.3*Oct.10 34.3*Aug.31 34.9 Records available 1950-51 1954-56 1958-66
June 3 31.8 Oct.22 34.4*Oct,4 35.2 Aug.17,1950 +14.9 Mar.22,1961 +9.7 July 1,1965 +6.7
June 5 31.6 Nov.6 34.5*Oct,29 35.4 Dec.5 14.4 Dec.20 9.1 July 30 8.1
June 15 31.6*Nov.10 34.5 Nov.30 35.4 Mar.30,1951 15.6 Mar.5,1962 10 .4 Aug.12 8.2
July 3 31.8*Dec.17 34.6 Jan.4 35.2 Dec.9,1954 15.1 Dec.4 9.1 Aug.31 8.6
July 9 30.4 Har.9,1965 34.1 Feb.2 35.0 Apr.12,1955 13.2 Mar.8,1963 7.7 Oct,4 9.0
July 20 32.1*Apr.12 34.0 Mar.11 34.8 Dec.20 13.3 June 6 9.9 Oct,29 9.6
Aug.21 32.5 Apr.15 33.9 Apr.7 34.6 Mar.28,1956 13.6 July 9 10.0 Nov.30 9.8
Mar.24,1964 33.2 July 1 33.9 Dec.13 12.6 Aug.21 8.7 Jan.3,1966 10.3
fC-6-2'27ccc-l.
Mar.14,1958 11.8 Dec.5 6.9 Feb.2 10 .4
Records available 1966 Apr.13,1959 13.4 Mar.24,1964 7.9 Feb.28 10.2
Mar.31,1966 -27.7 Apr.6,1966 -27.9 May 3,1966 34.1 Dec.24 12.3 Nov.9 3.0 Apr.7 10.6
Apr.1 27.9 Apr.7 27.9 June 9 39.0 Mar.25,1960 12.6 Dec.17 5.1 May 3 11.1
Dec.7 11.3 Mar.9,1965 6.4
fC-6-2)27ccc-2.Records available 1966 (e-6-2)34bac-1.Mar.31,1966 -25.2 Apr.6,1966 -25.1 May 3,1966 24.9 Records available 1963-66
Apr.1 25.1 Apr.7 25.1 June 9 24.9 May 7,1963 -28.4*Mar.24,1964 29.9 July 30,1965 -31.5
May 11 28.4*Apr.29 29.6*Aug.12 31.8
(e-6-2)28bac-1.Records available 1963-66 May 22 28.5*Oct,10 31.3*Aug.31 31.9
May 11,1963 -19.7*Apr.29,1964 -20.3*Aug.12,1965 -19.4 June 5 28.7 Nov.6 31.5*Oct,4 31.7
May 23 19.7*Nov.6 20.4'Aug.31 19.5 June 15 28.8*Nov.10 31.5 Oct,29 31.8
June 3 19.5 Nov.10 20.4 Oct.4 19.0 July 3 29.2*Dec.17 30.0 Nov.30 31.8
June 15 19.4*Dec.17 20.4 Oct.29 19.6 July 20 29.5*Mar.9,1965 30.8 Jan.4,1966 31.6
July 3 19.7*Mar.9,1965 20.3 Nov.30 19.9 July 27 29.5*Apr.20 30.3 Feb.2 30.3
July 20 19.0*Apr.12 20.0 Jan.3,1966 20.1 Aug·.21 29.5 Ju1v 1 30.7 Mar.11 30.9
Aug.21 20.5 July 1 19.2 Feb.2 20.1 I (C-7-2 23bcc-1.Mar.24 1964 20.8 July 30 19.7 Mar.l!20.0 Records available 1964-66
Apr.28,1964 -114.3 Aug.3,1965 -114.6 Nov.30,1965 -114.8
le-6-2\29bdd-1.Records available 1963-66 Mar.26,1965 114.5 Aug.31 114.7 Jan.4,1966 114.7
June 5.1963 +11.0 Apr.12,1965 +8.9 Nov.30,1965 +12.9 Apr.12 114.5 Oct.5 114.7 Mar.11 114.6
July 9 11.0 July 1 10.3 Jan.3,1966 13.1 Ju1 21 114.6 Oct.29 114.8
Aug.21 9.5 Aug.12 10.9 Feb.2 13.0 (e-7-2 29d6c-1.Mar.24,1964 9.8 Aug.31 11.5 Feb.28 13 .2 Records available 1965-66
Nov.10 6.3 Oct.4 12.4 Apr.7 13 .1 Nov.30 1965 -170.1 Mar.11 1966 -169.4
Dec.14 7.6 Oct,29 12.8 May 3 13 .1 (e-7-2)356cc-1.Mar.9 1965 8.6 Records available 1965-66
Oct,19,1965 -180.4 Nov.30,1965 -180.4 Mar.11,1966 -180.4
(e-6-2\2geac-1.Records available 1943-50 1952 1954-56 1958-66 Oct,29 180.5 Jan.4,1966 180.2
Mar.31,1943 +4.7 Mar.29,1948 +5.0 Apr.13,1959 +2.1
(e-8-2)15aad-l.Dec.28 3.9 Mar.15,1949 3.9 Dec.24 1.3 Records available 1965-66
Mar.24,1944 3.4 Dec.15 4.3 Dec.7,1960 .4 Sept.10,1965 -240.6 Nov.30,1965 -241.2 Feb.1,1966 -241.4
Dec.28 5.5 Mar.21,1950 4.0 Mar.22,1961 +.1 Oct,5 240.6 Jan.4,1966 241.3 Mar.11 241.4
Mar.13,1945 5.0 Apr.22,1952 3.6 Dec.20 -.9 Oct 29 240 7
Dec.18 6.2 Dec.31 6.4 Mar.5,1962 1.2 Ile-8-2 31adb-1.Mar.6,1946 5.9 Dec.9,1954 3.9 Dec.4 1.6 Records available 1965-66
Dec.16 5.9 Dec.20,1955 1,7 May 23,1963 1.0*Aug.3,1965 -343.6 Oct.29,1965 -343.7 Feb.1,1966 -343.7
Apr.8,1947 4.7 Dec.13,1956 .6 June 5 .9 Aug.31 343.7 Nov.30 343.7 Mar.11 343.8
Dec.16 5.5 Mar.14,1958 .7 June 15 1..O~';Oct.5 343.7 Jan.4,1966 343.7
l/Water21Water
31 Water41We11~I Well was61Nearbywell wasIINearby[lliwing well
flushing ohservation well.
·29·
Table 6.-Selected drillers'logs of wells in Cedar Valley -Continued
Thickness Depth Thickness Depth Thickness Depth
(C-6-2)26cbb-l -Cantinued (C-6-2)29cac-2 -Continued (C-6-2)32bbd-l -Continued
Clay,hlue.and sand.\7 272 Clay 47 208 Conglomerate.13 445
Sand.6 278 Gravel,black,1/4 to 1 inch 10 218 Clay.brown 7 452
Clay,blue,and sand.27 305 Hardpan.2 220 Gravel.l!463
Clay,yellow.25 330 Quicksand.Clay and gravel 22 485
Grave1.5 335 Conglomerate.2 487
Clay,yellow.35 370 Clay.brown 3 490
Sand,hard.10 380 (C-6-2)32bbd-1.Log by J.s.Lee Conglomerate.16 506
Gravel.22 402 and Sons.Alt.4,880 ft.Clay.4 510
Clay,blue.8 410 Clay,brown.60 60 Conglomerate.25 535
Clay,ye110w.10 420 Sand 1 61 Clay and gravel 13 548
Clay,yellow,and sand.38 458 Clay.hrown.62 123 Conglomerate.4 552
Sand,hard.20 478 Clay and gravel.7 130 Gravel.7 559
Clay.yellow.7 485 Clay,brown.75 205 Conglomerate.16 575
Clay,yellow,and sand.15 500 Gravel 3 208 Clay.sand.and gravel.l!586
Clay,yellow.5 505 Clay,sand,and grave1 45 253 Gravel.9 595
Conglomerate 7 260 Clay and grave1 10 605
Clay,sand,and grave1 37 297 Clay,yellow..,613
(C-6-2)29cac-2.Log by L.N.Gravel 2 299
Meinzer.Alt.4,888.7 ft.Clay and gravel.31 330 (C-7-2)23bcc-1.Log by J.P.
Clay and hardpan layers 110 110 Gravel 3 333 Feighny.Alt.4,835 ft.
Gravel,black,1/4 to 1 inch.6 116 Clay and grave1.21 354 Clay.180 18Q
Clay.44 160 Conglomerate 10 364 Clay,soft,with water.15 195
Hardpan on sandstone.1 161 Clay and gravel.68 432 Clay.25 220
Table 7.-Logs of test wells in Cedar Valley
(Logs by U.S.Geological Survey.Surveyed altitudes of land surface at the well by U.S.Geological Survey are given in feet and tenths;altitudes
interpolated from topographic maps are given in feet.)
Thickness:Given in feet.
Depth:Given in feet below land surface.
Thickness Depth
{C-5-l)20ddc-1.Alt.4,795 ft.
Recent and Pleistocene deposits:
Sand,very fine to very coarse,and very fine gravel,silty.
Gravel is subrounded to rounded.Composed of sedimentary
and igneous rocks .
Gravel,very fine to very coarse,and small cobbles,angular
to rounded.Composed of sedimentary and igneous rocks.
Slight caving,..........••••.•.......
Silt,brown and light gray,sandy and clayey.Contains some
very fine to medium gravel,angular to subrounded.Com-
posed of sedimentary and igneous rocks....•...•..
Gravel,very fine to very coarse,and small cobbles,angular
to rounded.Composed of sedimentary and igneous rocks.
Interval contains brown sandy silt matrix from 43 to 58
feet and yellow-brown clayey silt from 58 to 60 feet.Lost
circulation between 45 and 55 feet .......•••.•.
Cobbles,small,and coarse gravel,mostly quartzite but some
limestone and igneous rocks.Slight loss of circulation..
Manning Canyon Shale of Pennsylvanian and Mississippian age:
Claystone,gray,gray-brown,and olive,and gray silty clay.
Shale,rust-brown,fissile.Lost circulation while
drilling....•..•..•.•••.•....••.•.
Claystone.gray to dark gray,gray-brown,olive,and black,
and gray to gray-brown sand,clay ..••.•••
Clay and claystone,dark gray to black.Formation changed
color of drilling mud from brown to black
Shale,black .........•..••.••..
(C-5-2)24aab-1.Alt.4,989.7 ft.
Recent and Pleistocene deposits:
Silt,brown and tan,sandy and clayey.......••..•
Sand,very fine to very coarse,and very fine to coarse
gravel.Gravel is angular to rounded and composed of sedi-
mentary and igneous rocks.Lost circulatLon while drilling.
Silt,brown,clayey and sandy..........•••••.
Gravel,very fine to very coarse,angular to rounded.Com-
posed of sedimentary and igneous rocks ....•....•
Silt,brown,sandy and clayey,as a matrix in very fine to
coarse gravel.Interval is about 50 percent si.lt and 50
percent gravel.Gravel is angular to subrounded and com-
posed of sedimentary and igneous rocks.•••.•••••
Igneous rock of Tertiary age.Probably lower Tertiary ande-
site-trachyte-latite flows (Stokes,1963)••.......
Limestone of Paleozoic age.Probably Oquirrh Formation of
Pennian and Pennsylvanian age........••.••..
(C-6-2)lacc-1.Alt.4,891.5 ft.
Recent and Pleistocene deposits:
Silt and clay,tan and light gray.
Silt and very fine to medium sand,tan and gray.
Silt and clay,tan and light gray.
12
29
17
10
21
46
63
95
39
87
8
14
13
(C-6-2)lacc-l -Continued.
Recent and Pleistocene deposits -Continued:
Silt and very fine to medium sand,tan..••••••
Sand,very fine to medium,silty,tan••..•••••.
12 Silt,clayey and sandy,tan.•.••••....••••
Silt and very fine to medium sand,brown.Contains fine
gravel,angular to rounded,composed of quartzite and lime-
14 stone from 70 to 71 feet..••••••.•
Silt and clay,brown.. • . • . . .••••••••
Silt and very fine to coar~;e sand,light brown to brown.•
43 Silt and clay,brown .••••.•...••••••••.
Silt and very fine to medium sand,brown,slightly clayey.
Silt and clay,brown ....••.••••••••••••
Silt and very fine to medium sand,brown.Contains very
fine to medium gravel,angular to subrounded,composed of
60 quartzite and limestone from 131 to 132 feet.Slightly
clayey frorn 132 to 135 feet .....•.••..•..•
70 Silt and clay,brown •.•.....••.••.•••••
Gravel,fine to coarse,angular to subrounded,composed of
91 quartzite and limestone.Contains brown silt •
Silt,brown,clayey and occasionally sandy ••.
96 Sand,very Hne to medium.Silty from 202 to 208 feet.
Silt,brown,clayey.Sandy from 220 to 222 feet
142 Sand,very fine to coarse,sLIty
Silt,brown,clayey.•••
205 Sand,very fine to medium,silty
300 Silt,brown,clayey......•
Sand,very fine to medium,s'ilty
Silt.brown,clayey from 275 to 288 feet and sandy from 288
to 291 feet ............••.•
39
(C-6-2)27ccc-1.Alt.4,843.2 ft.
Recent and Pleistocene deposits:
43 Clay,light gray,silty..,•........•...
50 Clay,dark gray to blue-gray,silty•..........•
Silt,light gray and light to dark brown,sandy and clayey
52 Clay,gray,silty•...•....••••••••••••
Silt,brown,sandy and clayey.Color grades to gray-brown
at 165 to 170 feet.•.•.•.•.•.••
Clay,gray,silty.Contains thin,less than I foot,beds of
60 white clay•.•..••.••.•..•••
Silt,tan and brown,sandy and clayey••.•
147 Sand,very fine to medium,silty ••.•••
Silt,tan and brown,sandy and clayey interbedded with to
155 6 foot beds of silty sand ••••••..••
Sand,very fine to medium,silty ••...••••••
Silt,gray.sandy and clayey.Contains 2 to 6 foot thick
beds of silty sand.....•.....•••..
8 Silt,gray-brown,sandy and clayey.Contains 2 to 10 foot
22 thick beds of silty sand .
35 Silt,gray and blue gray,sandy and clayey ....
-31-
Thickness Depth
14 49
7 56
7 63
10 73
13 86
12 98
8 106
9 115
4 119
22 141
3 144
4 148
54 202
l!213
18 231
7 238
12 250
5 255
10 265
2 267
33 300
51 51
39 90
35 125
23 148
37 185
41 226
38 264
8 272
40 312
10 322
86 408
56 464
41 505
No.1.
No.2.
*No.3.
*No.4.
*No.5.
PUBLICATIONS OF THE UTAH STATE ENGINEER'S OFFICE
(*)-Out of Print
TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS
Underground leakage from artesian wells in the Flowell area,near Fillmore,Utah,
by Penn Livingston and G.B.Maxey,U.S.Geological Survey,1944.
The Ogden Valley artesian reservoir,Weber County,Utah,by H.E.Thomas,U.S.
Geological Survey,1945.
Ground water in Pavant Valley,Millard County,Utah,by P.E.Dennis,G.B.
Maxey,and H.E.Thomas,U.S.Geological Survey,1946.
Ground water in Tooele Valley,Tooele County,Utah,by H.E.Thomas,U.S.Geo-
logical Survey,in Utah State Eng.25th Bienn.Rept.,p.91-238,pIs.1-6,1946.
Ground water in the East Shore area,Utah:Part I,Bountiful District,Davis
County,Utah,by H.E.Thomas and W.B.Nelson,U.S.Geological Survey,in Utah
State Eng.26th Bienn.Rept.,p.53-206,pIs.1-2,1948.
*No.6.Ground water in the Escalante Valley,Beaver,Iron,and Washington Counties,
Utah,by P.F.Fix,W.B.Nelson,B.E.Lofgren,and R.G.Butler,U.S.Geological
Survey,in Utah State Eng.27th Bienn.Rept.,p.107-210,pIs.1-10,1950.
No.7.Status of development of selected ground-water basins in Utah,by H.E.Thomas,
W.B.Nelson,B.E.Lofgren,and R.G.Butler,U.S.Geological Survey,1952.
*No.8.Consumptive use of water and irrigation requirements of crops in Utah,by C.O.
Roskelly and Wayne D.Criddle,1952.
No.8.(Revised)Consumptive use and water requirements for Utah,by W.D.Criddle,K.
Harris,and L.S.Willardson,1962.
No.9.Progress report on selected ground water basins in Utah,by H.A.Waite,W.B.
Nelson,and others,U.S.Geological Survey,1954.
No.10.A compilation of chemical quality data for ground and surface waters in Utah,by
J.G.Connor,C.G.Mitchell,and others,U.S.Geological Survey,1958.
No.11.Ground water in northern Utah Valley,Utah:A progress report for the period 1948-
1963,by R.M.Cordova and Seymour Subitzky,U.S.Geological Survey,1965.
No.12.Reevaluation of the ground-water resources of Tooele Valley,Utah,by Joseph S.
Gates,U.S.Geological Survey,1965.
No.13.Ground-water resources of selected basins in southwestern Utah,by G.W.Sand-
berg,U.S.Geological Survey,1966.
No.14.Water-resources appraisal of the Snake Valley area,Utah and Nevada,by J.W.
Hood and F.E.Rush,U.S.Geological Survey,1966.
No.15.Water from bedrock in the Colorado Plateau of Utah,by R.D.Feltis,U.S.Geological
Survey,1966.
-32-
No.3.
No.4.
No.5.
*No.6.
No.7.
No.8.
No.9.
No.10.
No.11.
No.12.
No.13.
WATER CIRCULAR
No.1.Ground water in the Jordan Valley,Salt Lake County,Utah,by Ted Arnow,U.S.
Geological Survey,1965.
BASIC-DATA REPORTS
No.1.Records and water-level measurements of selected wells and chemical analyses of
ground water,East Shore area,Davis,Weber,and Box Elder Counties,Utah,by
R.E.Smith,U.S.Geological Survey,1961.
No.2.Records of selected wells and springs,selected drillers'logs of wells,and chemical
analyses of ground and surface waters,northern Utah Valley,Utah County,Utah,
by Seymour Subitzky,U.S.Geological Survey,1962.
Ground-water data,central Sevier Valley,parts of Sanpete,Sevier,and Piute Counties,
Utah,by C.H.Carpenter and R.A.Young,U.S.Geological Survey,1963.
Selected hydrologic data,Jordan Valley,Salt Lake County,Utah,by 1.W.Marine
and Don Price,U.S.Geological Survey,1963.
Selected hydrologic data,Pavant Valley,Millard County,Utah,by R.W.Mower,
U.S.Geological Survey,1963.
Ground-water data,parts of Washington,Iron,Beaver,and Millard Counties,Utah,
by G.W.Sandberg,U.S.Geological Survey,1963.
Selected hydrologic data,Tooele Valley,Tooele County,Utah,by J.S.Gates,U.S.
Geological Survey,1963.
Selected hydrologic data,upper Sevier River basin,Utah,by C.H.Carpenter,G.B.
Robinson,Jr.,and L.J.Bjorklund,U.S.Geological Survey,1964.
Ground-water data,Sevier Desert,Utah,by R.W.Mower and R.D.Feltis,U.S.
Geological Survey,1964.
Quality of surface water in the Sevier Lake basin,Utah,by D.C.Hahl and R.E.
Cabell,U.S.Geological Survey,1965.
Hydrologic and climatologic data,collected through 1964,Salt Lake County,Utah,
by W.V.Iorns,R.W.Mower,and C.A.Horr,U.S.Geological Survey,1966.
Hydrologic and climatologic data,1965,Salt Lake County,Utah,by W.V.lorns,R.
W.Mower,and C.A.Horr,U.S.Geological Survey,1966.
Hydrologic and climatologic data,1966,Salt Lake County,Utah,by A.G.Hely,R.
W.Mower,and C.A.Horr,U.S.Geological Survey,1967.
INFORMATION BULLETINS
*No.1.Plan of work for the Sevier River Basin (Sec.6,P.L.566),United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture,1960.
No.2.Water production from oil wells in Utah,by Jerry Tuttle,Utah State Engineer's
Office,1960.
-33-
No.3.Ground water areas and well logs,central Sevier Valley,Utah,by R.A.Young,
United States Geological Survey,1960.
*No.4.Ground water investigations in Utah in 1960 and reports published by the United
States Geological Surveyor the Utah State Engineer prior to 1960,by H.D.Goode,
United States Geological Survey,1960.
No.5.Developing ground water in the central Sevier Valley,Utah,by R.A.Young and
C.H.Carpenter,United States Geological Survey,1961.
*No.6.Work outline and report outline for Sevier River basin survey,(Sec.6,P.L.566),
United States Department of Agriculture,1961.
No.7.Relation of the deep and shallow artesian aquifers near Lynndyl,Utah,by R.W.
Mower,United States Geological Survey,1961.
No.8.Projected 1975 municipal water use requirements,Davis County,Utah,by Utah
State Engineer's Office,1962.
No.9.Projected 1975 municipal water use requirements,Weber County,Utah,by Utah
State Engineer's Office,1962.
No.10.Effects on the shallow artesian aquifer of withdrawing water from the deep artesian
aquifer near Sugarville,Millard County,Utah,by R.W.Mower,United States Geo-
logical Survey,1963.
No.11.Amendments to plan of work and work outline for the Sevier River basin (Sec.6,
P.L.566),United States Department of Agriculture,1964.
No.12.Test drilling in the upper Sevier River drainage basin,Garfield and Piute Counties,
Utah,by R.D.Feltis and G.B.Robinson,Jr.,United States Geological Survey,1963.
No.13.Water requirements of lower Jordan River,Utah,by Karl Harris,Irrigation En-
gineer,Agricultural Research Service,Phoenix,Arizona,prepared under informal
cooperation approved by Mr.William W.Donnan,Chief,Southwest Branch (River-
side,California)Soil and Water Conservation Research Division,Agricultural Re-
search Service,U.S.D.A.and by Wayne D.Criddle,State Engineer,State of Utah,
Salt Lake City,Utah,1964.
*No.14.Consumptive use of water by native vegetation and irrigated crops in the Virgin
River area of Utah,by Wayne D.Criddle,Jay M.Bagley,R.Keith Higginson,and
David W.Hendricks,through cooperation of Utah Agricultural Experiment Station,
Agricultural Research Service,Soil and Water Conservation Branch,Western Soil
and Water Management Section,Utah Water and Power Board,and Utah State
Engineer,Salt Lake City,Utah,1964.
No.15.Ground-water conditions and related water administration problems in Cedar City
Valley,Iron County,Utah,February,1966,by Jack A.Barnett and Francis T.Mayo,
Utah State Engineer's Office.
No.16.Summary of water well drilling activities in Utah,1960 through 1965,compiled by
Utah State Engineer's Office,1966.
No.17.Bibliography of U.S.Geological Survey Water Resources Reports for Utah,com-
piled by Olive A.Keller,U.S.Geological Survey,1966.
-34-
APPENDIX H – HISTORIC PRESERVATION

COVER PAGE
Must Accompany All Project Reports
Submitted to the Utah SHPO
UDSH Project Number: U-24-TT-0549
A Cultural Resources Inventory for the Cedar Valley Landfill Expansion Project, Utah County, Utah
Report Date: 03/22/2022 Org. Project Number: No. 61247118/SLC-2024-04
Report Author(s):Heather M. Weymouth
County(ies):Utah
Principal Investigator Heather M. Weymouth
Record Search Date(s): April 15, 2024/June 14, 2024 Field Supervisor(s): Heather M. Weymouth
Intensive Acres Surveyed (<15m intervals): 210 acres Recon/Intuitive Acres Surveyed (<15m intervals): 0
USGS 7.5’ Series Map Reference(s): Goshen Pass, Utah (2023)
Sites Reported Count Smithsonian Trinomials
Revisits (no updated site forms)0
Updates (updated site forms provided)0
New recordings (site forms provided)0
Total Count of Archaeological Sites in APE 0
Historic Structures (structures forms provided)0
Total National Register Eligible Sites 0
*Please list all site numbers per category. Number strings are acceptable (e.g. “42TO1-13; 42TO15”). Cells should expand to
accommodate extensive lists.
Checklist of Required Items for Submittal to SHPO
☒“Born Digital” Report in a PDF/A format
☒SHPO Cover Sheet
☒File Name is the UDSH Project Number with no hyphens or landowner suffixes
☐“Born Digital” Site forms in PDF/A format
☐UASF with embedded maps and photos
☐File name is Smithsonian Trinomial without leading zeros (e.g. 42TO13 not 42TO00013)
☐Photo requirements (including size and quality)
☐Archaeological Site Tabular Data
☐Single spreadsheet for each project
☐Follows UTSHPO template (info here:https://goo.gl/7SLMqj)
☒GIS data
☒Zipped polygon shapefile or geodatabase of survey (if different from APE) or other activity
area with required field names and variable intensity denoted
☐Zipped polygon shapefile or geodatabase of site boundaries with a the required field name

Short Cultural Resources Inventory Report Form
1
State Project Number: U-24-TT-0549
Report Title: A Cultural Resources Inventory for the Cedar Valley Landfill Expansion Project, Utah County, Utah (SLC-
2024-04; Terracon Project No. 61247118 )
Report Date: 06/30/2024 Report Author(s): Heather Weymouth
Principal Investigator: Heather M. Weymouth
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
6952 High Tech Drive, Suite B
Midvale, Utah 84047

Person-Days for Survey: 4 person, 1 day
Project Background:
In May 2024, the North Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District (District) requested Terracon Consultants, Inc.
(Terracon) complete a Class III cultural resources inventory for the Cedar Valley Landfill Expansion Project (Project). The
project area includes approximately 210 acres of land owned by the District adjacent to the southern boundary of the
existing Cedar Valley Landfill south of Fairfield, in Utah County, Utah. This inventory was conducted in support of a
Landfill Modification Permit from the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control in compliance with the
Utah Antiquities Act, Utah Code Annotated Section 9-8-404. This report documents the results of that inventory. The
purpose of this inventory was to identify, record, and determine the extent and significance of all identified cultural
resource sites within the project area.
Area of Potential Effects Definition:
The Area of Potential Effects (APE) consists of an irregular block totaling approximately 210 acres (85 hectares). The
Project encompasses portions of the E½ of Section 8, Township 7 South, Range 2 West (Figures 1 and 2). No previous
surveys have been conducted and no sites identified within the project area. The survey APE for the present inventory
consists of the entirety of the proposed expansion area located on property owned by the District.
The project area is located directly south of the existing landfill on 18150 West Street approximately 2.0 miles (3.22
kilometers) south of Fairfield, in Utah County, Utah. Topographic map coverage of the project area is provided by the
Goshen Pass, Utah (2023) 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle.
Identification Strategies (archaeological, historical, and ethnographic):
An intensive-level (Class III) cultural resources inventory was completed for 210 acres (85 hectares) of unsurveyed
District owned lands in Utah County, Utah. The project area was identified using a differentially correctable Trimble
GeoXT global positioning system (GPS) unit and the ESRI ArcGIS Field Maps application in conjunction with aerial
photographs, and project maps as points of reference.
The Class III pedestrian survey was completed by four archaeologists walking parallel transects across the Project area.
Ground surface visibility was at or near 85 percent over the entire survey parcel at the time of the inventory. The
northern extent of the Project area is devoid of vegetation and has been scraped and leveled. The larger southern
portion of the Project is grass covered with pockets of sagebrush and cheatgrass is prevalent in disturbed areas along
fencelines and roadways. This portion of the Project area appears to have burned and been reseeded with grasses more
suitable for grazing livestock. Cultural disturbance in the area consists of agricultural fields, the existing Cedar Valley
Landfill, the adjacent Intermountain Regional Landfill and West Desert Airpark-UT9 facilities. The surrounding area
consists of rolling undeveloped terrain covered in low grasses and sagebrush community species.
Acreage: APE: 210 acres ( 85 hectares)
Intensive: 210 acres (85 hectares)
Recon/Intuitive: 0

Short Cultural Resources Inventory Report Form
2
Location(s) and Date(s) of Pre-Field Records Search:
1. Utah Division of State History: A file search for previously recorded cultural resources sites and previously conducted
surveys within 1.0 mile of the current project area was conducted on April 15, 2024, and updated on June 14, 2024 by
Terracon archaeologist Heather M. Weymouth (Sego ArcGIS Server).
2. Federal/State Office: No additional review of agency records was completed.
3. Historic Records/Maps: As part of the records search, a search of the General Land Office (GLO) survey plats available
at the Bureau of Land Management’s Internet public access site (www.ut.blm.gov/ LandRecords/search_plats.cfm) was
conducted on April 15, 2024, to identify potential historic resources (e.g., features, transportation routes, and
telecommunications lines) that could be encountered during the field inventory. All available historical GLO maps for the
project area were reviewed prior to conducting the field inventory (GLO 1856; 1890 [T7S R2W). Historic Goshen Pass,
Utah (1947 [1970 ed., 1982 ed]) USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangle maps for the area were also reviewed prior to conducting
the field inventory.
4. Other: In addition to those sources mentioned above, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as well as
readily available local histories and historic maps were examined to determine if additional historic resources, historic
structures, or historic sites not in the SHPO archaeological records have been documented in the vicinity of the project
area.
Results of Pre-Field Records Search (sites & projects within agency-defined APE buffer and/or site leads from research):
The records search conducted prior to field inventory identified one cultural resources project and no cultural resources
sites within 1.0 miles of the current project area. No previously recorded sites are located in the project area. A Class III
Cultural Resources Inventory for the Fairfield Municipal Landfill Project (U10HK0093) was conducted in 2010 by HDR
Engineering, Inc. (Table 1). No sites were documented during this 320 acres survey adjacent to the southeast corner of
the present Project and a finding of “no historic properties affected” was recommended for the project.
TABLE 1. PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES PROJECTS WITHIN 1 MILE OF THE PROJECT
Project No. Report Title Author Organization
U10HK0093 A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory for the Fairfield
Municipal Landfill Project, South of Fairfield, Utah County, Utah.
Mark Brodbeck,
MA, RPA (2010).
HDR Engineering, Inc.,
Salt Lake City, Utah.

Date(s) of Survey: A Class III cultural resources inventory was conducted on June 17, 2024 by Terracon archaeologists
Heather M. Weymouth, Sandy C. Pagano, John A. Rasmussen, and Laurie Howell.
Description of Findings: No cultural resources sites or isolates were identified in the project APE during the present
investigation.

Conclusion & Management Recommendations: No cultural resources sites were identified in the during the current
inventory. Therefore, a finding of no historic properties affected is recommended for the project. This investigation was
conducted using techniques considered to be adequate for evaluating cultural resources that are visible for inspection
and could be adversely affected by the project. If such resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities,
ground disturbance should be halted and a report should be made immediately to the SHPO in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Required Materials:
☒7.5’ Quadrangle Base map(s) for Project Area
☐7.5’ Quadrangle Base map (s) for Surveyed Area (if different than #1)

Short Cultural Resources Inventory Report Form
3

Short Cultural Resources Inventory Report Form
4
APPENDIX I – 2024 FINAL COVER QA/QC PLAN

IGES

NORTH POINTE SOLID WASTE SSD
CEDAR VALLEY C&D LANDFILL (NORTH AREA)
2024 Final Cover QA/QC Plan

1 | Page

Contents
PART 1 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Document Format ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Definitions ................................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Meetings ..................................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Responsibilities of Personnel ...................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Construction Documents ............................................................................................................ 5
PART 2 – CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE .......................................................................................... 5
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Material Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Construction Testing ................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Monitoring Requirements ........................................................................................................... 6
2.5 Documentation and Control of Nonconformance ...................................................................... 6
2.6 Construction Surveys .................................................................................................................. 7
2.7 Revegetation ............................................................................................................................... 7
PART 3 – DOCUMENTATION .......................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Recordkeeping ............................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 Final Construction Report ........................................................................................................... 9
TABLE 1 ................................................................................................................................................... 10

APPENDIX A – DRAWINGS
1. Closure Stages
2. Closure Plan View
3. SecAon View & Details
APPENDIX B – QA/QC FORMS
1. Weekly/Monthly Field Log
2. Problem IdenAficaAon/CorrecAve AcAon
APPENDIX C – Geotechnical Test Results

2 | Page

PART 1 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this plan is to describe the quality assurance procedures to be uAlized during the
construcAon of the final soil cover at the north area of the North Pointe Solid Waste ConstrucAon
and DemoliAon Landfill (Landfill). The Landfill will be closed in a series of Stages with the first
Stage being complete in the fall of 2024. The primary goals of the quality assurance program are
to:

• Determine if proper construcAon techniques, materials, and procedures are used.
• Determine if the intent of the construcAon documents is met.
• IdenAfy construcAon problems and provide a method for resoluAon of any problem.
• Document the construcAon acAviAes.
Upon the compleAon of each final cover Stage construcAon; a final construcAon documentaAon
package will be prepared and submi`ed to the State of Utah Division of Waste Management and
RadiaAon Control (UDWMRC) for approval.

1.2 Document Format
The Quality Assurance Plan is divided into three secAons to idenAfy; 1) the general informaAon
and personnel associated with the project; 2) the detailed requirements of the quality assurance
program; and 3) the documentaAon and record keeping associated with the construcAon.

1.3 Defini6ons
The following are definiAons that are uAlized in this document and without definiAons may be
taken out of context:

As-Built Drawings – Drawings recording the constructed dimensions, and details.

ASTM – American Society for TesAng and Materials.

Construc6on Team – The North Pointe staff responsible for the placement of cover soils.

Engineer – The person or firm (IGES Inc.) responsible for the development of the Quality
Assurance Plan.

Landfill Manager – Owner’s representaAve on site (TBD), who is responsible for all
construcAon acAviAes.

Nonconformance – A deficiency in characterisAc, documentaAon, or procedure that
renders the quality of an item or acAvity unacceptable or indeterminate. Examples of

3 | Page

nonconformances include, but are not limited to, physical defects, test failures, or
inadequate documentaAon.

Owner – North Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District (North Pointe).

Opera6ons Supervisor – Owner’s representaAve on site (TBD), who is responsible for
coordinaAon of final cover construcAon.

Project Documents – ConstrucAon Drawings and this quality assurance plan.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control – A planned and systemaAc pa`ern of procedures and
documentaAon designed to provide adequate confidence that materials or services meet
contractual and/or regulatory requirements, and that these materials will perform
saAsfactorily in service. Quality Assurance/Quality Control will be performed by the
Owner.

Quality Assurance Inspector – The Quality Assurance Inspector for the final cover
placement will be the Landfill Manager.

Quality Assurance Manager – Not uAlized for this project.

Quality Control Inspector – The Quality Control Inspector for the final cover placement
will be the Lead Operator.

Quality Control Manager – Not uAlized for this project.

Quality Assurance Plan - A planned series of observaAons and tests designed to provide
adequate confidence that materials and services meet contractual and/or regulatory
requirements.

State of Utah – State of Utah Division of Waste Management and RadiaAon Control
(DWMRC) is the agency responsible for permifng landfills in Utah.

1.4 Mee6ngs
PreconstrucAon and postconstrucAon meeAngs will be held in associaAon with each Stage of the
final cover construcAon at the Landfill. The meeAngs are intended to facilitate the cover
construcAon and minimize the potenAal for errors. The Landfill Manager will conduct and
document all meeAngs.

A. PreconstrucAon MeeAng – A preconstrucAon meeAng will be held with representaAves
from the Owner, DWMRC staff, the Engineer, and the ConstrucAon Team. The “for construcAon”
documents, quality assurance plan, tesAng requirements, reporAng procedures, and overall
project responsibiliAes of all parAes will be reviewed at the meeAng.

4 | Page

B. Progress MeeAngs – Progress meeAngs are not anAcipated. Progress meeAngs will be
scheduled as necessary. If a progress meeAng is scheduled, representaAves from the Owner,
DWMRC staff, the Engineer, and ConstrucAon Team will a`end. The purpose of the progress
meeAngs will be to discuss progress, idenAfy problems (and correcAve acAons), review test data,
and coordinate work acAviAes including tesAng.

C. PostconstrucAon MeeAng – A postconstrucAon meeAng will be held with representaAves
from the Owner, DWMRC staff, the Engineer, and the ConstrucAon Team. The final cover
construcAon work and documentaAon will be reviewed and compared to the Quality Assurance
Plan for completeness. If adequate documentaAon is not included, addiAonal test pits may need
to be excavated to demonstrate cover soil thickness.

1.5 Responsibili6es of Personnel
A. ResponsibiliAes of the Landfill Manager – The Landfill Manager is the primary Owner’s
representaAve on the project. The Landfill Manager defines the overall project scope and is
responsible for the implementaAon of all construcAon related acAviAes. The Landfill Manager is
the point of contact for all communicaAons.

B. ResponsibiliAes of the Quality Assurance Inspector – The Landfill Manager will funcAon as
the Quality Assurance Inspector.

C. ResponsibiliAes of the Quality Assurance Manager – Not uAlized for this project.

D. ResponsibiliAes of the Quality Control Inspector – The Quality Control Inspector will be
a representaAve of the ConstrucAon Team responsible for the day-to-day Quality Control acAviAes
performed on-site.

E. ResponsibiliAes of the Quality Control Manager – Not uAlized for this project.

F. ResponsibiliAes of Engineer – The engineer is the person or firm (IGES) responsible for the
development of the quality assurance plan and will be available for clarificaAon of the plan during
construcAon if necessary.

G. ResponsibiliAes of UDWMRC – The UDWMRC is the permifng agency responsible for the
oversight of all landfilling acAvity in the State. UDWMRC is responsible to review and approve
the quality assurance plan developed by the engineer. The UDWMRC will be available for
clarificaAon of the approved plan or State related concerns if necessary.

5 | Page

1.6 Construc6on Documents
A. ConstrucAon Drawings – Appendix A contains the plans for the final cover construcAon at
the north area of the Landfill. A preconstrucAon survey of the exisAng landfill cover (in the area
to be closed) may be uAlized to document the preconstrucAon grade and serve as a basis for a
post construcAon survey uAlized to demonstrate cover thickness. AlternaAvely, Landfill personnel
may elect to install grading stakes to indicate required cover thickness, or to dig test holes in the
final cover once soil grading is complete.

B. SpecificaAons – The only project specificaAons for the cover construcAon is presented in
Part 2.

C. Forms – The forms required to document the final cover construcAon are include in
Appendix B.

PART 2 – CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE

2.1 Introduc6on
This secAon describes the monitoring and tesAng that will be performed to assure that the final
cover construcAon meets the specified requirements.

2.2 Material Evalua6on
A. Site soils are fine grained in nature and are approved for final cover use. A copy of the
geotechnical test results for the site soils are included in Appendix C.

Import soil may be used for final cover construcAon with appropriate tesAng and approval prior
to use. GradaAon tesAng for the potenAal import cover soil will be performed at one gradaAon
test per 10,000 cubic yards of final cover soil. No addiAonal tesAng of the soils to be uAlized in
the construcAon will be required other than to document that a minimum of 24 inches of soil has
been placed.

B. Test Fill – No test fill will be required for this project.

2.3 Construc6on Tes6ng
A. Test Procedures – Final Cover soil will be tested according to the tests idenAfied in Table
1.

6 | Page

B. Test Frequencies – Soil will be tested according to the minimum frequency idenAfied in
Table 1.

2.4 Monitoring Requirements
The monitoring requirements will include verificaAon of final cover thickness.

2.5 Documenta6on and Control of Nonconformance
2.5.1 ObservaAon of Nonconformance

Whenever a nonconformance (cover thickness less than 24”) is discovered the Landfill Manager
will either document the locaAon of the nonconformance (to be corrected at a future date) or
have the ConstrucAon Team correct the cover thickness nonconformance as they are discovered.

2.5.2 Determining Extent of Nonconformance

Whenever a nonconformance is discovered or observed in the construcAon process, product,
documentaAon, or elsewhere, the Landfill Manager will determine the extent of the
nonconformance. The extent of the deficiency may be determined by addiAonal sampling,
tesAng, observaAons, review of records, or any other means deemed appropriate.

2.5.3 DocumenAng Nonconformance

All nonconformances (observed but not corrected) will be documented in wriAng on a Problem
IdenAficaAon / CorrecAve AcAon form. The documentaAon will occur immediately upon
determining the extent of the nonconformance.

2.5.4 CorrecAve AcAon

Since the only criterial item required for final cover construcAon documentaAon is cover soil
gradaAon and final cover thickness; the prescribed correcAve acAon is to add addiAonal soil unAl
a minimum of 24 inches of soil cover is documented.

2.5.5 VerificaAon of CorrecAve AcAons

The Engineer and DWMRC personnel will verify all correcAve acAons. The verificaAon will be
accomplished by site observaAons, depth tesAng (test pits), and photographs. VerificaAon of
correcAve acAons will be made during the postconstrucAon meeAng. Wri`en documentaAon of

7 | Page

the correcAve measures will be made by the Engineer on the second page of the Problem
IdenAficaAon / CorrecAve AcAon form.

2.6 Construc6on Surveys
A pre and post-construcAon survey may be performed by the Owner to document final cover
geometry and thickness. Test pits will be excavated to confirm survey data.

2.7 Revegeta6on
During the regrading of the landfill slopes, the orientaYon of the dozer resulted in grouser marks that are
perpendicular to the slope. Those ridges le[ on the slope by the equipment tracks will also minimize slope
erosion by providing interrupYon to the surface water flow.

Perimeter roads will be established at the top of all slopes once the final cover soil thickness is
documented, and no new soil is required to be placed on the side slope. The perimeter road will prohibit
water from flowing from the top of the landfill down the side slopes by direcYng the water laterally away
from the final cover.

The revegetaAon seed mix for the north area of the Landfill is presented below.

ReclamaYon Seed Mix (Per Acre)

Pounds PLS
Fourwing saltbush 10
Wyoming big sagebrush 0.75
Alksli sacabon 1
Blue grama 2.5
Bluebunch wheatgrass 14.25
Streambank wheatgrass 13
Smooth brome 15.5
Intermediate wheatgrass 10
Sandberg blusgrass 2
Sheep fescue 3
Slender wheatgrass 11
Western wheatgrass 17

The Owner may elect to coordinate revegetaAon efforts with local agricultural personnel or Utah
State University Extension office personnel to select a different seed mix or revegetaAon efforts
if iniAal revegetaAon is not adequately robust.

8 | Page

PART 3 – DOCUMENTATION

3.1 Recordkeeping

The quality assurance plan relies on the observaAons, tesAng, and associated documentaAon of
all construcAon acAviAes. The documentaAon acAviAes will be performed by the Landfill
Manager.

A. Daily/Weekly Record of ConstrucAon Progress – Due to the anAcipated method and rate
of construcAon; daily/weekly construcAon reports will not be uAlized. Soil will be moved by the
ConstrucAon Team and potenAally stockpiled on the exisAng landfill for several weeks/months
before being graded down the landfill slopes. Once enough material has been stockpiled; the
landfill operators will grade the stockpiled material out to form the minimum 24-inch-thick final
cover.

B. Monthly Record of ConstrucAon Progress – Since the final cover construcAon will be done
at a relaAvely slow pace; the Landfill Manager will fill out monthly construcAon record (during
the months that the final soil cover materials are placed) detailing the esAmated amount of soil
hauled and a summary of any tesAng performed.

• Date, project name
• Weather informaAon
• A descripAon of all ongoing construcAon for the month
• Areas of nonconformance/correcAve acAons, if any
• Record of any site visitors
• Signature of Landfill Manager

C. Problem IdenAficaAon / CorrecAve AcAon – The problem idenAficaAon / correcAve acAon
form is to be uAlized to idenAfy and document porAons of the construcAon that do not meet
project specificaAons. The problem idenAficaAon / correcAve acAon form also documents the
correcAve acAon associated with every problem idenAfied during construcAon. The Landfill
Manager and Engineer will be responsible for filling out the Problem IdenAficaAon / CorrecAve
AcAon form.

D. Photographs

ConstrucAon acAviAes may be photographed. Photographs could include any significant
problems encountered and correcAve acAons, and document construcAon progress. The

9 | Page

photographs will be idenAfied by locaAon, date, and a brief narraAve of the subject of the
photograph. The Landfill Manager will be responsible for taking and cataloging construcAon
photographs.

3.2 Final Construc6on Report

At the compleAon of each Stage of the final cover construcAon, the Landfill Manager will submit
a final construcAon documentaAon to the Engineer. The Engineer will review the construcAon
documentaAon, perform a post-construcAon site visit and prepare a construcAon report that will
document that the final cover has been constructed in compliance with the construcAon drawings
and specificaAons.

At a minimum, the final construcAon report will contain:

• A summary of major construcAon acAviAes
• A summary of field tests
• Sampling and tesAng locaAons
• As-built record drawings (if prepared)
• Photographs of the final cover construcAon

Once the Engineer finalizes the construcAon report that deems that the documentaAon is
complete and that the work product has met the intent of the design, he will issue a le`er to the
DWMRC. The le`er to the DWMRC will contain a statement of compliance with the construcAon
drawings and specificaAons signed and stamped by a professional engineer registered in Utah.

The post construcAon as-built survey drawing (if uAlized) will present the locaAon of all tests
performed associated with the cover construcAon. The post construcAon survey (if uAlized) will
be included in the final construcAon report and submi`ed to the UDWMRC.

10 | Page

TABLE 1

Tests Test Method Material Evalua<on Acceptable Range
Standard Proctor ASTM D 698 Not Required -
Grain Size ASTM D 422 Every 10,000 yd3 -
Liquid and PlasYc Limits
(Acerberg) ASTM D 4318 Not Required -
In-situ Density using
Nuclear Gauge ASTM D 2922 Not Required -
VerificaYon of Proper
Thickness of Cover1 - Pre-ConstrucYon/Post
ConstrucYon GPS Survey* 24-inch minimum
*Cover thickness may be documented by GPS survey or confirmed by the excava9on of test pits at one
test pit per acre of final cover.
Landfill manager may require more tests based on test results and/or field condiAons.

APPENDIX A

A
A'
BB'
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
REFERENCE:
ADAPTED FROM MAP
PROVIDED BY CLIENT.
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
1
SHEET TITLE
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
8/28/24 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
NS
E
W
Feet
0 200 400
STAGE 1
CLOSURESTAGE 2
CLOSURE
STAGE 3
CLOSUREST
A
G
E

4
CL
O
S
U
R
E
STAGE 5
CLOSURE
CLO
S
E
D

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L

(
2
0
1
2
)
LANDFILL CLOSURE
STAGES (NORTH AREA)
CLOSURE AREAS ARE
APPROXIMATE AND MAY VARY
DUE TO COVER SOIL
AVAILABILITY.
60+00 65+00 70+00 75+00 80+00 82+00
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
3+
0
0
4+
0
0
5+
0
0
6+
0
0
7+
0
0
8+
0
0
9+
0
0
10
+
0
0
11
+
0
0
12
+
0
0
13
+
0
0
14
+
0
0
15
+
0
0
16
+
0
0
17
+
0
0
18
+
0
0
18
+
7
8
0+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+00
-3.0%
-1
1
.
0
%
-1
1
.
0
%
-5.0%
-3.0%
-
3
.
0
%
4
8
5
5
4
8
6
0
4
8
6
5
4
8
7
0
4
8
7
5
4
8
8
0
4
8
8
5
4
8
9
0
4
8
9
5
4
9
0
0
48
8
0
48
8
5
48
9
0
A
A'
BB'
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
REFERENCE:
ADAPTED FROM MAP
PROVIDED BY CLIENT.
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
2
SHEET TITLE
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
8/28/24 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
NS
E
W
Feet
0 200 400
CONCEPTUAL FINAL
GRADE (NORTH AREA)
ACTUAL SLOPES AND ELEVATIONS
MAY VARY DUE TO EARLY CLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS
Section A-A' PROFILE
4820
4900
4820
4900
1+00
48
8
6
.
0
9
2+00
48
8
9
.
4
6
3+00
48
9
0
.
4
9
48
9
1
.
9
8
5
4+00
48
9
0
.
1
0
48
9
3
.
6
4
6
5+00
48
8
9
.
3
2
48
9
2
.
0
8
4
6+00
48
8
8
.
3
3
48
9
3
.
2
2
2
7+00
48
8
7
.
2
4
48
9
5
.
0
7
9
8+00
48
9
4
.
0
4
48
9
7
.
3
8
7
9+00
48
9
9
.
0
1
49
0
0
.
1
4
4
10+00
49
0
0
.
8
5
49
0
2
.
9
4
6
11+00
48
9
9
.
6
6
49
0
0
.
9
5
7
12+00
48
8
9
.
3
7
48
9
4
.
1
7
8
13+00
48
7
4
.
8
9
48
8
4
.
7
7
5
14+00
48
7
3
.
9
4
48
7
5
.
3
7
2
15+00
48
6
3
.
0
8
16+00
48
4
4
.
8
4
17+00
48
3
0
.
3
3
18+00
48
2
0
.
2
5
Section B-B' PROFILE
4815
4900
4815
4900
1+00
48
2
7
.
8
7
2+00
48
4
4
.
2
9
3+00
48
6
3
.
5
4
4+00
48
7
8
.
4
5
48
7
8
.
0
7
8
5+00
48
7
8
.
6
9
48
8
1
.
0
3
3
6+00
48
7
8
.
0
2
48
8
3
.
9
1
2
7+00
48
7
8
.
8
0
48
8
6
.
5
8
0
8+00
48
8
1
.
2
6
48
8
8
.
9
9
9
9+00
48
8
1
.
5
5
48
9
1
.
3
5
7
10+00
48
8
2
.
3
6
48
9
3
.
8
2
5
11+00
48
9
3
.
8
2
48
9
7
.
1
1
4
12+00
49
0
0
.
8
9
49
0
1
.
8
1
5
13+00
49
0
0
.
3
0
49
0
2
.
5
3
5
14+00
48
9
9
.
8
1
49
0
0
.
3
8
0
15+00
48
8
8
.
8
8
16+00
48
7
5
.
7
1
48
7
6
.
8
2
6
17+00
48
7
3
.
7
2
18+00
48
6
9
.
3
9
19+00
48
6
6
.
4
9
20+00
48
5
3
.
9
0
21+00
48
2
8
.
4
8
CHECKED BY:
COPYRIGHT:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CAD DWG FILE:
PROJECT NO.:
REFERENCE:
ADAPTED FROM MAP
PROVIDED BY CLIENT.
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10Salt Lake City, Utah 84119(801)270-9400 (T)
CEDAR VALLEY LANDFILL
ISSUE:
3
SHEET TITLE
[phone] (F)
DATE DESCRIPTIONMARK
8/28/24 DRAFT
2000 West 200 SouthTransfer StationNorth Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District
[phone] (T)Lindon, Utah
H = 4 x V
Feet
0 200 400
NTS
FINAL COVER (NORTH AREA)
DT-1
-
18 IN.
6-12 IN.
SECTION VIEW/
DETAIL
DT-1
-
DT-1
-

APPENDIX B

REPORT DATE: __________ REPORT #: _________

CEDAR VALLEY C&D LANDFILL
MONTHLY FIELD LOG –– NORTH AREA FINAL COVER CONSTRUCTION

WEATHER CONDITIONS:

MONTHLY WEATHER SUMMARY:

CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS:
DOCUMENT ANY MEETINGS:

WORK ACTIVITITS:
SOIL PLACEMENT: AREA WHERE WORK IS BEING PERFORMED Comments:

COVER DEPTH TESTING: AREA WHERE TESTING IS BEING PERFORMED Comments:

LANDFILL MANAGER’S SIGNATURE: ________________________________________________

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION

DATE: REPORT NUMBER: _______________________

PROBLEM:

PROBLEM LOCATION/CAUSE:

SUGGESTED CORRECTIVE MEASURE:

__________________________________________
LANDFILL MANAGER’S SIGNATURE

CORRECTIVE ACTION

DOCUMENTATION OF PROBLEM RESOLUTION:

_______________________________________
ENGINEER’S SIGNATURE

APPENDIX C
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils
(ASTM D4318)© IGES 2004, 2024
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Grooving tool type:Plastic Preparation method:Air Dry
Liquid limit device:Mechanical Liquid limit test method:
Rolling method: Screened over No.40:Yes
Larger particles removed:Dry sieved

Plastic Limit  
Determination No 1 2
Wet Soil + Tare (g)13.90 14.16
Dry Soil + Tare (g)12.69 12.93
Water Loss (g)1.21 1.23
Tare (g)7.00 7.07
Dry Soil (g)5.69 5.86
Water Content, w (%)21.27 20.99
Liquid Limit
Determination No123
Number of Drops, N 29 21 15
Wet Soil + Tare (g)12.10 12.52 13.01
Dry Soil + Tare (g)11.14 11.57 11.96
Water Loss (g)0.96 0.95 1.05
Tare (g)7.04 7.61 7.82
Dry Soil (g)4.10 3.96 4.14
Water Content, w (%)23.41 23.99 25.36
One‐Point LL (%) 24 23
Liquid Limit, LL (%)
Plastic Limit, PL (%)
Plasticity Index, PI (%)
Entered by:___________
Reviewed:___________Z:\PROJECTS\00853_NPSWSSD\011_Cedar_Valley_Landfill\[ALv2.xlsm]1
BRR
North Pointe Solid Waste SSD
00853‐011
Cache Valley Landfill
8/16/2024

#1
Surface
Brown silt
Multipoint
3
24
21
Hand
A‐Line
U‐Line
CL‐ML
CL
ML
CH
MH
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 102030405060708090100
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
 In
d
e
x
 (P
I
)
Liquid Limit (LL)
Plasticity Chart
LL = 24
23
23.5
24
24.5
25
25.5
10 100
Wa
t
e
r
 co
n
t
e
n
t
 (%
)
Number of drops, N
Flow Curve
Particle‐Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis 
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2024
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data C.F.(+3/8") S.F.(‐3/8")
Split:Yes Moist soil + tare (g):183.49 506.08
 Split sieve:3/8"Dry soil + tare (g):183.34 502.04
Moist Dry Tare (g):127.91 128.35
Total sample wt. (g):22912.68 22668.06 Water content (%): 0.3 1.1
+3/8" Coarse fraction (g):55.58 55.43‐3/8" Split fraction (g):377.73 373.69
 Split fraction: 0.998
Accum. Grain Size Percent 
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6"‐150 ‐
4"‐100 ‐
3"‐75 ‐
1.5"‐37.5 ‐
1"‐25 100.0
3/4" 26.21 19 99.9
3/8" 55.43 9.5 99.8 ←Split
No.4 0.71 4.75 99.6
No.10 1.08 2 99.5
No.20 1.53 0.85 99.3
No.40 2.17 0.425 99.2
No.60 4.69 0.25 98.5
No.100 13.66 0.15 96.1
No.140 29.65 0.106 91.8
No.200 84.17 0.075 77.3
Gravel (%):0.4
Sand (%):22.3
Fines (%):77.3
Entered by:___________
Reviewed:___________Z:\PROJECTS\00853_NPSWSSD\011_Cedar_Valley_Landfill\[GSDv2.xlsm]1

#1
Surface
Brown silt with sand
JJ
North Pointe Solid Waste SSD
00853‐011
Cedar Valley Landfill
8/16/2024
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
 fi
n
e
r
 by
 we
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
APPENDIX J – CLOSURE / POST-CLOSURE CARE COSTS

NPSWSSD Construction and Demolition LANDFILL
Closure and Post-Closure Care Cost Estimate
(2024 Dollars)
Landfill Units Area (Acres)
Active Cell 49
Closed Area - 2020 6
Totals 55
Item Unit Unit Cost (2024$) Qty Est. Cost
1.00 Engineering/Management
1.01 Topo Survey and Control LS $16,059 1 $16,059
1.02 Topo Survey Final LS $10,706 1 $10,706
1.03 Engineer Site Visits HR $216 80 $17,280
1.04 Construction Plans and Specifications LS $32,118 1 $32,118
1.05 Bidding and Award LS $5,353 1 $5,353
1.06 Quality Control Testing LS $26,765 1 $26,765
1.07 Construction Management/Quality Assurance LS $32,118 1 $32,118
1.08 Closure Report/As-Builts LS $21,412 1 $21,412
1.09 SWPPP preparation, UPDES and other permits LS $10,706 1 $10,706
Subtotal $172,517
Contingency 10% $17,252
Engineering Subtotal $189,769
2.00 Construction
2.01 Mobilization / Demobilization LS $21,412 1 $21,412
2.02 Waste Grading (1) CY $3.05 15,800 $48,190
2.03 Final Cover, 34" On-Site Soil, Placement / Grading (3) (4) CY $3.05 75,000 $228,750
2.04 Seeding ACRE $1,000 55 $55,000
2.05 Final Cover Runoff / Erosion Controls (5) LF $5.00 5,700 $28,500
2.06 Silt Fence / Erosion Control (2) LF $2.45 5,700 $13,965
2.07 Dust Control LS $21,412 1 $21,412
Subtotal $417,229
Contingency 20% $83,446
Construction Subtotal $500,675
Engineering Subtotal $189,769
Construction Subtotal $500,675
Legal 5% $34,500
$724,944
Assumptions / Notes
(1) Assumes a portion of waste needs minor regrading to create stable side slopes, 1-foot across 20% of total area.
(2) Assumes minor improvements to existing drainage channel protections, permanent culverts, and storm drainage pipes are required w/ silt fence around open cells
(3) Assumes final cover soil is hauled from stockpile/excavation areas onsite and no extra compactive effort is needed.
(4) Assumes topsoil is available onsite.
(5 Assumes erosion controls on all sides of the cells per plan details
Total Closure Estimate
Summary
COST ESTIMATE FOR LANDFILL CLOSURE
1 of 2 2/3/2025
NPSWSSD Construction and Demolition LANDFILL
Closure and Post-Closure Care Cost Estimate
(2024 Dollars)
Item Unit Unit Cost (2024$) Qty Est. Cost
1.0 Engineering/Management
1.1 Post Closure Plan Review LS $10,900 1 $10,900
1.2 Budget for Corrective Action Plans & Specs LS $53,529 1 $53,529
2.0 Maintenance Costs
2.1 Final Cover Maintenance per year $5,353 30 $160,590
2.2 Site Maintenance per year $2,142 30 $64,260
2.3 SWPPP Updates, UPDES and other permit renewals per year $1,072 30 $32,160
Subtotal $321,439
Contingency 10% $32,144
Post-Closure Total $353,583
Assumptions / Notes
(1) Assumes repairing eroded final cover material with onsite material and adding compost and seeding.
(2) Site maintenance may include fixing fences, gates, drainage channels, roads, and surface water control measures
$1,078,526
Closure and Post-Closure Care cost estimates are developed based on information provided by NPSWSSD staff at time of preparation. Construction
costs are estimates and subject to change based on industry conditions. Estimated costs shown include an adjustable increase from year to year
to account for general inflationary increases. Final costs for closure and post-closure will be developed at such time when closure of cell(s) occur.
This estimate is developed using acceptable engineering standards and care.
Name:Nick Patterson, P.E.
Company:Forsgren Associates Inc.
Position:Project Manager
Date:2/3/2025
COST ESTIMATE FOR LANDFILL POST-CLOSURE CARE
Total Closure & Post-Closure Care Estimate
2 of 2 2/3/2025
APPENDIX K – FINANCIAL ASSURANCE