q) c)c - utahwaterrights.utah.gov/docsys/v920/w920/w920008p.pdf · many uses. 2. introduction this...

Q)C)c:(Q

a:..c:~~(Q

3:Q)

..c:....o...::J

6r(Q

Eo...

'+-

"E

iQ)

..c:1::oc:C)c:~

8,~>I>~

"iii>...Q)

~:cQ)

~'Q.en

'.j:ic:e

u..

STATE OF UTAHDEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Technical Publication No. 27

WATER RESOURCES OF THE HEBER-KAMAS·PARK CITY AREA

NORTH·CENTRAL UTAH

byC. H. Baker, Jr.

Hydrologist, U. S. Geological Survey

With a section on

A GRAVITY AND AEROMAGNETIC SURVEY OFHEBER AND RHODES VALLEYS

byD. L. Peterson

Geologist, U. S. Geological Survey

Prepared by the U. S. Geological SurveyIn cooperation with

The Utah Department of Natural ResourcesDivision of Water Rights

1970

CONTENTS

Abstract .

Introduction .

Description of the area

Previous studies and acknowledgments

Surface-water hydrology .

Provo River drainage basin .

Tributaries, reservoirs, and diversions

Discharge .

Chemical quality .

Weber River drainage basin .


Discharge ....

Chemical quality .

Ground-water hydrology .

Ground water in the consolidated rocks. '. .

Water-bearing units ..

Aquifer characteristics

Recharge .

Movement

Discharge .

Chemical quality

Ground water in the unconsolidated deposits

Heber Valley .


Ground-water budget

Recharge .

Movement .

Water-level fluctuations

Storage .

Discharge .

Chemical quality

Rhodes Valley .....


Recharge .

Movement .

Water-level fluctuations .

Page

. 1

.3

.3

.5

.5

.5

.7

.8

· 13

· 13

· 13

· 15

· 17

· 17

· 17.17

· 18.20.20

· 21

.23

.25

.25

.26

.27

.27

.29

.29

.32

.34

.35

.35

.37

.37

.38

.38

CONTENTS-continued

Ground-water hydrology-continued

Ground water in the unconsolidated deposits-continued

Rhodes Valley-continued

Storage .

Discharge .

Chemical quality

Parleys Park .....

Round Valley

Grou nd-water-su rface-water relationsh ips

Selected references .

Appendix .

Well-and spring-numbering system

Units and terminology .

A gravity and aeromagnetic survey of Heber and RhodesValleys by D. L. Peterson .

Basic data .

Publications of the Utah Department of Natural Resources,Division of Water Rights .

II

Page

.38

.40

.41

· 41.45

.46

.48

· 51

.52

.53

.54

· 61

·75

ILLUSTRATIONS

Page

Frontispiece. Heber Valley - View looking northeastward from a spur of the WasatchRange

Plate 1. Map of the Heber-Kamas-Park City area showing locations of wells, springs,stream-gaging stations, and weather stations and normal May-Septemberprecipitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In pocket

Plate 2. Generalized geologic map of the Heber-Kamas-Park City area . In pocket

Plate 3. Map of the Heber-Kamas-Park City area showing locations from which watersamples were collected for chemical analysis and selected water-qualitydata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In pocket

Figure 1. Map showing the location of the Heber-Kamas-Park City area .4

Figure 2. Map of part of the Provo River drainage system .6

Figure 3. Graphs of the discharge of the Provo River below Creek Dam and waterstorage in Deer Creek Reservoir 10

Figure 4. Graphs of the diversions into and out of the upper Provo River drainage basin 11

Figure 5. Map of part of the Weber River drainage system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 6. Graphs of the discharge of the Weber River below Wanship Dam and waterstorage in Rockport Reservoir. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 16

Figure 7. Photograph showing water discharging from the Spiro Tunnel near Park City . 22

Figure 8. Photograph of typical hot pot near Midway .22

Fi~ure 9. Diagrams illustrating differences in quality of water from various sources inthe consolidated rocks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 10. Map of Heber Valley showing water-level contours in September 1967 . 30

Figure 11. Maps of Heber Valley showing depths to water in January 1967 (nearseasonal low) and June 1967 (near seasonal high) .., 31

Figure 12. Graphs of water levels in selected wells in Heber Valley and cumulativedeparture from the 1931-60 normal annual precipitation at Heber ..... . .. 32

Figure 13. Graphs of water levels in well (D-4-4)23bcc-1, near the south end of HeberValley, and water stage in Deer Creek Reservoir 33

Figure 14. Photographs showing the valley fill at the south end of Rhodes Valleyexposed by entrenchment of the Provo River 36

III

ILLUSTRATIONS-continued

Page

Figure 15. Map of Rhodes Valley showing water-level contours in September 1966 . 39

Figure 16. Graphs of water levels in selected wells in Rhodes Valley . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 17. Map of Parleys Park showing approximate direction of ground-watermovement through the unconsolidated deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. 43

Figure 18. Graphs of water levels in wells tapping the unconsolidated deposits inParleys Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Figure 19. Well-and spring-numbering system used in Utah .52

Figure 20. Complete Bouguer gravity map .55

Figure21. Residual Bouguer gravity map .56

Figure 22. Map showing thickness of low-density rock .58

Figure 23. Total intensity aeromagnetic map ..... .59

TABLES

Page

Table 1. Generalized stratigraph ic summary of the consol idated rocks in theHeber-Kamas-Park City area ..... . ..... . .. . 19

Table 2. Generalized description of the unconsolidated deposits in theHeber-Kamas-Park City area . . . . . . ....... . . . . ........ .... 25

Table 3. Records of selected wells .. .62

Table 4. Records of selected springs .65

Table 5. Chemical analyses of selected water samples. .66

Table 6. Drillers' logs of selected wells and test holes .68

Table 7. Water levels in selected observation wells .69

IV

WATER RESOURCES OF THE HEBER-KAMAS-PARK CITY AREANORTH~ENTRALUTAH

by

C. H. Baker, Jr., HydrologistU. S. Geological Survey

ABSTRACT

The Heber-Kamas-Park City area encompasses about 810 square miles in Wasatch andSummit Counties, in north-central Utah, and includes four mountain valleys-Heber Valley,Rhodes Valley, Parleys Park, and Round Valley-with most of the surrounding watersheds.Parleys Park and most of Rhodes Valley are in the Weber River drainage basin; Heber and RoundValleys are in the Provo River drainage basin.

The Provo River rises in the southwestern Uinta Mountains and flows to Utah Lake. AtDeer Creek Dam, on the boundary of the study area, the average annual discharge of the ProvoRiver for the 14-year period 1953-67 was 256,300 acre-feet per year; an additional 33,900acre-feet per year (average) was diverted for use outside the drainage basin. An average of 68,000acre-feet of water per year is added to the Provo River by diversion from other drainage basins.

The Weber River has its headwaters in the northwestern Uinta Mountains, and flows toGreat Salt Lake. The average discharge of the Weber River below Wanship Dam near the northend of the study area, for the 10-year period 1957-67, was 110,000 acre-feet per year. Duringthat period, an average of 50,600 acre-feet per year was diverted from the drainage basin aboveWanship Dam. The surface-water discharge from Parleys Park enters the Weber River belowWanship Dam through East Canyon Creek and Silver Creek; the discharge from Parleys Parkaverages about 20,000 acre-feet per year.

The consolidated rocks of the Wasatch Range and Uinta Mountains contain largequantities of ground water, mostly in fractures and solution openings, and numerous springsdischarge water from the consolidated rocks. Despite the abundance of springs and the fact thatmine workings in the Wasatch Range tap large flows of ground water, most wells yield only smallsupplies of water from the consolidated rocks. The primary permeability of the rocks is low, andwells can produce large yields only if they intersect fractures and solution openings.

Consideration of the water budget for Deer Creek Reservoir, astride the Charleston thrustfault, indicates that there is no net loss of water from the reservoir through the fault. Anunbalance of about 17,000 acre-feet of water per year in the water budget for the valley fill inHeber Valley, however, may represent outflow from the valley through the consolidated rocks.

Most of the wells in the area derive water from the unconsolidated alluvial fill in the fourvalleys. The valley fill consists of a poorly sorted mixture of rock material ranging in size fromclay through boulders. There is no evidence to suggest the presence of zones of either very highor very low permeability in any of the valleys; and the valley fill in all the valleys is saturated,generally to within a few feet of the land surface, mostly with unconfined ground water.

Geophysical studies indicate that the valley fill may be as much as 800 feet thick in thedeepest parts of Heber Valley and more than 300 feet thick in most of Rhodes Valley. Rocks ofTertiary and Quaternary age are more than 1,600 feet thick in the northern part of Rhodes

Valley, but part of this material is undoubtedly volcanic rocks of Tertiary age rather thanunconsolidated alluvial fill. The presence of volcanic rocks and conglomerates of Tertiary age andlow density under most of Parleys Park makes it impossible to estimate the thickness of theunconsolidated material by geophysical techniques, but available data suggest a maximumthickness of about 100 feet. Sparse data from well drillers' reports indicate that the alluvial fill inRound Valley is probably only a few tens of feet thick.

The aquifer characteristics of the unconsolidated material in the four valleys are generallysimilar. The transmissivity ranges from 6,700 to 20,000 ft3 /d/ft (cubic feet per day per foot) inHeber Valley and probably is less in the other valleys. The specific yield is estimated to be 12-15percent.

In Heber Valley the average annual recharge and discharge is calculated as about 86,000acre-feet of water. The average annual recharge and discharge in Rhodes Valley is less-about22,000 acre-feet. Available data for Parleys Park and Round Valley are too scanty to permitcalculations of the volume of annual recharge and discharge. The calculated averageevapotranspiration is 43,000 acre-feet per year in Parleys Park and 5,000 acre-feet in RoundValley.

An estimated 280,000 acre-feet of water could be recovered by dewatering the upper 100feet of the aquifer in the unconsolidated deposits in Heber Valley, 310,000 acre-feet could berecovered by dewatering the upper 100 feet in Rhodes Valley, and about 80,000 acre-feet couldbe recovered by dewatering the unconsolidated deposits in Parleys Park. The ground water in thealluvial fill of the valleys interchanges continuously with water in the streams, however, and noneof the aquifers can be dewatered for consumptive use without ultimately reducing streamflowfrom the area.

The water throughout the area, both surface water and ground water, is generally of goodquality, and, with few exceptions, usable for domestic use, livestock, and irrigation. Most of thewater is of the calcium bicarbonate type, but calcium sulfate water is present locally in and nearshales of Triassic age. Near Midway, in Heber Valley, a group of thermal springs yield water thatis too highly mineralized to be desirable for domestic use (although it is suitable for livestock andfor irrigation), and locally volcanic rocks of Tertiary age yield water that is too high in iron formany uses.

2

INTRODUCTION

This report on the water resources of the Heber-Kamas-Park City area was prepared bythe U. S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Utah Department of Natural Resources,Division of Water Rights. The primary purpose of the report is to provide the Division of WaterRights with the basic hydrologic information needed for the effective administration of waterrights in the area.

The study on which this report is based was an overall evaluation of the water resourcesof the Heber-Kamas-Park City area, and it was made during the period July 1966-December1968. Principal emphasis in the study was on ground-water resources, because the surface waterof the area is fully appropriated, and water for expanded future needs will have to be derivedfrom ground-water sources. The primary purposes of the study were to determine the quantityand quality of ground water available in the area, to determine the relation of ground water tosurface water in the area, and to estimate the effects of increased ground-water withdrawals onstreamflow from the area.

This report describes the general surface-water hydrology of the study area, evaluates thequantity and quality of ground water available from the several aquifers, and discusses therelationship of ground water to surface water in the area. The basic data on which theinterpretations and conclusions in this report are based are included in tables 3-7 in the appendix;the data consist of selected data available for the period prior to July 1966 and of field datagathered from July 1966 to September 1968.

A short report by D. L. Peterson, describing the results of geophysical studies in part ofthe project area, is included in the appendix.

Description of the area

The Heber-Kamas-Park City area lies between the Uinta Mountains and the WasatchRange in Summit and Wasatch Counties, north-central Utah (fig. 1). It includes four mountainvalleys-Heber Valley, Rhodes Valley, Parleys Park, and Round Valley-and most of thesurrounding drainage area. Although the study area includes about 810 square miles, this studywas most concerned with the availability of water in the four valleys (total area about 140 squaremiles), for it is in the valleys that the population is concentrated and the demand for water isgreatest.

About 87 percent of the estimated 8,650 people (1960 census) in the area live in the 16communities in the valleys, but most of the population are directly or indirectly dependent onagriculture for their livelihood. Dairy farming is the principal source of income in the region,followed by the raising of sheep and beef cattle. The mountains surrounding the valleys furnishsummer pasture for livestock, and the irrigated land in the valleys supplies the necessary winterfeed. Park City was once the center of a major lead- and silver-mining district, but only two minesin the area were being worked in 1968. Recreational development (for skiing, fishing, and thelike) is an increasing contributor to the economy of the area.

The area is approximately bisected by a drainage divide; the northern part, includingParleys Park and most of Rhodes Valley, is drained by the Weber River, and the southern part,including Heber Valley and Round Valley, is drained by the Provo River. These major streamsboth have their beginnings in the western Uinta Mountains, and both are part of the Great Basindrainage system; the Weber flows north and west to Great Salt Lake, and the Provo flows southand west to Utah Lake.

3

LOCATION

5 MILES IlIoOO~I

H

MAP

ATu

[jAlpine

cCjOraper

Figure 1.-Map showing the location of the Heber-Kamas-Park City area.

4

The climate in these mountain valleys is cool but not harsh. Summers are short and cool;winters, although long, are not usually severe. Precipitation varies with the altitude, and most ofthe precipitation falls during the winter. Although the valleys receive an average of 15-20 inchesof precipitation per year, less than 8 inches falls during the period May-September, whichincludes the growing season. The distribution of normal annual precipitation and normalMay-September precipitation are shown on plate 1.

Previous studies and acknowledgments

Previous hydrologic studies in the area have been confined to the collection of basic data,primarily streamflow records, and to local studies of ground-water and surface-water conditionsin connection with reclamation projects. The streamflow records are summarized in reports ofthe U. S. Geological Survey (1954, 1960, 1961-68, 1963, and 1964), the annual reports of theProvo River Commissioner (1945-68), and the annual reports of the Weber River Commissioner(1929-68). Data collected in connection with various construction and irrigation projects wereavailable from the files of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation in Provo (Provo River drainage basin)and Ogden (Weber River drainage basin).

Many geologic studies have covered parts of the Heber-Kamas-Park City area, and moreinformation is available on the geology of the Wasatch Range than on that of the UintaMountains. In general, however, references to the water-bearing properties of the rocks are fewand scanty. The writer has drawn on many sources for the geologic map and descriptions in thisreport; those sources are listed in the references.

Much of the information on wells and springs in the area came from the files of the UtahState Engineer. Nearly all the subsurface data came from well drillers' reports on file with theState Engineer, and additional information was obtained from well drillers who were working inthe area during the time that fieldwork was in progress.

Special thanks are due to the citizens of the area and to the officials of the towns whofreely answered many questions about their water supplies and gave permission to measure waterlevels in their wells.

SURFACE-WATER HYDROLOGY

The Heber-Kamas-Park City area includes parts of the upper drainage basins of two majorstreams-the Provo River and the Weber River. The discussion of the surface-water hydrology ofthe area, accordingly, is divided into separate discussions of the two drainage basins.

Provo River drainage basin

The Provo River rises on the south side of the Uinta Mountains, near the west end of therange, and flows generally westward to the vicinity of Hailstone, in the north end of Heber Valley(fig. 2). From Hailstone, the river flows southwestward through Heber Valley and the narrowlower Provo Canyon to Utah Lake.

At some earlier time, the Provo River near Francis flowed northward through RhodesValley and joined the Weber River near Peoa. Both the shape and orientation of Rhodes Valley(fig. 1) and the presence of lineations on the surface of the valley fill north of Francis (almost

5

EXPLANATION

Drainage divide

Boundary of study area

DiversionArrowheads show djrcctjon of {fOlr

Illt15'

... 2Gaging station

Numher IS local jon reference used jn lexl

Base florn US Geological SUIveyI 250 000 lAMS) serres Salt L<l,eCity, UtJh. Wyoming (1963)

3 4 MILESl-...l--L----..JIL--l-I--.J

CONTOUR INTERVAL 200 FEETOATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL

Figure 2.-Map of part of the Provo River drainage system.

6·

invisible from the ground, but clearly evident on aerial photographs) indicate that the upperProvo River was once a northward-flowing stream. At what time the stream changed its course isnot know, but it was probably near the end of Pleistocene time, as the lithology and sorting ofthe alluvial fill near Francis suggest that the material was derived largely from glacial action in themountains.

Why the stream's course was changed is a more difficult question, but two hypotheseshave been suggested.

1. The northern outlet from Rhodes Valley was blocked, and the ponded water roseuntil it could find an outlet through a pass in the hills on the west side of the valley. Erosionsubsequently lowered the outlet to form the narrow upper Provo Canyon.

2. The east fork of the original Provo River (that is, the lower stream), working on ahigh gradient, lengthened its course by headward erosion and cut through the low divide, thusintercepting and capturing the upper river.

Either of these hypotheses seems to require the presence of a zone of weakness, probablystructurally controlled, to permit the carving of the upper Provo Canyon through the hardvolcanic rocks in a relatively short time. The writer prefers the second hypothesis, despite theobvious difficulty of rapid headward erosion of a small stream through hard rocks, for thefollowing reasons:

1. The first hypothesis requires ponding of water in Rhodes Valley, and no evidence ofsuch ponding has been found.

2. If the northern outlet of Rhodes Valley were blocked, then when the postulated pondwas drained through upper Provo Canyon the Weber River and Beaver Creek should have joinedthe upper Provo River, but both these streams still flow northward.


The main stem of the Provo River heads in a cluster of rock-basin lakes near the crest ofthe Uinta Mountains. North Fork, the only large tributary that enters the river from the north,also heads in a group of small lakes near the crest of the range. Soapstone Creek, South Fork, andLittle South Fork drain a part of the Rhodes Plateau (fig. 1), which separates the drainage of theProvo River from that of the Duchesne River. All these tributaries enter the Provo River abovethe gaging station near Woodland, and there are no perennial tributaries between the gagingstation and Hailstone.

Drain Tunnel Creek (Ross Creek) enters the Provo River near Hailstone. The creek isintermittent upstream from the mouth of the Ontario No.2 Drain Tunnel, and it is unlikely thatthere would be perennial surface inflow to the river without the discharge of the tunnel.

Lake, Center, and Daniels Creeks drain the Rhodes Plateau. The flow of Lake and CenterCreeks is now directed to Daniels Creek; Daniels Creek discharges to Deer Creek Reservoir. SnakeCreek and its tributary, Pine Creek, are the only perennial streams that flow from the WasatchRange to the Provo River above Deer Creek Reservoir. Two small tributaries, Rock and SpringCreeks, originate from ground-water discharge in Heber Valley.

7

Round Valley Creek and its south branch, Little Hobble Creek, drain Round Valley andthe surrounding mountains. Round Valley Creek discharges to Deer Creek Reservoir.

Fourteen small rock-basin lakes at the head of the main stem of the river and of NorthFork have dams and outlet works, and function as storage reservoirs. The combined regulatedcapacity of these 14 small reservoirs is about 15,000 acre-feet. In addition, the discharge of theLake Creek-Center Creek drainage is slightly regulated by several small reservoirs; the storagecapacity of these small reservoirs is not reported.

The only major impoundment on the Provo River system is Deer Creek Reservoir. DeerCreek Dam is located at the head of the lower Provo Canyon, and the high-water line of thereservoir forms the southern boundary of Heber Valley. The reservoir effectively controls thedischarge of surface water from the Provo River drainage basin in the study area. Deer CreekReservoir has a storage capacity of 152,560 acre-feet, and provides flood control as well asstorage for irrigation and municipal use. Power is generated at the dam.

Deer Creek Dam prevents the movement of ground water out of the study area throughthe unconsolidated alluvial fill in the river valley. The reservoir lies across a major fault zone,however, and it has been postulated that considerable quantities of water may be lost from thereservoir by subsurface movement along the Charleston and associated Deer Creek thrust faults.The water budget of the reservoir indicates no such loss.

Water storage in Deer Creek Reservoir began in 1940. Nearly all the surface inflow andoutflow of the reservoir was measured during the period October 1940-September 1949, so afairly accurate water budget for the reservoir can be made for that period. The net differencebetween precipitation on the reservoir surface and adjacent slopes (inflow) and evaporation fromthe reservoir (outflow) is believed to be small and is neglected in the budget. The measuredsurface inflow to the reservoir averaged about 192,000 acre-feet per year. The total outflowthrough the Provo River (the Salt Lake Aqueduct was not completed until 1950) averaged about227,000 acre-feet per year, an increase of 35,000 acre-feet per year. In addition, about 110,000acre-feet of water, an average of about 12,000 acre-feet per year, was stored in the reservoir;hence, the total gain (excess of outflow and storage over inflow) was about 47,000 acre-feet peryear. The extra 47,000 acre-feet of water per year presumably came from ground-water inflowfrom the alluvial fill in Heber Valley. There would appear to be no substantial loss of water fromthe reservoir through the subsurface.

Water is added to the Provo River by diversions from the Weber River (Weber-ProvoCanal), the Duchesne River (Duchesne Tunnel), and the Strawberry River system (three smallditches that enter Daniels Creek). Water is diverted from the Provo River through the SouthKamas and Washington Canal for irrigation in the south end of Rhodes Valley; some of thediverted water undoubtedly returns to the river as irrigation return flow. Water is also divertedfrom the basin through the Salt Lake Aqueduct, which carries water from Deer Creek Reservoirto the Jordan Valley for municipal use.

DiICharll8

The total discharge of the Provo River above Deer Creek Dam during the 14-year period1953-67 averaged 290,000 acre-feet per year. Of this amount, about 222,000 acre-feet originatedwithin the drainage basin, and about 68,000 acre-feet was imported from other drainage basins.

The U. S. Geological Survey has operated a gaging station on the Provo River at a point1,000 feet downstream from Deer Creek Dam since May 1953. The average discharge of the river

8

for 14 years (through water year 1967) was 256,300 acre-feet per year (fig. 3). The averagediversion through the Salt Lake Aqueduct during the same period was 21,800 acre-feet per year,hence the total outflow from Deer Creek Reservoir averages about 278,000 acre-feet per year.During the 14-year period 1953-67, an average of about 12,100 acre-feet per year was divertedfrom the drainage basin through irrigation canals to Rhodes Valley. Thus, the total discharge ofsurface water from the Provo River drainage basin averages about 290,000 acre-feet per year.

The above total discharge from the drainage basin, however, includes an annual average ofabout 68,000 acre-feet of water that originates outside the drainage basin and enters the ProvoRiver through interbasin diversions. About 33,500 acre-feet per year is diverted through a tunnelfrom the Duchesne River, about 31,300 acre-feet per year comes from the Weber River throughthe Weber-Provo Canal, and about 3,300 acre-feet per year comes from the Strawberry Riversystem through ditches. After deducting these diversions, the total surface outflow from theProvo River drainage basin above Deer Creek Dam averages about 222,000 acre-feet of water peryear. (Graphs of the diversions into and out of the basin are shown in fig. 4.)

At present (1968), the U. S. Geological Survey operates four gaging stations on the ProvoRiver and its tributaries above Deer Creek Dam (in addition to the measurements of diversions tothe river). Three additional gaging stations were operated during the period 1938-50. The averagedischarges at these stations for the periods of record are tabulated below.

Site Averagenumber Period Years discharge

in of of (acre-feetStation fig. 2 operation record per year)

10-1535. Provo River near Kamas 1949-67 18 36,130

10-1538. North Fork Provo River near Kamas 2 1963-67 4 30,250

10-1542. Provo River near Woodland 3 1963-67 4 178,850

10-1550. Provo River near Hailstone 4 1950-67 17 203,000

10-1555. Provo River near Charleston 5 1938-50 12 139,000

10-1560. Snake Creek near Charleston 6 1938-50 12 33,159

10-1585. Round Valley Creek near Wallsburg 7 1938-50 12 9,629

10-1595. Provo River below Deer Creek Dam 8 1953-67 14 256,300

Drain Tunnel Creek near Hailstone1 9 1949-67 18 12,000

Provo River near Midway1 10 (2)

1Operated by Provo River Commissioner's office.

21rrigation season only.

The Provo River Commissioner's office maintains records of all diversions from the river,and during the irrigation season (May-September) the Commissioner's office operates a gagingstation on the river near Midway (site 10, fig. 2). The records for this station are not included inthe table, because they cover only a part of each year and are not comparable to the annualaverages at other stations.

9

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 661967

1 6 0 ,-,--r~'---'---,~'----'~r--,-----r~'--,-~r-,--r~,---,----r--'--,--,--'-----'--'-----'-~'--'----'

150

1 40

1 30

1 201 1 0

1 0090

8070

60

5040

30

201 0

2 ~ ~:;;;:;:;;:~~=;;:;;=.=;;::;:::;:;;;=.:=;:;;=========~=~:;;:::::;;=::::;=;::;;:;;:;;=:::;::;::=::;:~===~PRO V0 R I VER 8 ELOW 0 EERe REEK 0 AM /----__--'-Ma,,-,Y,-;-I-,-9-'...53:....--,-S--'-e-"-p_1--,---,-'9=;-6--,-7:;-c-:--~14::-,:Y--,-e_a_rs'-~~_1-j

18 Average annual discharge16 354 cIs (256.300 acre-It)14

1 2

10

8

64

2oL---"-----'-_L---'-_I_ __'__--.L_L-----L----l._.L----L_'---'-----L_.L_--'--------l_...L-----L_.L_--'----.J~__'____"__.L___'__..l_ __'____'

1 93839

z- ....""."""" ...'" ,... ""

"""ou.... c(

'" ...:>:0....Z'"00,",z

, c(

... '"0::>, 0

0:>:z ....""

Figure 3.-Graphs of the discharge of the Provo River below Deer CreekDam and water storage in Deer Creek Reservoir.

The Provo River appears generally to be a gaining stream between the gaging stations atWoodland (site 3, fig. 2) and at Hailstone (site 4, fig. 2). No tributaries other than ephemeralstreams enter this reach of the river; but the Weber-Provo Canal discharge is added to the river inthis reach, and the South Kamas and Washington Canal diverts from the river in this reach.Taking these factors into account, the average gain in the Provo River in the reach betweenWoodland and Hailstone, for the period of record at Woodland, is about 18,000 acre-feet peryear. The figure cited is for only 4 years of record, however, and may differ from the actuallong-term average.

When the records from the Provo River Commissioner's station near Midway arecompared with the records from the station near Hailstone (taking into account the manyirrigation diversions between the stations and the inflow from Drain Tunnel Creek), the riverappears to gain an average of about 6,000 acre-feet per year between the two stations during theirrigation season (May-September).

A more accurate estimate of the gain of water by the river in Heber Valley can be madeby comparing records for the stations near Hailstone (site 4, fig. 2) and near Charleston (site 5,fig. 2). The records for the two stations cover different periods of time, but the averages can becompared if they are both representative of the long-term averages for the entire period.

No discharge records for any point on the Provo River above Deer Creek Reservoir coverthe entire period 1939-67, but records are available for several other streams that have theirheadwaters in the same general part of the Uinta Mountains that feeds the Provo River and drainareas of similar precipitation distribution. The discharge records of four of these streams are givenon page 12.

10

6 0~I~T-~1~lrr--rI--rI-~I~I""I---Cl--rl-~I~II---Cr----'-I-'-I~II---C'----'

OUCHESNE TUNNEL

50 - -

40 I- -r--

r-r-..--~

...--t----30 - b- -

r-- r-

~ I---

20 I- -I---

!-----Na reeard~

~Na reeard-

OITCHES FROMSTRAWBERRY

RI VER SYSTEM

-

SOUTH KAMAS AND WASHINGTON CANAL -~ ,......1- ........

~ r- r- -~ -I--

~~

I=- ;--1-- l-I-- -

I-~

I--

l- I-- -

r-26 I-

r--

I- ,...-'24 I- r- -

22 I- ,...- -r-

20 I- ...- -,...-

1B -b-

16 l- I >-=14 l- I- -

12 I- -~Na reea rd-

10 I- -I-

1 4

30 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I liT II T I I

SALT LAKE r-2B I- AQUEDUCT

1 2

1 0

bI

I-N are ear d~

I-

WEBER· PROVO CANAL r-

l-

I- -

I- r--

r-I- r- -

r-I- r- -

r- -r-

-l- -

t--

-100- -- I-

~

.... ,...... -I, ~,......'- -- I -

I---- --

I--- !-

I- Ill-I- , -

40

30

50

20

1 0

104

>-~

~...~

'"u'"...0

V>20

z 90'"V>::>0%>-

z BO

V>z0

;;; 70

'"~>

..... 60'"::>zz

'"

on..'"

oon

'"onon

'"o<0

'"on<0

'"<0..'"

oon

'"

onon

'"o<D

'"

on<0

'"DIVERSIDNS INTD THE BASIN DIVERSIONS OUT OF THE BASIN

Figure 4.-Graphs of the diversions into and out of theupper Provo River drainage basin.

11

Station

9-2185. Blacks Fork near Milburne, Wyo.

9-2775. Duchesne River near Tabiona, Utah

9-2790. Rock Creek near Mountain Home, Utah

10-1285. Weber River near Oakley, Utah

Average discharge, in cubic feetper second, for the period:

1939-50 1950-67 1939-67

1561 156 1561

210 179 192

171 162 164

198 205 200

1Record began in 1940.

On none of these streams do the average discharges for the periods 1939-50 and 1950-67differ by as much as 10 percent from the average for the entire period 1939-67. It appears, then,that the average precipitation over the general area drained by the Provo River was about thesame during the two periods, and that the average discharges for the two periods probably arecomparable.

The comparison shows that the river gains an average of about 11,000 acre-feet per yearin Heber Valley. The average annual gain is calculated as follows:

Acre-feet

Discharge of Provo River at Charleston 139,000

Diversions for irrigation between Hailstone andCharleston + 87,000

Inflow of Drain Tunnel Creek - 12,000Net 214,000

Discharge of Provo River at Hailstone -203,000Average annual gain from ground-water inflowin Heber Valley above Deer Creek Reservoir 11,000

The 11,000 acre-feet of ground-water discharge enters the Provo River in several ways.Much of the valley bottom is marshy, and small springs and seeps are common. Two smalltributaries of the river-Rock and Spring Creeks-originate from springs in Heber Valley.Probably much of the ground-water discharge enters the river directly as diffuse seepage.

One additional identifiable source of ground-water discharge to the Provo River isinfiltration to the Heber City municipal sewage system. During the spring and summer months,when the water table is high, the discharge of the sewage system increases from a winter averageof about 300,000 to about 6,500,000 gallons per day (Howard Hurst, Utah State Dept. of PublicHealth, oral commun., 1968); effluent from the sewage-treatment plant is discharged to SpringCreek.

12

Chemical quality

All surface water from the Provo River drainage basin that was analyzed was chemicallysuitable for domestic use, as well as for stock and for irrigation, according to the standardsrecommended by the U. S. Public Health Service (1962). Chemical analyses of nine samplescollected prior to this investigation from various surface-water sources in the drainage basin arereported in table 5. The samples were calcium bicarbonate type water and were generally low indissolved solids.

The relatively high dissolved solids reported for Snake Creek, 442 mg/I (milligrams perliter), is probably due to the inflow of water from thermal springs (p. 21); even a smallpercentage contribution from that source would suffice to raise the concentration of dissolvedsolids in the creek water to the observed level.

The concentration of dissolved solids in Little Hobble Creek (346 mg/l) was higher thanthat of most surface water in the area. However, the sample was taken during a period of verylow flow and may represent primarily ground water concentrated by evapotranspiration duringthe preceding growing season.

Water in Deer Creek Reservoir is a mixture of all the surface water and ground water inthe drainage basin. The water in the reservoir is fairly well mixed, as shown by the two samplestaken at different depths on the same date (9-7-56).

In recent years, concern has been expressed about pollution of the water in the ProvoRiver below Heber City as a result of that city's sewage-treatment problems. The large pickup ofwater by the sewage lines during the summer (p. 12) overburdens the city treatment plant andmakes adequate treatment impossible with the existing facility. Hence, during the summer dilutebut virtually untreated sewage is discharged into Spring Creek a short distance from the ProvoRiver. The resulting pollution of Spring Creek is reportedly severe, and the water in Deer CreekReservoir near the point of inflow of the river may be badly polluted at times. Dilution of thepolluted water by the large volume of water in Deer Creek Reservoir has apparently preventedserious pollution of the reservoir as a whole; water diverted from the reservoir is used (aftertreatment) for municipal supply.

Several solutions to the problem have been suggested. Probably the most desirable courseof action would be to locate and seal the leaks in the offending sewer lines. If water can enter thesewage system when the water table is high, sewage can also escape from the lines when the watertable is low and may pollute the ground-water body.

Weber River drainage basin

The Weber River, like the Provo River, has its headwaters in the west end of the UintaMountains; but the Weber River drains the northern slopes of the range (fig. 5). The main stem ofthe river flows roughly westward to Rhodes Valley, turns northward for about 25 miles, and thenflows generally northwestward to Great Salt Lake.


The main stem of the Weber River heads in a group of rock-basin lakes, very near theheadwaters of the Provo River. Two major tributaries, Smith and Morehouse Creek and SouthFork, also drain the northwestern slopes of the Uinta Mountains. A third major tributary from

13

Base from U.S. Geological Survey1.250,000 lAMS) series. Sal t LakeC, ty, Utah; Wyoming (1963)

Io 1 2 3 4 5 MI LES

t ! ! J ! I

CONTOUR INTERVAL 200 FEETDATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL

.,/

.'

EXPLANATION.2

Gag i ng stat i onNumber is location reference used ln text

DiversionArrowheads show direction of flow

Drai nage d iv ide

Boundary of study area

Figure 5.-Map of part of the Weber River drainage system.

14

the Uinta Mountains, Beaver Creek, drains the southwestern slopes of the range. Beaver Creekparallels the course of the Provo River for many miles, then turns northward through RhodesValley and joins the Weber River near Peoa.

Two major tributaries enter the Weber River from the southwest and drain parts of thestudy area. Silver Creek heads in the Wasatch Range southwest of Park City and drains part ofParleys Park; Silver Creek joins the river at Wanship (fig.1). East Canyon Creek drains most ofParleys Park and flows generally northwestward out of the study area and joins the Weber Rivermany miles downstream.

Several small reservoirs near the head of the main stem of the Weber River and near thehead of South Fork and one reservoir on Smith and Morehouse Creek have a combined regulatedcapacity of about 3,400 acre-feet. Wanship Dam, near the north boundary of the study area,impounds water in Rockport Reservoir, which has an active capacity of about 60,900 acre-feet.

Water is diverted from the Weber River just upstream from Oakley into the Weber-ProvoCanal, which carries the water out of the basin to the Provo River. Some water is also divertedinto the Weber-Provo Canal from Beaver Creek, but no records are kept of the diversions fromBeaver Creek.

Water for irrigation in the southern part of Rhodes Valley is diverted into the WeberRiver basin from the Provo River (South Kamas and Washington Canal). No other water isdiverted into the basin unless the water of Shingle Creek is regarded as such a diversion. Earlyphysiographic studies of the region show Shingle Creek as the principal fork of Beaver Creek(Atwood, 1909, fig. 8), and Shingle Creek is shown on most maps as the upper part of the mainstem of Beaver Creek. The divide between Shingle Creek and the North Fork Provo River is verylow, however, and water from Shingle Creek is easily diverted into North Fork. Such diversionshave been alternately made and unmade so many times that there is now considerableuncertainity concerning to which drainage the stream naturally belongs. In most recent reports ofsurface-water discharge in Utah (U.S. Geo!. Survey, 1961-68), Shingle Creek is considered part ofthe Provo River drainage system, although nearly all the flow goes into Beaver Creek.

Discharge

The Weber River Commissioner's office has operated a gaging station on the Weber Riverjust downstream from Wanship Dam since the dam was completed in 1957 (see graph, fig. 6). Theaverage discharge of the Weber River at this station for 10 years of record (through water year1967) was about 110,000 acre-feet per year. The discharge measured at this site does not includethe diversions through the Weber-Provo Canal, which have averaged about 50,600 acre-feet peryear for the same period. If the diversions to the canal are added to the discharge measured belowWanship Dam, the total outflow from the Weber River basin above Wanship Dam averages about161,000 acre-feet per year.

At present (1968) the U. S. Geological Survey operates four gaging stations on the WeberRiver and its tributaries (counting Shingle Creek) above Wanship Dam. The periods of record andaverage discharges for these stations, the station below Wanship Dam, and three other stations ontributaries of the Weber River that drain the Parleys Park area are tabulated on page 16.

The average annual diversion by the Weber-Provo Canal since its completion in 1931 isless than the average for the 10-year period 1957-67; the long-term average is 32,900 acre-feet peryear. The long-term average discharge from the canal to the Provo River is only 31,300 acre-feet

15

Site Averagenumber Period Years discharge

in of of (acre-feetStation fig.5 operation record per year)

10-1282. South Fork Weber River near Oakley 1 1964-67 3 18,090

10-1285. Weber River near Oakley 2 1904-67 63 159,300

10-1293. Weber River near Peoa 4 1957-67 10 107,100

10-1295. Weber River below Wanship Dam 1 5 1957-67 10 110,000

10-1300. Silver Creek near Wanship 6 1941-46 5 5,070

10-1337. Threemile Creek near Park City 7 1963-67 4 1,274

10-1345. East Canyon Creek near Morgan 8 1931-67 36 35,040

10-1540. Shingle Creek near Kamas2 3 1963-67 4 11,060

1Operated by Weber River Commissioner's office.

2Numbered as part of the Provo River drainage.

Baz- >-

'".'"",,,-60

'"<'"

"''''° u>- <

'" "- 40",0>-z'"00'"'z

<... '" 200:::>

°° '"z>-

'"a

1 6

'"I 4

"'u

"';;; 1 2<:::>0

~u~

~~~ 1 a0°",

,.."'",-,0",","'0..>-'"z°>-O~l.6J:I!:r::~

~~'"'"

1950 1 9 5 1 1 9 5 2

ROCKPORT RESERVOIR

WEBER RIVER BELOW WANSHIP DAM

19561957 195B 195919601961196219631964196519661967

Figure 6.-Graphs of the discharge of the Weber River below Wanship Damand water storage in Rockport Reservoir.

16

per year. The difference, an average of 1,600 acre-feet per year, plus any diversions from BeaverCreek, is the conveyance loss of the canal.

The discharge of Beaver Creek is not measured, but the creek enters the Weber Riverbetween the stations near Oakley (site 2, fig. 5) and near Peoa (site 4, fig. 5). No other perennialtributaries enter this reach of the river, although the Weber-Provo diversion is taken out: thedifference in average discharge at the two stations, adjusted for the canal diversion, shouldtherefore approximate the average discharge of Beaver Creek. Although the average discharge ofthe Weber River near Oakley for the entire long period of record is 159,300 acre-feet per year,the discharge near Oakley for the period of record available near Peoa is smaller-about 139,000acre-feet per year. The Weber-Provo Canal diversion (average for the period 50,600 acre-feet peryear) is removed from the river below this station, leaving about 88,500 acre-feet per year as thedischarge of the main river above the gaging site near Peoa. The average discharge at the stationnear Peoa, however, is 107,100 acre-feet per year; the river gains 18,600 acre-feet per year(average) between the two stations. Some of the gain is undoubtedly ground-water dischargefrom the unconsolidated deposits in Rhodes Valley, but most of the gain is the discharge ofBeaver Creek; an arbitrary estimate of the contribution from Beaver Creek is about 17,000acre-feet per year.

The gaging station on East Canyon Creek is many miles downstream from the area of thisstudy; less than half the drainage area of the creek above the gaging station is in the study area. Itis probable, therefore, that the average discharge of East Canyon Creek from the study area doesnot exceed 15,000 acre-feet per year.

Chemical quality

All surface water from the Weber River drainage basin that was analyzed was chemicallysuitable for domestic, stock, and irrigation use. Chemical analyses of seven samples of surfacewater from the Weber River drainage basin are reported in table 5. All the samples are dilutecalcium bicarbonate type water. The most concentrated of the seven samples (445 mg/l) wasfrom Silver Creek at the old Silver King Mine near Park City. The stream at that point almostcertainly included ground water discharging from the mine tunnels, which is more concentratedthan most surface water in the area.

GROUND-WATER HYDROLOGY

Ground water in the consolidated rocks

The consolidated rocks in the Heber-Kamas-Park City area are an important 'element inthe total ground-water system of the area. Springs and wells that discharge water from theconsolidated rocks are the principal source of supply for water users in the mountains. Moreover,much of the water that enters the rocks in the mountains either reappears as springs along themargins of the valleys or moves into the unconsolidated valley fill as recharge in the subsurface.

Water-bearing units

The consolidated rocks underlying the Heber-Kamas-Park City area range in age fromPrecambrian to Quaternary. A generalized stratigraphic summary of the consolidated rocks is

17

,

given in table 1. This is a composite section and nowhere in the area are all the formationspresent. Plate 2 is a geologic map showing the areal distribution of the various rock units.

The rocks in both the Wasatch Range and the Uinta Mountains have been subjected toconsiderable deformation and are greatly fractured, faulted, and folded. The most prominentdisplacement in the area is the Charleston thrust fault, which crosses the south end of HeberValley. Several smaller thrust faults have been mapped, and high-angle faults of smalldisplacement are numerous. Joints and fractures are ubiquitous, and. solution openings arecommon in the carbonate rocks. These openings and the faults playa major role in controllingthe movement of ground water in the area. Small folds are abundantly present, but they exertlittle influence on ground-water movement

Water moves through the rocks along the abundant fractures, solution openings, and faultplanes, and thus any formation may be, at least locally, water bearing. In his report on the ParkCity Mining District, Boutwell (1912, p. 24) observed that the water in the mines cameprincipally from "the red shale and massive quartzite" (Woodside Formation and WeberQuartzite). Officials of the United Park City Mining Co. agree that most of the water in thatcompany's workings appears in tunnels that penetrate the Weber Quartzite (J. Ivers, Jr., oralcommun., 1967).

In 1967, the few wells in the project area that were finished in the consolidated rocksderived their water from only 11 of the more than 30 geologic units under the area. Theproducing formations were the Quaternary tufa deposits, the Tertiary volcanic rocks, the KnightConglomerate, the Preuss Sandstone, the Twin Creek Limestone, the Nugget Sandstone, theChinle Formation, the Ankareh Formation, the Thaynes Formation, the Oquirrh Formation, andthe Weber Quartzite. Other units, especially the carbonate rocks of Pennsylvanian, Mississippian,and Devonian age, yield water to springs in the area, and Feltis (1966, p. 14-17) states that in theUinta Basin, southeast of the study area, some water is obtained from the Park City Formation ofPermian age and from the Uinta Formation of Tertiary age. More wells in the study area obtainwater from the Tertiary volcanic rocks than from any of the other formations, probably becausethe volcanic rocks are the shallowest consolidated rocks in the areas where most of the bedrockwells are located.


In a broad way, for the purpose of evaluating areal movement of ground water, the highlyfractured rocks of the Wasatch Range can be regarded as a single homogeneous aquifer, and thesame is probably true of the rocks in the Uinta Mountains. On the small scale involved inselecting sites for the development of water supplies, however, the aquifers are grosslyheterogeneous. Information from drillers' tests of wells finished in the consolidated rocks showsthat the development of supplies of water sufficient for irrigation, industrial needs, or publicsupplies from the consolidated rocks depends upon the wells intersecting water-bearing fractures.Even in a fracture system that is properly described as "closely spaced," however, the distancebetween adjacent fractures may be very large compared to the diameter of a well. Hence, theconstruction of wells to intercept water moving through fractured rocks tends to be a"hit-or-miss" affair. The large discharge of water from mine tunnels near Park City should not betaken as an indication of the potential yield of wells. Each tunnel drains many miles of workings,whereas a well usually drains a relatively small area. Small suppl ies, adequate for domestic use insingle-family dwellings, can probably be obtained from several of the consolidated rock units.

Drillers' reports of a few wells (table 3) include the results of pumping tests, generally ofonly a few hours duration. The test results were evaluated by the method of Theis and others(1963) to derive the values of aquifer transmissivity included in table 1.

18

Table 1.-Generalized stratigraphic summary of the consolidated rocks of theHeber-Kamas-Park City area

Age Formation Lithology and thickness Water-bearing properties

Tufa deposits

Calcareous tufa deposited from the water of thermal springs.Nearly pure calcium carbonate. Very porous. Thickness unknown,bur locally exceeds 70 feet.

Yields some water to wells. Numerous warm springs flowfrom tufa deposits, but source of water is probably underlying beds. Tufa apparently is permeable and transmits waterreadily.

Extrusive igneous rocks

Chiefly andesitic pyroclastics with some intercalated flow rocks,includes Keetley Volcanics and TibbIe Formation. Thickness uncertain, but reportedly may exceed] ,000 feet.

Yields some water to wells, chiefly in the Parleys Park area,and to numerous small springs. Most of the observed springs

~~~a~~~fl~~:~t~::~r~: ~~n~:~~~.27~r~~~i1i~~~ity estimated

Tuffaceous and limy beds and local conglomeratic lenses. Thick- Not known to yield water in the study area.ness and stratigraphic relations uncertain. Present only inextreme northwestern part of the study area.

Fowkes Formation

Includes a few small bodies of basic rocks in the Uinta Mountains Intrusive rocks yield some water to mine tunnels from fractures,::--, Intrusive igneous rocks and lllany large masses of granil.:ic rocks in the Wasatch Range. hut have little significance as aquifers in the area.l-< Thickness unknown •.~ 1------------+--------------------------+-------------------------""e<

Uinta FonnationFluvial and lake deposits. Present only in the extreme south

end of the study area. Thickness in the area unknown.Not known to yield water in the study area, but reportedlysupplies some wells locally in the Uinta Basin to the southeast (Feltis, 1966).

Knight ConglomerateGr-ayand reddish conglomerate in massive beds, chiefly fluvial.Thickness as much as 2,000 feet.

Yields water to a few wells in the northern part of the studyarea. Transmissivity probablY less than 135 ft 3 /d/ft.

Wanship Fonnation ofI~ardley (1952) Marine sandstone and shale. Thickness as much as 5,000 feet. Not known to yield water in the study area.

Echo Canyon Conglomerateof Eardley (1944)

Conglomerate and conglomeratic sandstone and some shale and afew coal beds. Thickness at least 3,100 feet.

Not penetrated by wells in the study area, but supplies a fewsprings.

Nonmarine and marine sandstone, shale, and coal. Thickness Not penetrated by wells in the study area. Probable sourceIII Frontier Formation more than 2,100 feet. of a few small springs.

wu

5f------------+---------------------------+-------------------------Conglomerate and shale. Thickness as much as 1,500 feet, but Not known to yield water in the study area.

U~ Price River Formation probably less in the study area. Present only in the extreme... south end of the area.f---------j---------------------+-----------------

Aspen Shale Dark gray marine shale. Thickness about 250 feet. Do.

Kelvin FormationContinental deposits, predominantly red colored. Thickness about Not penetrated by wells in the study area, but supplies a few

1,500 feet. springs.

Morrison FormationContinental deposits, locally containing abundant dinosaur re- Not known to yield water in the study area.

mains. Thickness uncertain, perhaps as much as 1,200 feet.

Twin Creek Limestone

ul------------t--------------------------+-------------------------Nonmarine siltstone and sandstone. Thickness probably more Yields small amounts of water to a few wells in the area. 10-

III Preuss Sandstone than 1,000 feet. sufficient data to estimate transmissivity.

~I------------t-----_,_---------_,__,_---------+-...,...,----------------_,_------>-, Light-colored splintery limestone. Thickness as much as 2,000 Yields water to several wells and springs in the area, probably

feet. ;~:i~~~;t~~e~e:~dt~:~ug~nf~~/~~~~~' Data suggest trans-

Nugget SandstoneCrossbedded eolian sandstone, generally some shade of red.

Thickness as much as 1,200 feet.Yields water to several weljs in the area. Transmissivity

~~~e~~1~~/i~~ (about 65 ft Id/ft) but locally as high as

Chinle FormationMixed nonmarine sediments, generally red. Thickness uncertain,

probably less than 500 feet.Yields small amounts of water to wells in the Parleys Park

area. Transmissivity probably less than 135 ft 3 /d/ft.

Shinarump Member of theChinle Formation

Fluvial sandstone and conglomerate. Thickness about 100 feetin the study area.

Not known to yield water in the study area.

Thaynes Formation

U Ankareh Formation Chiefly red siltstone, sandstone, and shale. Thickness more Yields a little water to wells in the Parleys Park area fromthan 1,000 feet. sandy beds. Insufficient data to estimate transmissivity.·2 1-------------1---------------------------+-------------------------

f-< Calcareolls marine sediments. Thickness more than 2,000 feet. Yields some water to a few wells and springs, largely fromfractures and solution openings. Insufficient data to estimate transmissivity.

Woodside FormationRed siltstone, sandstone, and shale. Thickness about 500 feet. Reportedly yields water to the mine tunnels in the Park City

area from fractures.

Park City FormationLimestone, phosphorite, cherty siltstone, and shale. Thicknessabout 1,500 feet.

Not tapped by wells in the study area, but reportedly yieldssome water in the Uinta Basin (Feltis, 1966).

Kirkman Limes tone

~ Diamond Creek Sandstone Light-colored crossbedded sandstone. Thickness up to 1.000'g feet. Present only in the extreme south end of the study area.

&: I------------+-o-ar

-k-_c-o-'-or-e-d.-br-e-cc-i-a-te-d-.-t-h'-'n--b-e-d-de-d-'-im-e-'-t-on-e-.-Th-i-Ck-n-e-ss-up---i

to 1,600 feet. Present only in the extreme south end of thestudy area.

Neither of these two formations is sufficiently extensive inthe study area to be important as aquifers. No wells in thearea tap either formation, but a few small springs in theextreme south end of the area produce water from one or bothof these formations.

Oquirrh FormationInterbedded sandstone and limestone containing some shale andsiltstone. Thickness as much as 8,000 feet, but probablyless in the study area. Present only south of Heber City.

Yields some water to wells and springs, chiefly from fracturesand solution openings. Transmissivity estimated as about270 ft 3 /d/ft.

19

Table 1.--Generalized stratigraphic summary of the consolidated rocks of theHeber-Kamas-Park City area-continued

Age Formation Lithology and thickness Water-bearing properties

Weber Quartzite

Morgan Format ion

Round Valley Limestone

Chiefly gray crossbedded sandstone. Thickness up to 3,000 feet. Yields small amounts of water to a few wells. Primary perme-ability is very low, but reportedly yields large quantitiesof water from fractures in the mine workings near Park City.Principal source of water in the mines.

Red sandstone and shale interfingers with the Weber Quartzite No information on water-bearing properties in the study area,in part. Thickness up to 1,000 feet. but primary penneability is probably low.

Light-gray marine limestone. Thickness 250-400 feet. No wells penetrate the fonnation in the study area, but ityields water to numerous springs.

]

:.~00.

"" 0.

E:~ Manning Canyon Shale

~~g~

.::

Mississippian and Devonianrocks undivided

Cambrian sedimentary rocksundivided

Marine shale, siltstone, claystone, and limestone. Thickness300-500 feet.

Chiefly marine limestones and dolomites. Thickness from 3,000to 6,000 feet.

ChieflY shales and quartzites. Thickness uncertain, probablyup to 3,000 feet.

Not penetrated by wells in the area, but supplies a few smallsprings.

Not penetrated by wells in the area, but yields water fromfractures and solution openings to many springs. A majoraquifer.

Not known to yield water in the study area.

Precambrian rocks undivided ChieflY metasediments. Thickness unknown.

Recharge

Water-bearing potential unknown, but probably small.

In most of the mountainous area, the soil cover is thin and permeable, and rain orsnowmelt can infiltrate readily. The rapidity of infiltration into the rocks in the mountains isindicated by the reports that the discharge of the mine tunnels in the Park City area increasesnoticably during the period of spring snowmelt and runoff. Moreover, observation well(D-2-5)32bad-1, finished in the Tertiary volcanic rocks, shows small rises of water level only afew hours after a rainstorm over the area. The water level in one of the nonflowing thermalsprings near Midway (see p. 21) also rises rapidly in response to rain or snowmelt in themountains.

Movement

As has been indicated, water moves through the consolidated rocks readily, principallyalong the abundant zones of fracturing and solution openings. The direction of movement is, ingeneral, downhill from recharge areas in the mountains to discharge areas near the margins of thevalleys.

Whether any appreciable amount of water leaves the study area through the consolidatedrocks is difficult to ascertain, but an unbalance of 17,000 acre-feet per year in the gound-waterbudget for Heber Valley is probably due to movement out of the valley through the consolidatedrocks. The structural feature most commonly suspected of draining water from the area is theCharleston thrust fault, which passes entirely through the Wasatch Range. Deer Creek Reservoir,on the Provo River, lies directly across the outcrop of the Charleston and associated Deer Creekthrust fault (see pl. 2), and the water budget for Deer Creek Reservoir (see p. 8) indicates thatthere is no loss of water from the reservoir along the thrust planes. Because there is no detectablemovement of water from Deer Creek Reservoir down the Charleston thrust fault, it is probablethat no significant amount of ground water leaves the study area along the fault.

20

Discharge

The principal manmade discharge of water from the consolidated rocks in the area isthrough the extensive mine workings in the vicinity of Park City (fig. 7). The amount of waterdischarged by the few small-capacity wells that penetrate the consol idated rocks is only a verysmall part of the total discharge. Natural discharge is through numerous springs, mostly aroundthe margins of the valleys, and through direct infiltration into the unconsolidated deposits in thevalleys.

The total discharge from mine tunnels is estimated as at least 50 cfs (cubic feet persecond) or 36,000 acre-feet per year. The discharge of the Spiro Tunnel, near Park City, wasreported in 1935 as about 15 cfs and "a rather steady flow" for several years (G. H. Taylor,written commun., 1935). The flow of Drain Tunnel Creek, which consists principally of thedischarge of the Ontario No.2 Drain Tunnel, is measured at a weir about 5 miles downstreamfrom the mouth of the tunnel (fig. 2). The losses to evapotranspiration between the tunnelmouth and the weir probably equal or exceed any gains from ground-water discharge to thestream. The average discharge of Drain Tunnel Creek is 15.9 cfs (18 years of record). Thedrainage from the Mayflower Mine enters Drain Tunnel Creek downstream from theabove-mentioned weir; in 1967-68 the discharge of the Mayflower Mine drainage was estimated asabout one-half that of Drain Tunnel Creek at the weir. Smaller amounts of water are dischargedfrom other tunnels in the area.

The water discharged from the Alliance Tunnel (quantity unknown) provides themunicipal supply for Park City; the discharge from the other tunnels is used for irrigation inParleys Park and Heber Valley.

A large but undetermined amount of water is discharged from the consolidated rocksthrough numerous springs. In 1968, the Utah State Engineer's records included claims to waterfrom about 250 springs that discharge water from the consolidated rocks. The springs are nearlyall associated with fractures or solution openings. The largest springs in the area flow fromsolution openings in the limestones of Pennsylvanian and Mississippian age. For example, threesprings near the mouth of Snake Creek Canyon discharged about 13 cfs from the limestonesduring the summer of 1967.

An unusual hydrologic feature of Heber Valley is a group of thermal springs near thetown of Midway. Although the springs are located on the Snake Creek alluvial fan, and areunderlain in part by alluvium, their source is deep seated and they represent discharge from theconsolidated rocks. A more detailed discussion of the thermal springs has been given elsewhere(Baker, 1968), and they will be described only briefly here.

Most of the thermal springs do not flow and are known locally as "hot pots." The typicalhot pots are small pools of warm water that occupy shallow depressions in the tops of mounds ofcalcareous tufa (fig. 8). Seventeen hot pots in the area have been examined by the writer. Four ofthe hot pots are artificially discharged to supply water to swimming pools at resorts, 2 potsoccasionally overflow, and the other 11 discharge water at the land surface only by evaporation,although some thermal water may be discharged into the valley fill in the subsurface.

The temperature of the water in the 13 pots without artificial discharge ranges from 1Z'to 34°C (54°-94°F), and the highest temperatures are in the 2 pots that occasionally overflow.Water temperature in the 4 pots that are artificially discharge ranges from 38° to 40°C(100°-104°F). Addition of heated water from below to many of the pots is very slow, and thewater of a few pots is lower than that properly classified as "thermal."

21

Figure 7.-Water discharging from the Spiro Tunnel near Park City.Water moves from the tunnel mouth to this drainage ditch through

the pipe in the background. Discharge is about 15cubic feet per second.

Figure 8.-Typical hot pot near Midway. View looking east from apoint about 7 feet above the ground. The opening is about 9 feet

in diameter and the top of the rim is about 5 feet above theroad in the upper left corner of the photograph. Water

level is about 1.5 feet below the rim.

22

In addition to the hot pots, at least 7 thermal springs in the area flow perennially. Thedischarge of these springs ranges from a few gallons per minute to about 3 cfs; the total dischargeof the 7 springs in 1967 was about 7 cfs. The water temperature of the 7 flowing springs rangesfrom 30° to 46°C (86°-144°F).

Chemical quality

Nearly all the nonthermal water from the consolidated rocks is suitable for domestic useaccording to the standards of the U. S. Public Health Service (1962); the exception is some waterfrom the volcanic rocks that is high in iron. All the water is hard to very hard, and many residentsof the area use ion-exchange type softeners in their domestic water systems. Water from the hotpots is too mineralized to be desirable for domestic use, and plentiful supplies of better water areavailable from the springs that furnish the public supply of Midway. Even water from the hotpots is used by livestock; and, according to the criteria established by the U. S. Department ofAgriculture (U.S. Salinity Lab. Staff, 1954), all water from the consolidated rocks in the area issuitable to use for irrigation. Although water from the hot pots is in the high salinity hazard classfor irrigation, it can be used for salt-tolerant crops on the premeable and well-drained soils inHeber Valley.

Samples of water for chemical analysis were collected from 28 springs, wells, and tunnelsthat tap the consolidated rocks; the analyses are included in table 5. The locations from whichthe samples were collected and diagrammatic representations of the concentrations of theprincipal dissolved solids in some of the samples are shown on plate 3. Four kinds of water can bedistinguished from four general sources in the consolidated rocks. Figure 9 illustrates averageanalyses of samples of the four kinds of water.

Water from the sandstones and Iimestones of Jurassic age and older is represented bydiagram 1 (fig. 9). The water is of calcium magnesium bicarbonate type and is not highlymineralized; the concentration of dissolved solids in 13 samples from these formations rangedfrom 104 to 488 mg/1. Most samples were hard according to the classification of the U. S.Geological Survey (more than 120 mg/I hardness), and many samples were in the very hard range(more than 180 mg/I). The concentration of silica was low; the samples ranged from 8.2 to 25mg/I, but most were below 20 mg/1. The percentages of sulfate and chloride were low (each lessthan 20 percent of the total anions), and chloride was generally slightly lower than sulfate.

Diagram 2 (fig. 9) is typical of water from the shales of Triassic age; 1 sample wascollected from a spring, 1 from a well, and 3 from mine drain tunnels. The water is of calciumsulfate type, and generally more concentrated than that from the limestones and sandstones. Theconcentration of dissolved solids in 5 samples ranged from 218 to 691 mg/I. All samples were inthe very hard range; the hardness of 2 samples exceeded 300 mg/1. Concentrations of silica rangedfrom 6.3 to 21 mg/1.

Water from the volcanic rocks is represented by diagram 3 (fig. 9). The volcanic rocksyield calcium bicarbonate type water; the concentrations of 5 samples ranged from 249 to 1,020mg/1. Four samples were in the very hard range, but water from the volcanic rooks was generallysofter than water from the shales. Concentrations of silica were much higher in these samplesthan in water from other sources in the area. The silica concentration ranged from 22 to 52 mg/I,but only 1 sample was below 30 mg/1. The relative concentrations of sulfate and chloride in thesewaters was also distinctive; the samples contained from 3 to 5 times as much chloride as sulfate.The volcanic rocks are the only consolidated rocks in the area that yield water containing

23

-10

- 7 0

- 50 a:...>-

a:...a..

- 40'":lE..a:

'"--'--'

:IE- 30

z:

..'-'

- 20

- 60

-0HOT POTSSprings

11 B0

////////

:::~TERTIARY VOLCANIC

ROCKSWei Is and springs

CI+F+N0 3

TR I ASS I C SHALESMine drains and

springs

IONSBar on right side is si I iea;bar on left side is hardness

o- "'""'l;....:..:..L~L.-"

LIMESTONES ANDSANDSTONES

Wei Is and springs

5-

100 -

///

80 - //////

z //0

////

'" 60 - //0 //a.. //:IE0 //'-' //... //'" //..

/>- 40 -z: /... /'-'a: /... /a..

//

20 -///

0-

600- 30-

100 -

0

700- 35-

a: a:... 500- ... 25->- >-

a: a:... ...a.. a..

'" '":IE 400->-20-.. z:a: ...'"

--'..--' >--' ::::>

:IE a...z: 300-:::;15-

'":IE

'" Z...z:0a:200-~10-..

:>::0

Figure g.-Diagrams illustrating differences in quality of water fromvarious sources in the consolidated rocks.

24

substantially more chloride than sulfate. One sample was very high in iron (34 mg/l), but thisseems to be a local condition; the few other analyses indicate little or no iron in solution.

Water from the hot pots is a calcium sulfate bicarbonate type (diagram 4, fig. 9), and isby far the most mineralized water in the area. Concentrations of dissolved solids in 10 samples ofthe thermal water ranged from 1,650 to 2,160 mg/I, and total hardness ranged from 960 to 1,270mg/1. The water is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate at normal temperatures andpressures; calcium carbonate precipitates from samples that are allowed to stand for a few daysexposed to the atmosphere.

Ground water in the unconsolidated deposits

The principal source of water to wells in the Heber-Kamas-Park City area is theunconsolidated alluvial fill in the major valleys. Unconsolidated deposits in the mountains havelittle significance as aquifers. The stratigraphy, lithology, and water-bearing characteristics of theunconsolidated deposits are summarized in table 2. The areal distribution of the various units isshown on plate 2.

Table 2.-Generalized description of the unconsolidated deposits in theHeber-Kamas-Park City area

Age Unit

Younger alluvium

Older alluvium

Lsndslide deposits

Glacial deposits

Lithology and thickness

Poorly sorted mixture of material ranging in size from clay to boulders.All beds appear to be lenticular and discontinuous. Thickness rangesfrom a to about 1,000 feet. Underlies the valley floors of Heber Valley,Rhodes Valley. Parleys Park, and Round Valley and fonna low terracesalong the margins of Heber and Rhodes Valleys. The two units cannot bedistinguished lithologically; the terraces are mapped 88 older alluviumand the valley floors as younger alluvium., but older alluvium probablyalso underlies the valley floors.

Unsorted material ranging from clay through boulders. Thickness unknown.Present only in a few isolated areas of the mountains.

Includes outwash deposits, morainal deposits, and glacially striated bareground. Present in the higher elevat ions of both the Wasatch Range andthe Uinta Mountains.

Water-bearing properties

These deposits form the best and most productive aquifers inthe study area. Water-table conditions predominate. Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 20 to 50 ft 3/d/ft 2 ; estimated specific yield ranges from 12 to 15 percent. Mostwells and many springs in the study area yield water fromthese depos its.

Hydrologic properties unknown, but the scattered small deposits have no hydrologic significance in the area.

The small areas of sorted outwash undoubtedly store andtransmit some ground water, but the glacial deposits as awhole have no significance as aquifers in the study area.

Older high-level gravelsurfaces of uncertain

age

Planed surfaces underlain by thin deposits of gravel. Thickness uncertain. No data concerning hydrologic characteristics, but notPresent only in southeastern part of study area. significant as an aquifer in the study area.

Heber Valley

Heber Valley, on the Provo River, is the largest of the four valleys included in the studyarea (pI. 1 and fig. 1). The valley floor is roughly triangular in plan and has an area of about 44square miles. The Provo River enters the valley at the northern apex of the triangle and flows outnear the southwestern apex. Three small tributaries of the Provo River-Lake, Center, and DanielsCreeks-enter the valley near the southeastern apex, and a fourth tributary, Snake Creek, entersabout midway on the western side of the valley. The valley floor is thickly blanketed withunconsolidated debris, and each of the tributary streams has built a substantial alluvial fan at themouth of its canyon.

Two wells in Heber Valley that pass through the entire thickness of unconsolidatedmaterial reached consolidated rocks at depths of about 310 feet. Geophysical studies, however,

25

indicate that the maximum thickness of the unconsolidated deposits may exceed 800 feet locally(see appendix, p. 57). The material is poorly sorted, and because there are no well-defined bedsof material of very low or very high permeability, the unconsolidated valley fill can be treated asa single, essentially homogeneous, water-table aquifer.

Aquifer characteristics.-The calculated hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer in HeberValley is about 50 ft3/day/ft2 (cubic feet of water per day per square foot), and thetransmissivity is in the range of 6,700-20,000 ft3 /day/ft. These values were calculated usingvalues of specific capacity of wells obtained from drillers' tests and using the value forground-water accretion to Deer Creek Reservoir calculated on page 8. Conventional aquifer testswere not made because the valley contains no large-capacity wells.

Drillers' reports for 35 wells in the valley include the results of pumping or bailing tests,generally of 2 hours duration or less (table 3). The specific capacities determined from these testsranged from 0.2 to 25 gpm (gallons per minute) per foot of drawdown. Because the specificcapacity of a well is greatly influenced by the well construction-thickness of aquifer penetratedand open to the well, method of finish, method and amount of development, and a host of otherfactors-as well as the duration of the test, the largest specific capacities are probably mostindicative of the potential of the aquifer. The largest specific capacities of wells in Heber Valley(25 gpm per foot of drawdown) were used to calculate the aquifer transmisivity by the methodof Theis and others (1963); the calculated transmissivity was about 6,700 ft3 /day/ft.

The calculated ground-water accretion to Deer Creek Reservoir is 47,000 acre-feet peryear (p. 8). Using Darcy's law in the form:

T = 119.4 Q/IL

where Q is the ground-water discharge (47,000 acre-feet per year), I is the slope of the watertable near the reservoir (0.02 foot per foot), and L is the length of the reservoir shorelineadjacent to the valley fill (13,900 feet), the transmissivity, T, is calculated as about 20,000ft3 /day/ft.

The specific yield of the aqu ifer material was estimated from drillers' logs as follows:Each logged material was assigned a value of specific yield and this value was multiplied by thepercent of the total depth logged as that material; the resulting figure was the weighted specificyield for the given material in that hole. The weighted specific yields of all the materials reportedin each log were summed to give the average specific yield of all the material drilled. The valuesof specific yield assigned to the various materials reported by the drillers were values that havebeen determined largely by hydrologists in other areas and the interpretation of drillers' termsfollowed the schemes summarized by Johnson (1967, tables 17 and 24).

The specific yield of the upper 30 feet of the aquifer material was estimated from 20 logs;the values of specific yield ranged from 8 to 20 percent and averaged about 14 percent. Thespecific yield of the total thickness of material penetrated was estimated from 17 logs of thedeepest wells in the valley. The total depths of the wells ranged from 100 to 225 feet andaveraged 144 feet; the values of specific yield ranged from 7 to 21 percent and averaged about 12percent. Accordingly, the value of 14 percent (for the upper 30 feet of the material) was used tocompute annual recharge, and the value of 12 percent (for the total thickness of the valley fill)was used to compute the amount of water in recoverable storage in the aquifer.

26

Ground-water budget.-The ground-water budget for the valley fill in Heber Valley issummarized as follows:

Acre-feetRecharge:

Irrigation water and precipitation on thevalley floor

Subsurface inflow

Total recharge:

Discharge:

Net evapotranspiration loss (evapotranspirationless precipitation) ...

To Deer Creek Reservoir

To Provo River . . .

Subsurface outflow

Total discharge:

56,000

30,000

86,000

11,000

47,000

11,000

17,000

86,000

The derivation of each of these values is explained in the following sections on rechargeand discharge.

In the calculations of recharge and discharge (both in Heber Valley and in Rhodes Valley)the assumption is made that precipitation on the valley floor is entirely consumed byevapotranspiration. This assumption is, of course, an oversimplification; some of the precipitationreaches the water table as recharge and some runs off as surface water. The calculated totals forboth recharge and discharge are not affected by the simplification.

Recharge.-The unconsolidated deposits in Heber Valley are recharged by precipitationon the valley floor; by infiltration of surface water, especially water spread over the land forirrigation; and by subsurface inflow from the surrounding consolidated rocks. The amount ofrecharge derived from the infiltration of precipitation is small and probably occurs primarilyduring the spring period of snowmelt. Direct infiltration of water from the Provo River is alsosmall; most of the time the Provo River through Heber Valley is a gaining stream and removeswater from the aquifer rather than adding water to it.

The infiltration of irrigation water is the major source of recharge to the valley fill. Mostof the valley bottom is irrigated, and because the infiltration rate is rapid, each application ofirrigation water adds considerable recharge to the aquifer.

The average annual recharge in Heber Valley is somewhat more than the average annualchange in storage, but the difference between annual change in storage and annual recharge

27

probably is not great. Hence, the average annual change in storage can be used as the budgetestimate for average annual recharge.

The average annual change in storage in the water-table aquifer is equal to the product ofthe annual change in saturated thickness, the specific yield of the aquifer material, and the areaof the aquifer.

Water levels in about 25 wells in all parts of Heber Valley were measured by variousagencies, and were reported by the Provo River Commissioner, during the period 1945-60. TheCommissioners' reports distinguish four subareas or divisions of the valley. The four divisions,their approximate areas, and the average annual change of saturated thickness in each division forthe period 1945-60 (from the Provo River Commissioners' Annual Reports) are tabulated below:

Average annual changeArea in saturated thickness

Division (acres) (feet)

Above irrigation 3,000 4.97

Midvalley 21,000 25.58

Lower valley 3,200 13.52

River bottom lands 800 7.58

The estimated average specific yield of the upper 30 feet of the aquifer materials is 14percent; if that estimate and the tabulated figures are used in the equation, the computed averageannual change in storage in the unconsolidated deposits in Heber Valley is 86,000 acre-feet.

The principal sources of recharge to the valley fill, as stated earlier, are infiltration ofirrigation water and subsurface inflow from the consolidated rocks. Neglecting minor sources ofrecharge, the approximate contribution from each of the principal sources can be calculated fromthe following data:

The total amount of water diverted for irrigation in Heber Valley each year is reported bythe Provo River Commissioner; the average for the period 1945-60 was 87,000 acre-feet per year.

The average amount of water required by crops in the valley during the irrigation season(May-September) can be calculated by the Blaney-Criddle method (Blaney and Criddle, 1962).Using data published by the Utah State Engineer's office (Criddle and others, 1962) for hay andmixed pastures in Heber Valley, the crop water requirement is calculated as 43,000 acre-feet perirrigation season.

Part of the water required by the crops will be furnished by precipitation during thegrowing season. Using data from the May-September precipitation map of Utah (U. S. WeatherBur., 1963), the precipitation on the valley floor during the irrigation season is calculated as12,000 acre-feet.

28

So the contribution to recharge, in acre-feet, from irrigation is:

Water diverted for irrigation 87,000

Plus precipitation +12,000

Total: 99,000

Less crop water requirements -43,000

Difference (available for recharge):

And the contribution from subsurface inflow, in acre-feet, is:

56,000

Total recharge 86,000

Less recharge from irrigation -56,000

Difference (recharge from subsurface inflow): 30,000

Movement.-The direction of ground-water movement through the unconsolidateddeposits in Heber Valley is shown by the water-table map (fig. 10). In general, the direction ofmovement is toward the Provo River and downvalley. During periods of peak stream discharge,the direction of movement in the immediate vicinity of the river probably would be reversed.

The water-table map indicates that Snake Creek, like the Provo River, is generally againing stream in Heber Valley. The three tributaries from the east (Lake, Center, and DanielsCreeks), however, are losing streams. The coarse-grained fan deposits across which these streamsflow as they enter the valley are at altitudes well above the main valley floor, and the water tableis several tens of feet below the surface of the fans (fig. 11). The increased depth to water in thearea of these alluvial fans reflects the higher altitude of the land surface; the slope of the watertable beneath the fans is about the same as the slope of the water table elsewhere in the valley(fig. 10).

Water-level f/uctuations.- The water level in wells in Heber Valley fluctuates in responseto the seasonal recharge-discharge cycle (figs. 11 and 12 and table 7). Generally the water table ishighest in late Mayor early June and gradually declines through the summer, fall, and winter.The lowest level of the year is commonly reached in February or March, shortly before the springthaw. With the coming of the thaw and the heavy spring runoff, the water table rises rapidly, andagain reaches a high in Mayor June. This seasonal rise and fall of the water level is illustrated bythe graph of well (D-4-4) 14abb-1 (fig. 12).

Man's activities have somewhat altered the cycle in Heber Valley. One effect is theintermittent addition of recharge by irrigation during the growing season. In well (D-4-4)23bcc-1(fig. 13), the smooth summer decline of the water level is interrupted by many small but rapidrises, each resulting from the rapid infiltration of irrigation water applied to nearby fields. Asecond effect of man's activities is shown by the same graph-near Deer Creek Reservoir thewater level in the aquifer is controlled by the water level in the reservoir (fig. 13). Except for theminor fluctuations from irrigation during the growing season, the graph of the water level in thewell is a subdued image of the graph of the water level in the reservoir.

Comparison of the long-term graphs with the graph of departure from normalprecipitation at Heber (fig. 12) shows that the aquifer is in a state of equilibrium, with recharge

29

T2S.

T3S.

T4S.:

R.4 E.

R. 4 E.

R.SE.

R.5 E.3MILESL-__--'-__--l__-----II

R. 6 E.

R.6 E.

T2S.

T.3S.

T4S.

Base from U.S Geological Survey1.250.000 (AMS) ser ies. Sal t LakeCity, Utah, Wyoming (1963)

EXPLANATION

-----5600--

Water-level contourDashed where approximate. Contour interval

50 feet. Datum is mean sea level

Observation well

Other well used for control

I , , , , , I It' I

Boundary of valley fill

Figure 10.-Map of Heber Valley showing water-level contours inSeptember 1967.

30

Observat.ion well

D--------------60-100

lii\,(W (\!j100-1 ItO

~IMore than litO

EXPLANATION


5-20I I

I> >::>1Less than 5

---160-----Line of equal depth to water, in feet below

land surface, dashed where approximate

o


~ Depth to water, in feet below land surface

S.

T4S.

R. E,

JANUARY

t3S.

T.4

S'N

13 MILES

'----'----'-------',Base from U.S. Geological Survey1 :250,000 (AMS) se, ies: Sal t LakeCity, Utah; Wyoming (1963)

Figure 11.-Maps of Heber Valley showing depths to water in January 1967(near seasonal low) and June 1967 (near seasonal high).

31

(0-4-4 )14abb-1

cze--'

•c--'....CD

I........~

z

.'"....le.,CI-

'"l-lL....C

II

1 3

15

I 7

19

~~~:4

8

1

~=================::::::::;;:::==:::::::=====================~~

29 ~===========================================+15 ~

+10....'"::>I- +5'"e enlL ....

.... '"c uz.... -

> -5-z1--e--' ·1 0::>::IE::>u -15

Cumulative departure from normal

annual precipitation at Heber

- 20 L--l.---L_'-----..-L---L_'-----_L---L_'-----..-L---L_'-----..-L---L_'-----..-L---L_'------l.---L_'-----.-l---L_'------l.---L_.L--L-----'-_.L--r"-----'-_

193536 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 661967

Figure 12.-Water levels in selected wells in Heber Valley and cumulativedeparture from the 1931-60 normal annual

precipitation at Heber.

about balanced by discharge. Very wet or very dry years are reflected by unusually high or lowwater levels, but the peaks of each graph cluster about an average line, and there is no indicationof a significant long-term change in water levels in Heber Valley.

Storage.-The total volume of water in storage in an aquifer can be calculated bymultiplying the total volume of the aquifer by the total porosity of the aquifer material, but sucha figure is of little value, because part of the water in an aquifer is held tightly by molecularforces and cannot be recovered. The recoverable water in storage, that Is, the volume of waterthat can be removed from storage by wells, is equal to the product of the volume of the aquiferand the specific yield of the aquifer materials. It is difficult to get an accurate estimate of thetotal volume of alluvial fill in a valley, but the volume of water theoretically recoverable fromthe upper 100 feet of the aquifer can be calculated.

Available information on the thickness of the valley fill in Heber Valley indicates that itextends at least 50 feet below the water table under most of the valley and at least 100 feet

32

below the water table under at least two-thirds of the valley. The average specific yield of theaquifer material to a depth of 100 feet is estimated as 12 percent. Using these figures, the volumeof water theoretically recoverable from dewatering 100 feet of the unconsolidated deposits inHeber Valley is calculated thus:

28,000 acres x 50 feet x 12 percent = 170,000 acre-feet (approximately) for the upper 50feet and;

28,000 acres x 60 feet x 0.66 x 12 percent = 110,000 acre-feet (approximately) for thenext 50 feet;

total 170,000 + 110,000 = 280,000 acre-feet.

The statement that 280,000 acre-feet of water is theoretically recoverable from the upper100 feet of valley fill in Heber Valley should not be construed to mean that it is practicable,under present conditions, to recover all, or any substantial part, of that amount. The calculated280,000 acre-feet of water could be removed only by dewatering the upper 100 feet of theaquifer. However, the ground water in the valley fill and the surface water in the Provo River andits tributaries are two parts of a system that is presently in dynamic equilibrium. Efforts todewater any part of the aquifer would, of course, upset that equilibrium, and would havefar-reaching effects on the system. This point is discussed in greater detail on pages 46-47.

Oeer Creek,/'Reservoi r

I 6

J u I yJ un eFeb. Mar. Apr. May1968

Jan.

//

I/

//

//

//

//....... /J

........ ---/ ---- I-----_/'---

Oec.Aug Sept. Oct. Nov.

I 967J u I YJ un e

II11III

)

May

5420

541 8

-'541 6

~

>541 4~

-'

"" 5 4 1 2~

'"z 541 0

""~'" 5408~

> 54060

'"""I-

5404~

~ 5402~

z- 5400

~ 5398'"""I-'" 5396

'"~ 5394I-

""~5392

5390

5388

Figure 13.-Water levels in well (D-4-4)23bcc-l, near the south endof Heber Valley, and water stage in Deer Creek Reservoir.

33

Discharge.-Ground water is discharged from the unconsolidated deposits in Heber Valleyby pumping from wells, by evapotranspiration, by effluent seepage, and probably by subsurfaceoutflow through the surrounding consolidated rocks.

The total volume of water pumped from wells in the valley is very small, and there havebeen no drastic changes in irrigation practice for many years; hence the long-termrecharge-discharge regimen is fairly stable and should be in balance. The average annual discharge,therefore, should be about 86,000 acre-feet per year.

The total evapotranspiration from Heber Valley, calculated by the Blaney-Criddle method(Blaney and Criddle, 1962) is about 81,000 acre-feet per year. (evaporation from Deer CreekReservoir is not included in this amount). Part of the evapotranspiration loss is the crop waterrequirement and is supplied by irrigation water and summer precipitation (p. 28); and accordingto the assumption made on page 27, part of the loss will be supplied by the winter precipitation.The net evapotranspiration loss from the ground-water body, therefore, is calculated as follows:

Acre-feetTotal evapotranspiration 81,000

Less crop water requirement(irrigation water and May-Septemberprecipitation) -43,000

Less October-April precipitation -27,000

Net evapotranspiration loss of groundwater 11 ,000

Ground-water discharge by effluent seepage includes the accretion to Deer CreekReservoir (47,000 acre-feet per year, p. 8) and the discharge to the Provo River (11,000acre-feet per year, p. 12). Ground-water discharge to the Provo River apparently occursthroughout the length of the river in the valley.

The total discharge from the foregoing calculations is 69,000 acre-feet per year, or 17,000acre-feet less than the average annual recharge. No direct evidence of subsurface discharge fromthe valley fill has been found, but this unbalance in the recharge-discharge calculation mayindicate such subsurface discharge.

Thus the average annual discharge, in acre-feet, from the unconsolidated deposits is:

Net evapotranspiration loss 11,000

To Deer Creek Reservoir 47,000

To Provo River 11,000

Subsu rface outflow 17,000

Total discharge 86,000

34

Chemical Quality.-AII the water sampled from the unconsolidated deposits in HeberValley was chemically suitable for domestic use, according to the standards of the U. S. PublicHealth Service, although 2 samples of sulfate type water and 1 sample of mixed type weresomewhat above the optimum in dissolved solids, and all samples were hard to very hard. Thewater is satisfactory for stock or for irrigation.

Chemical analyses of 10 samples of water from the unconsolidated deposits in HeberValley are reported in table 5. The locations from which the samples were collected anddiagrammatic representations of the concentrations of the principal dissolved solids in some ofthe samples are shown on plate 3.

Seven of the 10 samples were calcium bicarbonate type water, with dissolved solidsranging from 187 to 446 mg/1. The hardness of the 7 samples ranged from 144 to 324 mg/I, inthe hard to very hard range. Silica concentration ranged from 12 to 43 mg/I; the samples thatwere high in silica came from the east side of the valley, where the rocks forming the valley wallare predominantly volcanic.

Two of the 10 samples were calcium sulfate water, and both contained more dissolvedsolids than the calcium bicarbonate water. One of these samples came from a well at the northend of the valley, very near the outcropping of the Triassic shales, and the water was similar tothat found in the shales (diagram 2, fig. 9). The concentration of dissolved solids of this samplewas 727 mg/I and the hardness was 464 mg/1. The other sample of sulfate type water came from awell near Midway. That well taps a layer of gravel overlain by tufa, and the water is similar towater from the hot pots, but more dilute. The sample contained 1,160 mg/I dissolved sol ids, andthe hardness was 770 mg/1.

One of the 10 samples was a calcium bicarbonate sulfate type water. That sample camefrom a shallow dug well in the tufa deposits near Midway, and the water appears to be a mixtureof hot pot type water and the dilute calcium bicarbonate type water commonly found in thevalley fill. The concentration of dissolved solids in the sample was 661 mg/I and the hardness was434 mg/1.

Rhodes Valley

Rhodes Valley, the second largest of the four valleys in the study area, is nearlyrectangular in plan, with the long axis of the rectangle oriented about north-south (pI. 1 and fig.1). The area of the valley floor is about 39 square miles. The Weber River flows westward acrossthe north end of the valley, entering and leaving through narrow canyons. The principal drainageof the valley is by Beaver Creek, which enters the valley from the east near the south end, flowsnorthwestward, and joins the Weber River where that stream leaves the valley. At the south end,Rhodes Valley terminates in a bluff that overlooks the Provo River.

The alluvial fill deposited in Rhodes Valley by the Provo River (see p. 5-7) is probablymore than 300 feet thick under most of the valley. In addition, a sizeable alluYial fan has beenformed where the Weber River enters the valley, and smaller fans mark the mouths of BeaverCreek Canyon and Hoyt Canyon.

When the upper Provo River changed course, the stream entrenched itself in its formervalley floor. Thus nearly 100 feet of unconsolidated material is exposed in the north side of theProvo Canyon at the south end of Rhodes Valley (fig. 14a). The material is poorly sorted andonly weakly stratified (fig. 14b).

35

a. View looking northwest from the bottom of the ProvoRiver valley. Bluff is about 90 feet high. Old slump scarvisible on right side of photograph.

b. Closeup view showing lack of sorting and poorstratification. Clipboard is 6 inches wide.

Figure 14.-Valley fill at the south end of Rhodes Valley exposed byentrenchment of the Provo River.

36

The unconsolidated deposits in Rhodes Valley are saturated to within a few feet of theland surface with unconfined ground water. As in Heber Valley, the entire valley fill can betreated as a single water-table aquifer, because neither continuous zones of very high or very lowpermeability nor areas of artesian conditions are evident.

Aquifer characteristics.-Data from drillers' tests of 17 wells in Rhodes Valley (table 3)yield specific capacities of wells ranging from 0.1 gpm per foot of drawdown to 13 gpm per footof drawdown. The largest values of specific capacity suggest an aquifer transmissivity of about3,500 ft3 /d/ft.

Aquifer tests have not been performed in Rhodes Valley proper, but tests were conductedby the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation in a well at a damsite in Weber Canyon, a few miles upstreamfrom Rhodes Valley and just outside the study area. Data obtained by the Bureau from 3pumping tests and 2 recovery tests were analyzed by the writer; the calculated transmissivity wasabout 5,400 ft3 /d/ft. The aquifer at the test site is 247 feet thick, giving a calculated hydraulicconductivity of about 22 ftJ /d/ft2 -only about one-half that calculated for the valley fill inHeber Valley.

The value of specific yield calculated from the data obtained by the Bureau ofReclamation was about 12 percent. Specific yield was also calculated from drillers' logs of 15wells in Rhodes Valley by the method used for Heber Valley. The wells ranged in depth from 33to 78 feet and averaged 68 feet; the estimated values of specific yield averaged about 15 percent,both for the upper 20 feet and for the total thickness penetrated.

Recharge.-The unconsolidated deposits in Rhodes Valley are recharged primarily by theinfiltration of irrigation water. Some additional recharge comes from the direct infiltration ofsnowmelt and by subsurface inflow from the surrounding consolidated rocks; probably little orno recharge is received from summer rains.

Records of water-level fluctuations are available for only a few wells in Rhodes Valley.Records for about 10 wells in the valley, for various periods before 1950, indicate an averageannual change in saturated thickness of about 4 feet in the southern three-fourths of the valleyand about 12 feet in the northern one-fourth. This average change in saturated thickness, with anarea of 39 square miles (about 25,000 acres) and a specific yield of 15 percent gives an averageannual change in storage of about 22,000 acre-feet of water; hence the minimum average annualrecharge is 22,000 acre-feet per year. This value is used as an estimate of the annual recharge inthe water-budget study.

The amounts of recharge contributed from irrigation water and from other sources werecalculated for Rhodes Valley as they were for Heber Valley. Calculation by the Blaney-Criddlemethod (Blaney and Criddle, 1962) gives an average crop water requirement for Rhodes Valley ofabout 40,000 acre-feet per irrigation season. The average total irrigation diversion is about 44,000acre-feet; the average precipitation on the valley floor during the irrigation season is about 13,000acre-feet. Thus the amount of recharge from irrigation water is:

37

Acre-feet

Total irrigation diversion 44,000

Precipitation +13,000

Total 57,000

Less crop water requirement -40,000

Difference (available for recharge) 17,000

Total recharge 22,000

Less recharge from irrigation -17,000

Difference (recharge from other sources,primarily subsurface inflow) 5,000

Movement.-I n most of Rhodes Valley, ground water moves toward Beaver Creek (fig.15); in the north end of the valley, in the vicinity of the Weber River, ground water movestoward the river.

In the south end of Rhodes Valley, near the bluff overlooking the Provo River, someground water moves toward the bluff and the Provo River. The ground-water divide, separatingwater that moves toward the Weber River from water that moves toward the Provo River, is onlya short distance north of the bluff (fig. 15). Apparently the divide can exist so near the bluffbecause of the difference between lateral and vertical permeability of the aquifer. The bedding,like the land surface, slopes gently northward from the edge of the bluff. Hence water movingnorthward to the Weber River and Beaver Creek moves laterally through the beds, but watermoving toward the Provo River moves vertically across the beds. The lateral permeability ofalluvial deposits is commonly greater than the vertical permeability. It is calculated that if waterhas equal opportunity to move in either direction from the ground-water divide, and if the ratioof lateral to vertical permeability is 140 to 1-within the range reported for bedded deposits(Bennett and others, 1967, p. G53)-the divide will be stable at about the position indicated infigure 15.

Water-level fluctuations.-Graphs of three wells in Rhodes Valley. that have beenmeasured since 1938 are shown in figure 16. All three graphs show the annual fluctuations thatare typical of water-table aquifers in permeable valley-fill material that is irrigated with divertedsurface water. The well at Oakley, in the north end of the valley, fluctuates through a muchgreater range than either of the two wells farther south. Although there is considerable variationbetween the highest or lowest water levels in adjacent years, there is no marked long-termdeparture from the average high or low. The graphs indicate a relatively stable recharge-dischargerelation, with little evidence of long-term net change.

Storage.-The total volume of water theoretically recoverable from storage in the upper100 feet of valley fill in Rhodes Valley can be calculated by the same method used for HeberValley. If the saturated valley fill is at least 50 feet thick under the entire valley, and at least 100feet thick under two-thirds of the valley, then the recoverable water in storage is:

25,000 acres x 50 feet x 15 percent = 190,000 acre-feet (approximately) for the upper 50feet; and

38

R.S E.

T1S.

T2S.

T.3S.

R. S E.

Base from U S Geological Survey1 250,000 (AMS) series, Salt LakeCity, Utah, Wyoming (1963)

R.6 E.

T1S.

T2S.

N

j' 1s.

R.6 E.3'MILES

'-----'-----'-----',

EXPLANATION

----6500----Water level contour

Dashed where approximate, Contour interval25 feet. Datum is mean sea level

Observation well


•••••Ground-water divide

, , , , • , , I


Figure 15.-Map of Rhodes Valley showing water-levelcontours in September 1966.

39

(D-2-6)20ccc-l j6 '---"------"-_-'---------'-_s_OLU_TH-'-E_N_....I.D�_R_H..I.~_DE_S_'__'_V_ALL1L_E_Y'--....I.'_--'-'_-'---------'-_'---"_....I.'_..I.'_ _'__'_ _,__'_L'--'1_....1.'_..1.1_ _'__1_"'-----'---'--,'_....1.'_

1936 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 46 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 56 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 1966

w<.>......"" 1 0::>

'"c 1 2z...-'

• 14c-'w

1 6III

I-Ww 1 6... (0-1-6)19dad-l

z NORTH ENO RHOOES VALLEY- 20

2

""WI-...•CI-

:z:l-lLWc

102

Figure 16.-Graphs of water levels in selected wells in Rhodes Valley,

25,000 acres x 50 feet x 0.66 x 15 percent = 120,000 acre-feet (approximately) for thelower 50 feet;

Total: 190,000 + 120,000 = about 310,000 acre-feet.

Discharge.-Ground water is discharged from the unconsolidated deposits in RhodesValley by evapotranspiration and by seepage into Beaver Creek, Weber River, and Provo River.Because the hydrologic regimen in the valley is stable, the minimum long-term average annualdischarge probably is about equal to the minimum average annual recharge of 22,000 acre-feet.

The net annual evapotranspiration loss of ground water, in acre-feet, from Rhodes Valleyis calculated as follows:

40

Total evapotranspiration (Blaney-Criddle method) 72,000

Less crop water requirement (irrigation and May-September precipitation, from page 37) . .. -40,000

Less October-April precipitation from precipitationmap, pI. 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -22,000

Net evapotranspiration loss of ground water: . 10,000

Long-term discharge records of the streams traversing the valley, from whichground-water discharge by effluent seepage could be calculated, are not available. Most of thevalley bottom bordering Beaver Creek is marshy and contains abundant springs and seeps; mostof the ground-water discharge to streams probably goes to Beaver Creek. A few springs are foundin the bluff overlooking the Provo River, and the Provo is generally a gaining stream in the reachbetween the gaging stations near Woodland and near Hailstone (p. 10). The estimated minimumaverage annual discharge to Beaver Creek, Weber River, and Provo River is 12,000 acre-feet peryear.

Chemical quality.-Chemical analyses of two samples of water from wells that tap theunconsolidated deposits in Rhodes Valley are reported in table 5. Both samples were dilutecalcium bicarbonate type water. One sample, from a well near the south end of the valley andvery near an outcropping of the Tertiary volcanic rocks, contained 289 mg/I dissolved solids. Thiswater was relatively high in silica (40 mg/I) and contained about equal concentrations of sulfateand chloride (14 and 13 mg/I, respectively). The water is evidently affected by recharge from thenearby volcanic rocks.

The second sample of water was from a well near the north end of the valley, distantfrom the volcanic rocks. This water contained 205 mg/I of dissolved solids, was low in silica (5.5mg/Il, and contained about four times as much sulfate as chloride (13 and 3.9 mg/I, respectively).Subsurface recharge that affects this water comes from the sandstones and limestones of Jurassicage and older.

These two samples are probably typical of the water from the unconsolidated deposits inRhodes Valley. The water, although hard, is quite suitable for domestic, livestock, and irrigationuse.

Parleys Park

Parleys Park is the name given to the broad, gently rolling flat north of Park City (see pI.1 and fig. 1). A ridge of low hills, extending east-northeast from Quarry Mountain, divides thesouth end of the park into two arms. The narrow eastern arm is the valley of Silver Creek, whichheads in Empire Canyon south of Park City, flows around the east side of Quarry Mountain,continues northeast, and joins the Weber River about 2 miles north of Wanship 'Dam. The widerwestern arm and the broad flat north and west of the hills drains to East Canyon Creek. EastCanyon Creek rises in the mountains north of Parleys Park and flows through the northern partof the park, collecting the water of several small streams that flow generally northward throughthe park. The creek then turns northward through a narrow canyon and joins the Weber Riverabout 20 miles north of Parleys Park.

41

Unconsolidated deposits cover only about 21 square miles of Parleys Park along Silverand East Canyon Creeks and in the flats northwest of Quarry Mountain (pI. 2); the rest of thepark is underlain by consolidated rocks, principally the Tertiary volcanic rocks and the KnightConglomerate. Little information is available about the thickness of the unconsolidated deposits.The contact between the unconsolidated material and the underlying volcanic rocks or KnightConglomerate is difficult to recognize in boreholes, and drillers often fail to recognize thecontact. The differences in density between the unconsolidated deposits and the underlyingmaterial are too small to give conclusive results by gravity methods. The best informationavailable suggests a maximum thickness of about 100 feet and an average thickness of about 60feet.

The unconsolidated deposits in Parleys Park, as in Heber Valley and Rhodes Valley,consist of a poorly sorted mixture of material ranging in size from clay to cobbles. There appearto be no well-defined beds of material of very high or very low permeability, and no indicationsof the existence of artesian conditions. The unconsolidated deposits are saturated to within a fewfeet of the land surface with unconfined ground water.

There are very few wells in the unconsolidated deposits of Parleys Park to provide a basisfor estimating the transmissivity and specific yield of the aquifer. The specific capacity of onewell is reported as 20 gpm per foot of drawdown; such a specific capacity suggests an aquifertransmissivity of about 4,670 ft3 /d/ft. The aquifer at the well location is about 100 feet thick,giving an estimated hydraulic conductivity of about 50 ft3 /d/ft2 -about the same as the valuederived for similar material in Heber Valley. The few drillers' logs available are not suitable forcalculating specific yield by the method used in Heber Valley and Rhodes Valley; however, anestimate of 15 percent, based on the values derived in the other areas, is probably in the rightrange.

Recharge to the unconsolidated deposits in Parleys Park comes primarily from the directinfiltration of precipitation on the park and runoff from the surrounding mountains, andsecondarily from subsurface inflow through the consolidated rocks. Available data on the annualrange of water-level fluctuations are too scanty to permit a direct estimate of the average annualrecharge. The probable minimum recharge is indicated by the estimated evapotranspiration (seebelow).

The inferred direction of ground-water movement in Parleys Park is shown in figure 17.Water in the eastern arm of the park moves toward Silver Creek and down the valley. In thewestern arm of the park, ground water moves generally northward toward East Canyon Creek.Each of the small tributaries of East Canyon Creek that crosses the park is a gaining stream,however, and locally ground water moves toward each of these streams.

The water-level fluctuations in well (0-1-4)31 bdb-l were observed from 1936 to 1948;the well was destroyed in 1948. Well (0-1-4)31adb-l was monitered by an automatic water-levelrecorder that was installed in October 1966 and operated intermittently through 1968. Graphs ofwater levels in these wells are shown in figure 18. The short-term record of well (D-I-4)31adb-1shows annual fluctuations of more than 17 feet, but the longer record of well (Q-I-4)31bdb-1shows no substantial long-term change in the position of the water table.

Any calculation of the amount of water available from storage in the unconsolidateddeposits of Parleys Park can be only a rough estimate. The maximum depth to water recorded inwell (0-1-4)31 adb-l was nearly 20 feet; if the average thickness of the unconsolidated deposits is60 feet, the average saturated thickness (when the water table is lowest) is about 40 feet. If the

42

R.3 E. R.4 E. R.5 E.

T.1S.

T2S.

T.1

S.

T.2s.N

1R. 3 E. R. 4 E. R. 5 E.

3 MILES'--__-L-__---'-__---',

Base from U S Geological SUlvey1 250 000 lAMS) serres. Sal t LakeCi ty, Utah Wyoming (1963)

EXPLANATION

)

Approximate direction of ground-water movement

Boundary of unconsol idated deposits

Figure 17.-Map of Parleys Park showing approximate direction of ground-watermovement through the unconsolidated deposits.

43

"C

",.,o

-'"""C

'"...'"

1 2

10

wt.:l 10......'"::>en 1 :?cz:....... 1 4~

c....w 16III

....ww 1 8...z:-

20'"w (D-1-4)31adb-1.......

22~

1 966 I 967 1 968c....:z:....0..wC

(D-I-4)31dbd-1

1 936 1 937 1938 I 939 1940 1 941 1942 1 943 1 944 1 945 1 946

Figure 18.-Graphs of water levels in wells tapping the unconsolidateddeposits in Parleys Park.

saturated thickness is 40 feet, the area 21 square miles (about 13,000 acres), and the specificyield 15 percent, the volume of recoverable water in storage is about 80,000 acre-feet. As in theother calculations of storage, this volume of water is theoretically recoverable by dewatering theaquifer; dewatering the aquifer, however, may not be practicable in the foreseeable future.

The combined discharge from wells and discrete springs in the unconsolidated deposits inParleys Park is small. Large seeps or marshy areas are common in the park, however, especiallyduring the summer months; and these areas discharge large quantities of ground water byevapotranspiration. The total evapotranspiration from the park is calculated by theBlaney-Criddle method as 43,000 acre-feet per year based on air temperatures measured at ParkCity during the period 1921-50. Ground water is also discharged directly to Silver Creek and toEast Canyon Creek and its tributaries; all the streams in the park appear to be gaining streamsmost of the year. It is possible that water also moves from the unconsolidated deposits into theconsolidated rocks at the north end of the park.

44

It is believed that all water in the unconsolidated deposits in Parleys Park is suitable fordomestic, stock, or irrigation use. Analyses of two samples of water from the unconsolidateddeposits in Parleys Park are reported in table 5. One sample, from a well near the north end ofthe park, was a calcium bicarbonate type water and contained 338 mg/I of dissolved solids; thehardness was 261 mg/1. The second sample was from a well on the south side of QuarryMountain, very near an outcropping of Triassic rocks. Water from this well was a calcium sulfatebicarbonate type. The dissolved solids in this sample was 527 mg/I and the hardness was 398mg/1. These two samples probably indicate the kind of water to be expected from theunconsolidated deposits in Parleys Park.

Round Valley

A roughly oval depression, about 7 miles long and 4 miles wide, in the overthrust (upper)block of the Charleston thrust fault south of Heber Valley, is called Round Valley (pI. 1 and fig.1). Unlike the other valleys described, the valley floor in Round Valley is decidedly bowlshaped.The total area covered by alluvium is about 20 square miles.

Two drillers' logs for wells in Round Valley are available. The log for well (D-5-4)12bba-1reports unconsolidated material to 45 feet, the total depth of the well. The other log, for well(D-5-4)13acd-1, indicates rock at 38 feet. Thus it appears that the alluvial fill in Round Valley isonly a few tens of feet thick.

Such alluvial fill as there is in Round Valley, however, is saturated to within a few feet ofthe land surface with unconfined ground water. 8ecause of the virtual absence of wells, noevaluation of aquifer characteristics is possible, but it is likely that the hydraulic conductivity andspecific yield of the unconsolidated deposits here is similar to those of the other valleys in thestudyarea-about50 ft3 /d/ft2 and 15 percent, respectively.

Water probably enters the alluvial fill in Round Valley primarily through the infiltrationof precipitation on the valley floor and runoff from the surrounding slopes, and secondarilythrough the infiltration of irrigation water. About 2,580 acres of land in the valley are irrigatedwith water from Round Valley Creek and from a few springs. There may also be some subsurfaceinflow from the surrounding Oquirrh Formation.

Ground water in the unconsolidated deposits of Round Valley moves generally towardRound Valley Creek and downvalley. Water is discharged into the creek and into the atmosphereby evapotranspiration. The calculated evapotranspiration from the irrigated land and a few acresof marshy bottom lands is 5,000 acre-feet per year. In addition, about 3,300 acres on the lowerslopes of the valley are partly covered with such plants as greasewood and rabbitbrush, which usesome ground water. The average discharge to Round Valley Creek is not known.

Chemical analyses of water from two springs that discharge from the unconsolidateddeposits in the valley are reported in table 5. Both samples were dilute calcium bicarbonate typewater (dissolved solids less than 300 mg/I). Both were very hard but were otherwise quitesuitable for domestic use as well as for livestock and for irrigation.

45

GROUND-WATER SURFACE-WATER RELATIONSHIPS

A primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the relation of ground water to surfacewater in the area and to estimate the effects of increased ground-water withdrawals onstreamflow from the area.

From the preceding discussions, it is apparent that the ground water in the valley fill andthe surface water in the streams that traverse the valleys are intimately related. A part of theground-water discharge in each valley goes into the streams and a part of the recharge to theaquifer in each valley is derived from surface water. Thus the ground water and the surface waterare two parts of a hydrologic system that is in approximate balance, and any changes in thepresent pattern of water use would change the balance of the system. Any increase in withdrawalof water from the system would ultimately be reflected in decreased stream discharge.

Use of ground water in the valleys could be increased, however, with only minimal effectson streamflow. Water that is consumed by evapotranspiration in the marshy bottom lands couldbe salvaged for other uses by lowering the water table locally and drying up the marshes. Becausemost of the marshy bottom land is irrigated and maintained as wet meadows, these areas werenot distinguished from other croplands in the evapotranspiration calculations given elsewhere inthis report, and no estimate of the amount of water that may be salvageable is given. Most of themarshy areas are very near the streams, so careful planning and thorough site investigation wouldbe required to minimize the effect on streamflow of lowering the water table.

Moreover, the effects on streamflow of increased withdrawal of ground water from thevalley fill would not necessarily be immediate nor pronounced. When water is pumped from anaquifer bordering a stream, part of the water withdrawn from the aquifer is diverted from thestream, either by increasing recharge from the stream or by decreasing discharge to the stream.The percentage of the water pumped from a well that is diverted from the stream is related to thetransmissivity and specific yield of the aquifer, the distance of the well from the stream, and theduration of pumping.

A graphical method developed by Theis and Conover (1963) can be used to estimate thepercentage of the water pumped from a well that is diverted from a nearby stream for anycombination of aquifer coefficients, distance between well and stream, and duration of pumping.The following examples are given for Heber Valley, assuming an aquifer transmissivity of 10,000ft3 /d/ft (p. 26) and a specific yield of 12 percent (p. 26).

If a well in Heber Valley 1,000 feet from the Provo River were pumped continuouslythroughout the irrigation season (120-150 days), 85 percent of the water pumped at the end ofthe season would be water diverted from the river. If the well were 1 mile from the river,however, only about 30 percent of the water pumped at the end of 150 days would be waterdiverted from the river, and only about 50 percent of the withdrawal at the end of 1year wouldbe diverted from the river. The diversion from the river would be in the form of a decrease in therate of ground-water discharge to the river.

That part of the pumped water not immediately diverted from the river would bewithdrawn from storage in the aquifer. When pumping ceased, the rate of ground-water dischargeto the river would not increase to the pre-pumping rate until the water removed from storage inthe aquifer had been replaced. Ultimately, all the water removed from the aquifer and usedconsumptively will have been diverted from the stream.

46

From the foregoing, it can be seen that it is not possible to remove ground water from thevalley fill for consumptive use without affecting streamflow. It is possible, however, to makemore effective use of the water resources by "borrowing" water from ground-water storageduring periods of peak demand and "paying back" (in diminished streamflow) during periods oflow demand. The details of such a water-management plan are beyond the scope of this report.Detailed studies for such a plan should include tests to determine the aquifer coefficients at theproposed pumping site; the aquifer coefficients given in th is report for the valley as a whole maynot be applicable to a particular site.

The preceding discussion concerns withdrawals of ground water for increasedconsumptive use. Virtually all the irrigable land in the valleys is already irrigated, however, fromsurface-water sources. Pumping ground water to replace surface water for irrigation would not bean increase in consu mptive use. Indeed, such a practice wou Id doubtless save water, becauseevaporation losses from canals would be reduced. The cost of constructing wells and operatingpumps, however, would increase the cost of water to the irrigator.

Outside the valleys, in the areas underlain by consolidated rocks, the low flow of thestreams is sustained by ground-water discharge, and increased withdrawal of ground water woulddecrease the natural discharge. Existing methods of estimating the effects of pumping wells onnearby streams, however, are not applicable to the consolidated rocks; therefore, no quantitativeestimates of the effect of increased withdrawal of ground water from the consolidated rocks canbe made.

47

SELECTED REFERENCES

Atwood, W. W., 1909, Glaciation of the Uinta and Wasatch Mountains: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof.Paper 61.

Baker, A. A, 1964, Geology of the Aspen Grove quadrangle, Utah: U. S. Geol. Survey Geol.Quad. Map GQ-239.

Baker, A A, Calkins, F. C., Crittenden, M. D., Jr., and Bromfield, C. S., 1966, Geologic map ofthe Brighton quadrangle, Utah: U. S. Geol. Survey Geol. Quad. Map GQ-534.

Baker, A A, and Crittenden, M. D., Jr., 1961, Geology of the Timpanogos Cave quadrangle,Utah: U. S. Geol. Survey Geol. Quad. Map GQ-132.

Baker, C. H., Jr., 1968, Thermal springs near Midway, Utah: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper600-D, p. D63-D70.

Bennett, G. D., Rehman, A., Sheikh, I. A., and Ali, S., 1967, Analysis of aquifer tests in thePunjab region of West Pakistan: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1608-G.

Blaney, H. F. and Criddle, W. D., 1962, Determining consumptive use and irrigation waterrequirements: Agr. Res. Service Tech. Bull. 1275.

Boutwell, J. M., 1912, Geology and ore deposits of the Park City District, Utah: U. S. Geol.Survey Prof. Paper 77.

Bromfield, C. S., Baker, A A, and Crittenden, M. D., Jr., 1967, Geologic map of the Heberquadrangle, Wasatch and Summit Counties, Utah: U. S. Geol. Survey open-file rept.

Calkins, F. C. and Butler, B. S., 1943, Geology and ore deposits of the Cottonwood-AmericanFork area, Utah. U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 201.

Connor, J. G., Mitchell, C. G., and others, 1958, A compilation of chemical quality data forground and surface waters in Utah: Utah State Engineer Tech. Pub. 10.

Criddle, W. D., Harris, Karl, and Willardson, L. S., 1962, Consumptive use and waterrequirements for Utah: Utah State Engineer Tech. Pub. 8 (revised).

Crittenden, M. D., Jr., Calkins, F. C., and Sharp, B. J., 1966, Geologic map of the Park City Westquadrangle Utah: U. S. Geol. Survey Geol. Quad. Map GQ-535.

Cruff, R. W., and Thompson, T. H., 1967, A comparison of methods of estimatingevapotranspiration from climatological data in arid and subhumid environments: U. S.Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1839-M.

Feltis, R. D., 1966, Water from bedrock in the Colorado Plateau of Utah: Utah State EngineerTee. Pub. 15.

Gilbert, G. K., 1928, Studies of basin-range structure: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 153.

Hem, J. D., 1959, Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water: U. S.Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1473.

48

Intermountain Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1959, Guidebook to the geology of theWasatch and Uinta Mountains transition area, 10th Annual Field Conference: Salt LakeCity, Utah.

........................ 1964, Guidebook to the geology and mineral resources of the Uinta Basin-Utah'shydrocarbon storehouse, 13th Annual Field Conference: Salt Lake City, Utah.

Johnson, A. I., 1967, Specific yield-Compilation of specific yields for various materials: U. S.Geo!. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1662-D.

Provo River Commissioner, 1945-68, Annual reports of the Provo River distribution system:Provo, Utah (duplicated).

Schultz, A. R., 1918, A geologic reconnaissance of the Uinta Mountains, northern Utah, withspecial reference to phosphate, in Contributions to economic geology: U. S. Geol. SurveyBull. 690-C, p. 31-94.

Stokes, W. L., ed., 1964, Geologic map of Utah: Utah Univ.

Theis, C. V., Brown, R. H., and Meyer, R. R., 1963, Estimating the transmissibility of aquifersfrom the specific capacity of wells, in Methods of determining permeability,transmissibility, and drawdown: U. S. Geo!. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1536-1, p.331-341.

Theis, C. V., and Conover, C. S., 1964, Chart for determination of the percentage of pumpedwater being diverted from a stream or drain, in Shortcuts and special problems in aquifertests: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1545-C, p. C106-C109.

U. S. Geological Survey, 1954, Compilation of records of surface waters of the United Statesthrough September 1950, Colorado River Basin, Part 9: U. S. Geo!. Survey Water-SupplyPaper 1313.

........................ 1960, Compilation of records of surface waters of the United States throughSeptember 1950, the Great Basin, Part 10: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1314.

...... 1961-68, Water resources data for Utah, Part 1, Surface-water records: WaterResources Div.

........................ 1963, Compilation of records of surface waters of the United States, October1950 to September 1960, the Great Basin, Part 10: U. S. Geo!. Survey Water-SupplyPaper 1734.

........................ 1964, Compilation of records of surface waters of the United States, October1950 to September 1960, Colorado River Basin, Part 9: U. S. Geo!. Survey Water-SupplyPaper 1733.

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 alkaline soils:U. S. Dept. Agriculture Handb. 60.

49

U. S. Weather Bureau, 1963, Normal annual and May-September precipitation (1931-60) for theState of Utah: Map of Utah, scale 1: 500,000.

Weber River Commissioner, 1929-68, Annual reports of the Weber River distribution system:Ogden, Utah (duplicated).

50

APPENDIX

51

Well- and spring-numbering system

The system of numbering wells and springs in Utah is based on the cadastral land-surveysystem of the U. S. Government. The number, in addition to designating the well or spring,describes its position in the land net. By this system, the State is divided into four quadrants bythe Salt Lake Base Line and Meridian, and these quadrants are designated by the uppercase lettersA, B, C, and D, indicating the northeast, northwest, southwest, and southeast quadrants,respectively. Numbers designating the township and range (in that order) follow the quadrantletter, and all three are enclosed in parentheses. The number after the parentheses indicates thesection, and is followed by three lowercase1 letters indicating the quarter section, thequarter-quarter section, and the quarter-quarter-quarter section (generally 10 acres); the lettersa,b,c, and d indicate, respectively, the northeast, northwest, southwest, and southeast quarters ofeach subdivision. The number after the letters is the serial number of the well or spring within the10-acre tract; the letter "S" preceding the serial number denotes a spring. Springs that cannot belocated accurately to the nearest 10-acre tract are indicated by the letter "S" following one ortwo lowercase letters and are assigned no serial number. Thus (D-3-4)32cca-1 designates the firstwell constructed or visited in the NE%SW%SW% sec. 32, T. 3 S., R. 4 E.; and (D-3-4)32b-Sindicates a spring known only to be in the northwest quarter of the same section. The numberingsystem is illustrated in figure 19.

Sections within a township Tr.cts within a section

R. ~ E Sec 32

b .

II

b I .II

fl';; d

I mi Ie I1//(O-3-~ )32cc.-1

6 5 ~ I~ 2 I

7 8 9 I~ II 12

18 17 16 IS I\~ 13

.,~20 21 22

2\2~

30 ~~

27 26

~-Well"

1"-~2-~~ ~\31 35

t- 6 mi les '-...

~\

SUMMI T>l ~C~UNTY_\ BASE _J INfl

.-+T. 3 S., R. ~ IE.t, ' I

,S--~~t~w :III

III_____ J

Figure 19.-Well- and spring-numbering system used in Utah.

11n the basic-data tables in this report, which are computed printouts, these letters are uppercase.

52

Units and terminology

Some of the terms used in this report and the units in which some parameters areexpressed represent a departure from earlier practice. These new terms and units are described inthe following paragraphs.

The hydraulic conductivity of a material is the ability of the material to transmit waterand was formerly called the field coefficient of permeability. Hydraulic conductivity in thisreport is expressed in cubic feet of water per day per square foot of cross-sectional area(ft3 /d/ft2), rather than in gallons per day per square foot. One cubic foot is about 7Y2 gallons.

Similarly, the ability of an aquifer as a whole to transmit water is the transmissivity of theaquifer and replaces the older term coefficient of transmissibility. Transmissivity is given in cubicfeet of water per day per foot of aquifer width (ft3/d/ft) rather than in gallons per day per foot.Note that hydraulic conductivity is a property of the aquifer material, whereas transmissivity is aproperty of the aquifer as a whole. The figure for transmissivity is equal to the product of thefigure for hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer material and the saturated thickness of theaquifer.

The water temperatures in the text and tables are given in degrees Celsius (OC) rather thanin degrees Fahrenheit (OF). In the text, the equivalent temperatures in OF are given inparentheses. The reader who is not familiar with the Celsius scale may find the following tableuseful for converting temperature data from the tables of basic data to the more familiarFahrenheit scale.

TEMPERATURE-CONVERSION TABLE

For conversion of temperature in degrees Celsius (oCI to degrees Fahrenheit (oF).Conversions are based on the equation, OF = t.80 C + 32; temperatures in OF arerounded to nearest degree. Underscored equivalent temperatures are exactequivalents. For temperature conversions beyond the limits of the table, use theequation given, and for converting from OF to °c, use °c = 0.5556 (oF - 32). Theequations say, in effect, that from the freezing point (O°C, 32°F) thetemperature rises (or falls) 5°C for every rise (or fall) of 9°F.

°c OF °c OF °c OF °c OF °c OF °c OF °c OF

-20 -4 -10 14 .Q 32 1.Q .§Q .lSl .§§ 30 Si2 40 lQi19 =2 -:g 16 +1 34 11 52 21 70 3'i 88 41 106·18 0 -8 18 2 36 12 54 22 72 32 90 42 108-17 +1 -7 19 3 37 13 55 23 73 33 91 43 109-16 3 -6 21 4 39 14 57 24 75 34 93 44 111

-15 .2 ~ 23 ~ 41 15 ~ 25 11 35 95 45 W:M 7 -4 25 6 43 16 61 26 79 36 97 46 115-13 9 13 27 7 45 17 63 27 81 37 99 47 117-12 10 -2 28 8 46 18 64 28 82 38 100 48 118-11 12 -1 30 9 48 19 66 29 84 39 102 49 120

Chemical analyses throughout this report are expressed in milligrams per liter (mg/l)rather than in parts per million (ppm). For water having a total concentration of dissolved solidsof less than about 7,000 mg/I (which includes all water in the area described in this report),milligrams per liter can be considered equivalent to parts per million. Milliequivalents per liter(meq/I) are calculated by dividing the concentration in milligrams per liter by the combiningweight of the ion; for graphical presentation, milliequivalents per liter is a more convenient unitthan milligrams per liter.

53

A GRAVITY AND AEROMAGNETIC SURVEY OFHEBER AND RHODES VALLEYS, UTAH

BY

D. L PetersonGeologist, U.S. Geological Survey

A gravity survey was made in Heber and Rhodes Valleys to aid in determining theapproximate thickness of valley fill and to help interpret bedrock configuration. Observationswere made at about 130 locations in the valleys and at a few locations in the nearby WasatchRange and Uinta Mountains with a Worden gravimeter with a sensitivity of about 0.5 milligal perscale division. Horizontal and vertical positions for most of the observations were taken frombenchmarks and other points of known elevations located on U. S. Geological Survey 1:24,000scale topographic maps. Elevations for 23 observations were determined by altimetry. Twoaltimeters were read at points easily recognized on topographic maps and the average of the tworeadings was used in the computations. Loops were made from points of known elevation. Thereadings were corrected for changes in air density and are considered accurate to within 10 feet.

A density of 2.67 grams per cubic centimeter was assumed in reducing the data to thecomplete Bouguer anomaly. Theoretical gravity was computed from the International formula.The observed gravity values were referenced to base station WU 29 at Liberty Park, Salt LakeCity, Utah (Behrendt and Woollard, 1961). Terrain corrections were computed through zone Kusing Hayford-Bowie templates (Swick, 1942) for 44 stations. Terrain corrections for theremaining stations were interpolated from a contour map of the 44 terrain correction values. Therelative accuracy of complete Bouguer gravity values thus obtained is about 0.5 milligal, exceptfor gravity stations with elevations determined by altimetry which may be in error by 1.0milligal.

An unpublished Master's thesis, "A regional gravity survey of the back valleys of theWasatch Mountains and adjacent areas in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming," by Robert P. Ouitzaureports on gravity observations in this area made by students at the University of Utah. Dr.Kenneth L. Cook made a copy of this thesis available to the U. S. Geological Survey. None of thegravity data from the thesis were used in preparing the maps presented here, but the data wereuseful in designing the gravity survey, interpolating terrain corrections, and defining the regionalgravity field.

The complete Bouguer gravity map (fig. 20) shows an eastward decrease in the regionalgravity field which is interpreted as being related mainly to features of greater extent than thelocal valleys. An assumed regional gravity field was determined by contouring gravity values forstations on or near exposures of pre-Tertiary bedrock. A residual Bouguer gravity map (fig. 21)was perpared by removing the assumed regional gravity field from the Bouguer gravity map.

The residual Bouguer gravity map shows a 4-milligal low in Heber Valley and an 8-milligallow in Rhodes Valley. The low in Heber Valley is approximately coextensive with the valley withthe lowest values in the southwest. The steeper gravity gradients along the west and south edgesof Heber Valley may reflect faulting. Faulting has been mapped along the south edge of thevalley (Stokes, 1964). The closed gravity low in Rhodes Valley is confined to the northern half ofthe valley and is bounded by steep gradients, wh ich may reflect faults. In the southern half ofRhodes Valley there is an area of low gravity values continuing south beyond the area of thesurvey.

54

T.1S

r2S.

T.4S

R.4 E.30'

R. 5 E. R.6 E15'

T.2S.

T.3S.

5 Mil e s'-- '-- , '--__----JI

Base Irom U S Geological Survey1.250 000 (AMS) series Salt LakeC, ty. Uta·h. Wyoming (1963)

EXPLANATION

Geophysical interpretal ionby D. L. Peterson

204----

Gravity contourDashed where approximately located. Contour interval

2 milligals. Hachured contours indicate areas oflow gravity closure

Gravity station

Figure 20.-Complete Bouguer gravity map.

55

T.1S.

11f 30'

I R.4 E.

R.5 E.

111° 15'

R. 6 E. I

R.6 E. I111° 15'

T.3S.

5 M I I e sL-__--L -' --'-__--',

Base from U S Geological Survey1 :250.000 (AMS) ser,es Salt LakeC, t y. Ut a'h, Wyom i n g (1 9 6 3 )

EXPLANATION

Geophysical interpretat ionby O. L. Peterson

8----Gravity contour

Dashed where approximately located. Contour interval2 milligals. Hachured contours indicate areas oflow gravity closure

Gravity station

Figure 21.-Residual Bouguer gravity map.

56

A contour map of the thickness of the low density rock that would produce the residualgravity anomaly in Heber and Rhodes Valleys (fig. 22) was perpared by making an iterativethree-dimensional solution with a digital computer (Cordell and Henderson, 1968). In thisanalysis the computer input is the residual Bouguer gravity data and a density contrast of 0.5g per cm 3 , which was assumed to exist between the low density material underlying the valleysand the more dense pre-Tertiary rocks in the bordering mountains, and the requirement that thelow density mass extend to the surface of observation. The solution is a mass distribution thatwill produce the measured gravity anomalies. In figure 22 some minor adjustments of the lineshave been made to make the low density mass distribution consistent with exposures of bedrock.

An irregular thickness of low density material underlies Heber Valley. Three areas ofclosure, where the maximum thickness is 800 feet or more, are indicated. In the western half ofthe valley there is a bedrock ridge which plunges to the south between the towns of Midway andHeber City. This ridge is exposed at the surface near the northeast corner of Midway. A shallowtrough of low density material extends northward up the Provo River for about 3 miles. Thecomputed model is generally consistent with the sediment thickness data revealed by drill holesin Heber Valley indicating that the assumed density contrast is approximately correct.

The computed model indicates that the northern half of Rhodes Valley is underlain bylow density material with a miximum thickness of about 1,600 feet. The model shows thebedrock bottom of the valley sloping steeply towards the center in all directions. A trough of lowdensity material 300-400 feet thick extends south beneath the town of Francis. No drill hole dataare available in Rhodes Valley to confirm the computer model.

An aeromagnetic map (fig. 23) of the area was taken from a survey flown in 1965(Meuschke and Kirby, 1966). Total intensity magnetic measurements were made with a fluxgatemagnetometer mounted in a tailboom on a Convair aircraft. Flight lines were north-south, 2 milesapart and at 11,000 feet barometric elevation.

No magnetic evidence of igneous rock underlying Heber Valley is apparent; however, asmall but significant magnetic anomaly was observed over northern Rhodes Valley and is strongevidence that igneous rock underlies this part of the valley. The magnetic anomaly in the area ofthe thickest low density material indicates that part of the low density material is volcanic rock.Tertiary extrusive rocks are present to the west (Stokes, 1964), and may be the source of theanomaly in the valley. Because the density of the volcanic rock is probably higher than that ofthe sediments producing the gravity low in Heber Valley and the southern part of Rhodes Valley,the actual thickness of low density material in northern Rhodes Valleyis probably greater thanthe thickness indicated on the model.

The high amplitude magnetic positive anomaly in the mountains northwest of HeberValley is related to Tertiary granitoid rocks (Stokes, 1964). The magnetic data suggests aneastward extension of the anomaly along the north side of the valley. The gradient along thesouth side of the extension corresponds with the north edge of the gravity low and may definethe northern limit of the valley.

57

T.2S.

T3S

T4S

11{'I 4 E R.

T2S.

T3S.

5 Mil e SL-__--'. -' --'-__--ll

Base fl"om U S Geological Sur-vey1.250000 (AMS) selles Soil LnkeC,ly Utah. Wyoming I 1963 )

EXPLANATION

GeophySical Interpretationby D L. Peterson

100 -----

Lines of equal thickness of rockDashed where approximately located.

Interval 200 feet

Figure 22.-Map showing thickness of low-density rock.

58

11

Fl

Mil e s

Base 1,0m U S Geological Survey1.250000 lAMS) series Sail LakeC, ty. Utrrh Wyoming 11963 I

Aeromagnet ic survey Ilown 11,000feet barometric elevation, 1965.Geophysical Interpretat Ion byo L. Peterson

EXPLANATION------------

2450 ----Magnetic contour

Showing total intensity magnetic field of the earthin gammas relative to arbitrary datum. Hachured toindicate closed areas of lower magnetic intensity;dashed where data are incomplete. Contour interval10 and SO gammas

Figure 23.-Total intensity aeromagnetic map.

59

REFERENCES

Behrendt, J. C., and Woollard, G. P., 1961, An evaluation of the gravity control network in NorthAmerica: Geophysics, v. 26, no. 1, p. 57-76.

Cordell, L., and Henderson, R. G., 1968, Iterative three-dimensional solution of gravity anomalydata using a digital computer: Geophysics, v. 33, no. 4, p. 596-601.

Crittenden, M. D., Jr., Wallace, C. A., and Sheridan, M. J., 1967, Mineral resources of the HighUintas primitive area, Utah: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1230-1.

Meuschke, J. L., and Kirby, J. R., 1966, Aeromagnetic map of Hayden Peak and vicinity, UintaMountains, Utah: U. S. Geor. Survey open-file rept.

Stokes, W. L., ed., 1964, Geologic map of Utah: Utah Univ.

Swick, C. H., 1942, Pendulum gravity measurements and isostatic reductions: U. S. Coast andGeod. Survey Spec. Pub. 232, 82 p.

60

BASIC DATA

61

Table 3.-Records of selected wells

U1CATlI1N. SFF TrXl H1R IlESCI-l.JIJTIlJN OF wfol.l-NlJMRt-:RINr. SYS1~M.

TVPf OF W~LL. 1-\, R(lRFO; C, DIUI.LFIl ICAKLE TOOL); Il, nll(;; H, DRILI.ED (HYDRAULIC RnThRVI.

CASINr. FINISH. C, POROliS CflNCf(,:TI:; fl, OPEN FNO llNlv; w. SHIJI-l.Hl lOUr. WFLLS); x, OPFN HOLE,

WATFR-HEARING MATFRIAl. At ALLlJVIIJM; C. crINr,LllMFIUTF; ,I. vllI.CANIC TlIFFj ,1,1, l-Io(Ar.ltl~FO VOLCANIC ROCKS: .It.r:RACTtIlH:[l lIMFSTllNE' RH. Rtf) SHAI.E; RV, RFD SANDSTfJNt-'; V. SANOSTONF; Y. CLAVFY r.RAVF.L; A(;, SANDY r.RAVF.L:HW, SANOy SILTSTflNF.

A'JUIF~R. O!\, tJNCONSfILIOATf:O VAI.LFV FILL: 01.. THHIARY vnlCANIC ROCKS; IP, KNlf,HT CllNr.LOMFRATl:j 4P, IJREtJSSSANDSTUN!-; 4V, TWIN CRFEK LIMFSTnNE; 4W, NtJ~r.ET SANIlSTONF; r;F, ANKAIoI,FH FORMATlllNj 2(;. CHINLF FO~MATlnN;

7C, n{,)IJI~RH FtlRMATWN. 97, wHn-:1ol: QIJART1ITf...

WAHR lFV"L. IlFPTH ][I wATFR ""LOW lANO SlJR.ACF lJNlESS INIlICATFIl HY +, HFAIl AROVF LAND SlJRFACF. flR " WFll"LIl'S HlJT HFAO NlJT IlFHRMINFO. RFPORTFIl 'ATFR l"VFLS AR' INOICATFO HY R, MFASIJRFIl LFVFLS RY M.

TYPE OF I.IFT. C, CFf\ITRt.,.;tH;Al.j ,I, .lFTj N. NONF.i S, SIIRMFk(;IHLF.; 1, llJRf-\lNF.

PRlJlllJCTIIlN. SOUR.eF OF vtFLO ANfJ ORAWOOWN nATA SHOWN HV fl, FROM ORILLFIol'S RF.PORT, OR 1'01, ~FPnRTrD fn' OTHF.R THANIlRIllFR.

IJSf OF WATtR. lJSF. RFPORTFO IN lq~h-h1. H, nnMFSTIC; 1, I~R,r,ATIUNi N, INfHISTkIAL; P, PlJRLIC SIJPPLVj S, STOCKiT, TEST HOLF (WATFR IINtJSl-:lll; IJ, IJNl/SEIl.

nTHt:R IlATA AVAII.ARLF. C, CHFMICAL ANALYSIS C;IvEN IN THIS kFPfIRT; n, DRILLFR'S LOr, flVAILAHLF; K, SPFCIHCCnNDUCTANCF flF WATER AVAJLARLF; w, PFRICIOIC WATER-LEVEL MEASlJRI:MFNTS G1VF.N TN THIS RFPORT. NUMBERS REFFRTn FOlllNlll'fS AT foND (IF TAHLf:.

LOC,A r IUN lIWNER

DATEDR ILLF.1lI YFAR I

TYPEIIF

WELL

IH~ Pl HOF

WFlLI FT I

CASINI;tliAMF.lER ~ INlIN) ISH

Wfl 1 ER

~FARINr.

FI1RMATIllNMATE AOIJI~!AL FFR

ALllTtJDF

OFlAND

Slj~FAr.F

1FT I

.A7FRlEVFL1FT!

(lATf.MPASI)RFO

PR nntJr. T ,nNTyPE

OF YIELDLIFT IGPM,

DRA WDOWN1FT)

liSEOF

WA TER

flTHERDATAAVA I lAALF

IA- 1- 41

BIlHR-I

IA- 1- "

r,nB(-1;;lOAI'\(-1

I fl- 1- :~)

lOAAH-llOAAO-}IOACll-l10AI>A-I

l L1JKENRACK

HILLcn CllRPfVF:RrT [)F.tH~NHAM

C RnNNllWJAMFS SORENSON

SlI"'''' IT COIJNT v

1965

1464

14'Z

C

HCC

710II ~

441

I ~2,~

7~

4

10

"12

4,6

C,Jl

JlJlJL.lL

IP

IP4V

4V4V4V4V

6,"406,5206,')70b,A40

40 R

75 R

100

7"74

7

7-6';

I~

35

20

1030 0

4040

~OO

4\20

HH

P

HHH

o 1

o 1

o IooD

10CllH-l17CRA-I17CHO-I13AIlH-!

Iil- 1- 41

4"HC-I4CCIl-I4DHC-l

lOCHn-l

l(lOHH-!16AA[)-1lMlCA-I'I7R"R-ILQI-\HC-l

19RCA-I;?OODR-l;, IAAA-I;'I"CR-I;~9CC.C-l

"IlAAC-I:\IAOH-l3IRD"-1jl7RRr.-1

10- 1- 51

TIMBERLINE INCllAN WR!I;HTJAMFS KILRYRIIBFRT MCCllM"

P A SNFLI.RflRERT RllRNS JRRllRF.RT HURNSJIISF"H STANTON

AllFN lEW! SALLEN LEW I SU S R cn,.,,.,r, T FLINOERSA L MARCHANT

U S R COMMlELAND FLINDERSMACART INVESTCIIMACART I NVES ellGf.flRI;E STAHlF

OALF DI)RRANTGf.flRC,F STAHLET JOHNSONGF ORI;E STAHL F

14"419h1

1465

146219641455lQ-;OlQ47

1959

IAR6lq48

CCCH

HCCCc

cCCHC

HooH

4001601"9750

32675A20~

23A

76066R207127

b7

4R9R5~4

4004R

772?2050

166R6

410,

6,46

1044

67442

6

P

"IIXx

oWWx

JlAW

"WRR

J,l

JJJJJJ

J,JJ,JJJ.lL

v

4V5F5F2G

OLOLOlOl

OlOlOl4Vn'OAOLOlOLOA

4WOAOAOA

6,6';0b,:100h,?qOh,.,30

6,A106,510b ,"20h,5AO

b,~20

6,4406,410h ,10120b,4HO

h,430&,410b,5RO6,3QO6,430

6,4306,430b,hlOb,550

3R13304A

31997

13A MF R

127 R17 R3~ R

25 RRO RhI:) R

25 M

1I RM

13 R23 R

1I-'4A-'7

12-66R-65

10-77

3-'71-'7

12-'217-'412-55

Q-604-41

11-6610-647-"4

10-66

5-5910-6610-3'

1-4R

SSSN

NS

NN

JNNT

50 0 17130 D 2090 100

20 0 L~5

7 0 1I515 D L~5

175 0 2 3~10 0 3013 0 040 0 lS

15 0 40100 0 120

PHHH

H

HHlJ

I)HHHH

HHHI)S

HlJlJH

o

C °o

o

01

oU I 2

C 0C 0

n

C 0

o

o 3

C 0WW4

o

4DCC-!"iADA-l~AOIl-l

lOAAA-l

14DCA-l

I D- 1- f, I

17CCA-IlqnAIl-l7ARRA-I7R"CC-I

2HHOIl-l

R 0 SlnOllWAYW r; I HHONSM GIHRONS5 S CLtlFF

H l COOK

RI·}8~RT MATHESONP wrH1LSTF.NHIILMEJACK HlIllANOJIIHN MITCHELL

JIlHN ';!MPSON

1964IHRO1963

1949

CDCo

4030

"5"

300

12A3~

704~

57

\0

4'0

44R

[J

ooo

PWPW

o

62

RVAAA

OA(JAOAOA

4.

4POAOAOA

OA

6,070h,030h,0206,010

b,hOO",470b,4QO6,4AO

1523n~

~ R

'0 R151212

14

1-67 N

N

30 030 030 030 0

100 0

10 D

oo4

25

AO

AO

HHHH

N

HI)HH

H

K

Koo

C

ow

oC

K 0

Table 3.-Records of selected wells-continued

I.11CAT I Ill<IP- 1- "

IIWNFR

IIATFOR I llF/II VFAR I

TVPFIIF

WFll

/lFPTH{I~

wFLI.1FT)

CAS 11<r.O'AMFIFR FII<III< I ISH

W"THoIRFAR II<C;

FORMATIONMAIF Af)OIHIAl FER

AI. T ITlHlF

OFlA1<1I

SIIRFACF1FT)

WATFA:lFVFI.IHI

IIATEMEAStlR FO

PROOtlCT IIINTYPF

flF v I FLOLIFT (r.PMI

ORAWII11WI<I FT I

tlSEIIF

WAHR

OTHFRllAUAVAI lAAlE

2RCAA-12HCCC-12QAIlI.I-\2q1lAA-l

?'Wlll)-l"nRCC-l

111- ')- -41

2CRA-I?CfW-l4CIlD-l4Clll)-2

RFNn r.U\RlJNSHllWAlot1l KI!TTHl:SEARL SNvnfRow I fiH T I( It·~(;

ROSS IH)REHT!\f1NWILLIAM CIISSFV

MARK CORI<AAVHAY WIIMTLFYL 0 <; CHURCHlllS CHIiRCH

141714'Qlq4Q14"0

14h7

CC

HH

flC

721nn

30115

h4

2'R

nnx

11/I

"PWP

A

AAA

.I.J.1.1

AHW

nAOAnAOA

OAOA

nlOlOA5F

l'l,4An1,,4406,4hOh,4"'0

h,440h,4"0

h,7]0","'40h,7~O

h,750

A~O

II-'hq-51

17-'Q';-"0

I<.1

30 0

30 Il o

4

tlH

HH

HH

HHH

H

ooII

K 0o

/Io 1

10- 2- ~ I

2'AOO-1

f 0- 2- 'I

lOS CHIIRr.HVFRA SI1RFI<SFI<

.1 EOWARO IIR E 1455

flH

3340

24

•WP

n

OAnA

OA

h,71)0b,740

",440

?3 M 10-hh C25. 12-'2 C

70 •

HH

H K 0

"~RRR-l

~ACC-I

~IlHR-1

")RR-2

IHAllU-llAOIlr.-lPJAHA-lIqARC-IIqRAC-I

AllCF MCI<FIl Iq.qF W lARSFI< IQ~1l

fHlRTUN PFTflol:SlINHARrIll) CLEGG lqr;l

MRS I. RIISSFllIlF klISSFLlANTHON GINFS.IIIHN lAMRFHTJOHI< lAMRFRT

r.Coo

r.r.r.Cr.

hO2q1031l

7A7030h7'5Cl

3h

1017

11

oIIo

[)

11nxP

AAAVA

OAnAOAOA

OAOAOAq/nA

h,hRnh,~RO

h,~7~

h,'AO

h,':\ROh,4106,410",4106,4]0

35I.

77

IA57,R

I-507-'77-1.)04-47

11-"

.1I<.1

I' 0

3n 04n 030 0.0 0'0 Il

o

o5

IAo

10

HH

IIH

HHHHS

oK 0

C [)K 0

[)

Ilo

lQRCC-12IlARR-I2IlR"-120RIlA-I20CCC-I

20CCC-2211lCA-I2101lC-I7"C61-\-12"lRR-I

7'''0-1?M\AR-lnccc-I2AAAC-I2HCCR-I

2RCCC-17HCCC-22HIlIlr.-12QA"A-12QIlIlIl-1

33AAA-I3"lA"-233AIIA-I3 :iRHH-13':\I)A4-1

33061l-134RCf\-1:"4RC(-1l4CHC-l3'CHC-2

J EOWARO liREALBERT WAr.STAFFA l WAr.STAFFRAV I.AMAERTWAl.m·1< I.AMAFRT

WAlllEI< lAMAERTR GllflOWIlRTHWAVI<E PRFSClJTTRllRERT enCKREl.lw SAIINOFRS

r.RANT WflllllWARIlH W HF;RMflNSON

FlVl1< PRESCPTTIt:-O IJAr,E.II1HN KIRKHAM

FARREl. ATKII<SIII<AlFOI<SII MCI<IElMElVII< KIRKHAMFlLlS THIiMASPARLEY MITCHFll.

l M CRITTEI<IIFI<R CRITTEI<OEI<FARl WOOIlWAROALICE MCl<lElAlRFRT SIMMIlI<S

R J PRESClJTTC F MCNIFLT W MCNIELr.FnRr.E SIJAOFROOVlE SIMMIlI<S

IQ"IQ51Iq.71049IHq3

Iq4714'814.q14h51464

Iq2.

)Q'7IHqO1425

14'5nlq4Alq491447IQ50

Cr.r.Cfl

CCCCr.

r.CCr.r.

oor./Ifl

CCHCH

Hr.Cr.H

11021'24'10

3h'7727'

105

".7554~

33

2A31l4~

II3Cl

5955hO6IJh.

A,1333h7hQ

Ahhh

30

•7h

2'24,.R72

hhh

•h

h34hh

P11[)

IIW

o"oPP

"PfIP11

CC[)

WW

fI11noo

o11o11o

JJAAAA

AAAAA

AAAAA

AAAAA

AAAAA

OlOAnAOAOA

OAOAOAOAOA

OAOAOAOAOA

OAOAOAOAOA

OAOAOAOAOA

OAOAnAnAOA

h,4hOh,4406,440",4hO11,4"0

1'1,4"0h,1)40h,Io)I.)Oh,qOOh,R5:iO

t'I,HOOh,Ronh,hl0h,Io)~O

6,1)1)0

h,~70

h, 570h,~qO

h,~30

h,"ihO

b,~70

h,hl0h,h~O

h,~RO

h,..,~O

h,"40h ,h~n

h,"406,h40tH",40

2~ R2 •2 R, R

•,

Iq27:·iORO

127

3q55

15 MI' M

5 •

• M

25I A15I' R

•132l40 •

7 M

!O-h44-51'-47

11-4qq-f\7

.-.71-481~-4q

"-h57-h4

10-h5J'l-hh

10-.A~-47

7-47

~-5A

2-'010-'A'-50

1,-1)0q-4Rq-hh

1'2-47R-hh

I<

I<

I<I<.J.1I<

.1I<I<NI<

I<

I<.1I<

37 Il20 0.0 fl30 [)

40 0

3" 03D 0I"> n

i'''l n75 0

3010 Il

30 Il

30

h5o3o

4

o10o

.02

107

17

o17

SHHHU

HHHHH

HH

HHU

oUHHII

tl

"U"UtlUtlH

tl

K I) IK n

K 0oIl

ooo

II

[)

[)

[)

o

oo

K [)o

WASATCH COUNTy

Ifl- 2- 51

hcnR-l70RCR-I20CCA-I31AIIA-1

3?RAIl-I32RRC-I32RHC-232HRC-3

I f)- :i- .. )

7'ACC-I'''ADIl-l7';o((-l?hOflA-}

SAl< FRAI<r.ISCIi r. IQ'5NEW PARK MNG cn 1Q44lEE RRflTHFRSHARRY H MORRIS Iq~6

IITAH PAI<Ol CIIMIiRR I S ARIITHFR 5lllS CHURCHlOS CHURCH

E"lER WILSONMFRR lL RFFSFlJ S k RU·R/ly KnI1LF~

H

C/IC

r.nCC

r.CH[)

no1'0

2Q34

10320

150175

10037

Alq

•h

24,A

307A

h

h2

'H

p

PWP

xWxP

n11fIX

.1A.1.J

nlOlOAOA

OlnAOlOL

OAOAnAOA

6,0'120h,OROh,0215,R40

5,qo'l~

,,>,cp;o'),qI)Ol),qi)O

'l,,,~O

5,I)AO5,')1)45,'"'00

44 •

70 •25 M

• •33 MII MI? R24 R

Q R7 •3 M

13 M

II-h5

3-"q-hh

10-5h

q-'hR-h"3-5017-~R

SI<I<C

I<I<.1.J

II 0

50

30 030 0

40

2~

[)

H

"IIH

JJJJIH

H

HJJ~

Ilo I

W[)

f) \If 1 5W

01P II

o[)

l";ARC-l~')"AR-t

E H WATK!N~

A~RAI1AMNFFRfNr,S 14hOnH

?IQ. 7., A OAH(. OA

63

7 M~. R

tlH

W[) I

Table 3.-Records of selected wells-continued

wAHARfAR I NG

EORMAT I liNMATE AOIIIRIAL FER

PR OIllle T I UNTYPE

OF YIELaL1ET JGPMI

4-52 e4-55 J7-~1

r.5-57 S

aI)o W

OTHER(lATAAVAILABLE

[)

a

W

o

HHHHH

UHHII

liSEDE

wATER

4

42210

aRAWDOWNI ET I

50 0R I)

10 I)

15 0

'IJCr.

OATEME ASIIRFO

l-Mt12-5RI-~O

Q-,,"~

4330

7 M

9 RIR R,

10 R

WATERLEVELI FT I

5.AhO!t,RtltOS.A205,1150

5,1105,tltQO5,hRO10),"'405,"'0

AUITUOF

OELANll

SIIRHCEI ET I

OAIlAOLOA

OAOAOAOAIlA

AAJA

oXXP

PaIIWIl

CASINGOIAMEHR EINII'll ISH

R53~O

RR

36A3RO3~

'i2

OEPTHOE

wHLIFTI

Cer.

er.HoH

TYPEOE

WELL

Iql519~8

19M1940

1952lq5519~1

19181957

flATEOR I LUOI YEAR IIlWNER

HOWARO JENSENHOWARfl JENSENWILL lAM .IllRIIANHF8FR CI TY COR P

ISAAC 8AIIM.IllHN MOIIL TONA 0 MACEWANWELAY YOIINGC EITZGERALD

I RflAA-\IQAA~-I

IQAOIl-I20CCA-I2QRIlA-I

WC AT ([)N10- 3- ~ 1

~8A~-)

~8A8-2

~C80-1

7COC-1

29RllC-129CA8-129CAR-229CAC- I29CflR-I

HACC-I3288A-IHCCA-)340flO-)

10- 4- 41

1081lA-IllAAA-11I0eC-1llOCfl-1

THOMAS KEELING8ROWN KEHINGLESL IE NORTHAL8ERT NORTHOESERET VAN GAS

II S R RVERNON PR I CECARL GREERW J 80'10

RIISSEL WOLPOLEWALTER WE8STERUII WERNER TONLESTER GREEN

IQ~4

194919001914

r.CCDC

8CHH

HCoo

4A424A1595

24RO72

3110

7659202~

~

63030

oXPWX

oPXP

Xonn

AAA

AL

AJAV

AAAA

OAOAOAOA4V

OAOLOA4W

OAoAOAOA

~,"20

~.~OO

5."005,hOR5.~qO

5,-;10~t"OO

5,I)QO6,000

5,4"05.4~O

5,4705,470

I?1510

320

14 M12 RI? R70 R

20 R• R

1214

Q-4AlI-hD10-509-M10-~?

7-6610-509-60

10-63

7-6410-49

R-M

R-""

C.J'I

'I'I

3(l 012 0HO

25 0

50 020 0

30 0

122010

H

3R2R

60

HHHIJH

H

HH

H

SIIU

ono

Wo

aa

K a

K aa

LIN~m MAXEIELO 1901NORMAN FDWAROS IQI~

CHARLOTTE 8ROWNC FIlWAROS 1899CHARLESTON TOWN 1934

A OAA OAA OAA OAA OA

1I0CO-211IJ1lr.-112RAC-IUCRA-InCRC-I

14AA~-1

IURR-I14AR8-2148AC-I14ece-1

GRANT WINTERTIINJOSEPH LLOYO'I AESENOOREERIVAN ANOERSONJACK ANOERSON

IQI6IA91IR9~

Iq~1

IQ64

onnCC

noooC

272RIA

100110

291524I~

325

304.36

•6

24363~

4R10

oWWXP

oWWWP

AAAAA

OAOAOAOAOA

5,4705,490~1),410

5,~40

5,1)30

5,4QO5,4705,4515,4:405.4'0

1517 M

17 MII

5-37

N

'IS.1

CNN'IS

3~ 0 10

IIUIJNH

SlJlJIIP

w

ao

W 6

L W FARNSWORTH 1905MILL NORTHCLARK WE8STER Iql7PROVO RI VER WIIA 19~3

14CIlA-II~AOA-I

21'AA-)23RA8-123R88-1

23RRR-2238AR-3238CC-I21'C8-1

11l- 4- 51

ICAIl-I2IlCC-I3CCC-I4AAC-I

CALVIN PRORSTR MAXFIELDW S WRIGHTH F PM ICEJIIHN JAC08S0N

CHASE CROOKCAlVIN CROOKRONALD MCOONALOGEORGE HOLMES

IR85IQI5IR96IA96

194R1960IQOO

onooo

oonC

oCCo

3422193425

4R4R30364A

363~

24

•

~

64A

WWWWW

W11aP

WaoX

AAAAA

AAA

JL

OAOAOAoAOA

OAOAOAOA

OAOAOA4V

S,4!)O5.4205.4?05,4505,4'\0

5.4305,4305,4205.410

~.IOO

6,0005.8005.7RO

lR12 MI~ R

12I.

25 M

R-'6R-665-63

10-4.

NCN'I

C

C'I'IS

CS

20 0

30 09 I)

40

o20

IJIIIJlJH

HUIJH

HHHH

Wa

K 0I)

K

4RAA-I400C-I4000-15CCC-I~OOO-I

J E MOtJNTEOROG CHR I STENSENLEROY MA IRJOE RIlZZELLEDON RARKER

195719481960IQ521959

CCCCC

866350

IH19R

11XPIIo

AAAAA

oAOAOAOAOA

5."AOS,ROOS,AOO5,6305t"~O

I~ R30 R16 M60 R

153 R

10-579-4A9-66

12-52I-59

30. 030 020 0

10 I)

10o

10

10

HHHHH

aao Woo

""",1,-1~RC8-1

7AAC-I7AOA-17CAfl-1

USAROER I AL MOIIL TONEE RR I S CLEGGJAY SI·MPSONHE RER 1: ITY CORP

IQ~I

1948195519~1

1949

AH

CCC

4A5

15215R155

11oooo

AAAAA

OAOAOAOAOA

,;' ~455.5305,1'.305,"505,hl0

3 M24 R

112 R110 R70 R

7-""10-4.I-559-~1

7-49

'IS 30 0 36

UHHHH

WK aC ae 0

a

RAOA-I9UO-19AAA-I

10AIlA-I10RAA-I

CHARLES YEATESCALVIN GILESL CHRISTENSENRIlSSI'L WALLW 81NGGELI

19551953195319531961

CHHHr.

201l59~O

5074

PXoXn

AAAAA

OAOAOAoAOA

5.1005.7005.1AO'hA705.R50

IH121710 R40

3-5~

10-~3

A-hit10-534-61

.1C

, a9 n

14 010 0

21445

HHHHH

Do

K 0ao

101l/1t-1IICAA-1IICflC-I14UC-I1488A-1

o C HAyCOCK(:,tEN RlJRf,ENER.OAVIIl IVIERII8EMT CLYOERETTA 81NGGELI

19MIQ67IQ471964IQ59

eCCCC

'67034

10450

PPPPo

A OAA OAA OAA OAA OA

h,OROS,A205,950h,0305,Q40

9 R13 R

12R

4-~4

4-59

7 025 0

20 010 0

3015

205

HHHHH

aoooa

IHAR-I15RA8-117ROO-1IRRRC-I

J E MCOONALllTHEON SWEATLOS (,HIIRCHH L COOK

oeCe

151~4

3::\0190

106R6

eoPP

oAOAOAOA

5,QOOS,R50~.11n

5,"00

1?2 M120 R109 M

IS 030 I)

2~o

HSHH

oK 0

oD

10- 5- 41

llAOIJ-l

12RRA-1

NILF r,IVFNS

KARL'iIlN 1952" 4R

11

OA

nA

, M H

H

11l- 5- 'i I

IQARR-I A RAy t'AKINS IR90 o 40 4R oA 5,~RO C H

I. DRILLER'S LOG GIVEN IN TIllS REPORT.2. ORIGINALLY DRILLED TO 194 FEET. CAVED.3. USED AS OBSERVATION WELL 1938-49, DESTllClYED.4. ORIGINALLY DRILLED TO 206 FEET, CAVED.5. USED AS OBSERVATION WELL 1915-50, DESTROYED.

64

Table 4.-Records of selected springs

LOCATION. SEE TExT FOR r)ESCRIPTlON OF SPRING-NUM8ERING SySTEM.AQIIIFER. OA, UNCONSOLIDATED VALLEY FILL: OLe TERTIARY VOLCANIC ROCKS; 4'1, TWIN CRfF;K LIMESTONE: 4W, NUGGET

SANOSTflNE. 5T. THAYN~S FORfl4ATION; 1'1, ROUND VAllEy LIMESTONE: 8J OR RN. ",.SSlSSlPP(AN lIMESTOhE; 91. WEBER

QUART 11 TE.OISCHARGE. SOItRCE OF OISCI-lARGE DATA SHowN RY M, "'EAStlRED; E, ESTIM4TEO; R. REPOATF.O.USE OF WATER. C. CO~""ERCIAL; H. DOMESTIC; I. IRPIGATION; N. INDUSTRIAL; P, PtJRLlC SUPPLY; A. RECREATIONAL;

S. STO(K; lJ. UM1SED.OTHER DATA AVAIlARlF.. C. (HfMICAl ANALYSIS IN TARLE 5; 1(. SPECIFIC CONOlJCTANCF AyAflA'ilF; NUMBERS REfER TO

FOOTNOTES AT END OF TABLE.

LOCATION

(fl- 1- 31

NA~E flQ. OWNfR

51""'" I T COUNTy

ALTITUDE AGE OF DISCHARGF DATE TEMP USE OF OTHER DATAIFEETl AQUIFER fr~PMI MEASURED fOCI WATER AVAILABLE

IICCCS-I25DOBS-I3bAA05-1

10- }- 4)

TwO MILE SPR.I~G

LOS CHlJRCHLOS CHURCH

6.81W6.700

514.4V

100I.~OO

JUNE 1968JUNE 19"8 11

H

II

JlJ~E 191,1, 11

JUNE 19~f1 21JUNE 1968 12

SEPT. 19,,7 13

3DBCAS-I33AAAS-l3~DCOS-l

35A04S-1

(0- 1- r; I

20OCAS-l

31080S-1

(0- 1- ")

34((AS-l

(0- 2- 41

l D S CHURCH

HOMFR SPRING

"'AR toN ~TRWKS

6.410b.7906.7506.590

6.780

4.DLOLDL

OLOL

9l

15050

350h

4

300

900 E

OCT. 19h7JUNE 196"

9

II

K

KK

•

••

40CA5-1

9C8B5-1I3BC8S-115OCAS-I22ABCS-I

fO- 2- h)

OOR. ITY SPRING

A f JENI( INS

6.140

6.7407.lhD7.300

4.OA5T9l9l

700

10150100

AUG. 19b7 12JIINE 19hB I)JUNE 1968 12

1HUS •••

5BC S5C885-1

268805-132A8B5-1

I-lEL"lA WHERR 1 TTEOWARO PETER50NCEDAR FORK SPA:

6.3806.380

6.410

DADA9lOA

2.200 MAY 19,,8 1115 JIIIlAy lq"a 10

II200 F SEPT. 1967 10

SSNS

••p•

WASATCH COUNTY

10- 2- r; I

5ccnS-l178CA5-117COAS-l19CADS-l3340A5-1

10- 3- 41

SERf; SPA: I NG

6.5506.2006.280

OLDLOLDLOL

20010

25050

3.000

SEPT. lQ,;7SEPT. 1967SEPT. 1967

10II12

5

SSPU

C

••

21B88$-1

2lDCDS-I22BCCS-l26CCA5-121A8A5-1

EPPfRSiJN SPR I NG

GERAER SPA: I NGMAH{JGAI\;v SPR I NGFlJGENE PAYNEWARM 01 TCH SPR

5.8705.8905.6505.740

8J7VBN

5.900

1.6003,200

501.250

12

II

39AUG. 1967 1

C

•27A885-1278AA5-1278A05-1278005-127C805-1

JOE OEAN HUBEA:

HOMESTE.6.0 INC

5.7505.8505.7355.7555.751

125 M AIJG. 1967 1

3 " 7150 E SEPT. 1966 4115 E 3

29

H1U

•u

•CC

311 F 284 M SEPT. 1967 8

27CP005-227C805-328ACC5-1

(0- 3- 5)

328A05-1 HATCH SPRING

5.7655.7576.040

5.590

9l

OA 1.400 E JUNE 1968 10

IIUU

cC

•10- 4- 41

2CBBS-I10CCO$-1

fO- 4- 51

4AARS-l

fO- 5- 5)

17A8(5-118A(A5-1280(0$-133AC85-1

UTAH F AND GSTATE PARK COM"

HEBER C lTY CORP

WALLSBURG TOWNN DITCH IRR cnMAPLE SPA: INGWALL.s8lJR(; TOWN

5.9605.6756.11'.06.190

DA4.

4V

OAOAOAOA

6.2001.300

1.200 E

300 EI.ROO E

500 E1.300 E

JUNE 1968

JUNE 19bRJUNE 1968JUNE 1968JUNE 1968

12

nIIII10

NS

c•C

•

1. SEASONAL. FLOWS ONLY IN SPRING.2. ALSO SUPPLIES DOMESTIC WATER FOR THO HOOSF~.

3. LARGE AREA OF SEEPS. OISCl-iARGE IS TOTAL.

4. A80UT 500 GPM TO WASATCH STATE PARk FOR. IRRIGATION AND DOMESTIC USE.I). A80UT 100 GPM USED FOR IRRIGATION.6. "HOT POT".7. THE~"AL SP~ ING.8. REPORTED DISCHARGE IS MEAN FOR 1966-67.9. DISCHARGE GivEN IS REPORTED AVERAGE.

65

Table 5.-Chemical analyses of selected water samples

,saMPLEs COL'_EtTED PR!I)R Tn lQ5R AlIF REPOIlTEO flY co...",m~. "'ITCHf:LL. a",," OTwEll". lQ'j" ,

lOCUIIlN. 'iff TEXT FOR: ME'll- .61\11) SPAIN(;-"'tUfl4RE'lINl'; SVSTf.IlI.

AQUIFER. £lA. ltN(OIllSflllflATfO vAlL':v F-Ill; OLe Ht:lTIARV VOL(A""C ROCI(S; 4Y. Tllft"l (RFF'I( lIl'U:STONEj 4111. NOC;r;ET

SANOSTr""f'; 'iE. 'I\IkAAI:H FPRMATION; 5T. THAYNE'S FDRMAT10,.; AJ. fIt),>,»PpIAN ll",FSTO"''''; <+1. wFBEIl OtlAIl:TlITE.

SflOIU"! ANI) POTASSIIJIol. Ut E!IlTRY OF C FOR P0165511'" '",OleATES 'I-'AT 5001t1. AND POTASSTW4 UfO (Al(IJlATEI') AIIIO AfPORTEO

AS SIJn!l,JIl.

Ar,FN(V /l4U!",r. U"'lySIS. RR. I).S. IllJllEAli r1F lIECl'IIfATION; GS. H.S. r,FOlOf,ICAL SlIIlVFV; P"1. tHAM STATE I1fPAIlTMFNT OF

PlJAUC ""FAllH; St. SALT lAKF ClTV CnllPORATIOfol.

IIlILlI(,IlANS PER LITEIl SI'EC IF IeTFI'lP- CDf\ll)q(TAIlfCF

FIlAl- "'6(;- pI)TAS- AfCAIlFl- CAQR,- SlJlF- C""lD- FLOC> C .......f; "'OfrrfCAPF\- /)1C;S(JlV~1) SOLin", f·ICllu ...... ns A(;F-I\I(Y

0) flATE COF nilE SILICA IRON C6lC To" illES 10- SOOlo_ <;111_ nHATF OHATE ATE A: TOE RIOE ""I TA,ATF IiflRIJN ~A"O",,':SS f)N"'TE OfTEQ- CALCO- PEIl C- AT .,U;!Irw(;

0) VI(AT Inlll AfllllF-EQ cnllFCTlfJN I DC I lS,If)2 1 IFF I 'CAl 1"'.. 1 1"..10 1 '" ,H(n3

, lcn 3' 15°4' lCU IF ,1/\1° 3 ' '" lAS (.111':03' ~APOHESC; ~T"'EI) L6TEO 2So( , SAR P" A""'Al VC;! S

SIjIolMIT (0111111.., -- r.~OII".n WATF~

"'~ Ll S

10- 1- 3110UF\ I 4' 12-1q-6~ 1. .flO 12 2. " 2.0 "0 ., ,- .. .1 .1' 2-. 2~ 41ll: 64' .' 1.1 P"11)- 1- )112('31) I >F IO-13-f.h 12 • 5~ ,. 20 2- '.0 ~o') .2 22 ., .2 .22 2-0 '0 342 ." .1 1.4 p"

111- 1- 4)lh1lC6 1 OL 5-24-A3 " .01 " 16 n 2.4 IP' l' 4' .2 '.' .1' 1.' 4' 31' 443 .1 1._ P"I n- 1- 41 11,., lI: A 1 4' 1- 2-"'~ 12 .0' '4 l' 12 !.5 70'\ ~ 13 .2 '.1 • M 214 4_ 21• 4'0 .4 p.

(1)- 1- 4119,:0.(.10 1 0' 5-71o-f,3 '.0 .(1"\ " 12 11 P no " '0 .1 1.1 .11 "I 40 ". ''0 .4 1._

(P- 1- 41316AC 1 4" 5- q_f,A · 11 2. '.1 4._ .4 I;>5 ° 4.' 1.1 .1 2.4 .00 1o, 2 141 13' 221 ., 1.0 0'10- 1- 511100(A 1 4" 11-16-1-,1, 10 1. 6Q 21 17 C 2.0 0 42 11 1.0 lfo2 " '" 34' '6' .4 1.1 e,111- 1- I-,I?AACC 1 0' 5- q_,,1'l 13 ,., " \1 2.0 ., lIO 0 \3 3.' .2 .1 .00 I" " 2(/", 101 3" .1 1.4 e,lD- 2- 41 4'1(C 1 0' 5- 9-f,1'l 8 12 III 30 1.' 1.' 214 0 20. \' .2 1.1 .01 3'- 22\ '" '01 142 .2 1.4 r.Slll- 2- f,llAAI)f) I 0' 0;- q-I',p; 10 40 " 14 2l 2.CI 242 0 14 13 .3 '.' .02 1.0 0 2.' 2.1 434 .1 1.2 c.,

SPR !Hr.s

l~A_ 1- ')1301:( So 2-15-51 44 11 .., 22 C "4 3. , 4S .2 3.' 233 " 322 .4 P"10- 1- '\ 111[CC" 1 " 5-7A-,<,,"\ 4.3 " 14 3 •• .4 204 I 14 10 .1 .0 .00 I" 2- 21_ 34M • 1 ' . P"

1Ico- 1- ">113.10 , 9-20-50 1. " 26 " C ~O'" 22 1.3 .2 .' 2" 0 '0. .4

l/ln- 1- 611l'> , 2-21-51 '.3 '0 17 13 C 11\ 1.0 4.3 .2 ., 124 " 11'16 .,10- 2- lo' 4(lCAS 1 4" Q-13-h 1 • 14 10' 23 ' .. 1.0 ?12 1.0 10 ., 2.1 .02 "'- 104 4" 4.' .1 1 .4 e,

If)- 2- 4) I'l , 3- <.I-51 \0 h4 \2 ' .. C I-I 1\ 3.4 ., 1.' 201 ,. 2">10, .3.!.If fl- 2- 41 q[l-ItlS 1 0' fo-lq-,,~ .., <0 \' ., ., 142 I " 10 .1 .4 .12 Ihl 2Q \10 2<' '.0

10- 2- A 12P'>1',fl,[l", 1 07 ll-Ilo-",? 12 .1 C ,,- 1.0 4.' 1. 4 241 13 2" 440<. 1.3 r,S('1- 3- ,.,1 3 S 2-21-')1 " 14 ~. 1 12 C 10' 3.1 4.' .1 ., PO l' 104 .3 p"

1/(0- 3- 1117 S f,- 7-lofl •• 2 " 12 II C ". 4 .' \2 .1 10'<7 " 2.1 .3 P"

T11"''''1' 1_5

S..-,I<:ll TlJ"l"lfl ,A-15-"'7 - I' 114 41 '.4 1.1 l"'~ 344 4.2 .4 • 1 .07 4" 34• 441 "10 .1 1.4 e,10-2--4' 7"" UN"l","'Ff) TIIH/\IFL 11- 1o-4fo 2l " 3O '.' /: .~ 143 'I' 4.0 .4 .1 340 222 472 041 .1 e,flOllTARf'l f)IUI'" n'N/lfEl 1'1-1")-,.,7 · I' °t 14 '.- 1.0 130 142 ... .4 .1 .04 2-4 117 40' ~lol'i .1 1.3 ",

SIII'"I1IT (r}lII11H -- S'lRFACf "ATI';~

wEtV"1l Q1V"'R .. ",All. ilAKLfv 10-11-52 42 II 4. 4 .4 101 12 3.1 150 12 1"3 JI' .2 .'DO 2-11-~1o ,.. 4" 13 2.3 .4 1.' 11 2.1 .1 .\ I" I' 11_ ""'}9 .1 eSwf~f-R-ORnvn CANAL 2-11-<;1o 14 44 12 4.4 I.' I'· \2 4.1 ., .1 154 , I •• "2 0'WERfll Q lVEIi "tEAR PfflA 1'1- 0-31'1 12 43 '.1 2.' ., 1" I' 2.0 110 11 161 .1 SLC~A"'OAll CIlFFI<. 10-26-5f, ,. 14 13 2.1) 2.4 2Q 13 .2 2>1 11 30. '0-SILvE'1i (Rf'E1( lo- 5-3 ... I. '4 2R '.2 3.0 173 I" 4." Bl 1-' .., .1 SL

I,£Aq (ANY!}N [REft( I'l- ,A-51 13 12 \, 13 2.'" '''' 34 16 .2 2.0 244 " 7910, ';>02 .4 <'5

Wasatch County-Ground Water

Wr;:llS

10- 2- 51 6(O~ 1 01 ,)-i7-h1 9 39 2"4 "' 19 30 :?q 744 0 29 ., .- 2.4 .7 21<2 90 _59 444 Io,1'lll; .9 , .9 co,(1)- 2- 5131.6.0A 1 0' 5-17-h7 9 20 144 l' 20 3.1 149 0 224 .. .9 I4 • 0 4'4 310 727 "29 ;>1 .- ,.' '0'10- 2- 'j 13213RC '2 01 f,- tj-'iO n .10 130 24 15 C 2_5 139 40 .0 31 4?<; 724 63.? .3 '"10- 3- 412bn~A I 0' 'i-17-f,7 12 17 11"l 34 " '.0 ::\14 0 719 34 1.1 3.1'. .J" 43_ I" 001 4l' '51 . "of) 0'w- 3- 41350A8 1 0' 5-17-h7 15 19 220 54 44 15 500 0 424 41 2.2 1.3 .34 no 3..,0 1.lhO loll0 I. S10 1.0 '.' co,

10- 3- 51 "BAB '2 II' fI-15-f,7 lb 14 47 •• 7 4.4 1.5 "9 0 44 5.2 .3 .1 .03 144 39 1"7 1><4 303 ., Ll '"10- 3- 5)1<~AO(l 1 0' 5-17-h, 13 43 .. 13 13 3.2 700 0 14 4.2 .- 1.4 .. (12 I" 9 2'" 7<;7 "1n .- , .4 r,5;10- 4_ 41DCRA 1 0' fl-l1-h7 13 12 56 19 4. , .3 232 0 !9 7.3 .2 , .4 .f") ?I? n 229 23' -os .! '. , c,10- 4_ 51 sece 1 0' 5-20-A" 30 .0" " 10 7.0 1.0 19l 14 II .7 12 .05 1'0 II 734 "0 .1 '.' '"(0-4-517AA(1 o. 1-30-h3 24 .01< '" 10 ".4 2.2 709 13 10 .1 1<." .07 } '.., 0 I. 20"1 '" .! 7.2'" '"I{)- 4_ 51 7606 I 0' 1'I-11-h7 17 19 7S 17 9.2 .9 2q2 0 17 L9 .2 5.9 .00 2<;"> 17 302 3'-', -;> .! '.5 c,10- 4- 5114,6,.6.( 1 0' FI-17-h7 J" 43 9. 24 31 1.7 37" 0 39 35 .5 4.0 .05 374 '" .." 451 105 .' 7."" (,<,

SPR INr;s

(lJ- 2- ')1 '>ecos 1 01 Q-13-f,7 14 52 40 II I4 4." 144 0 l'l.fI 19 ., .9 .04 J" 10 ,-, 24) 34' .5 '.'(0- 2- 512QC.60S 1 0'- q-13-1-7 14 " l'Hl 50 33 .7 218 0 512 31 .7 .3 .03 11)0 513 1.020 ." I. :-S"'" .5 '.' r.<.,ID- 3- 4121B8B5o 1 9J 7-2Q-1'>3 " 07 30 14 2.' 359 0" 17 ., .0 .1' :?- ... ., 'I 49' 7/:)r, ., '.'10- 3- 41210Cns 1 ]V Q-12-h" 7.0 41 30 7.3 1.1 192 0 39 7.0 ." 2 .0 .0' '" " 790 2 .. q '" .? 7 • ~

11)- 3- 4126(CA5 1 ~/) Q-ZR-"'I'> 30 ?3 HI 6P: 114 l5 474 0 441 10. 7.' .1 .47 1.11'1 "3 1.130 I.f> 70 7. (00 1.5 7._ r_<;

10- 3- 4127>\AA5 1 <ill Q-13-b7 45 77 34 5 " 149 I" 444 0 742 137 ,., .4 .44 1.2(){) "" I .'lIO !.-'qo ;;> .... 1l1 I." '.' 1;<;10- 3- 4127BA05o 1 (~/) 9-ZR-hl'> '" 29 ~RQ 73 15\ 31 729 0 920 13' ,., .1 .,. l.l7{) f:,n ?O... o I.qqf'\ (.56(\ I.' '.' c,(0- 3- 412UAOS I (!!./) 5-11'>-1'>1 40 29 341 .. 152 31 "00 0 .53 140 ";1.} .0 .R3 ! .ZI->O ".0 ? .060 ?OOO 2 ....qn 1.9 '.' c.,10- 3- 4121CROS I <ill Q-lR-1'>1'> 79 II 353 72 175 ,9 no 0 702 115 2.1 .1 .70 1.1"11 5.llCj 1.""'0 1.77(1 2.-qn 1.0 '.4 "10- 3- 4127(I'\OS 1 <if) 5-16-h7 19 27 "9 0' 130 lA 474 0 710 "' 2.3 .1 .71 'J6() ')10 1.,<,50 1.51/1 ?;>Iol() 1." '." r:<;

10- 3- 4121CBOS 1 <if) 5-n-'<'1 '0 0 0 2.?.ll(\ (_50ID- 3- 41Z7(805 2 (y) Q-2l'1-'<'1'. 29 19 329 70 '" l5 "1'1" 0 "43 103 2.7 .1 .M 1.lln '_5 1.1l0 I.b4" ?ll<n I. _ '.' c,10- 3- 41270HlS 2 (~/) 5-1":>-'<'7 32 17 770 74 114 2" 572 0 "" 105 '.4 .0 .44 1.0ill) 531 1.630 }.'SI() ? .ll0 1.0 , .4 r:<;10- 3- 4127CaOS 3 (!!/) 5-16-1'>7 lA II 329 .. 1"'3 33 544 0 905 150 2.7 .0 .90 1.1"'-0 701 1,'lPO I.IulO 2.;"lfJ '.1 '.' '-S!f)- 4- 41 ZCARS 1 0' lZ- 7-1'>2 14 30 C 349 223 30 2." 4':'4 I q, 0"2 05_ .' '.' c,

10- 4_ 51 4AABS 1 4V 3- 3-4R 25 40 12 5.0 C 1"5 10 11 .3 .0 170 J' '" .,10- 5- ') tl7ARCS I 0' 5-13-4} 5/13 13 '" 19 13 C 240 41 14 .0 Z""'>l '" 74' .4f 0- ')- 512RO(l'lS 1 0' 5-13-4 1 1/11 •• 2 43 " 9.R C 210 '" R.O .1 192 0 717

WASATCH COUNT'" -- Slj~FA(f wIlTE~

PROVO ~ I VEll: ~EAll: HE'l'\EIl 10-19-5') " 57 13 '.2 140 "5 " .2 I." " 257 _01 ., r,SSNAKE C~HI( 4-27-4Q 14 94 lb 23 C 2 9 2 124 II 1.5 342 111 447 ".. .5 "5DaNIEL'S CREEK 5-14-47 '" 4.0 5.r; C 70 9.2 I I.' 54 0 n In ., 0,~O"'JillO VALLEY C~EfK 4-27-49 II 37 7.9 ".2 C 140 13 " 7.5 Il' 10 153 '" .7 r;s

0'> lITTLE HOBBLE CREEl( 11- Q-')I'> 70 lb 17 2.3 30" 14 II lA2 31 344 5hI .4

-..JDEER CltHK RESERvnIlt 9- 6-51 17 42 " 9 C 144 94 " 137 17 755 .' 51

SlI~FACE 9- 7-51'> 9.1 40 II 0.0 1.0 142 .. 7." .1 1.3 '49 35 715 375 .3 coSDEPTH AO FEEl 9- 7-51'> 9.1 42 0.2 ".2 2.1 131'> 40 ".2 l.~ 144 " lAO 301 ., r.,;AT THE nUTLET 2- 2-51. '" ". 17 15 3.1. 195 12 '" • 7 I." 230 70 304 4'0 .- cs

1. LocaTlnN IS QEPfUl,TEO AND lIN(.E~TAIN. SPIlING IS NOT LISTEn ON 'tABLE 4 OR SHOWN ON PLATE 1.2. SA~PllNG SITf IS ourSIOE THE STIIOY A~EA AND NOT SHO..,N ON PLATE l.3. lilt SOlllTllIN AT TI~E UF ANALYSIS.4. THFR~AL SPRI~G -- ..,ATEIl-REARING Fnll"ATION IS TUFA OEPOSITS SlJ~~OlI"OING THF SPIlIHt;S. BIIT WATFR RISES FRO" aN

UNIOE"l"FIEO SOl.Jll.CE AT OEPTH.5. TEMPERATURE JlIlEASlJREO 5-lh-b/t.

Table 6.-Drillers' logs of selected wells and test holes

Altitudes are in feet above mean ,ea Level for land surface at well; determined for interpolation from topographic maps.

Thickness in feet.Depth in feet below the land surface.Stratigraphy by Claud H. Baker. Jr.

Material Thickness Depth Material Thickness Depth Material Thickness Depth

SUMMIT COUNTY

(A-I-4)33dbb-l. Log by Inter- (0-1-3) 13adb-l continued (0-1-4) 17bbb-l. Log by M. A.mountain Drilling Corp., 1965. Clay and gravel. red [Chinle Gale, 1950. Alt. 6,620 ft.Alt. 6,980 ft. Fonnation(?) ] 6 31 Topsoil 2 2

Topsoil. 7 7 Clay, red 49 80 Clay and gravel, red 25 27Sandstone [Nugget Sandstone] 11 18 Gravel 10 90 Clay and shale gravel, creamLimestone, hard. 3 21 Clay, red. 23 113 colored 34Sandstone. 22 43 Gravel 1 114 Shale, limy; and limestoneCemented rocks 122 165 Clay, red. 104 218 [Twin Creek Limestone] 41 75Silt [siltstone(?) J 45 210 Gravel 7 225 Sandstone 1 76Sand [sandstone (?)] 25 235 Clay, red 25 250 Limy shale, ., above. 51 127Si It and sand (siltstone and

sandstone) . 110 345 (0-1-4) lOcbd-l. Log by E. C. (0-1-4)2laaa-l. Log by J. G. Lee,Reddish hardpan [Chinle Forma- Osborne, 1963. Alt. 6,580 ft. 1964. Alt. 6,580 ft.

tion(?) J 19 364 Soil 5 5 Topsoil 12 12Sand and gravel. 9 14 Andesite [Tertiary volcanic rocks] . 211 223

(A-l-15)20abc-1. LogbyJ. H. Clay and silt 67 81 Quartzite and red shale 37 260Peterson, 1962. Alt. 5,910 ft. Silt, sand, and gravel 13 94 Andes ite 27 287

Surface soil 6 6 Andesite, red and gray [Tertiary Porphyry 197 484Boulders 17 23 rocks] 144 238 Shale, red [Woodside Shale] 7 491Clay and gravel, gray. 10 33 Shale, blue 2 493Clay, gray, hard 16 49 (0-1-4)l6aad-1. Log by J. S. Lee, Shale, red 61 554Clay, blue and gray, with some 1964. Alt. 6,440 ft.

limestone [Twin Creek Limestone]. 6 55 Topsoil 3 3 (0-2-4)2cbd-l. Log by E. C.Clay, blue and gray, hard. 27 82 Clay, brown. 9 12 Osborne, 1964. Alt. 6,640 ft.Limes tone, broken. 33 115 Sand, fine 1 13 Soil 3 3

Clay, gray 37 50 Clay 16 19(0-1-3)lOaab-1. LogbyJ. G. Lee, Clay, sandy and gravelly, brown Andesite [Tertiary volcanic

1966. Alt. 6,640 ft. [weathered Tertiary volcanic rocks] 40 59Boulders and clay. 79 79 rocks (?)] 112 162 Clay, moist 6 65Conglomerate 91 170 Clay, red, sticky. 29 191 Andesite, red 82 147Limestone [TWin Creek Limestone] 25 195 Clay and gravel 19 210 Andesite, gray 63 210Shale 16 211 Clay, red, sticky. 10 220 Shale, red [Ankareh Formation] 6 216Limestone. 35 246 Clay and gravel, red 30 250 Sandstone, gray 4 220Shale with streaks of limestone. 146 392 Clay, brown, sticky 15 265Conglomerate I [rac tured lime- Clay and gravel. 15 280 (D-2-6)19abc-l. Log by J. H.stone ('?) ! 44 436 Clay, red and brown. 10 290 Turner, 1947.

Shale 5 441 Clay and gravel. 10 300 Alt. 6,410 ft.Clay, red, sticky. 8 308 Old well [alluvial fill] 29 29

(0-1-3) 1Ocdb-l. Log by J. G. Lee, Boulders and gravel, hard. 3 311 Clay, yellow 6 351964. Alt. 6,650 ft. Clay, red, sticky. 9 320 Sand, brown 3 38

Topsoil. 1 1 Clay and gravel, brown 14 334 Sandstone, gray; water bearingBoulders 49 50 Gravel, some clay. 6 340 [Weber Quartzite] 29 67Limestone [Twin Creek Limestone] 133 183 Clay, brown, sticky. 8 348Shale and limes tone. 117 400 Hard rock 7 355 (0-2 -6)l9bcc-l. Log by Lester

Clay and grave 1, brown, sticky 13 368 Binning, 1964. Alt. 6,460 ft.(0-1-3) 13adb-l. Log hy Inter- Clay, red 22 390 Clay 10 10

mountain Drilling Corp., 1965. Clay, brown. 10 400 Clay and sand 15 25Alt. 6,330 ft. Conglomerate [Knight Con glom- Sand 5 30

Clay and cobbles 5 5 erate] 40 440 Clay and gravel, hard 10 40Clay and sand 10 15 Clay, brown. 10 450 Porphyry [Tertiary volcanic rocks] . 35 75Sand 10 25 Conglomerate

s~ndy :14 464 Porphyry and clay 35 110

Conglomerate, 204 668

WASATCH COUNTY

(0-2-5) 20bcb-l. Log by (0-2 -5) 32bad-1. Log by T. J. (0-2-5)32bbc-2 continuedA. Lyons, 1944. Burkhart and J. S. Lee, Gravel, boulders, and clay 29 45Alt. 6,080 ft. 1943. Alt. 5,965 ft. Porphyry [Tertiary volcanic rocks] . 100 145

Andesite, light gray to yellow Surface fill 36 36 Quartz 5 150[Tertiary volcanic rocks] 90 90 Boulders and gravel 10 46

Altered andesite, with serpentine Andesi te lava [Tertiary volcanic (0-3-4)35dab-l. Log by J. G. Lee,

and chlorite. 10 100 rocks] .......... 150 196 1960. Alt. 5,530 ft.

Clay, blue, sticky; altered Shale [Ankareh Formation(?) J 10 206 Topsoil 5 5

andesite; water 40 140 "Volcanic .,b and cinders" [tufa] 65 70(0-2-5) 32bbc-2. Log by J. H. Gravel 16 86

Peterson, 1950. Alt. 5,850 ft. Limestone [tufa] 6 92Surface fill 16 16 Sand and gravel 2 94

68

Table 7.-Water levels in selected observation wells

111-1-41~11\1't<-1. 111\111\1-111)(11; WI-L1_ IN IILllIVIII~I.AIIIIIMAIIC WillI-I< LI-VI-L I<I-LIII<IIHI !"'\IIILLI-Il IIClIIHI-I<IH. IYhh • .,I-ASIII<I-MI-IIII\ ;\1<1- NIIiIN LI-VI-L\ I-I<IIM I{I-CIII<III-I< CI-I/\1<15.'111;'11-51 WAIl-I< II-Vf-L 1.1K Kt'UII, LSII • .l11l~1- 13. lYhK.III<Y. WAIl-I< Lf-VI-L NIII Nf-A5111<I-AKLI-. ,IAN. 10, 1'11,"1.I<I-CIII<I15 AVA ILAHI_I- lYhh-hK.

IIA II-lOll III<U-VI-L IIA 1 I-

WAHl<1.1 Vfl_ IlAn IlA H'

WAHl<LFVH_

IIC I. 7H. IYhA 1'1.1,'1 ,JilL Y ,>, 1'ih , 1.':>3 I-I:H. 1 , lYhH 1'1.HO ,jll~lr: 1 -~, lyAH I • 1Hj\lIIV. 14 lY.Y7 .lilLY 1'1 4.HY ~IAI< • 17 lH. n .J! I L Y K 7.4':>I II-C. I':> lY.h2 Al IG. 21 7.h3 AI-'I<. '-I 1,.40 JilL Y lA 4. :~ 1JAN. 1(I , lYAI II SI-I-'. 2K 17.2"1 111-'1<. 14 ').70 IIIH;. 1 :~ 11.71,MAl<. 10 lH.'-I':> IIC T • ':> 1'>.3A AI-'l< • i'l 4.'14 AII(;. 20 II.OHAI-'l< • 1 H.hO IICT. 20 14.4'> AI-'I<. 2Ji 4.5h AI)I;. I' 12. (13

AI-'I<. 10 3.K3 "'IIV. -, 13.h'-l ~IAY '> "./4 51'1-'. I 14.h2~IAY 14 ".1'> JAN. Y. lYhK lY.HZ MAY 12 3.22 SI:'I-'. 12 20.2'1.111"'1- 21 1. KI< ,I AN. ;>0 20.2':> MAY 1'1 3.0'-1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11l-I-A)I'-1IlAU-l. IJNIISHJ [J1)1; WELL IN ALLlJVlllM.HI(;HI:'ST WAII-R LI-VIcL I.HI HEUIW LSIl, .JIINI- 27, lY:~Y,

L1lwI-ST WATFI< Lf'VI-I_ lH.30 IH'L1IW LSU, AI-'I<. 3, 1'-1.,3.I< I- CII I< IJ 5 A VA ! LA KLI- 1'13 B -h 0, J '1 A? -h I, •

IIA r I-WAll-I<LI-VI-L IIIITt'

WAHl<LEVEL DAH

WAH-I<L I-VI:'I_ IIAH-

Wlln-RLFVEL

MAl< • 21, IYAO 10./H MAR. h, lYh3 13. 16 DEC. 10, lyh4 14.6H 51-I-'. 13, l'-1hA 14.9H'"I IV. -H 1':>.hO AlII;. 30 3.10 MAl<. B, lYA5 U.hh tiC T. 12 15.15JIIN. 12. IYA7 U.I)) lH::C. I 12.64 IIC T • 1 H '1.70 NIIV. 14 15.03MAK. H 12.':>3 MAl<. 4. 1 '-I A4 11.'-12 III:'C. 13 17.1<'1 IlFC. 1') 1').37III-C. lH 13.41 IIC T. ZO 10.0A MAK. lA, lYhA 1':>.34

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(j)-,>-A)':>UKK-l. IINIISI-I) IJlJl; "I~LL IN ALlIJVIIJI"I.

HII;HtST WATI-I< LI-VI-L ?2H HI-LUW LSIl, JllNF 4, 1'-141.I)KY, WAll-k U-VI-L Nlll l~fASIJK~AHLF, Ff::R. I, l'-lAH, MAY H, l'-1hH.KI-CIII<IlS AVIlILAKLI- 14jH-AZ, )Yh4.

WAll-k WAHl< wAlEI< WAHkIIA 11- LI:'VI-L III1TI:' LFVEL IJAH LI-VH [)II Tf- I.FVfL

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------jVIAK. 21, 14AO 7.1<0 MAR. H. 19h'i 7. 21 JAN. 10, lYh7 7.14 llCT. 11 • 19n7 A.91MIV. 30 , .4:-\ JilL Y n 3.3R MAk. 20 7.41 NUV. '1 7.0R~IAK • ZI, 19A1 1.':>5 IIC T • lH 5.11 A",R. 12 h.H" FEA. 1 , lYnA 7fJ4.IAN. 17, l'-1h2 -'d ,J IJI-C. U h.ZA MAY 17 h.14 MAY A 704I"Ak. K 7 .~ .I MAl<. lh. 19h6 n.n2 JlJN~ 12 4.20 JIINE A 4. h 3I II-C. lH "I.o? 51-1-'. 11 6.R3 JULY 1'-1 :, • 1"3 .lIlLY lA 4. AOMAl<. 4. )Yh4 '>.'-1 ,J IIC T • l? h.'!7 AIIG. 21 4. -'h AI)(;. 13 4.0hIIC I. Zo 4.'-1'1 NUV. 14 '.OZ SI:'I-'. 2A 5.93 Sf:: 1-'. l? 4.17III-C. 10 A.Y3 il~C • I? 7. 11

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(11-7-h)2UCCC-1. IJNlISl:'1J flll(; WI-LL ll~ ALLUVlllM.HII;HI-Sr WAIl-I< L~VI-L 7.70 K~lI)W 15/1, .JIINI- 14, 1'-141,UIWtSI wAIl-I< LfVI-L h.BA HI-LillO LSII. AII(;. 20. 1'-140.KI- U II< liS A VA I LA K'. t I '1 -~ H -h H •

IIA I f-WAIl-I<LtV~L IIATt

WATHlLEVI-L 11A T I-

WAHl<LI-VFL IlATE

WATI:'RLEVfL

,"AI< • 21 • IYhO 3.11 I IC T • 20, 1Yh4 4.41 DfC. 1" , lyAh "3. '1-' ilC 1. 11 , 1 'lA-I 3.92J\IlIV. --\0 4.IJ4 IJEC. 1IJ 3.91 ,JAN. 10, 19A"I 4.01 NlIV. '-I 3.91I_AK. 71, 1 Yh J -~ .hA MilK. H, 1'-16" 4.0B ~IAR • 20 4.14 H;H. 1 , lYhA 4.1A.1 AI~. I? , IYht' j.Yl ,JilL Y n 3. '1-' AI-'R. 15 3.6':> MAl<. l? 4.0ZI\'IAk. K 4.17 I IC 1 • 1 K 3.H7 MAY 11 ? .h3 MIIY k 4.33IJfC. lH -~. til IlfC. U 3.71 JIJNI:' 1£ 3.10 ,JlINI- A 3.99fV'1i\~ • h. lYh3 3.'1-:\ ~IAI< • 1 h, IYhh 7.4" JULY 1'-1 ~~. '-I H .lilLY lh 4.971\1 II,. ~o 2.>'.9 51:'1-'. 11 3.71 AIH; • 21 3.A':> AlII;. 13 4.10IJI-C. '-I 3.HO IIC T • l? 3.H3 51:f-'. 21< :,. H7 SEI-'. 12 4.54'Ill AR • 4. IYA4 4.7H NIlV. 14 3.'10

69

Table 7.-continued

Ill-;>-td?/iLCL-;>. IINIISI-ll 11111, WI-LL IN ALLlIVIIII~.

HII,HtSr WAil-I( LI-VI-L 1-.':>1\ Kl-lIlW I Sil. ,lilLY 1. 14hl.1I1wI-ST WAll-k \.I-VI-l IHd4 KI-1I1W \.Sll. f-IK. 1,I'IhA.kt-r:llkllS AVAILAI<LI- l'Inn-hH.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I)A II-WAll-kLI-VI-\' I)A 11-

WATUl

I.I'Vt-\. IlA 11-WAH-kLtVI-\. flAT I-

WATt'RL t'VtL

IIC r. '14, 1'11>1> 2 I. '>'} MAY I ., • I'll> I 1'>.41 IlEC. 1 , 14A 7 14.11 JUNF 19, 19AA In.51

NIIV. I l3.n ,HINf 1 IA.nll /lEC. I'> 2h.n, ,HINt' 2h 14.99

NI IV. I':> ?4.1>7 ,HINt' I':> 13.04 ,IAN. 1. 19hA 2.,.(') ,HIL Y :~ 10.22

111-<: • I'> 2,>./1I ,JI IL Y J h.,>H I-I-K. I ;> H. -'1'1 ,W\. Y 10 lO.55

.II1N. Ill. l'Ihl ?h ."l L ,Ill\. Y U '1.49 MAH. 12 24.1I1 JIILY 17 H.h5

I-I-K. I Ih.I'I AII(;. 1 111.411 APk. 1 21.31 ,IIIL Y 24 -1.74

I-I-K. I'> 7 I. 11I AII(.. 21 13.24 IIPk. 9 22. ,9 ,HI\. Y -H R.HlMAk. I '11.11 SI-P. 1 10.4A APR. 21 2'>.94 AI)(;. 13 7.AAMilk. 1., ;>4.11 Ilel. 1 13.20 MAY '> 2 4 .'11 11111;. i'O R.1>2A f'H,. 1 24. q IIC T • 1., 19.H3 MAY 1'1 19.,1 AI)(;. 21 11.02Af'H. I':> ;>4.17 NIIV. 1 n.20 ,!liNt: 2 12. '-19 51-I-' • 3 13.0RMAY I 2,> • .,A NIIV. 1" 23.37 JUNI: l? '1.74 SfP. I? 17.27

(1l-2-h)34KCC-l. 'INUSI:I) IlHI\.\.1:1J WI-L\. IN ALLlIVIUM.H]t;HtSI WArl-k LI-VI-L 1.7'> Kt'lIlw LSI), AII(;. 30, 1'11>3,IlH.Y. WAll-k U:VI-L NOI Mt'ASUkI-AKLf, MAH.. 20, 19h7. APH.. l7, 1967. H-H. 1, 19AA, MAk. 14, 19hA,r~IIY A,I'-1hH.H.I-Cllk11S AVA ILAK\.I- IYh:~-hH.

IJA r I-WAII-H.LI-VI-\' /lA 11-

WAHRLt'Vl-L DATt:

WAHkLI-VI-L IJIITf--

WA 1 ERLFVEL

AIIl" 3O, 1Yh-3 '1.2'> SF-P. 1-3, 19h6 22.17 MAY 17. 19h7 33.4'1 FFI\ • l , lYhR 34112flC I. ?1I. 1'11>4 '13.44 IICT. 17 25.17 JUNI- 12 IA.23 MAR. 14 341)2III-C. III 2Y.Hl NllV. 14 29.H3 JULY 19 14.'>'-1 MAY H 34il2~,Ak • H, l'Ih':> -~l .~4 IH:C. 1 '> 31.30 AUt;. 2l 19.1'-1 JUNI- h 14.'-19,IIIL Y 21 4.'14 JAN. 10, I'll> 1 33.19 St:P. 2A 23.h':> ,JUL Y Ih 1~. 7 'IIIC I. IH 13.:n MAk. 20 3411'1 IlC r • 11 27.1 H AIIr,. 13 10.17III-C. l-l 2'>.01 APk. II 34112 NIIV. 9 2'-1.94 SEp. 12 h.50MAH. Ih, I'-Ihh -B.AO

(11-7-':»IOCCA-I. IINIJSHl 1)11(; Wt'LL IN A\.LlJVIIJ~I.

HJ(;HI-SI WArl-1{ 1.I-Vt'L 10.70 Iit:LUw LSIJ, APR. 17, 1'152,1I1wI::Sr WAlf-:k U-VI::L 2'-1.00 kt:LUW LSIl, NllV. 7, 1'14'1. Ill-C. 16, 1'-1'>2.kl-CllHllS AVAILAKLI: 1'J3h-hA.

WAII::H WATtk WATI:-R WATt'RIiAII- LI-VI-L !JATt: LFVt:L IlAll- U:Vf-:L IiA TF- I.FVt'L

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~IAH • 21, lYhO 2A.04 IIC 1 • 20. lYh4 2A.07 IlI:C. I'> • lYhh 2'>. I -I IlC T • 11. l'-1h7 15.21NIIV. 30 2 -7.10 IJEC. 10 26.13 JAN. Ill, 1'-11>1 2. '>.11 NllV. Y 15.2A.,Ak. 21. 19h1 20.2'1 MAR. H. 19h5 25.49 MAk. 10 24.n FFK. I. l'1hH ? 5. R 1.111111. 1 I • J YI:>2 2'>.H':> UC T • I II 2'>.'10 APH.. 12 24. -~y MAl{. l7 24.hh~IAK • H 24.9'-1 !IF-C. H 75.59 MI\Y l7 24.02 MIIY H 24.91'1III-C. lH 20.HZ MAk. 11:> , lYl>h 23.5'> JlINt' 12 14.11 JUNI- A 15.3-~

~IAI{ • h. l'-IA3 2h.17 SI:P. 13 24.HH JULY 19 24.31 ,)lIL Y Ih l5.50AI)l;. 30 2'>.HO IICT. Il 25.0Z AUb. 21 ?4.l'l Allb. I'! 14.71'1Ill-C. Y 2h.'>O NIIV. 14 25.11 SEP. 21'1 24.51 SF-Po 12 24.90~'Ak • 4. l'1h4 2h .IH

70

Table 7.-continued

111-7-"')j?Hl\ll-1. IINII~tll IlI<ILU-ll wtLL 1~1 Itl<TllII<Y VIILCANIC I<IICKS. I\llfllMAllC WI\II-I<-U-vtl I<H.lll<llI-i<11\1<,IALLI-I) ')H'll-~IHI-I< ;'1. l'1bh. ~ltll')III<I-I'ltl~IS 1\1<1- NIIIII, LI-VtL') I-I<IIM ktLlII<IIt-1< CHI\I<I<'.HII,HtSI wArl-1< LI-VI-L 7H.4':l KtLlIW LSIl, ,IIINt ':l, ]YhH,L!IWI-<,l WAIt-I< LI-Vt-L -\'>.41 Ht-LIIW LSll, HK. IH, l'lhK.I<tCII"llS AVA I LAI-ILt lYhh-hH.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1)/\ I twAltil.LI-VIL IlA It

lolA ail.LI:-VI:-L IlATt

WA Ttl'LtVt'L Il/\ T I-

WAHl<U'VFL

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------51:-1-'. ;U. lYhbIIC I. 7IIC I. '1IIC I. 16IIC 1. 7-~

IIC I. --\0NIiV. (,I~IIV. LlNIIV. 20

I""V. 2(Ill-C. 4III-e. ...IltC. 11\Ilt-C. 2':>.!AI~. 1, 1967,I AI\I. H,IAI~. 1 ...,IAN. 22.JAI~. 2'1I-tl-l. ':lI-tK. 26MAil.. ':>I~Ak. 17

33.0032. -n37 .... 033.3234.7934.6134.76'14.4334.1-<3~-\4. '11>34. :-\':>33.73-n .... ]34.31>34.'193':>.?4-I'.n3,.0734.1>233.YH34.i'133 .1131.'12

MAR. 1'1, 19h1MAil.. 26Af'R. i'Af'il., '1Af'k. 16Af'k. 2--1I\f'k. 30I~AY IMAY 14

MAY 21MAY 2 K

,JIINF 4,JiJNt 11,IIINE lK.!IINE 2 ':l.JlILY i'JULY '1JlIL Y 16.Ji IL Y 2:-1JlILY 30AIIG. I>AliG. 21

31.27--11. 1031.HH3?0737.4037.':>037.61::Il.H731.?3--10.0630.2':>31.4730.9230.303D.3730.02i'9.4231.3931.3732.1332.1430.Al

Alii;. ? (, 1'11>7Stf'. --ISt f'. 10Stf'. 17lIC T. 1IIC T. HIIC T. 15IIC T. 2?IIC T. 2'-1III~IV. '1NUV. I?NIIV. 19NIIV. 21>Ill:-C. 3Utc. 9tl:-K. 4, lY6KFtf-'. 11I" I:K. 1H1'1::1-1. 2':>MAR. 3MAl<. 17MAR. 17

-11.4':>11.71--10. Yi'3?'34:'\i' • '>i'31.4K31'.'1?34.17'I ':>.1"30.20:~O. '-I~

:~7.;n

-;2. ~4~B"4

:n.743':>.1'1-;':>. -11'1'>.413 ~-I • '>731'.,1-;1 .HH31.7K

MAl{. 24, l'16HMAil.. 31Af'k. 7I\f'R. 14Af'R. 71Af'k. 21<MAY 5MIIY 1/MAY 1 '1

MAY 26JIINI" 2JIINF .,JUNE 9JllNF lh,IlINt ?3JULY 11>,IIIL Y r;,1l1L Y 30All(" 6AI1(;. 1-~

AUG. 20SI:f'. 12

3i'."O-B.I031.'12--Ii'. 033?il73? :-151'1.79:-\0. ;>430.442~.7h

1'9.;>':>i'H.4529.6030.5h30.3129.0h;>H.9129.0530.03?9.9629. H3'11.43

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------IU-I'-':>l32tHIC-l. UNIJSt::!l [JUG wFLL IN ALLI1VIUM.AUTLJMATIC WATtR U:VI::L RI::Cllkl>1::1< INSTALLFIl fJCTflHI::R

10. 1~66. MI::ASIII{tMI::N1S ARt:: NIHJN U-VeLS I::kUM kl::Cllkl>l::k CHARTS.H((;HI::Sr wAHR U:VI::L 4.1'1 HEUIW LSIl, AIIG. 11, 196A,IlkY, wAltR LI::VI::L NtH MI:ASIIRI::AKLE. I::I::K. Ii, 1967, JAN. 9, 1~6H.

RtCURIJS AVAILAI-ILI:: l'1l>h-6H.

WAl tI< WATER wATl"1< wATER

DAlE LtV I::L ilATE LeVEL IlATI:: L EVI:L DAll" LI:VEL----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AII(;. 11. 1966 11.13 Af'R. 9, 1967 11.~H AIH, • 27, 1967 9.60 JUNE 11 , 196H H.59Stf'. n 6.H'1 Af'R. 16 12.~R SI:P. 3 6.3~ JUNf Ih h.25IICI. lu 10.40 APR. 2.; 15.04 SI:: f'. 10 I>.H6 ,1l1NI:: 23 4.70IIC r. 1 I 14.74 APk. 30 16.92 SI::f'. 17 H.61 ,)lJNF 30 h.ORIIC T • 23 17.03 MAY -, 17.45 SI::f'. 24 7.91. ,IlIL Y 7 ':>.A2IIC I. 30 17.77 MAY 14 16.H2 OCT. 1 13.50 JULY 14 h.60NIIV. I> 16.I>H MAY 2H 7.60 DC T • H H.':>6 JULY n 9.31NIIV. 13 IH.40 JUNE ':> 7.4R OCT. 1':> 12.74 JULY 2H 4.7AI~' IV. 20 IH .n JlJNF 13 6.31 DC T. 2? 15.44 AIH; • 4 9.5H,J AN. 1', 196( 1'1.30 JilL Y 16 H.3A I.ICT. 29 16.40 AUG. 11 4.191::1-1-1. 17 U .lilLY 23 7.25 NUV. 5 lK.2I' AlII;. lR 9.23MAk. 20 11.49 AUG. 6 4.37 JAN. ~, 196H lYD7 AUG. 25 10.50MAk. 26 11.'<; AUG. Ll R.22 MAR. 1? 16.?K SI: f'. 12 4.95APk. '/ 11.66 AUG. '/0 7. !-l5 MAY H ".13

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

liJ-3-4)25I>CC-l. HOktlJ UHSI::RVAfIUN HULE IN ALLUVIuM. MEASUI<I:Mf'NTS HttURE 1966 KY U. S. KURFAUut kI::CLAI~AT1111~.

HJ(;HI::ST wAHR LFVtL 1.01 HELllw LSU, JIJNI:- 12, 1961,Lilwl::Sl WAfER Lt-VtL 3.70 IIElllw LSIl, A(I(;. 1, 191>1, JAN. 25, 1962.RtCuRUS AVAILAKLI:: 1961-63, 1966-611.

uArl-WAltRLI::VI"L IJA TI::

WATEkLFVEL IlATI:

WATI::RLI:VEL DATF

wATERLf'VEL

Allb. 1 , 1'161 :-1.1 MAY 11 • 191>2 2.3 NOV. 26, lY6~ 3.1 JUNE' 12, 1')1>7 1.01Al J (~ • 23 3.6 MAY 31 2.2 JAN. -( , 1'163 '1.6 .JIlL Y 19 2.23Stl-'. 14 3. I JUNF lK ;>.0 1:-1"1-1. 6 3.0 AUG. 21 2.64IIC r • lY 1' .... ,1l1L Y -I 2.1 MAil.. 4 ;!.7 SEf'. 2H 2.59~IIIV • '/4 2.h JilL Y lY 2.5 Af'R. 1 I'.H flC T. 11 2.66IJI:-C. '/Y 3.'> JilL Y 31 2.6 JULY 7H, IYh6 1'.9:-1 MAY H, 196H 1.50,JAN. 7'>, lY62 3.7 AlIG. ~ 2.1 SEP. 13 2.1\9 JIJNI:- A 1.9A1::1"1-1. 26 3.1 AUG. 24 2.4 UC T • 12 2.97 ,IUL Y 1h 7.07IVIAI-< • ~Y 2.3 Sf'f'. -, 3.0 NUV. 14 3.17 AUG. 13 1.0RAf'k. 74 3.? IIC T. 16 3.1 MAY 17, 1~67 I'.H7 SEf'. 12 1.37

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------71

Table 7.-continued

(t)-'~-4)3"AKr.-l. UMJSl:fl IlliG Wf-LL IN ALllJVIIJM.HI(,Hf-ST WATtf< U-Vf-L lJ.14 Kf-lIIW LSD, Sf-Po 12, lY6H,LlIWtSI WATtl< U-VI-:L 4.51 KflllW LSIJ, I1I-:C. 9, 19fd.IH-Ctll<llS AVAILAt'Lt l'nK-6H.

IlA I t

WAIf-f<LI:VtL IIATI:

WATEKLI:VEL I1ATE

WAT f-KLf-Vf-L IJAH

WIlTFRLf-VFL

~IAI< • ;> 1 , lY60 1 • ;>:~ MAl<. 4, 1964 3.97 NUV. 14, 1966 2.06 NlJV. 'I, lY67 3.41MIV. 30 4."A uCT. 20 3.6H MAl<. 20, 1967 3.3Y MAR. 11, lY6A 0.Y4I~AI< • 21, IY61 1 • 1A IJf:C. 10 4.no Af'I<. 12 3.13 AI-'K. 12 3.13JAN. 17, lY62 3.14 MAR. H, lY6':> 3. 11 MAY l'I 2.rl MAY H 1.46MAK. H i' ,14 IIC T• IH 1.6l1 JUNI: );> 1.0ll ,JIJNF 6 1.19III'C. IH 3.':>2 IH'C. 11 2.0ll JULY 19 1 • 5'~ JULY 16 1. 21MAf<. 6, lY63 2.4H MAl<. 16, lY66 2.27 AUG. 21 3.13 AIJG. 13 1. 1A11\1(,. 30 3.04 SFfi. 13 2.27 SI:f'. 2A 2.13 SEf'. 12 0.74llf-C. Y 4 • .,1 UCT. iii 1.83 OCT. 11 2.H2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11J-3-.,16HAK-1. IINUSEIJ DRILU:1l WI:LL IN ALLUVIUM.

HI(;HESI WAHf< LI'V!:l 1.62 ~EL()w LSD, JUNF 6, 1l16A,LIIWI:ST WAll'K U'VH 7. '14 Hl:lllW LSIl, 1'1:11. 1 , 1l16A.KI:Ctlf<LJS AVAILAHLI: lY66-6H.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WATt-R WATER WAHl< WATERIlATE LI:VtL IJATE LEVEL IlATE LEVEL IlAT F LFVEL

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JULY 28, lY66 7.331J MAR. 20, 1961 6.41[) SI:f'. 28, 11167 7.101l MAY 8, IYf>A 3.AGSI:I-'. 13 6.:~W APf<. 20 5.121l nCT. 11 7.2'l1l JUNf' 6 1.62IIC T. 12 7.1AIl MAY 17 3.19D NUV. y 7.11D ,lIlL Y 16 4.63NIIV. 14 7.13ll JUNE l? 5.231l foEB. 1, 196A 7.74D AUG. 13 3.51DlcC. I'> 7.471l JULY lY 6.A71l MAl<. 17 6.27 SEI-'. 12 6.21,I AN. 10, 1967 7.'>31l AUG. 21 6.54D

(I)-3-,:>17CIl(;-1. IINUS!"I) DRILLI:D WI:LL IN ALLUVIUM.HIGH~ST WATI'R LtVI:L 3.17 BELOW LSD, JUNE 6, 1l16A,LIIWI-:SI WAHK LI:VI:I_ 23.8l1 BI:LUW LSD, MAf<. 20, 1l167.RH:UKUS AVAILAKLf- lY66-6B.

IIA IEWAlf-RLEVI:L IlAH

WAHRLEVEL DATE

WATEI<LI:VEL ilAH

WATI:RLEVEL

SI:I-'. 13, 1Y06 6.23 APR. 20, 1967 20.19 SEPt 2A, 11167 10.03 MAY 8, 1Y68 4.93IIC I. 12 12.1A MAY 1'1 7.4A OCT. 11 19.0A JUNF 6 3.17NIIV. 14 17.44 JUNE 12 5.55 NUV. II 18.17 JULY 16 5.1AUtC. 1'> 18.7l1 JULY lY 6.19 FEll. 1 , 196A ll1.lI'1 AUG. 13 4.67,JAN. 10. I lI6" 19.63 AUG. 2 1 A.!l4 MAl<. 12 20.6Y SEf'. 12 6.oAMAK. 20 23.HlI

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(D-3-':> )29CAC-l

HIGHEST WAll:K LI-:VELlllWI:SI WAlff< LI:VELf<f-CURllS AVAILAKLI:' III

UN\ISEU LJUG WELL IN ALLUVIUM.0.61 BELOW LSD, ,IlJLY 24, 1942,

10.Y2 BI:LlJW LSU, MAR. lI, lY42.

WAIIeI< WATI:I< WAII:f< WATERIlA If' LI:VEl IlATE LEVEL IlATE LEVfL DA TI: LFVEL

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MAK. 21, 1960 Y.71 11C T. 20, 11164 5.1l1 DEC. 15, 1Y66 8.67 NlJV. lI, 1Y67 R.23NIiV. 30 7.10 DEC. 10 7.00 JAN. 10, 11167 H.H4 FEH. 1 , lY6R 9.74",AR. 21, 1461 8,62 MAl<. H, 1965 lI.74 MAl<. 20 lI.A'I MAR. 12 10.11,JAN. 12, lY62 10.41 JULY n 1.21 APR. 12 Y.07 AI-'K. 12 9.07",AK. 8 8.48 IICT. IH 5.30 MAY 17 7ol6 MAY K 5.90IH'C. 18 B. 16 DEC. 13 1.B9 JUNE 12 4.07 JUNF 6 7.68MAR. b, 11163 10.79 MAA. Ib, 196b 4.67 JULY III 7. l'~ ,JULY 16 1 • '> 7AUG. 30 3.4l1 SEP. 16 2.72 AUG. 21 3.14 AUG. n 2.01IlI:C. Y 7.'>9 nCT. 12 '1.83 SEI-'. 2B 4.77 SFP. 11 2.79~IAf< • 4, lY64 10.60 NUV. 16 A. 1R DCT. 11 4. Y:~

72

Table 7.-continued(I)-.,-,»-I/ACC-I. hlIlH:1l IlhSl:kVAIIIIN HIILt- II~ ALllIVIII~I. Mb'lSlIkt-MrNIS hrrllkl- IYhh hY II. s. hlikrAl1

lIr HH:LA,~Allll1~.

HII;f~l:SI WAlrk U'VrL 11I.11 HrLiIW LSII. ,"IIY II. IYhl.IIHY. WATrk U:VI-L NIII Mh'lSlIkl'JlIIl_r. NIiV. 14. 1'11,1. JIIN. I'>, IYh2. rHI. 1'1, IYhl, Milk. /'1, ILJhl,Afo'l<. 14. I'!hl. H'H. h. 141,''', 1',Ak. 4. IYh3. AJ'k. 7. 1'1/>3, "'1Ak. /lI, 141,1, MIIY h. ]'!hH,kI-CIlO<IIS AVIIILAtIU- IYh\-h'." IYhh-hH.

IIA I I-WAll-kLrVI-L 111\ T r

wl\TH'U-Vt-L 11A I r I IA 11-

,0/ 1\1 t-kL rV rL

IUl(;. 1.Alit;, nSrfo'. 14IIC I. I'!1\11 IV • 14III-C. 7'1,IIIN. /':>.1-1-11. 7-1~,AR • 2'1lIf'k. 24~IAY I (I

I Yh 1

I'!hl

I.:". "I ~IAY 7Y,

1'4./ JII~'t- IH/I'.H JIINf- 2Yn. :., JilL Y 1M1411>< .1111_ Y :-11124. I AII(;. Y1411H At If;. 711'4111' Srf'. I,

141 )II IIC T • 42411H NlIV. II,24.'> JAN. 4.

IYhl

1'11,1

IH.Y rtH. 1" 141,'-1 141H\ J\ IL Y 1q.

1".7 MAk. it 7411B 1\111" II1.,.0 Afo'k. I l' 41H\ SI' fo'. IH

14. I .JIIL Y 10, 1'11,1, I '-I. I)) IlL I. I]14. -I Sl:f'. 1'1 IY.HI 1\11 IV • ]Y

1'1.'1 IIC T. 11 Ill. 11''' MAk. 17.

I'>. I NliV. 1'. /l.U MAY H

Ih.h Milk. Ill, IYh/ 1411H JIINI' h711. I Af'k. 20 1><.1,., ,HI! Y Ih? .,. h ~III Y 17 ] 1\. I I AlII,. 1'114.1 .JIII~r II II./H SI- f'. 1I

I 'ih I

IYhH

1l.04Ih.hH]H.H,>

/1.14/'1.4-114 • .,i.1411HLh. ')4

1-1. 1711./41'1. '-I'>

(11-4-4)IIIICII-I. IINIISI:II IJIII; Wf-LL 11\1 ALI IIV]IJI'I.IIIHIII'I/lfIC WAlf-k I.rVI-L I<I-CIIRIII-I< INSIIILLI-fl IICIfIHI-kIll. 1'11,1,. ""rASflkrl"I-Nl' Akr 1\111111\1 Lr\l~I_S ri'.IIM k~r.llkIIFk CHAKIS.HII;Hf-SI .1/11~k I.I-VrL 4.11 hl-LII" I.SII • .lIlLY IY. IYh7.\.IlWI-Sr WAlt'K LI-IIl-I_ 1'~.71 t<f-LIIW L<,II. 111'k. 73, 1'11,7.KI-CII"IIS AVAILAIILt IY

IIA I rW/lllkLrVI-L lit, f t

\,J II 11-1<

1.1' V f 1_ 11111 f-WIIHk1.1-1/1-1.

11111; • 10. ]Yhh I I. / K JAN. I ., • IYh 1 21. H I ~~A Y 14. 1Yh7 J h. itl NllV. 1q. ]'JI,-I 11,.4"Srf'. 1:1 11. 4 " .IAN. 21 71. '17 MAY 11 1'1.11, 1\11 IV. II-, I h. H:-IIICI. III I I. ~4 JAN. IY 17.lIY ~IAY I., II • H'> III"C. '1 17. 10l!( I. ?1 I H .1-., f-f-II. ., /1.20 .1111. Y I Y it. -,; f-HI. I . I'II,H 111.4':>IIC I. "0 I'I.'}Y I-r K. I'! n.':>1 /1111,. I 4.'1'1 H,H. II 11I.YIhit IV. h 11.'11 rl:h. 21, 17. 10 (11)(;. h ,).hK f-I-H. 1>1 ?L.n"If IV. J:; I H • I 'I l"IAK. '> 17.7H Ii 1)(" 1'1 '> • .,., rrH. /') I], Vil\lIIV. 70 IK.,>(l MAl< • II ?l.Y? /1111;. 1\ '>.'1'> MAk. 11 11 .41,~,'IV • 7 I I H .KI 1'1/1 I< • I Y 17.07 SI-fo'. -I (I 1'>.hY ·'IAk. IH I Y. h 111f-!:. 4 1'1.11 Milk. Ih 17. '0 IIC I. H 11, • ., -., ~IIIY 10 IO.OhIlrC. II 1'1.'>'1 Af'K. I 17. Hli IIC 1. I., 1H. I~ ,HINf- 1/ 1-,.44III-e. IH i'D.II IIf' K • '! n.lI'> IIC 1. n I II.? 1 .11)1. Y II, H.4HIlrC. 2'> IO.HK IIf'K. 10 13. I'> IIC T • 2'! 11,.1,11 !\(!Ci. I., 1.lh,IAN. I, 1'11>1 21. 31 Af'k. n n.?? NIIV. 'I 1'>. ·.,H SFf'. I? A • ,,--1.1AN. K 21.1,1 Af'I<. ,11 12.4'1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(11-4-412'KCC-I. 11I\111Srl) IlIl(; wf-LI. 11\1 ALI.IIVIIII'1.AlIfIiMAfIC WllirK I.bVrL Kt-Cllkllf-k INSTALU'll M/lY Ih.

IYhl. ~II-ASIII<H'\rNIS AKI- NIIIII\I LI:VI:LS rkllM kI:CllkUt'K CHAK'IS.Hlf,HI-SI WAlrk LI-IItL (l.1I? hI-LIM I.SIl, ,lilLY 2. lYh1.I.I'WI-SI WAIf-k LI-III-I_ IH.n HI:LIIW LSU, ",AK. 20. lYh'"krC!)KIIS AVA II.AKLI- I 'ih"-I,l~.

IIAII:WAI~K

Lrllf-L 11111 tW/llfk1.1: VI: L IlA I I

WATf-o<I.I:Vf-1. 1111 T ~

W/I [I:kU:Vtl.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------IlrC. 10. IYhll I I. K 7 IIf'K. Ill, IYbH U.::I.1 .II I 1\1 f- IY, 1 'InH 1./1\ ,1111. Y 1.4. IYhf\ 7.42111'-(. • I I • IYhl H.IY Af'k. ?I ] 3. ':>4 JlJNI- Ih 1.1'> ,1111. y 31 4.07III-e. 24 1-1.44 Af'K. 2K l1.hY ,Jill_ Y -, 1.1 h AlII;. I '1.lIYIII-C. ":Ill U.h'> I~IIY H I I. n? JilL Y III '-I. ,.,0 All(; • n 4.H4rl- f\. I, IYhH 11. ~'> I~AY 10 II.ll4 JlJLY I 1 1. Y-' SFf'. 11' 'I.411'~A"'.• 11 11.14 ,llINE II 1I.HH

73

Table 7.-continued

111-4-'1)4AIIC-I. IIlH; 111I~If-SIIC WI:-LL IN lWII~ Ckf-I::K LII~f-STliNt-.

1I11;II~SI WAI~k I.~Vt-L IY.h4 Kf-L1110 I_Sll, lIt-C. I':>, 1'11,1"I_""H"SI Willt-k U-Vt-I_ ~Y."ll Kl::llJW LSII, MIIY li, 1'11,1.kl::l.llkllS IIVIIJI.MII.I:: 1'lh,,-/,H.

WAIt-k WAHk WIIHk WlITrR111\ It- IJV~L IJlln LFVI::L ,,1\ r I' Lt-Vt-L 1)1\ 1 t- L rVI::L

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------111/1,. I. JYhh 14.yll-< MAj.{ • 7ll, I'll, I :~4.14K SI:: f'. ?I-<, 1"11,/ 3H.441-< MAY H, I'1hH 30.3-111SU'. H :lU.4;>1-< I\Pk. I'll 'Ih.IHH III r. 11 ::lh.hYK .JlJ~IF I, ·~O. 1 hIIC I . /I Ih.llM MIIY I I :lY.? IK NliV. y 3K. I IK .JI I L Y II, 31.1HK!\jl IV. 14 3/.71HI .JlINt 11 ?4.14K H: K • I, lyhH 3Y.""~K 1\11(;. 11 .~(). 01,lit-C. 1':> I Y.h4H ,JIJL Y 1'1 2Y.H31< MAk. 1"1 ::17.411-< Sr P. 1"1 3?2flH.JIIN. Ill, 1'11,1 "11.1 OK All(, • 21 11. 1hI<

(11-4- 1,)4111111-1. IlkILU·II IJlIMt-SIIC Wt-LL IN ALUJVllJl'I.HI 1,i1I::S I wAli'k Lt-Vt-L 1':>.hH I<FLIIW LSIl, srP. 13, 1'11,1"1.IIWt-SI I,AIt-k Lt-Vt-I_ ".,.1,4 'It,lllW L<,II, Milk. 4, 1'11,4.kl,CilkllS AVAILIIHI.f- I'1h4-hH.

1111 I I::WAIt-kL t-vt-L 11/111::

WAHkLI::VI:I_ /JATl

wAIf-kLL:VI:-L rIA 1 I'

WATf-RU'VFL

11i1AK. II, Illhll jI, .44 IICI. "Ill, lY/)4 "14.13 ,JAN. 10. 1 "1/)'1 ::lH. 'I/) NliV. 9, 1 YA 7 IY.HlI~IIV • ;ll "1'1.1<4 I II-C. 11) 3'>.31 MAk. ?O 4? .11H I::FK. 1 , lYhfl 3'1.941<'",/'If.<,. 11 , )'-11>1 41).;1 MAk. I< • ly/)'1 40.7'1 Al'k. 12 ::14. 1() MAK. 11 37.4?.11\1\1. 11, l'Ih? 41.:> .I... ~ I Ie f • IH 10.3H MAY 1"1 ::1':> .Hh AI'I<. 17 34.10twl{\f.(.

"4'1.10 IlfC. 1 ; IH.3"1 .JlINI:: U 4::I.1:~k MIIY K "14.1,31\

111::(. • I H ',,:> ."11, ~IAk • II> , 1"11,1, ::19.74 ,JIlL Y lY 4".':>4A ,JlJNf' A n.271\11 /\ f.( • I> • I '-lId 41.47 SI::P. 1 :l 1'>.6HI< 11111;. ?l :'H. H;> ,JIlL Y II, "3.rIAIII II ~ • :III ]lJ.hO IICT. II 27.2"1 SI::P. 2H i'H.H4 AI)(;. I, 31.17flII~C • '-I -:Ii' .IIA NIIV. 14 4:1.1 HA IIC 1 • II :l1.i'Ok S,,"P. 17 ::14. ,Ill''"1/\1-<. 4, 1'11,4 4.,.A4 l)rC. 1'1 ::lA.47

--------------------------------------------------------------~-------------------------------------

(11-4-" Iht-HlII-J. KIJkl::l1 IIH5f-kVA [[liN HllLI:: IN AI.LtIVIII~I. Mt-ASllkI:MI::I~T5 Kl:t-Ilkl:: I'IAA KY II. S. I<IJRfAl1lit- K t-C1. A"'II I JIII~.

HI(;HI'~I WAIt-K U'VI::L 1.(1) (If-lIlo' I.SII, JIILY 2, 1'11,1',I.IIW~S I lolA I t-K U-VI:: L '1.10 Hl-lilW I.SII, APk. I, 191d.Kt-CllkIIS IIVAII,AtlU' 1'lhl-h1. l'l/)h-hH.

IIAIt-WAIf-kLf-VI::L IIA [I:-

WATl::1<L EVf:L IIA TI:-

WAHkLf VI-L Ill\ 11::

wATEfiLI::VEL

A'II,. ;, 1'11,1 "1.11 JIINt- 1fj , IYh? 1. 7 API< • 1 , 191,3 Y. -7 AlJ(; • 21, 1"11,7 3. A3,'Ill,. "14 <J.ll ,Jill. Y ;> 1.0 JULY 2Y, lyhA :;.4;> 51-'1'. 2fl ".1 flS~I'. ?I H.I> .JI IL Y 1'1 1.1', SI::P. 13 ,:> • .,4 I)C T. II 5. I, 511(1 . !y H.I> ,JIlL Y ::1 L 1.3 liC 1 • 12 A. 1 -I NIJV. <; A.H,"!ltV. 24 "1.4 AI)(; • 'I 1. h NliV. 14 h.H4 rEI<. 1 , lyAA ".97'It-<: • ?y '1.4 AII(,. 24 2.':> IJI::C. 15 1,.'1; MAk. 12 A.94.11\1\1. "I':>, 1'1"2 lj • it Sf-Po I 7.7 ,JA~I. 1 (). 19h I I. () I MAY H A."Y1-1-,,_ I"' 4.3 I Ie T • J I, 4.4 MAK. 70 1,.'11 ,JUNt- A I. 7A

""1 A I-( • )9 11. ? ~IIIV • II> 1.1 APk. ?O 1,.14 ,JUI. Y IA 2.24

Al'k. ?4 'I.; .JAN. I. lYtd H.':> MA Y 11 ,:>.1,0 Alj(~ • Ll 1.1311/1/\ Y 1 ) :I.? t-f-H. h g.3 JIJNc 11 1 • 1 (I SFP. 17 1.47II/III Y 11 1.1 MilK. 4 '1.5 ,JilL Y 19 i'ol7

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

74

PUBLICATIONS OF THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS

(*}-Out of Print

TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

Ground water in Pavant Valley, Millard County, Utah, by P. E. Dennis, G. B. Maxey,and H. E. Thomas, U. S. Geological Survey, 1946.

Underground leakage from artesian wells in the Flowell area, near Fillmore, Utah, byPenn 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 Tooele Valley, Tooele County, Utah, by H. E. Thomas, U. S.Geological 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. 1.

No. 2.

*No. 3.

*No. 4.

*No. 5.

*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, inUtah 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 period1948-63, 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. Sandberg,U. S. Geological Survey, 1966.

No. 14. Water-resources appraisal of the Snake Valley area, Utah and Nevada, by J. W. Hoodand F. E. Rush, U. S. Geological Survey, 1966.

75

No. 15. Water from bedrock in the Colorado Plateau of Utah, by R. D. Feltis, U. S. GeologicalSurvey, 1966.

No. 16. Ground-water conditions in Cedar Valley, Utah County, Utah, by R. D. Feltis, U. S.Geological Survey, 1967.

No. 17. Ground-water resources of northern Juab Valley, Utah, by L. J. Bjorklund, U. S.Geological Survey, 1968.

No. 18. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Skull Valley, Tooele County, Utah, by J. W. Hood andK. M. Waddell, U. S. Geological Survey, 1968.

No. 19. An appraisal of the quality of surface water in the Sevier Lake basin, Utah, by D. C.Hahl and J. C. Mundorff, U. S. Geological Survey, 1968.

No. 20. Extensions of streamflow records in Utah, by J. K. Reid, L. E. Carroon, and G. E.Pyper, U. S. Geological Survey, 1969.

No. 21. Summary of maximum discharges in Utah streams, by G. L. Whitaker, U. S. GeologicalSurvey, 1969.

No. 22. Reconnaissance of the ground-water resources of the upper Fremont River valley,Wayne County, Utah, by L. J. Bjorklund, U. S. Geological Survey, 1969.

No. 23. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Rush Valley, Tooele County, Utah, by J. W. Hood, DonPrice, and K. M. Waddell, U. S. Geological Survey, 1969.

No. 24. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Deep Creek valley, Tooele and Juab Counties, Utah, andElko and White Pine Counties, Nevada, by J. W. Hood and K. M. Waddell, U. S.Geological Survey, 1969.

No. 25. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Curlew Valley, Utah and Idaho, by E. L. Boike and DonPrice, U. S. Geological Survey, 1969. .

No. 26. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Sink Valley area, Tooele and Box Elder Counties,Utah, by Don Price and E. L. Boike, U. S. Geological Survey, 1969.

WATER CIRCULAR

No.1. Ground water in the Jordan Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah, by Ted Arnow, U. S.Geological Survey, 1965.

No.2. Ground water in Tooele Valley, Utah, by J. S. Gates and O. A. Keller, U. S. GeologicalSurvey, 1970.

BASIC-DATA REPORTS

No.1. Records and water-level measurements of selected wells and chemical analyses ofground water, East Shore area, Davis, Weber, and Box Elder Counties, Utah, by R. E.Smith, U. S. Geological Survey, 1961.

76

No.2. Records of selected wells and springs, selected drillers' logs of wells, and chemicalanalyses of ground and surface waters, northern Utah Valley, Utah County, Utah, bySeymour Subitzky, U. S. Geological Survey, 1962.

No. 3.

No. 4.

No. 5.

*No. 6.

No. 7.

No. 8.

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 I. W. Marine andDon 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, byG. 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.

No.9. Ground-water data, Sevier Desert, Utah, by R. W. Mower and R. D. Feltis. U. S.Geological Survey, 1964.

No. 10. Quality of surface water in the Sevier Lake basin, Utah, by D. C. Hahl and R. E.Cabell, U. S. Geological Survey, 1965.

No. 11. Hydrologic and climatologic data, collected through 1964, Salt Lake County, Utah byW. V. lorns, R. W. Mower, and C. A. Horr, U. S. Geological Survey, 1966.

No. 12. 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.

No. 13. 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.

No. 14. Selected hydrologic data, San Pitch River drainage basin, Utah, by G. B. Robinson, Jr.,U. S. Geological Survey, 1968.

No. 15. Hydrologic and climatologic data, 1967, Salt Lake County, Utah, by A. G. Hely, R. W.Mower, and C. A. Horr, U. S. Geological Survey, 1968.

No. 16. Selected hydrologic data, southern Utah and Goshen Valleys, Utah, by R. M. Cordova,U. S. Geological Survey, 1969.

No. 17. Hydrologic and climatologic data, 1968, Salt Lake County, Utah, by A. G. Hely,R. W. Mower, and C. A. Horr, U. S. Geological Survey, 1969.

No. 18. Quality of surface water in the Bear River basin, Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, by K. M.Waddell, U. S. Geological Survey, 1970.

77

No. 19. Daily water-temperature records for Utah streams, 1944-68, by G. L. Whitaker, U. S.Geological Survey, 1970.

INFORMATION BULLETINS

*No. 1. Plan of work for the Sevier River Basin (Sec. 6, P. L. 566), U. S. Department ofAgriculture, 1960.

No.2. Water production from oil wells in Utah, by Jerry Tuttle, Utah State Engineer's Office,1960.

No.3. Ground-water areas and well logs, central Sevier Valley, Utah, by R. A. Young, U. S.Geological Survey, 1960.

*No. 4. Ground-water investigations in Utah in 1960 and reports published by the U. S.Geological Surveyor the Utah State Engineer prior to 1960, by H. D. Goode, U. S.Geological Survey, 1960.

Relation of the deep and shallow artesian aquifers near Lynndyl, Utah, by R. W.Mower, U. S. Geological Survey, 1961.

Work outline and report outline for Sevier River basin survey, (Sec. 6, P.L. 566), U. S.Department of Agriculture, 1961.

Projected 1975 municipal water-use requirements, Davis County, Utah, by Utah StateEngineer's Office, 1962.

Developing ground water in the central Sevier Valley, Utah, by R. A. Young and C. H.Carpenter, U. S. Geological Survey, 1961.

Projected 1975 municipal water-use requirements, Weber County, Utah, by Utah StateEngineer's Office, 1962.

Effects on the shallow artesian aquifer of withdrawing water from the deep artesianaquifer near Sugarville, Millard County, Utah, by R. W. Mower, U. S. GeologicalSurvey, 1963.

No. 5.

*No. 6.

No. 7.

No. 8.

No. 9.

No. 10.

No. 11. Amendments to plan of work and work outline for the Sevier River basin (Sec. 6, P. L.566), U. S. 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., U. S. Geological Survey, 1963.

No. 13. Water requirements of lower Jordan River, Utah, by Karl Harris, Irrigation Engineer,Agricultural Research Service, Phoenix, Arizona, prepared under informal cooperationapproved by Mr. William W. Donnan, Chief, Southwest Branch (R iverside, California)Soil and Water Conservation Research Division, Agricultural Research Service,U.S.D.A. and by Wayne D. Criddle, State Engineer, State of Utah, Salt. Lake City,Utah, 1964.

78

*No. 14. Consumptive use of water by native vegetation and irrigated crops in the Virgin Riverarea of Utah, by Wayne D. Criddle, Jay M. Bagley, R. Keith Higginson, and David W.Hendricks, through cooperation of Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, AgriculturalResearch Service, Soil and Water Conservation Branch, Western Soil and WaterManagement Section, Utah Water and Power Board, and Utah State Engineer, SaltLake City, Utah, 1964.

No. 15. Ground-water conditions and related water-administration problems in Cedar CityValley, 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 byUtah State Engineer's Office, 1966.

No. 17. Bibliography of U. S. Geological Survey Water Resources Reports for Utah, compiledby Olive A. Keller, U. S. Geological Survey, 1966.

No. 18. The effect of pumping large-discharge wells on the ground-water reservoir in southernUtah Valley, Utah County, Utah, by R. M. Cordova and R. W. Mower, U. S. GeologicalSurvey 1967.

No. 19. Ground-water hydrology of southern Cache Valley, Utah, by L. P. Beer, 1967.

No. 20. Fluvial sediment in Utah, 1905-65, A data compilation by J. C. Mundorff, U. S.Geological Survey, 1968.

79

q) c)c - utahwaterrights.utah.gov/docsys/v920/w920/w920008p.pdf · many uses. 2. introduction this...

Documents