SPRING OF 2013 - UtahSPRING OF 2013 By Carole B. Burden and others U.S. Geological Survey Prepared...

SPRING OF 2013COOPERATIVE INVESTIGATIONS

REPORT NO. 54

UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES and UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN UTAH, SPRING OF 2013

By Carole B. Burden and others

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Utah Department of Natural Resources,

Division of Water Rights, and Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality

Published by the Utah Department of Natural Resources

Cooperative Investigations Report No. 54 2013

iii

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1Utah’s Groundwater Reservoir ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1Summary of Conditions ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2Major Areas of Groundwater Development ...................................................................................................................................................... 7

Curlew Valley ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7Cache Valley ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12East Shore Area .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 17Salt Lake Valley ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 22Tooele Valley ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 28Utah and Goshen Valleys ........................................................................................................................................................................... 33Juab Valley ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40Sevier Desert ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 45Central Sevier Valley .................................................................................................................................................................................. 52Pahvant Valley ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 57Cedar Valley, Iron County .......................................................................................................................................................................... 63Parowan Valley ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 68Escalante Valley .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 73

Milford Area ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 73Beryl-Enterprise Area ....................................................................................................................................................................... 78

Central Virgin River Area .......................................................................................................................................................................... 83Other Areas .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 89

Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012 ................................................................................................................ 104References Cited ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 118

Figures 1. Map showing areas of groundwater development in Utah specifically referred to in this report ............................................ 3 2. Map showing location of wells in Curlew Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ..................... 8 3. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Curlew Valley to cumulative departure from average

annual precipitation at Oakley, Idaho, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells ............................................................................................................................................................. 9

4. Map showing location of wells in Cache Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 .................... 13 5. Graph showing relation of water level in selected wells in Cache Valley to total annual discharge of the Logan

River near Logan, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Logan, Utah State University, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (A-13-1)29bcd-1 ............ 14

6. Map showing location of wells in the East Shore area in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ......... 18 7. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in the East Shore area to cumulative departure from

average annual precipitation at Pineview Dam, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (B-4-2)27aba-1 ..................................................................................................................... 19

8. Map showing location of wells in Salt Lake Valley in which the water level was measured during February 2013 ........... 23

iv

9. Graphs showing estimated population of Salt Lake County, total annual withdrawal from wells, annual withdrawal for public supply, and average annual precipitation at Salt Lake City Weather Service Office .......................................... 24

10. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells completed in the principal aquifer in Salt Lake Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton, and relation of water level in well (D-1-1)7abd-6 to concentration of chloride and dissolved solids in water from the well ............................................. 25

11. Map showing location of wells in Tooele Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 .................... 29 12. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Tooele Valley to cumulative departure from average

annual precipitation at Tooele, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-2-4)33bdd-1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 30

13. Map showing location of wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys in which the water level was measured during March 2013 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 34

14. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton and Spanish Fork Power House, to total annual withdrawal from wells, to annual withdrawal for public supply, to annual discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from three wells ......................................................................................... 35

15. Map showing location of wells in Juab Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ....................... 41 16. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Juab Valley to cumulative departure from average

annual precipitation at Nephi, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-14-1)26dbd-1 ................................................................................................................................................. 42

17. Map showing location of wells in the shallow artesian aquifer in part of the Sevier Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ........................................................................................................................................ 46

18. Map showing location of wells in the deep artesian aquifer in part of the Sevier Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ................................................................................................................................................. 47

19. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in the Sevier Desert to annual discharge of the Sevier River near Juab, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oak City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-15-4)8cba-1 ...................................................... 48

20. Map showing location of wells in central Sevier Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 53

21. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in central Sevier Valley to annual discharge of the Sevier River at Hatch, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Richfield, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-23-2)15dcb-4 ................................................... 54

22. Map showing location of wells in Pahvant Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ................. 58 23. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Pahvant Valley to cumulative departure from average

annual precipitation at Fillmore, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells ................................................................................................................................................................ 59

24. Map showing location of wells in Cedar Valley, Iron County, in which the water level was measured during March 2013 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 64

25. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Cedar Valley, Iron County, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual discharge of Coal Creek near Cedar City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells ................................................................................................................................................................ 65

26. Map showing location of wells in Parowan Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ................ 69 27. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Parowan Valley to cumulative departure from average

annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-33-8)31ccc-1 ................................................................................ 70

28. Map showing location of wells in the Milford area in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ............... 74 29. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in the Milford area to cumulative departure from average

annual precipitation at Black Rock, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-29-10)5cdd-2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 75

v

30. Map showing location of wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 79

31. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Enterprise, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-34-16)28dcc-3 ................................................................................................................................... 80

32. Map showing location of wells in the central Virgin River area in which the water level was measured during February 2013 ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 84

33. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in the central Virgin River area to annual discharge of the Virgin River at Virgin, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at St. George, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-41-17)8cbd-2 .............................. 85

34. Map showing location of wells in Cedar Valley, Utah County, in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 90

35. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Cedar Valley, Utah County, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Provo BYU ......................................................................................................................... 91

36. Map showing location of wells in Sanpete Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ................. 92 37. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Sanpete Valley to cumulative departure from average

annual precipitation at Manti ........................................................................................................................................................... 93 38. Map showing location of wells in Snake Valley and the West Desert in which the water level was measured

during March 2013 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 94 39. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Snake Valley and the West Desert to cumulative

departure from average annual precipitation at Callao .............................................................................................................. 95 40. Graphs showing relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average

annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas .................................................................................................................... 96 41. Map showing location of groundwater sites sampled during the summer of 2012 ................................................................. 105

Tables 1. Areas of groundwater development in Utah specifically referred to in this report ..................................................................... 4 2. Number of wells constructed and estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Utah, 2012 .................................................... 5 3. Total annual withdrawal of water from wells in significant areas of groundwater development in Utah, 2002–2011 ........... 6 4. Estimated withdrawal of water from wells in other areas of Utah, 2012 ..................................................................................... 89 5. Physical properties and concentration of major ions and nutrients in water samples collected from selected

wells in Utah, summer of 2012 ....................................................................................................................................................... 106 6. Concentration of trace elements in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012 .................... 114

vi

Conversion Factors, Datums, and Water-Quality Units

Multiply By To obtain

acre-foot 1,233 cubic meter

foot 0.3048 metergallon per minute 0.06301 liter per second

inch 2.54 centimetermile 1.609 kilometer

square mile 2.59 square kilometer

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 1929). Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Chemical concentration is reported only in metric units. Chemical concentration in water is reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter (µg/L), which express the solute mass per unit volume (liter) of water. One thousand micrograms per liter is equivalent to one milligram per liter. For concentrations less than 7,000 milligrams per liter, the numerical value is about the same as for concentrations in parts per million.

Specific conductance is a measure of the ability of water to conduct an electrical current. It is expressed in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius. Specific conductance is related to the type and concentration of ions in solution and can be used for approximating the dissolved-solids concentration in the water. Commonly, the concentration of dissolved solids (in milligrams per liter) is about 65 percent of the specific conductance (in microsiemens). This relation is not constant in water from one well or stream to another, and it may vary for the same source with changes in the composition of the water.

vii

Definition of TermsAcre-foot—The quantity of water required to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot; equal to 43,560 cubic feet or about 326,000 gallons or 1,233 cubic meters.Aquifer—A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that contains sufficient saturated permeable material to yield substantial amounts of water to wells and springs. Artesian—Describes a well in which the water level stands above the top of the aquifer tapped by the well (confined). A flowing artesian well is one in which the water level is above the land surface. Average annual withdrawal—Calculated average from estimated withdrawals, rounded to the nearest thousand acre-feet. Cumulative departure from average annual precipitation—A graph of the departure or difference between the average annual precipitation and the value of precipitation for each year, plotted cumulatively. A cumulative plot is generated by adding the departure from average precipitation for the current year to the sum of departure values for all previous years in the period of record. A positive departure, or greater-than-average precipitation, for a year results in a graph segment trending upward; a negative departure results in a graph segment trending downward. A generally downward-trending graph for a period of years represents a period of generally less-than-average precipitation, which commonly causes and corresponds with declining water levels in wells. Likewise, a generally upward-trending graph for a period of years represents a period of greater-than-average precipitation, which commonly causes and corresponds with rising water levels in wells. However, increases or decreases in withdrawals of groundwater from wells also affect water levels and can change or eliminate the correlation between water levels in wells and the graph of cumulative departure from average precipitation.Dissolved—Material in a representative water sample that passes through a 0.45–micron membrane filter. This is a convenient operational definition used by Federal agencies that collect water data. Determinations of “dissolved” constituents are made on subsamples of the filtrate. Land-surface datum (lsd)—A datum plane that is approximately at land surface at each groundwater observation well.Precipitation—The total annual precipitation in inches, rounded to tenths of an inch. For selected locations, it is computed from monthly total precipitation (rain, sleet, hail, snow, etc.). Data is supplied by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). Data may be provisional and/or estimated when used to compute annual total and long-term average precipitation values.

viii

Numbering System for Wells and Surface-Water Sites

Wells by Latitude and Longitude

The U.S. Geological Survey well-numbering system is based on the grid system of latitude and longitude. The system provides the geographic location of the well and a unique number for each site. The number consists of 15 digits. The first six digits denote the degrees, minutes, and seconds of latitude, and the next seven digits denote degrees, minutes, and seconds of longitude; the last two digits are a sequential number for wells within a 1-second grid. In the event that the latitude-longitude coordinates for a well are the same, a sequential number such as “01,” “02,” and so forth, would be assigned. Even though the site number is based on latitude and longitude, it may not reflect the accurate location of the site. When error corrections or new technology locate a site more accurately, latitude-longitude coordinates will change but the site number will not. In addition to the well number that is based on latitude and longitude for each well, another well number is assigned based on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management system of land subdivision.

C

AB

38°42'15"

14"

38°42'13"

Coordinates for wells B (384213112193801) and C (384213112193802) 11

2°19

'39"

112°

19'3

7"38"

Coordinates for wellA (384213112193701)

ix

Wells by the Cadastral System of Land Subdivision

The well-numbering system used in Utah is based on the Cadastral system of land subdivision. The well-numbering system is familiar to most water users in Utah, and the well number shows the location of the well by quadrant, township, range, section, and position within the section. Well numbers for most of the State are derived from the Salt Lake Base Line and Meridian. Well numbers for wells located inside the area of the Uintah Base Line and Meridian are designated in the same manner as those based on the Salt Lake Base Line and Meridian, with the addition of the “U” preceding the parentheses. Well numbers for wells located in half ranges will have an additional “R” preceding the parentheses.

Surface-Water Sites— Downstream Order and Station Number

Since October 1, 1950, hydrologic-station records in U.S. Geological Survey reports have been listed in order of downstream direction along the main stream. All stations on a tributary entering upstream from a main-stream station are listed before that sta-tion. A station on a tributary entering between two main-stream stations is listed between those stations.

As an added means of identification, each hydrologic station and partial-record station has been assigned a station number. These station numbers are in the same downstream order used in this report. In assigning a station number, no distinction is made between partial-record stations and other stations; therefore, the station number for a partial-record station indicates downstream-order position in a list composed of both types of stations. Gaps are consecutive. The complete 8-digit (or 10-digit) number for each station such as 09004100, which appears just to the left of the station name, includes a 2-digit part number “09” plus the 6-digit (or 8-digit) downstream order number “004100.” In areas of high station density, an additional two digits may be added to the station identification number to yield a 10-digit number. The stations are numbered in downstream order as described above between stations of consecutive 8-digit numbers.

dc

da

Well

b a

1 mile1.6 kilometers

T.18S.

123456

121110987

131415161718

242322212019

252627282930

363534333231

6 miles9.7 kilometers

B

C D

A

Mer

idia

nLa

keS

alt

Salt LakeCity

Well

c

Salt Lake Base Line

b

R. 6 W. Section 8Tracts within a sectionSections within a township

(C-18-6)8cbb-1

b a

c d

T. 18 S., R. 6 W.Area of UintahBase Line andMeridian

C DB A

Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

By Carole B. Burden and others U.S. Geological Survey

Introduction This is the fiftieth in a series of annual reports that describe

groundwater conditions in Utah. Reports in this series, published cooperatively by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights, and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality, provide data to enable interested parties to maintain awareness of changing groundwater conditions.

This report, like the others in the series, contains information on well construction, groundwater withdrawals from wells, water-level changes, precipitation, streamflow, and chemical quality of water. Information on well construction included in this report refers only to wells constructed for new appropriations of groundwater. Supplementary data are included in reports of this series only for those years or areas that are important to a discussion of changing groundwater conditions and for which applicable data are available.

This report includes individual discussions of selected significant areas of groundwater development in the State for calendar year 2012. Most of the reported data were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights, and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality. This report is also available online at http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/techinfo/ and http://ut.water.usgs.gov/publications/GW2013.pdf. Groundwater conditions in Utah for calendar year 2011 are reported in Burden and others (2012) and available online at http://ut.water.usgs.gov/publications/GW2012.pdf.

Utah’s Groundwater Reservoir Small amounts of groundwater can be obtained from wells

throughout most of Utah, but large amounts that are of suitable chemical quality for irrigation, public supply, or industrial use generally can be obtained only in specific areas. The areas of groundwater development discussed in this report are shown on figure 1 and in table 1. Relatively few wells outside of these areas yield large amounts of groundwater of suitable chemical quality for the uses listed above, although some basins in western Utah and many areas in eastern Utah have not been explored sufficiently to determine their potential for groundwater development.

Most wells in Utah yield water from unconsolidated basin-fill deposits. These deposits may consist of boulders, gravel, sand, silt, or clay, or a mixture of some or all of these materials. The largest yields are obtained from coarse-grained materials that are sorted into deposits of uniform grain size. Most wells that yield water from unconsolidated deposits are in large intermountain basins that have been partly filled with rock materials eroded from adjacent mountains.

A small percentage of wells in Utah yield water from consolidated-rock (bedrock) aquifers. Consolidated rocks that have the highest yield are basalt, which contains interconnected vesicular openings, fractures, or permeable weathered zones at the tops of lava flows; limestone, which contains fractures or other openings enlarged by solution; and sandstone, which contains open fractures. Most wells that penetrate consolidated rock are in the eastern and southern parts of the State in areas where water cannot be obtained readily from unconsolidated deposits.

2 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

Summary of Conditions The total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Utah

during 2012 was about 1,060,000 acre-feet (table 2), which is about 215,000 acre-feet more than the revised total for 2011 and 145,000 acre-feet more than the 2002–2011 average annual withdrawal (table 3). The increase in withdrawal resulted mostly from increased irrigation and public-supply use. The total estimated withdrawal for irrigation was about 574,000 acre-feet, which is about 116,000 acre-feet more than the revised total for 2011. Withdrawal for public-supply use was about 309,000 acre-feet, which is 84,000 acre-feet more than in 2011. Withdrawal for industrial use was about 113,000 acre-feet, which is 15,000 acre-feet more than the value for 2011. Withdrawal for domestic and stock use was about 64,000 acre-feet, which is the same as in 2011.

From 2011 to 2012, groundwater withdrawal increased in 15 of the 16 areas of groundwater development discussed in this report (table 2). Withdrawal in Salt Lake Valley increased about 41,000 acre-feet, the largest increase in any of the groundwater development areas shown on figure 1. Withdrawal in the central Sevier Valley decreased about 3,000 acre-feet, the only decrease in any of the areas. The 2012 total withdrawal was more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 in 13 of the 16 areas (tables 2 and 3).

The amount of water withdrawn from wells is related to demand and availability of water from other sources, which, in turn, are partly related to local climatic conditions.

Precipitation during calendar year 2012 at 22 of 27 weather stations included in this report (Western Region Climate Center, 2012), was less than the long-term average. The greatest decrease in precipitation from average was 6.7 inches at Pineview Dam. The greatest increase in precipitation from average was 1.8 inches at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport.

During February and March 2013, about 640 water-level measurements were made in wells for areas included in this report. Most water-level data included in the hydrographs in this report are from measurements made during February and March, but may include some water-level measurements made in April and May. Many of the wells in this report have additional water-level measurements made throughout the year which are not included in this report. All water-level data are available online at http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ut/nwis/gwlevels.

In 2012, 310 wells were constructed for new appropriations of groundwater, as determined by the Utah Division of Water Rights (table 2); this is 45 more wells than the total reported for 2011. In 2012, 22 large-diameter wells (12 inches or more) were constructed for new appropriations of groundwater (table 2), which is 1 more than the total reported for 2011. These new wells are used principally for withdrawal of water for public supply, irrigation, and industrial purposes.

Summary of Conditions 3

Figure 1. Areas of groundwater development in Utah specifically referred to in this report.

4

32

1

6

7

8

1212

15

1010

1711

13 18

19

2828

3535

3636272626

33333131

3232

2323 2222

2424 20

2121

25a 25b25b

14a

14b

14c

5

30

16a

16b16c

9

29a29a

29b29b

3737

3838

3434

WASHINGTON

IRON

KANE

GARFIELD

BEAVER PIUTE WAYNE

SAN JUAN

CARBON

SANPETE

GRANDEMERY

SEVIER

UTAH

DUCHESNE UINTAH

WASATCH

JUAB

MILLARD

BOX ELDER

TOOELE

CACHE

RICH

WEBER

SUMMIT

MORGAN

DAVIS

DAGGETT

Cedar City

Enterprise

Green River

Richfield

St GeorgeKanab

ParowanPanguitch

Beaver Junction

Bluff

Blanding

Monticello

Moab

CastleDale

Price

Milford Loa

Fillmore

DeltaManti

Vernal

Duchesne

ManilaCoalville

Heber City

Park City

Provo

Nephi

Tooele

Salt Lake City

Farmington

Morgan

Ogden

Brigham City

Logan Randolph

114° 113° 112°42° 111°

41°

40°

39°

38°

37°

109°110°

LakePowell

SevierLake

UtahLake

Flaming GorgeReservoir

Great Salt Lake

BearLake

Dirty

River

Rive

r

River

Colorado

Devil

Muddy

Creek

RiverFremont

Escalante

Rive

r

Sevie

r

River

Virgin River

Paria

River

San

RiverJuan

SanRafael

Price

River

Gre

enRi

ver

JordanRiver Duchesne

River

Fork

Lake

Uinta

River

Rive

r

Green

River

White

Bear

Rive

r

Bear

River

River

Colora

do

0

0 20

20

40

40

60 KILOMETERS

60 MILES

EXPLANATIONArea of significant groundwater development—

Withdrawals greater than about 20,000 acre-feet per year. Numbers refer to tables 1, 2, and 3

Area of less significant groundwater development— Withdrawals less than about 20,000 acre-feet per year. Numbers refer to table 1

5

7


Table 1. Areas of groundwater development in Utah specifically referred to in this report.[Do., ditto]

Number in figure 1

Area Principal types of water-bearing lithologies

1 Grouse Creek Valley Unconsolidated deposits2 Park Valley area Do.3 Curlew Valley Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits4 Lower Bear River area Unconsolidated deposits5 Cache Valley Do.6 Bear Lake Valley Do.7 Upper Bear River area Do.8 Ogden Valley Do.9 East Shore area Do.

10 Salt Lake Valley Do.11 Park City area Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits12 Tooele Valley Do.13 Rush Valley Do.14a Skull Valley Unconsolidated deposits14b Dugway area Do.14c Old River Bed Do.15 Cedar Valley, Utah County Do.

16a Northern Utah Valley Do.16b Southern Utah Valley Do.16c Goshen Valley Do.17 Heber Valley Do.18 Duchesne River area Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits19 Vernal area Do.20 Sanpete Valley Do.21 Juab Valley Unconsolidated deposits22 Central Sevier Valley Do.

23 Pahvant Valley Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits

24 Sevier Desert Unconsolidated deposits25a Snake Valley Do.25b West Desert Do.26 Escalante Valley, Milford area Do.27 Beaver Valley Do.28 Monticello area Consolidated deposits29a Spanish Valley Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits29b Upper Colorado River area Do.30 Blanding-Bluff area Consolidated-rock deposits31 Parowan Valley Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits32 Cedar Valley, Iron County Unconsolidated deposits33 Escalante Valley, Beryl-Enterprise area Do.34 Central Virgin River area Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits35 Upper Sevier River area Unconsolidated deposits36 Upper Fremont River Valley Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits37 Kanab area Consolidated-rock deposits38 Cove Fort area Unconsolidated deposits

Summary of Conditions 5

Table 2. Number of wells constructed and estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Utah, 2012.

AreaNumber

in figure 1

Number of wells1 constructed in 2012 Estimated withdrawal from wells, in acre-feet (rounded)

TotalDiameter

of 12 inches or more

2012

2011 total 2, 6

Irrigation Industrial1 Public supply1

Domestic and stock Total

Curlew Valley 3 2 1 41,400 0 200 100 42,000 32,000

Cache Valley 5 32 0 17,300 5,600 13,600 2,000 38,000 30,000

East Shore area 9 4 2 7,000 3,800 30,600 5,000 46,000 37,000

Salt Lake Valley 10 5 3 600 337,000 107,400 22,000 167,000 126,000

Tooele Valley 12 10 0 4,514,200 800 13,500 1,200 30,000 21,000

Utah and Goshen Valleys 16 17 1 35,300 11,200 58,900 16,700 122,000 690,000

Northern Utah Valley7 16a 2 0 (4,600) (7,400) (43,600) (8,100) (63,700) (645,400)

Southern Utah Valley7 16b 15 1 (9,400) (3,800) (15,200) (8,500) (36,900) (28,100)

Goshen Valley7 16c 0 0 (21,300) (0) (100) (100) (21,500) (16,900)

Juab Valley 21 4 1 26,900 90 8450 400 28,000 15,000

Sevier Desert 24 6 0 17,000 3,800 1,600 1,200 24,000 20,000

Central Sevier Valley 22 19 1 23,200 8 2,800 1,500 28,000 31,000

Pahvant Valley 23 4 0 113,300 0 880 320 114,000 89,000

Cedar Valley, Iron County 32 2 1 29,700 100 7,500 2,400 40,000 34,000

Parowan Valley 31 4 0 936,900 200 300 350 38,000 32,000

Escalante Valley

Milford area 26 6 4 44,700 1021,400 700 140 67,000 53,000

Beryl-Enterprise area 33 10 4 86,500 113,800 550 650 91,000 84,000

Central Virgin River area 34 6 0 7,100 640 18,400 2,400 29,000 28,000

Other areas12, 13 179 4 72,800 24,600 51,600 7,500 156,000 123,000

Total 310 22 574,000 113,000 309,000 64,000 1,060,000 6845,0001 Data provided by Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights.2 From Burden and others (2012, table 2).3 Includes some use for air conditioning, about 2,700 acre-feet. About 94 percent was injected back into the aquifer.4 Includes some domestic and stock use.5 Includes some flowing well discharge.6 Revised.7 Numbers for Northern Utah Valley, Southern Utah Valley, and Goshen Valley, presented within parentheses, are a subtotal of withdrawal.8 Previously included some springs.9 Includes some stock use.10 Includes 18,900 acre-feet for geothermal power generation. About 99 percent was injected back into the aquifer.11 Includes 2,810 acre-feet for heating greenhouses. About 95 percent was injected back into the aquifer.12 Withdrawal totals are estimated minimum. See “Other Areas” section of this report for withdrawal estimates for other areas (table 4).13 Includes withdrawals for upper Sevier Valley and upper Fremont River Valley that were included with central Sevier Valley in reports prior to number 31 of this series.


Table 3. Total annual withdrawal of water from wells in significant areas of groundwater development in Utah, 2002–2011.

AreaNumber

in figure 1

Thousands of acre-feet1

(rounded)2002–2011average

(rounded)2012

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Curlew Valley 3 238 42 38 29 31 38 44 34 39 32 37 42

Cache Valley 5 33 27 27 29 31 36 34 31 33 30 31 38

East Shore area 9 49 49 46 41 46 52 54 46 43 37 46 46

Salt Lake Valley 10 2140 130 125 110 131 151 135 137 140 126 133 167

Tooele Valley 12 21 22 21 218 221 227 228 25 24 21 23 30

Utah and Goshen Valleys 16 2111 2108 2105 287 299 126 2120 2105 2106 290 105 122

Northern Utah Valley3 16a (264) (268) (266) (246) (58) (72) (267) (260) (258) (245) (60) (64)

Southern Utah Valley3 16b (36) (33) (30) (31) (29) (38) (34) (30) (31) (28) (32) (37)

Goshen Valley3 16c (11) (7) (9) (10) (12) (16) (19) (15) (17) (17) (13) (21)

Juab Valley 21 29 27 26 14 21 26 26 21 22 15 23 28

Sevier Desert 24 36 28 41 24 20 34 44 48 46 20 34 24

Central Sevier Valley 22 11 15 15 17 16 19 24 27 26 31 20 28

Pahvant Valley 23 89 86 85 80 86 89 94 104 106 89 91 114

Cedar Valley, Iron County 32 42 39 40 30 35 40 40 38 38 34 38 40

Parowan Valley 31 39 31 37 27 33 34 38 37 34 32 34 38

Escalante Valley

Milford area 26 52 50 44 40 45 49 51 56 62 53 50 67

Beryl-Enterprise area 33 99 92 98 68 79 92 93 93 90 84 89 91

Central Virgin River area 34 27 28 26 29 32 33 29 33 29 28 29 29

Other areas 131 128 129 111 130 155 144 130 134 123 132 156

Total (rounded) 2947 2902 2903 2754 2856 21,001 2998 2965 2972 2845 915 1,0601 From previous reports in this series.2 Revised. 3 Numbers for Northern Utah Valley, Southern Utah Valley, and Goshen Valley, presented within parentheses, are a subtotal of withdrawal.

Major Areas of Groundwater Development 7

Major Areas of Groundwater Development

Curlew Valley

By Adam S. Birkin The Curlew Valley drainage basin extends across the

Utah-Idaho state line and includes the communities of Cedar Creek, Kelton, and Snowville (fig. 2). The valley is bounded on the west and east by the Raft River and Hansel Mountains, which range in altitude from about 6,500 to nearly 10,000 feet. The valley is open to the south, where water draining from it enters Great Salt Lake.

The Utah part of Curlew Valley (Utah subbasin) covers about 550 square miles in Box Elder County. It is an arid to semiarid, largely uninhabited area, with a community center at Snowville. Average annual precipitation in the Utah subbasin is less than 8 inches on the valley floor, and is substantially more in the surrounding mountains.

The principal source of water in Curlew Valley is ground-water. The groundwater reservoir is primarily composed of confined aquifers in alluvial and lacustrine basin-fill deposits and volcanic rocks. These formations yield several hundred to several thousand gallons of water per minute to individual large-diameter irrigation wells west of Snowville and near Kelton.

Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Curlew Valley in 2012 was about 42,000 acre-feet, which is 10,000 acre-feet more than the value for 2011 and 5,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3).

The location of wells in Curlew Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 2.

The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oakley, Idaho (replaces Grouse Creek, which has been discontinued), to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells is shown in figure 3.

Precipitation at Oakley, Idaho in 2012 was about 11.1 inches, which is 2.2 inches less than in 2011 and 0.1 inch more than the average annual precipitation for 1930–2012.

Water levels in Curlew Valley generally rose or declined less than about 1 foot from March 2012 to March 2013, except for three wells with declines of up to about 9.4 feet. These large declines were observed in two wells west of Snowville and one well north of Kelton, and were probably the result of large localized withdrawals.

The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from well (B-12-11)8abb-1, 3 miles north of Kelton, and well (B-14-9)5bbb-1, 10 miles west of Snowville, from 1972–2011 and 1971–2012, respectively, is shown in figure 3. The dissolved-solids concentration in water from well (B-14-9)5bbb-1 increased slightly from September 2011 to July 2012. Well (B-12-11)8abb-1 was not sampled in 2012. Dissolved-solids concentrations in water from both wells have generally increased since the early 1970s.


Great Salt LakeGreat Salt Lake

LocomotiveSprings

T.14N.

T.15N.

T.13N.

T.12N.

T.11N.

R. 8 W.R. 9 W.R. 10 W.R. 11 W.

Tenmile

Creek

Dee

pCr

eek

Deep

Creek

Pilot Spring

Crystal Spring

EmigrantSpring

C U R L E W V A L L E Y

West Lake

East Lake

30

42

30

84

30Cedar Creek

Snowville

Kelton

9

64

710 8

1

52

3

(2)

IDAHOUTAH

Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983

42°00'

MO

UN

TAIN

SRI

VER

RAFT

113°00'

CurlewJunction

112°45'

MOUNTA

INS

HANSEL

CEDARHILL

WILD

CAT HILL

SBLACK BUTTE

41°45'

Mud flat

Mud flat

Mud flat

Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation well—Number in parentheses

refers to number of wells at that siteObservation well with corresponding

hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 3

Spring

EXPLANATION

1

0 5 Kilometers

5 Miles0 1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4(2)

Figure 2. Location of wells in Curlew Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013.


WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E1

2

3

4

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

125

115

120

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

88

86

85

84 5

87WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E(B-12-9)30cda-1414411112543701

(B-12-11)5bbb-1414813113075401

(B-14-8)5ddd-1415757112455901

(B-13-10)11dcd-1415151112565001

(B-13-10)34ddc-1414818112575001

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

140

130

160

150

180

170

60

80

100

120

No record

27

26

25

24

23

Figure 3. Relation of water level in selected wells in Curlew Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oakley, Idaho, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.


6

7

8

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

253

250

249

190

160

150

210

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

251

252

254

255

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

No record

170

180

200

230

225

210

215

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

9

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

10

220

(B-13-11)10cdc-1415151113052401

(B-14-9)7bbb-1415754112551301

(B-14-9)9add-1415703112514501

(B-14-8)1ddd-1415810112412001

(B-14-10)15bbc-1415654112584501

60

56

58

54

52

50

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

164

162

168

166

172

170

160

Figure 3. Relation of water level in selected wells in Curlew Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oakley, Idaho, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.—Continued


Oakley, Idaho1930–2012 average annual precipitation 11.0 inches

400

800

600

200

CO

NC

EN

TRAT

ION

OF

DIS

SO

LVE

D S

OLI

DS

, IN

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PE

R L

ITE

R

Sum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance


WIT

HD

RAW

AL,

IN T

HO

US

AN

DS

OF

AC

RE

-FE

ET

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

50

0

25

1963–2012 average annual withdrawal28,000 acre-feet

(B-12-11)8abb-14147101130716013 miles north of Kelton

(B-14-9)5bbb-141584711254040110 miles west of Snowville

+10

-10

-20

-30

-40

0

2,400

2,800

3,200

2,000

1,600

1,200

800

1,000

1,200

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

No record

Not sampled in 2012

Figure 3. Relation of water level in selected wells in Curlew Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oakley, Idaho, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.—Continued


Cache Valley

By V. Noah DerrickCache Valley covers about 450 square miles in Cache

County where it is bounded on the east by the Bear River Range and on the southwest by the Wellsville Mountains (fig. 4). Groundwater occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits in the valley, under both water-table and artesian conditions. Recharge to the groundwater system occurs principally along the margins of the valley, and groundwater moves toward the center of the valley and west toward Cache Junction.

Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Cache Valley in 2012 was about 38,000 acre-feet, which is 8,000 acre-feet more than in 2011 and 7,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). Withdrawal for irrigation was 17,300 acre-feet, of which an estimated 12,000 acre-feet was from flowing wells. Irrigation withdrawals were about 3,900 acre-feet more than in 2011. Withdrawal for public supply was 13,600 acre-feet, 5,300 acre-feet more than in 2011.

The location of wells in Cache Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 4. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to total annual discharge of the Logan River near Logan, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Logan, Utah State University, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (A-13-1)29bcd-1 is shown in figure 5.

Total discharge of the Logan River (combined flow from the Logan River above State Dam, near Logan, and Logan, Hyde Park, and Smithfield Canal at Head, near Logan) during 2012 was about 140,000 acre-feet, which is 184,000 acre-feet less than the 2011 total of 324,000 acre-feet and 41,000 acre-feet less than the 1941–2012 average annual discharge. Precipitation at Logan, Utah State University, was about 15.7 inches in 2012. This is about 7.8 inches less than for 2011 and about 2.6 inches less than the average annual precipitation for 1930–2012.

Water levels throughout the valley generally declined from March 2012 to March 2013. Declines are probably the result of increased withdrawals for irrigation and public-supply use, and less-than-average precipitation. Water levels have fluctuated over the entire period of record, as far back as 1935 in many cases, depending on the amount and timing of precipitation and recharge to the unconsolidated deposits from snowmelt runoff.

The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected during 1970 to 2012 from well (A-13-1)29bcd-1, located 1.5 miles west of Smithfield, is shown in figure 5. The concentration has ranged from 223 to 278 mg/L, with a median value of 258 mg/L. The water sample collected in August 2012 had a dissolved-solids concentration of 265 mg/L, slightly greater than the median value.


T. 14 N.

R. 1 E.

R. 1 W.

T. 9 N.

T. 10 N.

T. 11 N.

T. 12 N.

R. 2 W.

T. 13 N.

CACHE COUNTY

BOX ELDER COUNTY

UTAH

IDAHO

Bear

River

Cub

Rive

r

CacheCanal

LoganRiver

River

Bear

Little

RiverBear

Little

CutlerReservoir

MantuaReservoir

HyrumReservoir

89

165

23

10189

91

89

218

142

23

61

10

30

Paradise

Wellsville

Mendon

Logan

Hyrum

Providence

Hyde Park

CacheJunction

Newton

Smithfield

RichmondClarkston

CornishLewiston

Fork

Blacksmith

7

8

2 1

9

3

10

4

6

5

(2)

Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding

hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 5. Number in parentheses refers to number of wells at that site

VALL

EY

RAN

GE

CACH

E

RIVE

RB

EAR

MOUN

TAINS

WELLSVILLE

41°30'

42°00'112°00' 111°52'30''

0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers

0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

EXPLANATION

8 (2)


Figure 4. Location of wells in Cache Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013.

14 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013 W

ATE

R L

EV

EL,

IN F

EE

T B

ELO

WLA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

140

130

120

110 1

2

3

4

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

0

5

10

15

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

0

15

20

5

10

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

20

10

5

0 5

15

(A-11-1)27cdc-1413924111493501

(B-11-1)35cca-1413840111552601

(A-12-1)17daa-1414642111511401

(B-12-1)8cdb-2414721111590001

(A-13-1)29adc-1415023111512901

10

12

14

16

18

20

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

No record

No record

Figure 5. Relation of water level in selected wells in Cache Valley to total annual discharge of the Logan River near Logan, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Logan, Utah State University, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (A-13-1)29bcd-1.


6

7

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

14

18

24

26W

ATE

R L

EV

EL,

IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

E O

RB

ELO

W (-

) LA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

11

8

7

10

22

20

16

No record

9

(B-13-1)30acc-1415008111593901

(A-14-1)22bad-1415638111493601

(B-15-1)34ccc-1415926111571301

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

25

30

35

40

45(A-12-1)31dab-2414409111523502

3530

25

20

1510

5

0

WAT

ER L

EVEL

,IN

FEE

T BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E (A-12-1)3bbb-1414857111495801

10

9

8

15

10

5

0

-5

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 5. Relation of water level in selected wells in Cache Valley to total annual discharge of the Logan River near Logan, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Logan, Utah State University, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (A-13-1)29bcd-1.—Continued


10109001 Combined discharge of Logan River above State Damand Logan, Hyde Park and Smithfield Canalat Head, near Logan, Utah

DIS

CH

AR

GE

,IN

TH

OU

SA

ND

SO

F A

CR

E-F

EE

T

0

300

400

500

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

-75

-25

+25

20

30

40

0

10

CO

NC

EN

TRAT

ION

OF

DIS

SO

LVE

D S

OLI

DS

, IN

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PE

R L

ITE

R

260

280

220

200

0

-50

240

100

WIT

HD

RAW

AL,

IN T

HO

US

AN

DS

OF

AC

RE

-FE

ET

(A-13-1)29bcd-14150201115204011.5 miles west of Smithfield


Logan, Utah State University1930–2012 average annual precipitation 18.3 inches


1941–2012 averageannual discharge181,000 acre-feet

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 5. Relation of water level in selected wells in Cache Valley to total annual discharge of the Logan River near Logan, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Logan, Utah State University, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (A-13-1)29bcd-1.—Continued


East Shore Area

By Martel J. FisherThe East Shore area is in north-central Utah between the

Wasatch Range and Great Salt Lake within Davis, Weber, and Box Elder Counties (fig. 6). Groundwater occurs in unconsoli-dated basin-fill deposits under both water-table and artesian conditions, but most of the water withdrawn by wells is from the artesian aquifers. Water enters the artesian aquifers along the contact between the Wasatch Range and the eastern edge of the basin-fill deposits, and generally moves westward toward Great Salt Lake.

Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in the East Shore area in 2012 was about 46,000 acre-feet, which is 9,000 acre-feet more than was reported for 2011 and the same as the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). Withdrawal for public supply was 30,600 acre-feet in 2012, about 9,600 acre-feet more than in 2011. Withdrawal for irri-gation was about 7,000 acre-feet, which is 200 acre-feet less than was reported for 2011. Withdrawal for industrial use was about 3,800 acre-feet, which was the same as in 2011.

The location of wells in the East Shore area in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 6. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average annual precipi-tation at Pineview Dam, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (B-4-2)27aba-1 is shown in figure 7.

Precipitation at Pineview Dam in 2012 was about 23.9 inches, which is about 6.7 inches less than the average annual precipitation for 1949–2012 and about 13.8 inches less than in 2011.

Water levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 in most of the wells measured in the East Shore area. Declines are probably due to increased withdrawal for public-supply use and less-than-average precipitation. Water levels have gen-erally declined since the mid-1980s in wells south of Kaysville in the East Shore area and have generally declined since the mid-1950s in wells north of Kaysville.

The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from well (B-4-2)27aba-1, 2.3 miles south-southeast of Syracuse, from 1969 to 2012, is shown in figure 7. The median concentration during this period was 399 mg/L. From 1969 to 1993, dissolved-solids concentration in water samples ranged from 287 to 633 mg/L. Dissolved-solids concentration in water samples collected from 1995 to 2012 were much less variable, ranging from 362 to 399 mg/L. The dissolved-solids concentration in the water sample collected in June 2012 (367 mg/L) was similar to the median concentration.


R 1 W R. 1 E.T. 1 N.

T. 2 N.

T. 3 N.

T. 4 N.

T. 5 N.

T. 6 N.

T. 7 N.

T. 8 N.

Web

er

Rive

r

Ogden River

Weber

River

River

Jordan

WillardReservoirWillard

ReservoirWillard BayWillard Bay

Great Salt Lake

Great Salt Lake

FarmingtonBay

FarmingtonBay

SALT LAKE COUNTY

MORGAN COUNTY

DAVIS COUNTY

BOX ELDER COUNTY

WEBER COUNTY

WEBER COUNTY

DAVIS COUNTY

15

126

89

84

15

89

89

134

134

108

273

Willard

Plain CityNorth

Ogden

West Warren

Ogden

RoyHooper

Sunset

WestPoint

Clearfield

Syracuse

Hill Air ForceBase

Layton

Kaysville

Farmington

Centerville

Bountiful

WoodsCross

3

2

1

5

4

7

8

10

9

11

12

6

RANGE

WASATCH

112°00'112°15'

41°15'

41°00' AntelopeIsland

Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 7

EXPLANATION

12

0 5 Kilometers

5 Miles0 1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4


R 2 WR 3 W

Figure 6. Location of wells in the East Shore area in which the water level was measured during March 2013.


WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

10

30

50

60 1

2

3

4

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

140

130

110

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

210

150

180

120

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

No record

160

190

200

170

40

20

25

15

10 5

20

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E(B-2-1)13aab-1405449111533701

(A-2-1)31cca-1405135111531501

(B-2-1)24bad-10405351111540801

(B-3-1)1bbc-1410145111543001

(B-3-1)15aab-1410007111555801

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

(B-2-1)24bad-3405351111540803

30

20

10

0

40

Figure 7. Relation of water level in selected wells in the East Shore area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Pineview Dam, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (B-4-2)27aba-1.


6

7

8

-50

0

25

25

75

0

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

150

-25

-75

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

50

0

50

100

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,

IN F

EE

T A

BO

VE

OR

BE

LOW

(-) L

AN

D S

UR

FAC

E

0

10

30

50

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

9

20

40

10

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L, I

N F

EE

T A

BO

VE

OR

BE

LOW

(-) L

AN

D S

UR

FAC

E

(B-4-1)30bba-1410337112000501

(B-4-2)20ada-1410410112050001

(B-6-2)5acb-2411717112053301

(B-5-2)33ddc-1410704112040001

(B-6-2)26ada-1411348112013601

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 7. Relation of water level in selected wells in the East Shore area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Pineview Dam, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (B-4-2)27aba-1.—Continued


150

125

17530

60

50

40

11

12

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

-75

0

-25

-50

WIT

HD

RAW

AL,

IN T

HO

US

AN

DS

OF

AC

RE

-FE

ET

400

600

800

200

100

0

50

25


CO

NC

EN

TRAT

ION

OF

DIS

SO

LVE

D S

OLI

DS

, IN

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PE

R L

ITE

R(B-7-1)34caa-1411755111561801


(B-8-2)23cdb-1412439112021601

Pineview Dam1949–2012 average annualprecipitation 30.6 inches

+25

(B-4-2)27aba-14103401120300012.3 miles south-southeast of Syracuse

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 7. Relation of water level in selected wells in the East Shore area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Pineview Dam, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (B-4-2)27aba-1.—Continued


Salt Lake Valley

By Christopher M. HoltSalt Lake Valley covers about 400 square miles between

the Wasatch Range and the Oquirrh and Traverse Mountains in Salt Lake County (fig. 8). Groundwater occurs in unconsolidated deposits in the valley under water-table and artesian conditions. Recharge to the aquifers occurs mainly along the area where the mountains border the valley. In the southwestern part of the valley, groundwater moves from the base of the Oquirrh Mountains eastward toward the Jordan River. In the northwestern part of the valley, the direction of movement is mostly toward Great Salt Lake. In the eastern half of the valley, groundwater moves westward from the base of the Wasatch Range toward the Jordan River. The Jordan River drains both surface water and groundwater from the valley.

Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Salt Lake Valley in 2012 was about 167,000 acre-feet, which is 41,000 acre-feet more than in 2011 and 34,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). Withdrawal for public supply was about 107,400 acre-feet, which is 31,300 acre-feet more than the total for 2011. Withdrawal for industrial use was about 37,000 acre-feet, which is 9,600 acre-feet more than the total for 2011.

The location of wells in Salt Lake Valley in which the water level was measured during February 2013 is shown in figure 8. Estimated population of Salt Lake County, total annual withdrawal from wells, annual withdrawal for public supply, and average annual precipitation at the Salt Lake City Weather Service Office (International Airport) are shown in figure 9. Precipitation at Salt Lake City during 2012 was about 12.8 inches, about 6.3 inches less than in 2011 and about 2.5 inches less than the average annual precipitation for 1931–2012.

The relation of the water level in selected observation wells completed in the principal aquifer to cumulative departure

from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton, and the relation of the water level in well (D-1-1)7abd-6 to concentration of chloride and dissolved solids in water from the well are shown in figure 10. Precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton was about 36.7 inches in 2012, which is about 8.0 inches less than in 2011 and about 5.7 inches less than the average annual precipitation for 1931–2012.

Water levels declined from February 2012 to February 2013 in most of the wells measured in Salt Lake Valley. Declines are probably the result of increased withdrawal for public supply and industrial use, and less-than-average precipitation. The water level in most of the observation wells was highest during 1985–87, which corresponds to a period of much-greater-than-average precipitation. Levels have generally declined since 1987.

The concentrations of dissolved solids and dissolved chloride (from 1931–2012 and 1935–2012, respectively), in water samples collected from well (D-1-1)7abd-6, a flowing well at 800 South 500 East in Salt Lake City, are shown in figure 10. The concentration of dissolved solids has ranged from 554 to 879 mg/L with a median value of 695 mg/L. The concentration of dissolved solids generally increased from 576 mg/L in December 1931 to 879 mg/L in July 2009. The dissolved-solids concentration in July 2012 (874 mg/L) increased 43 mg/L from July 2011. The dissolved chloride concentration generally increased from 52 mg/L in July 1935 to 194 mg/L in July 2012, with a median value of 120 mg/L. The dissolved chloride concentration increased only slightly (9 mg/L) from August 2011 to July 2012.


Figure 8. Location of wells in Salt Lake Valley in which the water level was measured during February 2013.

SALT

LAKE

VALLEY

Jord

anRi

ver

GreatSaltLake

GreatSaltLake

T. 2 N.

T. 1 N.

T. 1 S.

T. 2 S.

T. 3 S.

T. 4 S.R. 1 E.

R. 1 W.

R. 2 W.

R. 3 W.

SALT LAKE COUNTY

UTAH COUNTY

SALT LAKE COUNTY

DAVIS COUNTY

SALT LAKE COUNTY

TOOELE COUNTY

71

89

111

209

68

48

111

201

215

15

80

186

215

Lark

Herriman

Magna

Kearns

Murray

Holladay

Midvale

Sandy

DraperRiverton

Salt Lake City

Salt Lake City municipal boundary2

5

1

12

3

4

7

6

8

10

9

11

40°45'

112°15'

112°00'

40°30'

1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers0

1 2 3 4 5 Miles0

TRAVERSE

MOUNTAINS

MO

UN

TAIN

SO

QU

IRRH

RAN

GE

WA

SATC

H

Tailings pond

EXPLANATIONApproximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 10

2

111°45'



Figure 9. Estimated population of Salt Lake County, total annual withdrawal from wells, annual withdrawal for public supply, and average annual precipitation at Salt Lake City Weather Service Office (International Airport).

0

1,000

1,200

250

50

200

200

150

0

600

WIT

HD

RAW

AL,

IN T

HO

US

AN

DS

OF

AC

RE

-FE

ET

ES

TIM

ATE

DP

OP

ULA

TIO

N,

IN T

HO

US

AN

DS

400

800

100

30

20

10

0

PR

EC

IPIT

ATIO

N,

IN IN

CH

ES

No record

Salt Lake City Weather Service Office (International Airport)1931–2012 average annual precipitation 15.3 inches

Total annual withdrawal 1931–2012 total average annual withdrawal 100,000 acre-feet Public supply annual withdrawal 1963–2012 average annual withdrawal for public supply 65,600 acre-feet

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015


WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

180

170

150

130 1

2

3

4

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

80

50

40

70WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

160

140

60

No record

5

No record

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,

IN F

EE

T A

BO

VE

OR

BE

LOW

(-) L

AN

D S

UR

FAC

E

(A-1-1)31cac-1404627111532601

(B-1-2)19aca-1404826112062201

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

(D-1-1)16caa-1404356111503901

(C-1-2)22bdd-4404306112031201

-6

-4

-2

8

6

4

2

0

300

290

280

270

260

250(D-2-1)2bbb-3404055111485001

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 10. Relation of water level in selected wells completed in the principal aquifer in Salt Lake Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton, and relation of water level in well (D-1-1)7abd-6 to concentration of chloride and dissolved solids in water from the well.


6

7

8

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

90

60

50

30

10

40

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

100

70

80

100

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

80

60

20

70

90

100

90

70

60

60

50

35

40

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

9

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

10

45

80

55

(D-2-1)21bca-1403803111505301

(C-2-1)13dad-2403833111532802

(D-3-1)18cba-1403330111531601

(C-3-1)1cab-2403511111541501

(C-2-2)9bdb-1403949112043301

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 10. Relation of water level in selected wells completed in the principal aquifer in Salt Lake Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton, and relation of water level in well (D-1-1)7abd-6 to concentration of chloride and dissolved solids in water from the well.—Continued


40

25

15

45

35

11

12

WA

TER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

30

20

WA

TER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

-50

0

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PA

RTU

RE

,IN

INC

HE

S

-100

(C-4-1)3bad-1403020111561901

Silver Lake Brighton1931–2012 average annual precipitation 42.4 inches

+50

0

10

15

5 Flowing well at 800 South 500 East in Salt Lake City

(D-1-1)7abd-6404506111523301

CO

NC

EN

TRA

TIO

N O

FC

HLO

RID

E, I

NM

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

900

600

800

CO

NC

EN

TRA

TIO

N O

FD

ISS

OLV

ED

SO

LID

S, I

NM

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER

700

500

(D-1-1)7abd-6404506111523301Flowing well at 800 South 500 East in Salt Lake City

(D-1-1)7abd-6404506111523301Flowing well at 800 South 500 East in Salt Lake City


1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

No recordNo record

No record

200

160

120

80

40

Figure 10. Relation of water level in selected wells completed in the principal aquifer in Salt Lake Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton, and relation of water level in well (D-1-1)7abd-6 to concentration of chloride and dissolved solids in water from the well.—Continued


Tooele Valley

By Paul DownhourTooele Valley lies between the Stansbury and Oquirrh

Mountains and extends south from Great Salt Lake to South Mountain. The total area of the valley is about 250 square miles within Tooele County (fig. 11). Groundwater occurs in the bedrock and unconsolidated basin-fill deposits in Tooele Valley under both water-table and artesian conditions, but most of the water withdrawn by wells is from artesian aquifers in the unconsolidated deposits.

Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Tooele Valley in 2012 was about 30,000 acre-feet, which is about 9,000 acre-feet more than the total for 2011 and 7,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). Withdrawal for irrigation was about 14,200 acre-feet, which is 3,100 acre-feet more than the total for 2011. Withdrawal for public supply was about 13,500 acre-feet, which is 6,100 acre-feet more than in 2011. Withdrawal for industrial use was about 800 acre-feet, which is 300 acre-feet less than in 2011.

The location of wells in Tooele Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 11. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells

to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Tooele, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentra-tion of dissolved solids in water from well (C-2-4)33bdd-1 is shown in figure 12. Precipitation at Tooele during 2012 was about 15.0 inches, which is about 4.9 inches less than in 2011 and about 2.9 inches less than the average annual precipitation for 1936–2012.

Water levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 in most of the wells measured in Tooele Valley. The largest decline, about 3.2 feet, was observed in a well about 4 miles west of Stansbury Park. Declines are probably the result of increased withdrawals for irrigation and public-supply use, and less-than-average precipitation.

The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples col-lected from well (C-2-4)33bdd-1, located at Erda, from 1977 to 2012, is shown in figure 12. The concentration has ranged from 456 to 616 mg/L with a median value of 509 mg/L. The maximum concentration was measured in the water sample collected during July 2012. The dissolved-solids concentration has generally increased since 1977.


61

36 31

61

36 31

61

36 31

61

36 31

61

36 31

61

36 31

61

36 31

61

36

31

R. 3 W.R. 4 W.R. 5 W.

T 1 S

T 2 S

T 3 S

T 4 S

5

R. 6 W.

V A L L E Y

T O O E L E

Solarevaporation

ponds

Intermittentwaterbody

Intermittentwaterbody

Great Salt LakeGreat Salt Lake

StansburyLake

MillPond

RushLake

Grantsvillereservoir

Creek

Fishing Creek

Sixm

ile

Ezra Taft

Cana

l

Canal

Union Pacific

80

80

201

36

138

112

138

Not measured in 2013Not measured in 2013

1

11

9

8

24

10

3

6

7

Factory DunneSprings

WarmSprings

SixmileSpring

Fishing CreekSpring

Mill Pond Spring

RoseSpring

BigSpring

Boat Harbor

Road

Burm

este

r

MO

UN

TAIN

S

TooeleArmyDepot(TEAD)

MO

UN

TAIN

SO

QU

IRRH

0 5 Miles4321

Tooele


StansburyPark

Stockton

SALT LAKE COUNTY

TOOELE COUNTY

112°15'112°30'

40°45'

Grantsville

40°30'

Lake Point

EXPLANATION

Erda

Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation well—Number in parentheses

refers to number of wells at that siteObservation well with corresponding


STA

NSB

URY

South Mountain


9

(3)

(3)

Figure 11. Location of wells in Tooele Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013.


ATE

R L

EV

EL,

IN F

EE

T A

BO

VE

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

5

15

25 1

2

3

470

50

40

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

0

40

20

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

10

20

60

10

30

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,

IN F

EE

T A

BO

VE

OR

BE

LOW

(-) L

AN

D S

UR

FAC

E

5

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,

IN F

EE

T A

BO

VE

OR

BE

LOW

(-) L

AN

D S

UR

FAC

E(C-2-4)2baa-3404054112155901

(C-2-4)27cdc-1403634112171501

(C-2-4)28aac-1403716112174801

(C-2-4)31ada-1403613112200101

(C-2-5)5acc-3404024112261801

-1

-2

-3

0

1

0

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Not measured in March 2013Not measured in March 2013

Figure 12. Relation of water level in selected wells in Tooele Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Tooele, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-2-4)33bdd-1.


6

7

8

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

240

200

180

220

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

425

400

350

230

220

190

200

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

9

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

10

210

375

(C-2-5)20acc-1403748112261201

6

8

12

10

14

(C-2-6)36dcc-1403539112282901

110

100

90

80

70

(C-3-4)9aaa-1403447112173801

(C-3-4)30aac-1403202112200001

(C-3-5)7dcc-1403350112271801

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 12. Relation of water level in selected wells in Tooele Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Tooele, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-2-4)33bdd-1.—Continued


240

230

210

250+25

-75

-50

11

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

220

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

-25

0

40

0

20

10

30

CO

NC

EN

TRAT

ION

OF

DIS

SO

LVE

D S

OLI

DS

, IN

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PE

R L

ITE

R

No record

WIT

HD

RAW

AL,

IN T

HO

US

AN

DS

OF

AC

RE

-FE

ET

No record

(C-3-5)22dab-1403234112232601

(C-2-4)33bdd-1403629112174801at Erda

Tooele1936–2012 average annual precipitation 17.9 inches


1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

450

400

550

500

650

600


Figure 12. Relation of water level in selected wells in Tooele Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Tooele, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-2-4)33bdd-1.—Continued


Utah and Goshen Valleys

By Lincoln SmithUtah Valley is bounded by the Wasatch Range, West

Mountain, and the northern extension of Long Ridge. The Valley is divided into two groundwater basins, northern and southern, which are separated by Provo Bay in northern Utah Valley (fig. 13). Goshen Valley is bounded by West Mountain, Long Ridge, the Lake Mountains, and the East Tintic Moun-tains (fig. 13). Groundwater in Utah and Goshen Valleys occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits under both water-table and artesian conditions, but most wells discharge from artesian aquifers. The principal groundwater recharge area for the basin-fill deposits is in the eastern part of the valley, along the base of the Wasatch Range.

Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys in 2012 was about 122,000 acre-feet, which is 32,000 acre-feet more than the revised value for 2011, and 17,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). Withdrawal in northern Utah Valley was about 63,700 acre-feet, which is 18,300 acre-feet more than the revised value for 2011. Withdrawal in southern Utah Valley was about 36,900 acre-feet, which is 8,800 acre-feet more than in 2011. Withdrawal in Goshen Valley was about 21,500 acre-feet, which is 4,600 acre-feet more than in 2011. The increase in total pumpage from all three valleys was mainly due to increased withdrawals for public-supply use.

The location of wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 13. Water levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 in most of the wells measured in Utah and Goshen Valleys. Declines are probably due to increased pumpage because of less-than-average precipitation and decreased availability of surface water. Water levels in Utah and Goshen Valleys generally rose in the early 1980s. The rise corresponds to a period of greater-than-average precipitation and recharge from surface water. Water levels generally declined from 1985 to 1993 in Utah Valley and generally rose from 1993 to 1998. This rise is the result of greater-than-average precipitation during this period. Water levels generally declined throughout Utah Valley from March 1999 to March 2005. During this period, water levels in some wells were the lowest on record,

with many dating back to 1935. From March 2005 to March 2007, most water levels in Utah and Goshen Valleys rose as a result of average to greater-than-average precipitation in 2005 and 2006, following 6 years of less-than-average precipitation.

The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton and Spanish Fork Power House, to total annual withdrawal from wells, to annual withdrawal for public supply, to annual discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from three wells is shown in figure 14. Discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla in 2012 was about 159,800 acre-feet, which is 10,600 acre-feet less than the 1933–2012 annual average and 127,700 acre-feet less than in 2011. Precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton in 2012 was about 36.7 inches, which is about 5.7 inches less than the long-term average (1931–2012) and about 8.0 inches less than in 2011. Precipitation at Spanish Fork Power House in 2012 was about 16.2 inches, which is about 3.1 inches less than the long-term average (1930–2012) and about 8.8 inches less than in 2011.

The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from wells (C-9-1)28ccb-1, located 4 miles north of Elberta, (D-7-2)4cbb-2, located 2 miles west of Provo at the mouth of the Provo River, and (D-9-1)36bbc-1, located 1 mile north of Santaquin, is shown in figure 14. The concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-9-1)28ccb-1 has ranged from 498 to 1,550 mg/L with a median value of 716 mg/L. The concentration of dissolved solids in the July 2012 sample (1,550 mg/L), is the maximum value measured in water from this well. The dissolved-solids concentration in water from well (D-7-2)4cbb-2 has ranged from 278 to 539 mg/L with a median value of 321 mg/L. Water collected from this well in July 2012 had a dissolved-solids concentration of 328 mg/L, near the median value. The dissolved-solids concentration in water from well (D-9-1)36bbc-1 has ranged from 153 to 311 mg/L with a median value of 286 mg/L. The concentration of dissolved solids in the July 2012 sample (311 mg/L), is the maximum value measured in water from this well.


PelicanPoint

Utah LakeUtah Lake

GoshenReservoir

GoshenReservoir

JordanJordan

RiverRiver

Provo BayProvo Bay

Gosh

en B

ay

Gosh

en B

ay

VALLEY

UTAH

Spring Creek

Spring CreekAm

eric

anAm

eric

an

Creek

Creek

DryDry

Benjamin

Benjamin

SloughSlough

BeerBeer

CreekCreek

Spanish

SpanishForkFork

CreekCreek

ProvoProvo

Rive

rRi

ver

Currant

Currant

HobbleHobble

ForkFork

SummitSummitCreek

Creek

CreekCreek

146

89

89

92

74

15

156

6

68

147

114

78

73

68

Alpine

AmericanFork

PleasantGrove

Lindon

Lehi

Orem

Benjamin

LakeShore

SpringLake

PaysonSalem

SpanishFork

Palmyra

Mapleton

Springville

Provo

GoshenElberta

Genola

Santaquin

1213

15

(2)

11

9

8

7

4

3

1

(2)

(2)

14

2

6

5

10

T. 4 S.

T. 5 S.

RANG

E

RANGE

WASATCH

TRAVERSE

MOUNTAINS

LAKE

MO

UN

TAIN

S

SALT

LA

KE

MER

IDIA

N

EAST

TIN

TIC

MOU

NTA

INS

LongRidge

GOSH

EN

VALL

EY

WES

TM

OU

NTA

IN

WASATC

H

RANGE

WASATCH

UTAH COUNTYSALT LAKE COUNTY

112°00'


111°45'

R. 1 W.

T. 10 S.

R. 2 E.

R. 3 E.

R. 1 E.

40°00'

T. 9 S.

T. 8 S.

T. 7 S.

T. 6 S.

40°15'

Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation well—Number in parentheses refers to number of wells at that siteObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 14


0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

EXPLANATION

13

(2)

Not measured in 2013Not measured in 2013

Figure 13. Location of wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys in which the water level was measured during March 2013.


1

2

3

4

WA

TER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

400

325

275

250

0

20

30

WA

TER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

10

50

30

300

WA

TER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

350

10

20

40

No record

375

No recordNo record

(D-5-1)8dcc-1402333111513401

5

(D-4-1)36cab-1402550111471801

(C-5-1)13dac-5402246111532701

(D-5-1)20cbc-1402159111520101

25

30

35

40

No record

WA

TER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

(D-5-1)27aac-1402133111484601

5

0

–5

–10

–15

–20

–25–30W

ATE

R L

EV

EL,

IN F

EE

TA

BO

VE

OR

BE

LOW

(–)

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

Not measured in March 2013Not measured in March 2013

Figure 14. Relation of water level in selected wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton and Spanish Fork Power House, to total annual withdrawal from wells, to annual withdrawal for public supply, to annual discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from three wells.


6

7

8

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

190

160

150

0

20

-10

-5

170

180

200

10

20

10

15

5

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,

IN F

EE

T A

BO

VE

OR

BE

LOW

(-) L

AN

D S

UR

FAC

E

0

2

4

10

12

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

8

6

No record

(D-5-2)21cba-1402215111434701

(D-6-2)28bad-1401621111432501

9

10

(D-7-3)33baa-6401021111362701

(D-7-2)34dcd-1400932111415101

60

50

40

30

20

10(D-8-2)25dac-3400527111392401

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

No record

No record

Figure 14. Relation of water level in selected wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton and Spanish Fork Power House, to total annual withdrawal from wells, to annual withdrawal for public supply, to annual discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from three wells.—Continued


11

12

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

130

110

80

70

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

13

14

15

90

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

100

120

(C-9-1)4ddc-1400309111565101

(C-9-1)29acc-1400015111575301

(D-9-1)36bbc-1395942111470801

(D-9-2)2dad-2400341111402101

(C-10-1)31cdd-1395340111590001

05

10

1520

25

3530

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

200

210

220

230

240

250

200210

220

230

240

250

260270

75

80

85

90

95

100



0

200

50

-100

150

0

-50

-75

-25

100

400

300

200

0

DIS

CH

AR

GE

,IN

THO

US

AN

DS

OF

AC

RE

-FE

ET

100

WIT

HD

RAW

AL,

IN T

HO

US

AN

DS

OF

AC

RE

-FE

ET

-100

-50

0

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E, I

N IN

CH

ES

Silver Lake Brighton1931–2012 average annual precipitation 42.4 inches

+50

+25Spanish Fork Power House1930–2012 average annual precipitation 19.3 inches

1933–2012 average annualdischarge 170,400 acre-feet

Total annual withdrawal1963–2012 total average annual withdrawal 99,000 acre-feetPublic supply withdrawal1963–2012 average annual withdrawal for public supply 30,900 acre-feet

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

10150500 Spanish Fork at Castilla, Utah




No record



CO

NC

EN

TRAT

ION

OF

DIS

SO

LVE

D S

OLI

DS

, IN

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PE

R L

ITE

R


(D-7-2)4cbb-24014141114353012 miles west of Provo at mouth of Provo River

(C-9-1)28ccb-13959561115721014 miles north of Elberta

(D-9-1)36bbc-13959421114708011 mile north of Santaquin

No record

1,600

1,200

800

400

No record

300

200

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

500

600

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015


Juab Valley

By Robert J. EacretJuab Valley, in central Utah, is about 30 miles long and

about 4 miles wide. It is bounded on the east side by the Wasatch Range and the San Pitch Mountains, and on the west side by the West Hills and Long Ridge (fig. 15). Groundwater drains from the valley in two directions—in northern Juab Valley it drains north via Currant Creek into Utah Lake, and in southern Juab Valley it drains south via Chicken Creek into the Sevier River. The northern and southern parts of Juab Valley are separated topographically and hydrologically by Levan Ridge, a gentle rise near the midpoint of the valley floor.

Groundwater in Juab Valley occurs in the unconsolidated basin-fill deposits under both water-table and artesian condi-tions; artesian conditions are prevalent in the southern part of the valley. Most of the recharge to the groundwater reservoir occurs on the eastern side of the valley along the Wasatch Range and the San Pitch Mountains. Groundwater moves to discharge points at the northern and southern ends of the valley. The groundwater divide between the northern and southern parts of Juab Valley is near Levan Ridge.

Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Juab Val-ley in 2012 was about 28,000 acre-feet, which is 13,000 acre-feet more than the amount reported for 2011 and 5,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3).

The location of wells in Juab Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 15. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Nephi and to annual withdrawal from wells, is shown in figure 16. Precipitation at Nephi during 2012 was about 10.6 inches, which is about 3.7 inches less than the average annual precipi-tation for 1935–2012, and about 1.8 inches less than in 2011.

Water levels declined in all of the wells measured in Juab Valley from March 2012 to March 2013 (fig. 16). Declines are probably the result of increased withdrawal for irrigation and less-than-average precipitation. Water levels generally rose from 1978 to their highest level in 1985–87. This rise corre-sponds to a period of greater-than-average precipitation during 1978–86. Water levels generally declined from the late 1980s to 2012, although there was a substantial rise from 1993 to 1999.

The concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-14-1)26dbd-1, located 2 miles west of Levan, is shown in figure 16 (this well replaces (C-12-1)24baa-1). The dissolved- solids concentration in two water samples, collected in August 2011 and August 2012, were 772 and 811 mg/L, respectively.


JUA

BVA

LLEY

36 31

1 6

31

1 6

36

1 6

36

16

3631

16

36 31

1 6

36 31

1 6

36

31

16

31

6

31

6

31

6

36 31

1 6

36

31

16

36 31

31

1 6

36 3136 31

UTAH

COU

NTY

JUAB

COU

NTY

Mon

aRe

serv

oir

CurrantCurrant

CreekCreek

ChickenChickenCreekCreek

CreekCreekDeepDeep

CreekCreek

SaltSalt

LittleLittle

Chicken CreekReservoirChicken CreekReservoir

28

15

15

28

132

132Nephi

Mona

Levan

5

1

6

3

4

10

9

7

8

2

SAN

PIT

CH M

OUN

TAIN

SRA

NGE

WA

SATC

HRIDG

E

LON

G

WES

THI

LLS


39°30'

111°45'

T.11S.

T. 15 S.

R. 2 E.

111°55'

39°50'

R. 1 E.R. 1 W.

T. 14 S.

T. 13 S.

T. 12 S.

Levan Peak8,330 feet


0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 16Spring

EXPLANATION

5

T. 10 S.

R. 2 W.

Levan Ridge

MonaReservoir

MonaReservoir

Curra

nt

Curra

ntCr

eek

Cree

k

Figure 15. Location of wells in Juab Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013.


ATE

R L

EV

EL,

IN F

EE

T B

ELO

WLA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

1

2

3

450

30

20

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

40

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

75

25 5

50

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

No record

(C-11-1)24ddd-1395008111524101

(D-13-1)18bbc-1394112111522401

(C-14-1)27aaa-1393418111543701

(C-15-1)12aba-1393143111523301

(D-11-1)4cad-1395259111405701

100

80

60

40

20

2423

25

282726

293031

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

6070

4050

20

30

010

Figure 16. Relation of water level in selected wells in Juab Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Nephi, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-14-1)26dbd-1.


6

7

8

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

60

30

10

50WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

No record

20

40

220

200

140

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

9

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

10

160

180

No record

(D-11-1)17cdd-1395101111510001

(D-12-1)19cdc-1394455111520701

(D-13-1)7bbd-2394204111521901

(D-14-1)6dbb-1393721111514501

(D-14-1)31dab-1393301111512501

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

120140

180

220

160

200

240

260

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

WA

TER

LE

VE

L, IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

E O

R B

ELO

W ( –

)LA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

–25–25

0

25

50

Figure 16. Relation of water level in selected wells in Juab Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Nephi, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-14-1)26dbd-1.—Continued


Figure 16. Relation of water level in selected wells in Juab Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Neph, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-14-1)26dbd-1.—Continued

40

0

10WIT

HD

RAW

AL,

IN T

HO

US

AN

DS

OF

AC

RE

-FE

ET

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

20

30

Station located 5 milessouth-southwest of Nephi prior to 1942

Nephi1935–2012 average annual precipitation 14.3 inches


–25

–50

0

+25C

ON

CE

NTR

ATIO

N O

FD

ISS

OLV

ED

SO

LID

S, I

NM

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER


No record

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

(C-12-1)24baa-13945451115310014.5 miles north-northwest of Nephi

(C-14-1)26dbd-13933421115345012 miles west of Levan

600

650

700

750

800

850

900


Sevier Desert

By Travis L. Gibson The part of the Sevier Desert described here covers about

2,000 square miles in northern Millard and southern Juab Counties (figs. 17 and 18). It principally includes the broad, gently sloping areas that radiate from the Canyon Mountains to the east, the Drum Mountains to the west, and several non-continuous mountains to the north. Groundwater occurs in the Sevier Desert in unconsolidated deposits under water-table and artesian conditions. Most of the groundwater is discharged from wells completed in either of two artesian aquifers—the shallow or deep artesian aquifer. The Sevier River enters the Sevier Desert from the east and is a source of recharge to the aquifers.

Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in the Sevier Desert in 2012 was about 24,000 acre-feet, which is 4,000 acre-feet more than in 2011 and about 10,000 acre-feet less than the 2002-2011 average annual withdrawal (tables 2 and 3). The increase in withdrawals from 2011 to 2012 was mainly due to increased pumpage for irrigation, which coincides with decreased withdrawal of surface water from the Sevier River.

The location of wells in the Sevier Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figures 17 and 18. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to annual discharge of the Sevier River near Juab, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oak City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-15-4)8cba-1 is shown in figure 19.

Discharge of the Sevier River near Juab in 2012 was 261,900 acre-feet, 125,000 acre-feet less than in 2011 and 80,500 acre-feet more than the long-term average (1935–2012). Precipitation at Oak City was about 11.2 inches in 2012, about 1.8 inches less than the 1930–2012 average annual precipitation and about 5.4 inches less than in 2011.

Most water levels in the shallow artesian aquifer rose or declined less than 1 foot from March 2012 to March 2013. These minor changes were probably due to fluctuations in localized pumping. The water level in most wells in the deep artesian aquifer rose from March 2012 to March 2013 in spite of increased groundwater withdrawals, less-than-average precipitation, and decreased discharge of the Sevier River during this period. The rise in water levels may be the result of persistent recharge of the deep artesian aquifer from the greater-than-average precipitation that occurred during the winter of 2010-2011 and less-than-average groundwater withdrawals in 2011. Some water levels declined in the deep artesian aquifer from March 2012 to March 2013. This may have been due to localized groundwater withdrawals for irrigation.

Periods when the water level in the shallow and deep aquifers generally rose (including 1980–89, 1995–99, 2006–07, and since 2010) correspond to greater-than-average precipitation, less-than-average groundwater withdrawals, and greater than average discharge of the Sevier River. Periods when the water level in the shallow and deep aquifers generally declined (including 1988–94, 2001–05, and 2008–10) correspond to less-than-average precipitation, greater-than-average groundwater withdrawals, and less-than-average discharge of the Sevier River.

The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from well (C-15-4)8cba-1, located 2.5 miles east of Lynndyl, from 1958 to 2011, is shown in figure 19. The concentration has ranged from 1,490 to 2,340 mg/L, with a median value of 2,030 mg/L. This well was not sampled in 2012.


Figure 17. Location of wells in the shallow artesian aquifer in part of the Sevier Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013.

Tann

erTa

nner

Cree

kCr

eekCree

kCree

k

Cherry

Cherry

SevierSevier

River

River

CentralCentral UtahUtah CanalCanal

OakOak CreekCreek

BeaverBeaver

RiverRiver

Sevie

rSe

vier

River

River

Fool CreekReservoirFool CreekReservoir

DMADReservoirDMADReservoir

GunnisonBend

Reservoir

GunnisonBend

Reservoir

ClearLakeClearLake

JUAB COUNTY

MILLARD COUNTY

Unio

n Pa

cific

125

174

99

50

257

125

6

6

Leamington

Lynndyl

Oak City

Deseret Oasis

Hinkley

Delta

9

10

87

6

4

2

1

3

5

39°45'

113°00'112°15'

39°15'

DESERTT. 14 S.

T. 17 S.

T. 13 S.

T. 12 S.

T. 15 S.

T. 16 S.

T. 18 S.

SEVIERDRUM

MOUNTAINS

LITTLE DRUM

MOUNTAINS

DESERTMOUNTAIN

KEG

MO

UN

TAIN

GILSONMOUNTAINS

WEST TINTICMOUNTAINS

CAN

YON

MO

UN

TAIN

S

R. 3 W.R. 4 W.R. 5 W.R. 6 W.R. 7 W.R. 8 W.R. 9 W.R. 10 W.R. 11 W.

T. 19 S.


EAST

TIN

TIC

MO

UN

TAIN

S



EXPLANATION

9

0 62 84 10 Kilometers

0 62 84 10 Miles


Tann

erTa

nner

Cree

kCr

eekCree

kCree

k

Cherry

Cherry

SevierSevier

River

River

CentralCentral UtahUtah CanalCanal

OakOak CreekCreek

BeaverBeaver

RiverRiver

Sevie

rSe

vier

River

River

Fool CreekReservoirFool CreekReservoir

DMADReservoirDMADReservoir

GunnisonBend

Reservoir

GunnisonBend

Reservoir

ClearLakeClearLake

JUAB COUNTY

MILLARD COUNTY

Unio

n Pa

cific

125

174

99

50

257

125

6

6

Leamington

Lynndyl

Oak City

Deseret Oasis

Hinkley Delta

5D

4D

2D

3D

1D

39°45'

113°00'112°15'

39°15'

DESERTT. 14 S.

T. 17 S.

T. 13 S.

T. 12 S.

T. 15 S.

T. 16 S.

T. 18 S.

SEVIERDRUM

MOUNTAINS

LITTLE DRUM

MOUNTAINS

DESERTMOUNTAIN

KEG

MO

UN

TAIN

GILSONMOUNTAINS

WEST TINTICMOUNTAINS

CAN

YON

MO

UN

TAIN

S

R. 3 W.R. 4 W.R. 5 W.R. 6 W.R. 7 W.R. 8 W.R. 9 W.R. 10 W.R. 11 W.

T. 19 S.


EAST

TIN

TIC

MO

UN

TAIN

S

EXPLANATION

5D

0 62 84 10 Kilometers

0 62 84 10 Miles


hydrograph—Number with letter ‘D’ refers to deep artesian aquifer hydrograph in figure 19

Figure 18. Location of wells in the deep artesian aquifer in part of the Sevier Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013.


ATE

R L

EV

EL,

IN F

EE

T B

ELO

WLA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

200

180 1

2

3

4

25

15

10

15

5

10

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

210

190

20

220

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

No record

5

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E(C-12-6)15bac-1394700112303501

(C-14-7)1cab-1393758112351701

(C-15-4)8cba-1393154112192901

(C-15-7)23bac-1393020112362201

(C-16-4)18bda-1392555112203001

240

220

260

280

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 19. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Sevier Desert to annual discharge of the Sevier River near Juab, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oak City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-15-4)8cba-1.


6

7

8

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

10

5

20

5

0

5

0

15WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

ENo record

No record

0

10

9

10

10

(C-16-7)1dcd-1392650112345101

(C-16-8)21bcb-1392455112454201

(C-16-8)24baa-1392505112415501

(C-18-6)2bbb-2391714112300301

15

5

0

10

20

15

5

0

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L, IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

E O

R B

ELO

W ( −

)LA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

−25

−20

−15

−10

−5

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

(C-17-8)12bcb-1392121112422401

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 19. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Sevier Desert to annual discharge of the Sevier River near Juab, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oak City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-15-4)8cba-1.—Continued


ATE

R L

EV

EL,

IN F

EE

T B

ELO

WLA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

2D

5

0

40

30

10

50

20

25

10

30

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

15

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

20

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

12

2

10

0

6

8

4

3D

4D

5D

1D(C-15-5)26baa-1392939112224101

(C-16-5)18caa-1392538112270201

(C-16-8)12ddd-2392601112412201

0

10

20

30

40

(C-17-7)12aba-1392129112345101

(C-18-8)24ada-2391420112412001

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

No record

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40WAT

ER

LE

VE

L, IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

E O

R B

ELO

W (−

)LA

ND

SU

RFA

CE



60

20

50

0

40

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

CO

NC

EN

TRAT

ION

OF

DIS

SO

LVE

D S

OLI

DS

, IN

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PE

R L

ITE

R

WIT

HD

RAW

AL,

IN T

HO

US

AN

DS

OF

AC

RE

-FE

ET

30

10

DIS

CH

AR

GE

,IN

TH

OU

SA

ND

SO

F A

CR

E-F

EE

T

1,000

250

750

0

500

(C-15-4)8cba-13931541121929012.5 miles east of Lynndyl


Oak City1930–2012 average annual precipitation 13.0 inches

10219000 Sevier River near Juab, Utah1935–2012 average annual discharge181,400 acre-feet


2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400

2,200

2,400

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

No record

−25

−50

−75

0

+25

Not sampled in 2012



Central Sevier Valley

By Bradley A. Slaugh Central Sevier Valley, located in northern Piute, Sevier,

and southern Sanpete Counties, in south-central Utah, is surrounded by the Sevier and Wasatch Plateaus to the east and the Tushar Mountains, Valley Mountains, and Pahvant Range to the west (fig. 20). Altitude ranges from 5,100 feet on the valley floor at the north end of the valley near Gunnison to more than 12,000 feet in the Tushar Mountains. Groundwater occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits under both water-table and artesian conditions.

Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in central Sevier Valley in 2012 was about 28,000 acre-feet, which is 3,000 acre-feet less than reported for 2011 and 8,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3).

The location of 25 wells in central Sevier Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 20. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to annual discharge of the Sevier River at Hatch, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Richfield, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-23-2)15dcb-4 is shown in figure 21.

Discharge of the Sevier River at Hatch in 2012 was about 65,500 acre-feet, which is about 15,300 acre-feet less than

the 1940–2012 average annual discharge. Precipitation at Richfield Radio KVSC was about 7.7 inches in 2012, which is about 0.4 inch less than the 1950–2012 average annual precipitation and about 3.1 inches less than in 2011.

Water levels in central Sevier Valley generally declined from March 2012 to March 2013. Hydrographs for selected wells show that March water levels generally rose from about 1978 to 1985 and declined from 1985 to about 1993. Since 1993, water levels have fluctuated depending upon the amount and timing of precipitation and recharge to the basin-fill aquifer from snowmelt runoff.

The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from well (C-23-2)15dcb-4, located 0.1 mile south of Sevier River in Venice, from 1955 to 2012, is shown in figure 21. The concentration has ranged from 307 to 630 mg/L, with a median value of 414 mg/L. There were substantial increases and decreases in dissolved-solids concentration during the mid- to late 1960s and 1980s. Dissolved-solids concentrations in samples collected from 1990 through 2012 show little variability and are generally near the median value for all sample concentrations.


SEVI

ERVA

LLEY

T. 16 S.

T. 17 S.

T. 18 S.

T. 19 S.

T. 20 S.

T. 21 S.

T. 22 S.

T. 23 S.

T. 24 S.

T. 25 S.

T. 26 S.

T. 27 S.

T. 28 S.

T. 29 S.

T. 30 S.

R. 1 E.

R. 2 E. R. 3 E. R. 4 E.

R. 1 W.R. 2 W.R. 3 W. R. 2½ W.R. 4 W.

R 3 WR 4 WR 4½ W

CreekCreek

CityCity

Sevier RiverSevier River

Otte

rO

tter

Cre

ekC

reek

ClearClear CreekCreek

BeaverBeaver CreekCreek

MonroeMonroe

CreekCreek

CreekCreek

Gooseberry

Gooseberry

CreekCreek

SalinaSalina

TwelveTwelve MileMile Cree

kCree

k

SixSix MileMile CreekCreek

San

San

Pitc

hPi

tch

Rive

rRi

ver

CreekCreek

LostLost

RiverRiver

SevierSevier

Sevier BridgeReservoir

Sevier BridgeReservoir

GunnisonReservoirGunnisonReservoir

Rocky FordReservoirRocky FordReservoir

KoosharemReservoirKoosharemReservoir

PiuteReservoirPiuteReservoir

Otter CreekReservoirOtter CreekReservoirEast

EastSevierSevier

ForkFork

RiverRiver

28

89

70

50

62

70

89

89

Manti

Kingston

Junction

Marysvale

Sevier

Joseph Monroe

Austin

ElsinoreCentral

RichfieldGlenwood

Venice

Sigurd

Vermillion

Aurora

Salina

Redmond

Axtel

CenterfieldGunnison

FayetteRA

NGE

PAHV

ANT

PLAT

EAU

PLAT

EAU

WAS

ATCH

MO

UN

TAIN

STU

SHAR

SEVI

ER

112°00'

YubaDam

39°15'

111°45'

MO

UN

TAIN

S

SAN

PIT

CHM

OU

NTA

INS

SANP

ETE

111°30'

GUNNISON-SEVIER BRIDGERESERVOIRBASIN

REDMOND-GUNNISONBASIN

VALL

EY

AURORA-REDMONDBASIN

SEVIER-SIGURDBASIN

39°00'

112°15'

38°45'

38°30'

38°15'

JUNCTION-MARYSVALEBASIN

0 5 10 Miles

5 10 Kilometers0

SEVIER COUNTYPIUTE COUNTY

JUAB COUNTYSANPETE COUNTY

Pove

rtyFla

t

1

SANPETE COUNTYSEVIER COUNTY


Approximate boundary of groundwater basinApproximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 21

EXPLANATION

10

VALL

EY

Not measured in 20137

8

9

56

10

4

2

3

Figure 20. Location of wells in central Sevier Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013.


ATE

R L

EV

EL,

IN F

EE

T B

ELO

WLA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

1

2

3

4

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

46

42

41

40

44

43

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

4

9

10

7

8

45

6

No record

5

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

-5

-1

1

3 5

-2

2

0

-4-3

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,

IN F

EE

T A

BO

VE

OR

BE

LOW

(-) L

AN

D S

UR

FAC

E

No record

(C-19-1)23cac-1390819111530701

(C-21-1)1cab-1390035111515001

26

20

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

(C-21-1)27cca-2385644111540501

(C-23-2)15dcb-4384757112002201

(C-24-2)7bac-2384357112035001

24

2219

30

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 21. Relation of water level in selected wells in central Sevier Valley to annual discharge of the Sevier River at Hatch, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Richfield, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-23-2)15dcb-4.


6

7

8

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

125

110

105

190

186

184

192

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

115

120

130

135

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

188

44

42

38

36

30

25

15

20

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

9

40

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

10

(C-24-3)10bcc-1384340112073201

(C-24-3)25bdb-1384116112045801

(C-25-3)6abd-1383921112175901

(C-25-4)28abd-1383602112152901

(C-30-3)15bba-1381220112114001

65

90

80

85

75

70

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Not measured in March 2013

Figure 21. Relation of water level in selected wells in central Sevier Valley to annual discharge of the Sevier River at Hatch, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Richfield, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-23-2)15dcb-4.—Continued


DIS

CH

AR

GE

,IN

TH

OU

SA

ND

SO

F A

CR

E-F

EE

T

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

100

200

300

0

-20

-10

0

CO

NC

EN

TRAT

ION

OF

DIS

SO

LVE

D S

OLI

DS

,IN

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PE

R L

ITE

R

WIT

HD

RAW

AL,

IN T

HO

US

AN

DS

OF

AC

RE

-FE

ET

(C-23-2)15dcb-43847571120022010.1 mile south of Sevier Riverin Venice, Utah


No record

Richfield Radio KVSC1950–2012 average annual precipitation 8.1 inches

10174500 Sevier River at Hatch, Utah1940–2012 average annual discharge80,800 acre-feet

+10

+20

700

600

500

400

300

200

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015


3035

2025

1015

05

Figure 21. Relation of water level in selected wells in central Sevier Valley to annual discharge of the Sevier River at Hatch, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Richfield, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-23-2)15dcb-4.—Continued


Pahvant Valley

By Nickolas R. WhittierPahvant Valley, in southeastern Millard County, extends

from the vicinity of McCornick in the north to Kanosh in the south, and from the Pahvant Range and Canyon Mountains on the east and northeast to a low basalt ridge known as The Cinders on the west (fig. 22). The area of the valley is about 300 square miles. Groundwater drains west to the valley from the mountainous terrain to the east. Groundwater occurs in basin-fill deposits in the valley under both water-table and artesian conditions.

Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Pahvant Valley in 2012 was about 114,000 acre-feet, which is about 25,000 acre-feet more than was reported in 2011 and 23,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). Withdrawal for irrigation in 2012 was about 113,300 acre-feet, which is 24,900 acre-feet more than was reported in 2011.

The location of wells in Pahvant Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 22. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Fillmore, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells is shown in figure 23.

Precipitation at Fillmore during 2012 was about 12.7 inches, which is about 2.6 inches less than the average annual precipitation for 1930–2012 and about 6.8 inches less than in 2011.

Water levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 in most parts of Pahvant Valley; however, there were a few wells in the southwest part of the valley in which water levels rose slightly. Water-level declines of more than 6 feet were observed in several wells north of Flowell. These declines are probably the result of continued large localized withdrawals for irrigation. Water levels generally declined from the early 1950s until 1982 as a result of generally less-than-average precipitation and increased withdrawals. Water levels rose substantially from 1982 to 1985 as a result of greater-than-average precipitation and decreased withdrawals for irrigation. Water levels generally have declined throughout the valley since the mid-to-late 1980s.

The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from wells (C-21-5)7cdd-2 and (C-21-5)7cdd-3, located in the Flowell area, from 1954 to 2012, and from well (C-23-6)8abd-1, located in the Kanosh area, from 1957 to 2010, is shown in figure 23. Wells (C-21-5)7cdd-2 and (C-21-5)7cdd-3 are located near each other and are finished in the same aquifer. The dissolved-solids concentrations in water samples from these wells were combined to give an extended temporal record for this constituent. Dissolved-solids concentrations in water samples from wells in the Flowell area have ranged from 707 to 1,080 mg/L, with a median value of 879 mg/L. The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples from well (C-23-6)8abd-1 has ranged from 2,350 to 5,990 mg/L, with a median value of 4,465 mg/L.


PAHVANT

T. 23 S.

R. 5 W.R. 6 W.

VALLEY

T. 18 S.

T. 19 S.

T. 20 S.

T. 22 S.

T. 21 S.

R. 4 W.

CornCorn

CreekCreek

CreekCreek

MeadowMeadow

CreekCreekChalkChalk

CentralCentral

UtahUtah

CanalCanal

15

50

100

50

100

15

91

133

10

12

11

8

9

7

56

4

3

2

1

Hatton

Kanosh

Meadow

PAHV

ANT

RANG

E

Fillmore

Flowell

Holden

39°15'

McCornick

112°15'

CAN

YON

MO

UN

TAIN

S

112°30'

38°45'

THE CINDERS


EXPLANATION

10

0 5 Kilometers

5 Miles0 1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983

Figure 22. Location of wells in Pahvant Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013.


WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E1

2

3

4

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

5

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E(C-18-5)16bbc-1391522112253401

(C-18-5)28dda-1391302112243301

(C-19-4)29bcd-1390758112194601

(C-20-4)6dbd-1390558112202301

(C-20-5)24bda-1390344112214301

20

80

60

40

100

20

80

60

40

100

0

2040

60

80

100

120

140160

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

50

75

100

125

150

60

50

40

30

70

No record

Figure 23. Relation of water level in selected wells in Pahvant Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Fillmore, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.


6

7

8

0

45

30

55

120

50

35

40

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E20

40

60

80

100

125

100

25

50

9

10

75

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E(C-20-5)26ddd-1390216112222001

(C-21-5)7cdd-2385939112272302

(C-21-5)21aba-1385844112245801

(C-21-5)33aad-1385650112243601

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L, IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

E O

R B

ELO

W (-

)LA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

(C-22-5)33cdd-2385053112252401

−80

−60

−40

−20

20

0

−75

−50

−25

25

0

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 23. Relation of water level in selected wells in Pahvant Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Fillmore, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.—Continued


60

50

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E11

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

40

30

12

(C-22-6)11acd-1385453112292701

20

0

5

10

20

15

(C-23-6)17baa-1384906112330601

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015




-50

-25

0

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

600

CO

NC

EN

TRAT

ION

OF

DIS

SO

LVE

D S

OLI

DS

, IN

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PE

R L

ITE

R

WIT

HD

RAW

AL,

IN T

HO

US

AN

DS

OF

AC

RE

-FE

ET

7,500

2,500

0

5,000No record

Flowell areaSum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance

Fillmore1930–2012 average annual precipitation 15.3 inches

+25

(C-21-5)7cdd-2385939112272302(water-table aquifer) (1954–58) (C-21-5)7cdd-3

385939112272303(water-table aquifer) (1960–2012)

(C-23-6)8abd-1384953112325101

No record


Kanosh areaSum of constituentsResidue on evaporation at 180 degrees CelsiusCalculated from specific conductance

100

80

60

40

20

0

120

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

1,000

1,200

800


Cedar Valley, Iron County

By James H. HowellsCedar Valley is in eastern Iron County, southwestern Utah.

The valley covers about 220 square miles from the vicinity of Rush Lake in the north to the community of Kanarraville in the south and includes Cedar City on its eastern edge (fig. 24). Groundwater in Cedar Valley occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits, mostly under water-table conditions. The principal source of recharge to the basin-fill aquifer is water from Coal Creek, some of which seeps directly from the stream channel into the groundwater system.

Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Cedar Valley in 2012 was about 40,000 acre-feet, which is 6,000 acre-feet more than in 2011 and 2,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3).

The location of wells in Cedar Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 24. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual discharge of Coal Creek near Cedar City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells is shown in figure 25.

Precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport in 2012 was about 12.6 inches, which is about 2.6 inches less than in 2011 and about 1.8 inches more than the average annual precipitation for 1949–2012. Discharge of

Coal Creek was about 18,800 acre-feet in 2012, which is 28,600 acre-feet less than in 2011, and 5,900 acre-feet less than the average annual discharge for 1936 and 1939–2012.

Groundwater levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 in most parts of Cedar Valley. The largest declines, greater than 6 feet, were measured in four wells north and west of Cedar City. Water-level declines probably resulted from locally increased withdrawals and decreased recharge. Water-level rises were measured in one well west and three wells north of Cedar City. Water-level rises probably resulted from decreased localized withdrawals and increased recharge.

The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from well (C-37-12)23acb-1, located 2.3 miles northeast of Kanarraville, from 1966 to 2012, and well (C-35-11)31dbd-1, located about 4 miles northwest of Cedar City, from 1977 to 2012, is shown in figure 25. The dissolved-solids concentration in water from well (C-37-12)23acb-1 has ranged from 347 to 1,050 mg/L, with a median value of 506 mg/L; the concentration of dissolved solids from 1966 to 2012 has generally increased. For well (C-35-11)31dbd-1, the concentration of dissolved solids in water samples has ranged from 364 to 1,020 mg/L, with a median value of 543 mg/L. From 1987 to 2012, the concentration has generally increased.


CEDA

R

VALL

EY36 31

61

36 31

61

3631

61

36 31

61

36 31

61

36 31

61

36 31

61

36

31

61

3631

61

3636 31

61

36 31

61

36 3136

31

8

RushLakeRushLake

QuichapaLakeQuichapaLake

CoalCoal

CreekCreek 14

19

15

130

56

56

15

Iron Springs

CedarCity

Hamilton Fort

Kanarraville

Enoch

6

7

5

2

3

1

4

9

(2)

GRANITEMOUNTAIN

EIGHTMILE HILLS

CROSS HOLL

OW H

ILLS

THE

BAL

D H

ILLS

THE

THR

EE P

EAKS

0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles



R. 12 W.

37°35'

113°00'113°10'

37°50'

T. 35 S.

T. 34 S.

T. 36 S.

T. 37 S.

R. 13 W. R. 11 W.

R. 10 W.

Winn

Gap

NORTHHILLS


hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 25. Number in parentheses refers to number of wells at that site

EXPLANATION

6 (2)

Figure 24. Location of wells in Cedar Valley, Iron County, in which the water level was measured during March 2013.


WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

45

40

35

30 1

2

3

4

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

30

25

15

10

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

27

23

22

21

25

24

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

30

10

5

20

15

20

26

25

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

120

80

60

40 5

100

(C-33-11)30ddd-2375352113072402

(C-33-11)31aad-1375341113072501

(C-33-11)31aad-2375341113072502

(C-34-11)1daa-1375233113015501

(C-34-11)9cdc-1374521113014801

(C-35-11)4aba-1374744113055001

(C-35-11)33aac-1374304113052901

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 25. Relation of water level in selected wells in Cedar Valley, Iron County, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual discharge of Coal Creek near Cedar City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.


6

7

8

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

-50

-25

+25

0

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

9

(C-35-12)34dcd-2374226113110401 (C-35-12)36caa-1

374249113090701

(C-36-12)12dba-1374105113085001

(C-36-12)32dcc-1373710113132701

(C-37-12)14abc-1373509113101101

Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport1949–2012 average annual precipitation 10.8 inches

90

70

50

30

10

30

50

70

900

20

40

60

8030

50

70

110

90

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

10

Figure 25. Relation of water level in selected wells in Cedar Valley, Iron County, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual discharge of Coal Creek near Cedar City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.—Continued


DIS

CH

AR

GE

,IN

TH

OU

SA

ND

SO

F A

CR

E-F

EE

T

50

75

100

0

25

50

0

25

WIT

HD

RAW

AL,

IN T

HO

US

AN

DS

OF

AC

RE

-FE

ET

1,000

1,200

200

600

(C-35-11)31dbd-1374248113075201About 4 miles northwest of Cedar City

800

400

CO

NC

EN

TRAT

ION

OF

DIS

SO

LVE

D S

OLI

DS

,IN

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PE

R L

ITE

R

(C-37-12)23acb-13734071131008012.3 miles northeast of Kanarraville



10242000 Coal Creek near Cedar City, Utah1936, 1939–2012 average annual discharge 24,700 acre-feet

1938–40, 1945–2012 averageannual withdrawal 26,000 acre-feet

1938–40 irrigation only (entire valley)1945–55 irrigation only (valley north of Hamilton Fort)1956–62 irrigation only (entire valley)1963–2012 total (entire valley)

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

1,100

900

700

500

300

No record

Figure 25. Relation of water level in selected wells in Cedar Valley, Iron County, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual discharge of Coal Creek near Cedar City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells.—Continued


Parowan Valley

By James H. HowellsParowan Valley is in northern Iron County, southwestern

Utah. The valley covers about 160 square miles west of the Hurricane Cliffs and includes the towns of Paragonah and Parowan (fig. 26). Groundwater occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits under both water-table and artesian conditions.

Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Parowan Valley in 2012 was about 38,000 acre-feet, which is about 6,000 acre-feet more than was reported for 2011 and 4,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). The increase is mainly due to increased withdrawals for irrigation.

The location of wells in Parowan Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 26. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-33-8)31ccc-1 is shown in figure 27.

Precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport in 2012 was about 12.6 inches, which is about 2.6

inches less than the value for 2011 and 1.8 inches more than the average annual precipitation for 1949–2012.

Water levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 in all parts of Parowan Valley for which data are available. The largest decline, about 6.3 feet, was measured in a well north-west of Parowan. Water levels in Parowan Valley generally have declined since 1950. Some rises occurred during 1973–74, 1983–85, 1996–99, 2006, and 2012. Declines in water levels are probably the result of continued large local withdrawals for irrigation. Rises are probably the result of less withdrawal for irrigation and several years of greater-than-average precipitation.

The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from well (C-33-8)31ccc-1, located 2 miles west of Paragonah, from 1961 to 2012, is shown in figure 27. The concentration has ranged from 257 to 885 mg/L, with a median value of 290 mg/L. The water sample collected in June 2012 had a dissolved-solids concentration of 290 mg/L. With the exception of relatively high dissolved-solids concentrations in water samples collected in 1970, 1973, and 1974, concentrations have varied little.


36 31

1 6

36 31

1 6

3631

1

36 31

1 6

36 31

1 61 6

36 31

1 6

36 31

1 6

36 31

1 6

PARO

WAN

VALL

EY

R. 7 W.

T. 32 S.

T. 33 S.

T. 34 S.

R. 8 W.

R. 9 W.R. 10 W.

Paro

wan

Cree

k

Fremon

t

Fremon

t

Was

hW

ash

Little Salt L

ake

Little Salt L

ake

15

15

Summit

Paragonah

Parowan


112°45' 112°40'

38°00'

112°55'

37°50'

HURRICANE

CLIFFS

0 1 2 3 Miles

0 1 2 3 Kilometers

Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—

Number refers to hydrograph in figure 27

EXPLANATION

8

Not measured in 2013

12

3

11

1

2

5

4

8

10

6

7

9

Figure 26. Location of wells in Parowan Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013.


ATE

R L

EV

EL,

IN F

EE

T B

ELO

WLA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

110

90

80

70 1

2

3

4

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

160

140

80

60

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

100

20

0

60

40

120

80

100

100

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

100

60

20

0 5

40

80

(C-31-7)31cca-1380337112414401

(C-33-8)28cda-1375400112460801

(C-32-8)13bca-1380130112425201

0

10

20

30

(C-33-9)35bac-1375345112504201

(C-33-9)35bac-2375338112502801

(C-33-8)28cad-1375402112455401

(C-34-8)5bca-1375241112471001

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Not measured in March 2013

Figure 27. Relation of water level in selected wells in Parowan Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-33-8)31ccc-1.


6

7

8

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

70

50

20

0

100

60

20

120

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

30

40

60

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E10

80

40

120

100

80

40

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

9

10

60

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

(C-34-9)7ccc-1375115112550601

(C-34-9)7aad-1375152112541001

(C-34-9)8dad-2375127112530601

(C-34-9)8dad-3375127112530602

(C-34-9)16cdd-2375033112523401

(C-34-10)13cbd-2375033112561101

125

100

75

50

No record

100

80

60

40

120

140160

20

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

(C-33-9)35ddd-2375303112495102

(C-33-9)35ddd-1375303112495101

Figure 27. Relation of water level in selected wells in Parowan Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-33-8)31ccc-1.—Continued


0

20

30

40

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

-50

-25

600

800

1,000

200

400

0

WIT

HD

RAW

AL,

IN T

HO

US

AN

DS

OF

AC

RE

-FE

ET

10

CO

NC

EN

TRAT

ION

OF

DIS

SO

LVE

D S

OLI

DS

, IN

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PE

R L

ITE

R


-10

-5

0

10

15

20

(C-32-8)27dca-1375915112442901

No record5

+25

WA

TER

LE

VE

L, IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

E O

R B

ELO

W (-

)LA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

(C-33-8)31ccc-13752571124835012 miles west of Paragonah

11

12

1938–40, 1945–2012 average annual withdrawal23,000 acre-feet

1938–40, 1945–62 irrigation only1963–2012 total

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015


WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

(C-34-9)11bca-1375148112503701

(C-34-9)11aac-1375153112500201

50

100

150

200

250

Figure 27. Relation of water level in selected wells in Parowan Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-33-8)31ccc-1.—Continued


Escalante Valley

Milford Area

By Bradley A. SlaughThe Milford area is in southwestern Utah and includes that

part of Escalante Valley lying entirely within Beaver County west of the Mineral Mountains, the southern part of Millard County, and a small area in the northern part of Iron County (fig. 28). Groundwater occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits in the valley.

Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in the Milford area of Escalante Valley in 2012 was about 67,000 acre-feet, which is 14,000 acre-feet more than was reported for 2011 and 17,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). This increase was most likely the result of increased pumpage for irrigation due to decreased availability of surface water and less-than-average precipitation.

The location of wells in the Milford area in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 28. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Black Rock, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-29-10)5cdd-2 is shown in figure 29.

Precipitation at Black Rock in 2012 was about 6.6 inches, about 7.1 inches less than in 2011 and about 2.4 inches less than the 1952–2012 average annual precipitation.

Water levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 in most of the Milford area. The amount of water-level rise or decline depends largely on groundwater withdrawals, the amount and timing of precipitation, and recharge to the basin-fill aquifer from the Beaver River. Since the early 1950s, water levels generally have declined in the south-central Milford area in response to the long-term effects of groundwater withdrawals. Water-level rises during 1983–85 resulted from greater-than-average precipitation during 1982–85 and increased recharge to the basin-fill aquifer from record flow in the Beaver River during 1983–84.

The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from well (C-29-10)5cdd-2, located 5 miles south of Milford, from 1969 to 2012, is shown in figure 29. The concentration has ranged from 477 to 909 mg/L with a median value of 572 mg/L. The dissolved-solids concentration in the June 2012 sample was 477 mg/L. With the exception of a relatively high dissolved-solids concentration in the water sample collected in 2001 (909 mg/L), concentrations have varied little.


VALL

EY

ESCA

LANTE

Cove Creek

Cove Creek

Beav

erBe

aver

Rive

rRi

ver

Canal

Canal

Low Line

Low Line

RiverRiver

BeaverBeaverUnio

n Pac

ific R

ailro

ad

257

21

21

129

130

BEAVER COUNTYMILLARD COUNTY

IRON COUNTY

BEAVER COUNTY

Antelope SpringAntelope Spring

1

2

3

4

6

7

5

89

10

113°00'

38°45'

T. 24 S.Black Rock

Read

38°30'

ROCKY RANGE

T. 27 S.

MIN

ERAL

MOU

NTA

INS

T. 28 S.THE PASS

BRADSHAWMOUNTAIN

Milford

Minersville

T. 29 S.

Thermo Siding

113°15'

38°15'

R. 14 W. R. 13 W. R. 12 W. R. 11 W.

BLUE KNOLL

T. 31 S.

T. 30 S.

T. 26 S.

T. 25 S.


EXPLANATION

1

MinersvilleReservoirMinersvilleReservoir

R. 10 W. R. 9 W.



0 2 4 6 8 10 MilesFR

ANCI

SCO

SAN

MOU

NTAI

NS

Figure 28. Location of wells in the Milford area in which the water level was measured during March 2013.


WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

18

16

15 1

2

3

4

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

344

343

341

340

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

20

0

60

40

80

17

342

No record

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

140

100

80 5

120

(C-25-10)26caa-1383631112564001

(C-27-10)12ddd-1382814112550101

(C-28-10)19add-3382138113003303

(C-28-10)28cdd-1382020112585901

(C-30-10)6ddd-1381319113003501

(C-30-10)17cca-1381147113002001

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 29. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Milford area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Black Rock, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-29-10)5cdd-2.


6

7

8

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

90

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

60

50

No record

70

80

65

60

50

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

9

10

55

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

(C-29-11)4baa-1381925113054001

(C-30-11)12bbb-1381318113024801

(C-30-12)3ddd-1381323113103701

(C-30-13)34bba-1380943113181001

100

20

40

60

80

100

120

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

(C-29-11)13add-1381716113014101

60

40

20

80

50

48

46

44

42

No record

Figure 29. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Milford area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Black Rock, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-29-10)5cdd-2.— Continued


CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PA

RTU

RE

,IN

INC

HE

S

-20

-10

+20

+10

50

75

0

25

0

WIT

HD

RA

WA

L,IN

TH

OU

SA

ND

SO

F A

CR

E-F

EE

T

CO

NC

EN

TRA

TIO

N O

FD

ISS

OLV

ED

SO

LID

S, I

NM

ILLI

GR

AM

S P

ER

LIT

ER


500

700

1,000

800

900

400

600

Black Rock1952–2012 average annual precipitation 9.0 inches

(C-29-10)5cdd-23818351130000015 miles south of Milford

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015


Figure 29. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Milford area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Black Rock, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-29-10)5cdd-2.— Continued


Escalante Valley

Beryl-Enterprise Area

By Howard K. ChristiansenThe Beryl-Enterprise area covers about 800 square miles

at the southern end of Escalante Valley, southeast of the Wah Wah Mountains in Iron County, and a small area in Washington County in the vicinity of the community of Enterprise (fig. 30). Groundwater occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits in the valley.

Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area in 2012 was about 91,000 acre-feet, which is 7,000 acre-feet more than in 2011 and 2,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3).

The location of wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 30. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Enterprise, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-34-16)28dcc-3 is shown in figure 31.

Precipitation at Enterprise in 2012 was about 12.0 inches, which is about 2.1 inches less than the average annual precipitation for 1955–2012 and about 0.5 inch more than in 2011.

Water levels declined slightly from March 2012 to March 2013 in most of the wells measured in the Beryl-Enterprise area. Water levels throughout most of the area have declined steadily since 1950 and have shown little or no recovery during periods of greater-than-average precipitation. For example, water-level measurements in well (C-36-16)29daa-1, about 5 miles northeast of Enterprise (fig. 31), have shown a decline of nearly 133 feet from March 1946 to March 2013. Declines such as this one are a result of continued large withdrawals for irrigation beginning in about 1950.

The concentration of dissolved solids in one water sample collected from well (C-34-16)28dcc-3, located 6 miles south-southeast of Beryl, is shown in figure 31 (this well replaces well (C-34-16)28dcc-2). The concentration of dissolved solids in the water sample collected in June 2012 was 478 mg/L.


ESCALANTE

VALL

EYCreek

CreekCreek

Meadow

Meadow

Pine

Cr

Shoal

Creek

Creek

PintoPinto

NewcastleReservoirNewcastleReservoir

Union Pacific Railro

ad

56

18

Enterprise

Newcastle

Iron Springs

Beryl

Zane

Avon

Lund

Beryl Junction

Modena

11

10

97 8

6

5

4

2

3

1


0 2 4 6 8 Miles

0 2 4 6 8 Kilometers

T.31S.

113°55' 113°15'

37°35'

38°05'

T.33S.

T.32S.

T.34S.

T.35S.

T.36S.

T.37S.

R. 12 W.R. 13 W.R. 14 W.R. 15 W.R. 16 W.R. 17 W.R. 18 W.

IRONMOUNTAIN

ANTE

LOPE

RAN

GE

WAH WAH

MOUNTAINS

TableButte


EXPLANATION

9

Mountain

Mountain

IRON COUNTYWASHINGTON COUNTY

Figure 30. Location of wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area in which the water level was measured during March 2013.


No record

1

2

3

4

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

6

5

4

3

2

80

70

65

60

75

No record

5

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

100

75

50

25

0

(C-33-16)30aac-1375429113403901

(C-34-15)1bad-1375245113290001

(C-32-14)28bbb-1375952113260601

(C-34-16)22bad-1375009113374501

(C-35-15)6cdd-1374649113342501

30

40

50

60

70

20

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

20

25

10

5

15

Figure 31. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Enterprise, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-34-16)28dcc-3.


6

7

8

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

140

80

60

40

120

200

140

120

100

180

100

160

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

175

100

75

50

125

150

120

80

160

200

9

10

No record

(C-35-17)14ccc-1374505113433701

(C-35-17)36dcc-1374228113420101

(C-36-15)4bad-3374209113322203

(C-36-16)3ddc-1374041113373501

(C-36-16)29daa-1373735113393801

120

100

8060

40

140160180

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

240

Figure 31. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Enterprise, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-34-16)28dcc-3.—Continued

82 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013 C

UM

ULA

TIV

ED

EPA

RTU

RE

,IN

INC

HE

S

-40

-20

+10

0

-10

-30

11

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

No record

No record

100

150

0

50

CO

NC

EN

TRAT

ION

OF

DIS

SO

LVE

D S

OLI

DS

,IN

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PE

R L

ITE

R

WIT

HD

RAW

AL,

IN T

HO

US

AN

DS

OF

AC

RE

-FE

ET


(C-37-17)14dcd-2373338113431502

Enterprise1955–2012 average annualprecipitation 14.1 inches

(C-34-16)28dcc-23748341133843016 miles south-southeast of Beryl

1937, 1940, 1945–2012 average annual withdrawal71,000 acre-feet

400

600

1,000

800

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

(C-34-16)28dcc-3374934113384601

6 miles south-southeast of Beryl

20

30

40

50

10

Figure 31. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Enterprise, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-34-16)28dcc-3.—Continued


Central Virgin River Area

By Howard K. ChristiansenThe central Virgin River area is between the Pine Valley

Mountains and the Hurricane Cliffs, and is bounded by the Beaver Dam Mountains to the southwest, in Washington County (fig. 32). Major groundwater development includes water from valley-fill aquifers that is used primarily for irriga-tion, and water from consolidated-rock and valley-fill aquifers that is used primarily for public supply. Most of the wells are located near the Virgin and Santa Clara Rivers.

Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in the central Virgin River area in 2012 was about 29,000 acre-feet, which is about 1,000 acre-feet more than in 2011 and the same as the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3), mainly due to a small increase in withdrawal for irrigation. Withdrawal for industrial use decreased slightly, and with-drawals for public supply and for domestic and stock use were about the same as in 2011.

The location of wells in the central Virgin River area in which the water level was measured during February 2013 is shown in figure 32. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to annual discharge of the Virgin River at Virgin, to cumulative departure from average annual pre-cipitation at St. George, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-41-17)8cbd-2 is shown in figure 33.

Discharge of the Virgin River at Virgin in 2012 was about 82,900 acre-feet, which is 151,200 acre-feet less than the value for 2011 and about 51,000 acre-feet less than the long-term average for 1931–70 and 1979–2012. Precipita-tion at St. George in 2012 was about 8.4 inches, which is about 0.2 inch more than the average annual precipitation for 1930–2012 and 6.0 inches more than in 2011.

Water levels from February 2012 to February 2013 gener-ally declined in most of the central Virgin River area. The largest decline, about 7.9 feet, was observed in a well east of Bloomington in the Fort Pearce Wash area. Declines are probably the result of continued large withdrawals for public supply and irrigation use.

The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples collected from wells (C-41-17)8cbd-1 and (C-41-17)8cbd-2, located 1.5 miles south of Gunlock Reservoir, from 1966 to 2012, is shown in figure 33. These wells are located near each other and are finished in the same aquifer. The dissolved-solids concentrations in water samples from both wells were com-bined to give an extended temporal record for this constituent. The concentration has ranged from 255 to 313 mg/L with a median value of 290 mg/L. The dissolved-solids concentration in the water sample collected in July 2012 (292 mg/L) is very close to the median value.


Cree

kCr

eekAsh

Cree

kAs

h Cr

eek

Leed

s Cre

ek

Leed

s Cre

ek

VirginVirgin RiverRiver

Qua

il C

reek

Qua

il C

reek

RiverRiver

North

For

kNo

rth F

ork

PearcePearce

WashWash

FortFort

LaVe

rkin

LaVe

rkin

RiverRiver

VirginVirgin

ClaraClara

SantaSanta

BakerReservoirBakerReservoir

IvinsReservoirIvinsReservoir

Ash CreekReservoirAsh CreekReservoir

GunlockReservoirGunlockReservoir

Legacy

Loop

High

way

15

17

15

59

9

9

18

St George

New Harmony

Pintura

AndersonJunction

Silver Reef

Leeds

Toquerville

La VerkinVirgin

Hurricane

HarrisburgJunction

Bloomington

WashingtonSanta Clara

Ivins

Veyo

Central

Gunlock

Shivwits

1

2

34

6

78

5

10

11

9

Snow Canyon

SANDMOUNTAIN

LITTLE CREEKMOUNTAINS

HU

RRIC

AN

ECL

IFFS

Approximate boundary of valley-fill depositsObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 33

EXPLANATION

VALLEY

PINE

MOU

NTAIN

S

BEAVER DAM MOUNTAINS

T. 38 S.

T. 39 S.

T. 40 S.

T. 41 S.

T. 42 S.

T. 43 S.

37°00'R.17 W. R.16 W. R.15 W.

WASHINGTON COUNTY

MOHAVE COUNTYR.14 W. R.13 W. R.12 W.

UTAHARIZONA


0 2 4 6 8 Miles

9

37°30'113°45'

113°30'

113°15'


HURR

ICAN

ECLIF

FSHU

RRIC

ANE

CLIF

FS

KanarravilleKanarraville

Figure 32. Location of wells in the central Virgin River area in which the water level was measured during February 2013.


WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

60

30

20 1

2

3

4

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

55

50

40

35

70

30

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

90

85

95

50

100

50

45

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

40

40

60

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

26

22

20 5

24

25

21

23

(C-37-12)34abb-1373236113111401

(C-38-12)9aab-1373040113122501

(C-42-14)12dbb-1370850113223001

(C-42-14)15cbd-1370538113251301

(C-42-15)34dba-2370517113310402

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 33. Relation of water level in selected wells in the central Virgin River area to annual discharge of the Virgin River at Virgin, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at St. George, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-41-17)8cbd-2.


6

7

8

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

40

35

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

30

30

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

20

15

25

25

50

45

35

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

9

10

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

40

(C-42-16)5bbb-1371004113404201

(C-42-16)22cba-1370650113380201

(C-42-16)26bcc-1370617113371101

(C-43-14)31bab-1370037113281401

(C-43-15)24dcc-1370125113290401

(C-43-15)4ddc-1370404113320301

180

170

160

150

140

130

190

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

35

30

25

20

15

Figure 33. Relation of water level in selected wells in the central Virgin River area to annual discharge of the Virgin River at Virgin, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at St. George, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-41-17)8cbd-2.—Continued


-30

-10

+10

+20

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

0

100

400

30

40

0

10

300

WIT

HD

RAW

AL,

IN T

HO

US

AN

DS

OF

AC

RE

-FE

ET

CO

NC

EN

TRAT

ION

OF

DIS

SO

LVE

D S

OLI

DS

, IN

MIL

LIG

RA

MS

PE

R L

ITE

R


DIS

CH

AR

GE

,IN

TH

OU

SA

ND

SO

F A

CR

E-F

EE

T

300

325

250

275

200

0

-20

20

11W

ATE

R L

EV

EL,

IN F

EE

T B

ELO

WLA

ND

SU

RFA

CE (C-43-15)16dac-1

370231113320301

09406000 Virgin River at Virgin, Utah 1931–70, 1979–2012 averageannual discharge 133,900 acre-feet

(C-41-17)8cbd-13713471134703011.5 miles south of Gunlock Reservoir

(C-41-17)8cbd-23713481134703011.5 miles south of Gunlock Reservoir

St. George1930–2012 average annual precipitation 8.2 inches


1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

40

35

45

50

55

No record

Figure 33. Relation of water level in selected wells in the central Virgin River area to annual discharge of the Virgin River at Virgin, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at St. George, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-41-17)8cbd-2.—Continued


Other Areas

By Martel J. FisherTotal estimated withdrawal of water from wells in other

areas of Utah (table 4) in 2012 was about 156,000 acre-feet, which is 33,000 acre-feet more than the estimate for 2011 and 24,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). The largest increases were due to increased withdrawals for irrigation use. In most of the areas listed in table 4, withdrawals in 2012 were more than in 2011, except in Ogden Valley, where public-supply use decreased slightly, and in Grouse Creek Valley, where irrigation with-drawals decreased slightly.

The location of wells in Cedar Valley, Utah County, in which the water level was measured during March 2013, is shown in figure 34. The relation of the water level in observa-tion wells in Cedar Valley to cumulative departure from aver-age annual precipitation at Provo BYU is shown in figure 35.

Water levels in selected wells in Cedar Valley generally rose during the 1970s. Water levels rose sharply from the early to mid-1980s as a result of greater-than-average precipitation, then declined during the mid-to-late 1980s and early 1990s. Water levels in these wells have been relatively stable since 1995. Water levels declined in most of the wells from March 2012 to March 2013.

The location of wells in Sanpete Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 36. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells in

Sanpete Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Manti is shown in figure 37.

Water levels in many of the selected wells in Sanpete Val-ley rose from the late-1970s to the mid-1980s as a result of greater-than-average precipitation and have varied since the mid-1980s, but overall have declined. Water levels declined in most of the selected observation wells from March 2012 to March 2013.

The location of wells in Snake Valley and the West Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 38. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells in the area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Callao is shown in figure 39.

Water levels in many of the selected wells in Snake Val-ley and the West Desert declined, or rose only slightly, from March 2012 to March 2013. Water levels rose sharply in the early to mid-1980s as a result of greater-than-average precipi-tation, but have generally declined since the mid-1980s.

The relation of the water level in wells in the remaining selected areas of Utah (table 4) to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas is shown in figure 40. Water levels declined or rose only slightly in most of the selected observation wells from March 2012 to March 2013.

Table 4. Estimated withdrawal of water from wells in other areas of Utah, 2012.

Number infigure 1 Area

Estimated withdrawal from wells (acre-feet)

20122011total

(rounded)Irrigation Industrial Public supply

Domestic and stock

Total (rounded)

1 Grouse Creek Valley 1,300 0 0 20 1,300 1,6002 Park Valley area 2,400 0 0 10 2,400 1,5004 Lower Bear River area 4,300 460 7,400 200 12,400 9,1008 Ogden Valley 0 0 11,900 20 11,900 12,100

13 Rush Valley 4,600 300 260 30 5,200 4,70014 Skull Valley, Dugway area, and Old River Bed 3,300 5,200 5,000 10 13,500 7,50015 Cedar Valley, Utah County 3,000 0 4,300 40 7,300 6,20020 Sanpete Valley 8,000 2,600 940 4,000 15,500 7,50025a Snake Valley 22,800 0 90 50 22,900 14,90027 Beaver Valley 10,200 20 530 480 11,200 6,700

Remainder of State 12,900 16,000 21,200 2,600 52,700 50,900Total (rounded) 72,800 24,600 51,600 7,500 156,000 123,000


VALL

EY

CEDA

R

T. 5 S.

1 6

T. 6 S.

T. 7 S.

36 31

1 6

R. 2 W.

T. 8 S.

36 31

1

R. 1 W.

6

36 31

R. 3 W.

CreekCreek

CanyonCanyon

WestWest

Sinks

73

73

1

2

34

3

EXPLANATION

112°05' 112°00'

40°20'

Cedar Fort

40°15'

FairfieldLA

KE M

OU

NTA

INS

40°10'


0 1 2 3 4 Miles


CedarPass

EagleMountain

OQ

UIR

RH

MO

UN

TAIN

S

TRAVERSE MOUNTAINSTH

ORP

E H

ILLS


Figure 34. Location of wells in Cedar Valley, Utah County, in which the water level was measured during March 2013.


WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

260

230

220 1

2

3

4

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

65

45

55

250

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

50

240

60

No record

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

(C-5-2)34dab-1402019112023201

(C-6-2)15bbb-1401818112034201

(C-6-2)26cbb-1401607112023401

Provo BYU1981–2012 average annual precipitation 19.5 inches

+50

+25

0

70

90

110

120

130

100

80

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

(C-6-2)29bdb-1401620112054301

25

20

15

5

10

0

-25

Figure 35. Relation of water level in selected wells in Cedar Valley, Utah County, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Provo BYU.


SANP

ETE

VALL

EY

T. 12 S.

T. 13 S.

T. 14 S.

R. 2 E.

T. 20 S.

T. 19 S.

R. 3 E. R. 4 E.

T. 18 S.

T. 17 S.

T. 16 S.

R. 5 E.

T. 15 S.

Nine MileReservoir

GunnisonReservoir

San

Pitc

hRi

ver

San Pitch Rive

r

WalesReservoir

89

132

31

116

117

89

Milburn

FountainGreen

Freedom

Moroni

Mount Pleasant

Fairview

Wales

Chester Spring City

Mayfield

Manti

Sterling

Ephraim

1

2(2)

(3)

3

4

(2)

PLATE

AU

SAN

PIT

CH

WASAT

CH

111°45'

39°45'

111°30'

PLAT

EAU

WA

SATC

H

39°15'


0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

39°30'

Approximate boundary of basin-fill depositsObservation well—Number in parentheses refers to number of wells at that siteObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 37

EXPLANATION

4

(3)


UTAH COUNTYSANPETE COUNTY

JUAB

COU

NTY

SAN

PETE

COU

NTY

MOU

NTA

INS

Figure 36. Location of wells in Sanpete Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013.


1

2

3

4

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

AB

OV

ELA

ND

SU

RFA

CE (D-14-2)13aaa-1

393630111383301

(D-15-4)4bcd-1393241111290501

0

5

10

15

20

30

25

45

40

35

30

25

20

(D-17-3)9cbd-1392056111353801

60

40

20

0

100

90

80

70

(D-18-2)12bab-1391610111384501

Manti1930–2012 average annual precipitation 13.0 inches

+25

0

-25

-50

CU

MU

LATI

VED

EPAR

TUR

E,IN

INC

HES

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 37. Relation of water level in selected wells in Sanpete Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Manti.


JUAB COUNTY

TOOELE COUNTY

JUAB COUNTYMILLARD COUNTY

21

650

257

Callao

Ibapah

Goshute

Gandy

TroutCreek

Garrison

Wah WahRanch

Sevier LakeSevier Lake

38°10'

113°10'

T. 15 S.

T. 14 S.

T. 13 S.

T. 12 S.

T. 11 S.

T. 10 S.

T. 9 S.

T. 16 S.

T. 17 S.

T. 18 S.

T. 19 S.

T. 20 S.

T. 21 S.

T. 22 S.

T. 23 S.

T. 24 S.

T. 25 S.

T. 26 S.

T. 27 S.

T. 28 S.

T. 29 S.

T. 30 S.

R. 12 W. R. 11 W.

R. 10 W. R. 9 W. R. 8 W.

5 Miles43210

5 Kilometers43210

SAN

FRAN

CISC

OM

OUNT

AINS

CONFUSION

RANGE

BEAVER COUNTYMILLARD COUNTY

Uni

on P

acifi

c R

ailro

ad

40°00'

114°00'

DEEP

CREE

KRA

NG

E

4

FishSpringsFishSprings

Approximate boundary of Snake ValleyObservation wellObservation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 39

EXPLANATION

UTA

H

NE

VAD

A

39°10'

Border


R. 19 W. R. 18 W. R. 17 W. R. 16 W. R. 15 W. R. 14 W. R. 13 W.

WES

T

DES

ERT

1

4

2

3

Figure 38. Location of wells in Snake Valley and the West Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013.


Figure 39. Relation of water level in selected wells in Snake Valley and the West Desert to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Callao.

80

50

60

70

25

35

30

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

2

4

6

0WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,

IN F

EE

T A

BO

VE

OR

BE

LOW

(-) L

AN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E(C-11-16)6cbc-4395355112423601

(C-22-19)6bcc-1385607114015601

(C-20-19)21acc-1390312113591701

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

-40

-10

-20

-30 Callao1939–2012 average annual precipitation 5.7 inches

0

(C-18-19)28bcc-1391251114000001

25

20

15

10

5

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

+10

1

2

3

4

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

−2


WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

20

0

15WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

5

10

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

-75

+25

0

-25

-50

4

8

6

7

5

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E(B-10-18)16dda-1413535113544501Grouse Creek Valley

60

50

40

30

20

10

(B-13-13)28ddd-2414904113194501Park Valley area

(B-10-3)3cdd-1413729112100501lower Bear River area

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015


Oakley, Idaho1930–2012 average annual precipitation 11.0 inches

+10

-10

-20

-30

-40

0

Figure 40. Relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas.


-5

0

5

-10

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

-75

0

-25

-50

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,

IN F

EE

T A

BO

VE

OR

BE

LOW

(-) L

AN

D S

UR

FAC

E

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

-30

0

-10

-20

2

12

6

10

4

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

8

(A-13-5)21dab-1415124111225401Bear Lake Valley

Laketown1930–2012 average annual precipitation 12.1 inches

(A-12-7)26bba-2414539111073401upper Bear River area

+25

+10

Woodruff1948–2012 average annual precipitation 9.4 inches

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

No record

No record

Figure 40. Relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas.—Continued


CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

-75

0

-25

-50

30

20

10

40

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E (A-6-2)18bad-1411544111461001Ogden Valley


+25

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

3

1

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

2

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

-20

-40

0

+40

+20

No record

(D-3-5)29cac-1403127111240301Heber Valley

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

(D-2-6)20dcc-1403731111172101Kamas Valley

Heber City1930–2012 average annual precipitation 15.3 inches



CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

-20

0

-10

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

4

12

6

-30

-10

0

10

8

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E8

6

4

14

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

12

10

No record

-20

U(B-1-1)31ddb-1402611110020101Duchesne River area

Neola1957–2012 average annual precipitation 8.8 inches

(D-4-21)14cdd-1402748109314501Vernal area

Vernal Airport1948–2012 average annualprecipitation 8.3 inches

+20

+10

+10

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015



WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

-20

0

-40

-10

No record

-30

+10

(C-8-5)20cdd-1400601112255401Rush Valley

(C-7-8)10cbd-1401312112442301Dugway area

Dugway1946–2012 average annualprecipitation 7.6 inches

10

12

14

16

18

8

70

80

90

100

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015



CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

-50

0

-25

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

150

225

175

200

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E15

10W

ATE

R L

EV

EL,

IN F

EE

T B

ELO

WLA

ND

SU

RFA

CE

20

(C-29-7)19bcd-1381625112412901Beaver Valley

+2525

+20

+10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40


(D-33-24)30dab-1375243109191301Monticello area

Blanding1930–2012 average annualprecipitation 12.5 inches

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015




-20

0

20

0

60

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

40

WAT

ER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PAR

TUR

E,

IN IN

CH

ES

-10

(D-26-22)27aaa-1383109109285501Spanish Valley

+20

+10

(D-36-22)35bba-1373712109281701Blanding-Bluff area

Bluff1930–2012 average annual precipitation 7.7 inches

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

110

115

100

105

90

95

85


6

16

8

10

30

20

70

WA

TER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E40

WA

TER

LE

VE

L,IN

FE

ET

BE

LOW

LAN

D S

UR

FAC

E

CU

MU

LATI

VE

DE

PA

RTU

RE

,IN

INC

HE

S

12

50

60

14

(C-36-3)6dba-1374205112091501upper Sevier River area

+25

(D-28-4)36cdb-1381940111253501upper Fremont River Valley

Hatch1949–2012 average annualprecipitation 11.6 inches

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

0

-25

-50

-75



Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012

From June through September 2012, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Utah Water Science Center, in cooperation with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality, sampled water from 110 wells located in 21 counties (fig. 41). Samples were collected during this time period to limit seasonal variability in the data. The majority of water samples were collected from irrigation wells. Field parameters that were measured at the time the water samples were collected included pH, specific conductance, and water temperature. Chemical constituents that were analyzed in the water samples included major ions, dissolved solids, nutrients (nitrate plus nitrite and orthophosphate), and selected trace elements. The USGS National Water Quality Laboratory in Denver, Colorado, analyzed the water samples. Field param-eter values and analytical results for major ions, dissolved solids, and nutrients are shown in table 5. Analytical results for trace elements are shown in table 6.

The water samples were collected using protocols in the USGS National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated). Ana-lytical methods used by the laboratory are described in Fish-man and Friedman (1989). Water-quality data in this report

are stored in the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) database and are available online at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ut/nwis/qw.

Water-quality field blanks were collected to determine if samples were being contaminated during equipment decon-tamination and/or sample collection and processing proce-dures. A field blank is an inorganic blank water sample that is prepared by the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory, carried in the field, and processed using the same methods and equipment as the environmental water samples. The field blank is subject to processing in the field, preservation, ship-ment, laboratory handling procedures, and analytical proto-cols. Eleven field blank water samples were processed during the 2012 sampling period. Analytical results for all constitu-ents in the field blanks were less than the laboratory reporting limits.

Replicate water samples also were collected at two wells. A replicate sample is collected concurrent with an environ-mental sample and is used to assess the repeatability of the laboratory analytical results. Analytical results for the replicate water samples were in good agreement with the environmental samples, agreeing within 2 percent for all constituents.

Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012 105

GreatSaltLake

Flaming GorgeReservoir

UtahLake

StrawberryReservoir

BearLake

LakePowell

BOX ELDER

CACHE RICH

WEBER

MORGAN

DAVIS

SUMMIT

UTAH

TOOELE

WASATCH

DUCHESNE

DAGGETT

UINTAH

JUAB

SANPETE

CARBON

MILLARD

EMERY GRAND

BEAVERPIUTE WAYNE

IRONGARFIELD

SAN JUAN

KANEWASHINGTON

SEVIER

SALT LAKE

Farmington Manila

Duchesne

Vernal

Heber

Richfield

Logan

Brigham City

Cedar City

Parowan

Ogden

Green River

Delta

Fillmore

JunctionBeaver

Panguitch

Monticello

St George

Bluff

Randolph

Wendover

Tooele

Morgan

Coalville

Manti

Nephi

Moab

Castle Dale

Loa

Kanab

Price

Provo

110° 109°

Salt Lake City

112° 111°

20

200

0

40

40

60 Kilometers

60 Miles

113°

(A-11-1)35cca-1

114°42°

37°

38°

39°

40°

41°

Groundwater site and identifier (refer to tables 5 and 6)

EXPLANATION

(C-26-7)26cac-1(C-26-7)26cac-1

(C-28-10)20daa-1(C-28-10)20daa-1(C-28-10)29bcc-2(C-28-10)29bcc-2

(C-29-10)5cdd-2(C-29-10)5cdd-2

(C-29-10)18ddd-1(C-29-10)18ddd-1(C-29-7)19bcd-1(C-29-7)19bcd-1

(C-29-11)27aad-1(C-29-11)27aad-1(C-29-2)35bad-1(C-29-2)35bad-1

(C-30-2)34bcc-1(C-30-2)34bcc-1

(C-26-1)25acc-1(C-26-1)25acc-1

(D-27-2)26ddc-1(D-27-2)26ddc-1

(D-26-22)16ddd-3(D-26-22)16ddd-3

(D-26-22)26cba-1(D-26-22)26cba-1

(C-33-8)22bbc-2(C-33-8)22bbc-2

(C-36-12)36adb-1(C-36-12)36adb-1

(C-33-8)31ccc-1(C-33-8)31ccc-1

(C-37-12)23acb-1(C-37-12)23acb-1

(C-34-10)13cbd-2(C-34-10)13cbd-2

(C-37-12)34abb-1(C-37-12)34abb-1

(C-35-11)31dbd-1(C-35-11)31dbd-1

(C-33-9)14dbd-2(C-33-9)14dbd-2

(C-34-16)28dcc-3(C-34-16)28dcc-3(C-35-15)3dcc-3(C-35-15)3dcc-3

(C-36-15)7cdd-2(C-36-15)7cdd-2

(C-35-17)7dad-2(C-35-17)7dad-2(C-36-15)4bad-3(C-36-15)4bad-3

(C-41-17)8cbd-2(C-41-17)8cbd-2

(C-42-14)15cbd-1(C-42-14)15cbd-1

(C-42-11)33bcb-1(C-42-11)33bcb-1

R(C-40-4)31bad-1R(C-40-4)31bad-1

(C-44-5)6cbb-1(C-44-5)6cbb-1

(D-40-22)30bbb-1(D-40-22)30bbb-1

(D-40-21)25acd-1(D-40-21)25acd-1 (D-40-23)27baa-1(D-40-23)27baa-1

(B-6-3)15cbc-1(B-6-3)15cbc-1

(B-5-2)6bdd-4(B-5-2)6bdd-4

(B-2-1)24bad-10(B-2-1)24bad-10

(B-4-2)27aba-1(B-4-2)27aba-1

(C-3-8)28ddb-1(C-3-8)28ddb-1

(C-4-8)33aba-1(C-4-8)33aba-1

(C-5-5)15add-2(C-5-5)15add-2 (D-5-1)20aba-2(D-5-1)20aba-2 (D-5-1)21dda-2(D-5-1)21dda-2

(D-7-2)4cbb-2(D-7-2)4cbb-2(C-6-2)26cbc-1(C-6-2)26cbc-1(C-6-2)29bdb-1(C-6-2)29bdb-1

(C-2-5)34dbb-1(C-2-5)34dbb-1(C-2-5)35cab-1(C-2-5)35cab-1

(C-2-4)34dad-1(C-2-4)34dad-1(C-2-4)34adc-1(C-2-4)34adc-1(C-2-4)33bdd-1(C-2-4)33bdd-1

(C-3-1)12ccb-3(C-3-1)12ccb-3

(D-1-1)19cdb-17(D-1-1)19cdb-17

(D-2-1)21dbc-1(D-2-1)21dbc-1

(A-1-1)31cac-1(A-1-1)31cac-1(D-1-1)7abd-6(D-1-1)7abd-6

(D-4-5)16bab-1(D-4-5)16bab-1

(D-4-4)13bdd-1(D-4-4)13bdd-1

(D-4-5)16ccd-1(D-4-5)16ccd-1

(D-3-4)26dba-1(D-3-4)26dba-1(D-4-5)6bcc-2(D-4-5)6bcc-2

(D-4-5)4ccb-1(D-4-5)4ccb-1

(D-4-5)3dcc-1(D-4-5)3dcc-1(D-4-4)12dcc-1(D-4-4)12dcc-1

U(C-1-2)36adc-1U(C-1-2)36adc-1U(C-2-2)11bab-1U(C-2-2)11bab-1

U(C-1-1)24cbb-2U(C-1-1)24cbb-2U(C-1-2)27ddc-1U(C-1-2)27ddc-1

U(C-3-5)31dcd-1U(C-3-5)31dcd-1

(D-9-2)9bac-1(D-9-2)9bac-1

(D-9-1)36bbc-1(D-9-1)36bbc-1

(D-11-1)21bbb-1(D-11-1)21bbb-1

(C-9-1)4ddc-1(C-9-1)4ddc-1

(C-9-1)28ccb-1(C-9-1)28ccb-1

(C-8-5)7ddd-2(C-8-5)7ddd-2

(C-8-5) 6ddb-2(C-8-5) 6ddb-2

(C-16-4)18bda-1(C-16-4)18bda-1

(C-15-4)8cba-1(C-15-4)8cba-1(C-15-5)15dad-1(C-15-5)15dad-1

(C-15-4)26dcc-1(C-15-4)26dcc-1(C-15-4)11add-1(C-15-4)11add-1

(D-13-1)5ddb-2(D-13-1)5ddb-2

(D-15-4)17abb-1(D-15-4)17abb-1

(C-14-1)26dbd-1(C-14-1)26dbd-1

(D-17-3)9cbd-1(D-17-3)9cbd-1

(D-17-2)14ccb-1(D-17-2)14ccb-1

(C-19-1)23cac-1(C-19-1)23cac-1

(C-23-2)15dcb-4(C-23-2)15dcb-4(C-23-2)19dab-1(C-23-2)19dab-1

(C-21-5)7cdd-3(C-21-5)7cdd-3

(C-23-5)5acd-1(C-23-5)5acd-1(C-23-6)21add-1(C-23-6)21add-1(C-23-6)28bbb-2(C-23-6)28bbb-2

(C-23-6)8abd-1(C-23-6)8abd-1

(C-18-19)20ddd-2(C-18-19)20ddd-2

(C-20-20)1baa-2(C-20-20)1baa-2

(C-23-19)4bcd-1 Highway 21 Well(C-23-19)4bcd-1 Highway 21 Well

(B-15-10)36bbb-1(B-15-10)36bbb-1 (B-14-9)5bbb-1(B-14-9)5bbb-1 (B-14-4)1dac-1(B-14-4)1dac-1

(B-9-2)15daa-1(B-9-2)15daa-1

(A-13-1)29bcd-1(A-13-1)29bcd-1(B-12-11)6abb-1(B-12-11)6abb-1

(A-12-1)29cab-1(A-12-1)29cab-1(B-12-11)8baa-1(B-12-11)8baa-1(A-12-1)31dab-2(A-12-1)31dab-2

(B-12-11)8bbb-1(B-12-11)8bbb-1

(B-11-1) 9cdb-1(B-11-1) 9cdb-1

(B-12-11)8abb-1(B-12-11)8abb-1

(B-11-1)35cca-1(B-11-1)35cca-1

(B-11-4)3bac-1(B-11-4)3bac-1

(B-10-18)33aaa-1(B-10-18)33aaa-1

Figure 41. Location of groundwater sites sampled during the summer of 2012.


[µS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; °C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; ANC, acid neutralization capacity; —, no data; <, less than; L, laboratory value]

Local identifier

(refer to figure 41)

Station number Date

pH, field, in

standard units

Specific conductance,

field, in µS/cm at 25°C

Watertemperature,

field, in °C

Hardness, water,

in mg/L as CaCO

3

Calcium, dissolved,

in mg/L

Magnesium, dissolved,

in mg/L

Beaver CountyBeaver Valley(C-29-7)19bcd-1 381625112412901 6/25/2012 7.2 498 13.5 164 50.8 9.07Cove Fort area(C-26-7)26cac-1 383101112365301 8/6/2012 7.9 634 14.8 270 82.3 15.7Escalante Valley, Milford area(C-28-10)20daa-1 382135112592801 6/18/2012 7.0 2,110 19.5 902 188 105(C-28-10)29bcc-2 381543113035501 6/18/2012 7.6 737 15.5 267 80 16.4(C-29-10)5cdd-2 382046113002702 6/18/2012 7.1 790 21.4 310 72.8 31.2(C-29-10)18ddd-1 381835113000001 6/18/2012 7.0 768 15.4 346 103 21.5(C-29-11)27aad-1 381649113003401 6/18/2012 7.2 888 16.7 402 121 24.1

Box Elder CountyCurlew Valley(B-12-11)6abb-1 414813113082901 7/13/2012 7.5 751 14.9 271 80.1 17.3(B-12-11)8bbb-1 414720113075201 7/13/2012 7.2 2,580 14.2 705 200 49.9(B-12-11)8baa-1 414721113072601 7/13/2012 7.2 3,960 13.5 1,400 406 93.2(B-14-9)5bbb-1 415847112540401 7/12/2012 7.0 1,400 17.3 513 151 33.1(B-15-10)36bbb-1 415939112562201 7/12/2012 7.5 488 16.0 196 58.5 12.1Lower Bear River area(B-11-4)3bac-1 414313112172501 8/31/2012 6.8 1,950 14.9 616 134 68.3(B-14-4)1dac-1 415833112150701 8/31/2012 7.1 734 12.1 281 71.1 25

Cache CountyCache Valley(B-11-1)9cdb-1 414209111574001 8/24/2012 6.8 915 13.0 352 94.5 28(B-11-1)35cca-1 413840111552601 8/24/2012 7.0 693 12.0 227 56.6 20.8(A-12-1)29cab-1 414501111520001 8/24/2012 7.2 488 20.9 224 54 21.6(A-12-1)31dab-2 414409111523502 8/24/2012 7.4 402 16.3 213 50.3 21.3(A-13-1)29bcd-1 415020111520401 8/24/2012 7.3 438 13.4 199 41.5 23.1

Davis CountyEast Shore area(B-2-1)24bad-3 405351111540803 6/11/2012 7.8 452 15.7 94 27.6 6.17(B-4-2)27aba-1 410340112030001 6/11/2012 8.1 599 13.7 46 11.6 4.09(B-6-3)15cbc-1 411523112082101 6/11/2012 8.3 409 15.8 33 7.83 3.26(B-9-2)15daa-1 413057112023901 6/12/2012 8.4 607 16.1 9 1.93 0.907

Duchesne CountyDuchesne River areaU(C-1-1)24cbb-2 402252109571501 7/10/2012 6.8 736 14.5 398 86.6 44.2U(C-1-2)27ddc-1 402135110051901 7/11/2012 7.3 329 12.5 181 51.1 12.9U(C-1-2)36adc-1 402116110030801 7/11/2012 7.4 326 11.9 172 46.2 13.8U(C-2-2)11bab-1 401946110044601 7/9/2012 7.4 334 15.1 169 43.2 14.8

Grand CountySpanish Valley(D-26-22)16ddd-3 383201109295301 6/22/2012 7.4 1,280 16.0 613 158 52.9(D-26-22)26cba-1 383043109282401 6/22/2012 7.5 906 15.8 418 110 34.4

Table 5. Physical properties and concentration of major ions and nutrients in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012.


Potassium, dissolved,

in mg/L

Sodium,dissolved,

in mg/L

ANC, fixed end point,

lab, in mg/L as CaCO

3

Bromide, dissolved,

in mg/L

Chloride, dissolved,

in mg/L

Fluoride, dissolved,

in mg/L

Silica, dissolved,

in mg/L

Sulfate, dissolved, in

mg/L

Solids, dissolved, residue at 180°C,

in mg/L

Nitrate plus nitrite,

dissolved, in mg/L as N

Orthophosphate, dissolved, in mg/L

as P

Beaver CountyBeaver Valley

6.33 29.6 162 0.06 20.5 0.88 40 33.3 297 1.35 0.034Cove Fort area

2.68 23.2 148 0.17 93.2 0.19 40.9 25.8 392 1.48 0.03Escalante Valley, Milford area

5.02 66.3 89 1.44 481 0.64 31.3 274 1,390 2.86 0.0136.15 40.9 130 0.19 98.9 0.38 42.6 77.1 474 2.60 0.0324.13 35.4 107 0.26 113 0.46 31.3 114 486 0.92 0.0154.63 27.5 249 0.18 52.3 0.25 34.1 68.1 477 2.56 0.0395.79 28.3 244 0.27 73.7 0.41 32.7 92.3 555 5.69 0.052

Box Elder CountyCurlew Valley

2.84 39.8 128 0.13 121 0.15 16.3 28.3 470 0.49 0.017.34 251 173 0.48 658 0.09 22.1 291 1,770 3.77 0.013

10.3 218 110 0.81 1,180 0.06 21.2 64.8 2,980 2.57 0.0113.5 51.2 114 0.28 357 0.17 54 24.3 1,010 1.98 0.0268.22 17.4 142 0.05 55.2 0.19 58.2 18.4 339 0.80 0.026

Lower Bear River area5.9 192 302 0.25 246 0.17 25 349 1,320 7.58 0.0152.27 47.1 211 0.11 98.6 0.12 16.4 29.5 436 1.58 0.021

Cache CountyCache Valley

8.3 47.7 387 0.11 76.3 0.61 48.9 0.19 529 <0.04 0.19211 52.1 302 0.06 49.5 0.33 44.5 <0.09 402 <0.04 0.7625.5 17.9 221 0.02 15.7 0.22 21.9 19.9 288 1.20 0.0241.59 8.38 206 0.02 7.22 0.11 11.4 11.3 230 0.48 0.0181.64 24.9 230 0.02 8.58 0.09 10.6 11.1 265 0.13 0.01

Davis CountyEast Shore area

0.81 60.1 167 0.04 28.7 0.23 16.2 22.7 269 1.48 0.0475.51 112 262 0.06 41.1 0.36 28.5 0.21 367 <0.04 0.619.68 71.4 197 0.04 15.9 0.31 19.2 0.22 254 <0.04 0.2531.73 139 310 0.02 13.8 0.62 14.8 1.2 387 <0.04 1.36

Duchesne CountyDuchesne River area

1.14 18.1 348 0.11 5.77 1.5 56.4 62.3 502 0.18 0.0193.36 4.24 146 0.02 0.54 0.54 8.46 36.7 214 <0.04 <0.0043.9 3.79 135 0.02 0.69 0.87 7.49 41.3 199 <0.04 <0.0043.32 11.2 140 0.02 1.25 0.6 9.31 47.5 220 <0.04 <0.004

Grand CountySpanish Valley

2.97 64.3 197 0.21 32.5 0.25 15.3 467 998 4.87 0.0062.72 44.4 214 0.14 20.3 0.2 14.1 248 651 3.69 0.006



Local identifier


Station number Date

pH, field, in

standard units



Watertemperature,

field, in °C

Hardness, water,

in mg/L as CaCO

3

Calcium, dissolved,

in mg/L


in mg/L

Iron CountyCedar Valley(C-35-11)31dbd-1 374248113075201 6/26/2012 7.9 1,170 14.0 661 130 81.5(C-36-12)36adb-1 373743113084201 8/6/2012 7.0 803 13.1 447 111 41(C-37-12)23acb-1 373407113100801 6/26/2012 7.4 1,410 14.5 698 157 74.1(C-37-12)34abb-1 373236113111401 6/26/2012 7.1 816 12.5 466 120 40.1Escalante Valley, Beryl-Enterprise area(C-34-16)28dcc-3 374934113384601 6/19/2012 7.1 790 18.0 288 87.2 17.2(C-35-15)3dcc-3 374649113305801 6/19/2012 7.2 1,290 13.8 541 130 52.4(C-35-17)7dad-2 374617113470601 6/19/2012 7.4 484 15.8 167 52.6 8.75(C-36-15)4bad-3 374209113322203 6/19/2012 7.4 791 21.2 142 45.1 7.07(C-36-15)7cdd-2 374040113343102 6/19/2012 7.4 929 24.4 200 52.3 16.9Parowan Valley(C-33-8)22bbc-2 375523112451902 6/25/2012 7.9 495 16.6 64 15.4 6.32(C-33-8)31ccc-1 375257112483501 6/25/2012 7.3 482 14.7 214 44.5 25(C-33-9)14dbd-2 375548112500401 6/25/2012 7.9 725 16.2 207 34.3 29.6(C-34-10)13cbd-2 375033112561101 6/25/2012 7.4 475 12.8 221 43.3 27.3

Juab CountyJuab Valley(C-14-1)26dbd-1 393342111534501 8/14/2012 7.4 1,170 13.7 534 114 60.4(D-11-1)21bbb-1 395059111501901 8/14/2012 7.4 530 12.9 266 64.8 25.3(D-13-1)5ddb-2 394225111502702 8/14/2012 7.2 1,510 12.6 475 129 37.2

Kane CountyKanab area(C-44-5)6cbb-1 370050112274501 7/31/2012 7.0 2,100 15.1 712 178 65.1R(C-40-4)31bad-1 371740112210601 7/31/2012 7.1 2,010 11.4 1,100 149 176

Millard CountyPahvant Valley(C-21-5)7cdd-3 385939112272303 6/27/2012 7.1 1,500 12.1 546 120 59.8(C-23-5)5acd-1 385026112261001 6/27/2012 7.4 580 15.0 265 71.2 21.2(C-23-6)8abd-1 384953112325101 6/27/2012 7.0 7,670 14.9 2,170 542 198(C-23-6)21add-1 384751112312201 6/27/2012 7.5 1,230 14.2 347 64.8 44.9(C-23-6)28bbb-2 384722112322101 6/27/2012 7.6 6,590 13.4 2,320 415 312Sevier Desert(C-15-4)11add-1 393158112152001 8/16/2012 7.1 1,770 14.5 518 122 51.5(C-15-4)26dcc-1 392859112154601 8/14/2012 7.3 962 15.0 417 113 32.6(C-15-5)15dad-1 393046112231301 8/16/2012 7.5 925 15.3 313 61.1 38.9(C-16-4)18bda-1 392555112203001 8/16/2012 7.6 1,340 17.1 573 119 67Snake Valley(C-18-19)20ddd-2 391324114000001 8/15/2012 7.9 339 21.9 121 29.6 11.5(C-20-20)1baa-2 390604114025201 8/15/2012 7.6 433 15.1 184 46.1 16.8(C-23-19)4bcd-1 385048113592901 8/15/2012 7.7 447 12.1 209 39.8 26.7

Table 5. Physical properties and concentration of major ions and nutrients in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012.—Continued



in mg/L

Sodium,dissolved,

in mg/L



3

Bromide, dissolved,

in mg/L


in mg/L


in mg/L

Silica, dissolved,

in mg/L


mg/L


in mg/L




as P

Iron CountyCedar Valley

2.44 12.4 132 0.07 14.7 0.2 19.4 467 865 2.51 0.0091.87 15.1 300 0.04 7.03 0.11 18 146 527 1.51 0.0092 53.5 144 0.67 133 0.07 16.6 435 1,050 2.08 0.0181.99 16.1 318 0.06 8.69 0.17 16.9 131 540 1.01 0.012

Escalante Valley, Beryl-Enterprise area8.02 35.1 132 0.45 120 1.1 66.9 58.5 531 1.13 0.0275.29 64.6 126 0.56 167 0.37 57.3 299 866 1.15 0.0267.46 32.5 146 0.09 20.5 0.59 69.8 66 356 0.95 0.0244.47 119 156 0.13 37.4 1.38 51.8 182 546 0.77 0.0273.73 126 122 0.12 41.9 1.4 42.9 280 639 0.49 0.017

Parowan Valley1.44 80.5 121 0.08 69.8 0.46 22.9 18.2 294 0.31 0.0242.59 23.3 202 0.07 22.2 0.18 27.3 21.1 290 1.60 0.0272.61 61 111 0.21 142 0.38 20.7 31.9 396 0.10 0.0234.55 16.2 200 0.07 17.5 0.24 40.5 24.6 330 1.74 0.025

Juab CountyJuab Valley

3.11 65.1 247 0.05 58.9 0.18 19.1 298 811 1.86 0.020.91 12.3 209 0.05 20.5 0.09 9.19 38.1 310 1.68 0.0063.58 141 347 0.10 215 0.13 23.4 114 898 5.45 0.029

Kane CountyKanab area

9.79 254 312 0.24 56.8 0.36 13.7 859 1,690 0.06 0.00410.1 112 382 0.11 26.6 0.42 13.2 858 1,630 <0.04 0.005

Millard CountyPahvant Valley

4.85 115 311 0.28 171 0.15 24 241 999 5.25 0.0221.88 25.1 249 0.05 26.9 0.16 18.7 26.2 350 1.06 0.035

75.4 851 322 2.34 1,930 0.86 34 1,210 5,310 1.91 0.0674.93 116 185 0.35 189 0.4 24.7 141 742 5.43 0.019

11.9 512 177 2.85 1,770 0.22 27 788 4,690 36.30 0.019Sevier Desert

5.44 188 280 0.25 258 0.31 20.4 255 1,120 0.80 0.0171.62 46.4 174 0.19 76.9 0.09 13.1 179 594 10.50 0.0153.66 67.3 175 0.15 166 0.3 27.1 49.4 544 0.16 0.0163.6 40.8 125 0.40 293 0.11 25.5 48.2 844 10.80 0.014

Snake Valley1.73 23.9 135 0.04 19.5 0.11 13.3 9.75 195 0.19 0.0071.24 19.1 143 0.10 33.1 0.12 16.7 25.9 249 0.65 0.012.52 13.9 153 0.05 11.8 1.53 19.6 61 276 0.29 0.009



Local identifier


Station number Date

pH, field, in

standard units



Watertemperature,

field, in °C

Hardness, water,

in mg/L as CaCO

3

Calcium, dissolved,

in mg/L


in mg/L

Salt Lake CountySalt Lake Valley(A-1-1)31cac-1 404627111532601 7/2/2012 7.0 1,180 13.8 459 114 42(C-3-1)12ccb-3 403409111542401 7/3/2012 7.4 2,390 19.2 573 143 52.1(D-1-1)7abd-6 404506111523301 7/2/2012 7.0 1,360 14.5 605 147 57.8(D-1-1)19cdb-17 404253111530901 7/3/2012 7.4 1,100 14.9 529 141 42.9(D-2-1)21dbc-1 403742111503201 7/2/2012 7.9 334 13.6 150 39.8 12.3

San Juan CountyBlanding-Bluff area(D-40-21)25acd-1 371657109331901 8/23/2012 8.9 416 — 11 3.14 0.856(D-40-22)30bbb-1 371716109325501 8/23/2012 8.9 796 19.6 5 1.26 0.427(D-40-23)27baa-1 371621109211001 8/23/2012 7.5 3,110 19.4 102 24.6 9.75

Sanpete CountyCentral Sevier Valley(C-19-1)23cac-1 390819111530701 8/6/2012 7.0 2,600 11.7 759 112 116Sanpete Valley(D-15-4)17abb-1 393113111294501 8/28/2012 7.6 L 580 10.1 320 68.4 36.1(D-17-2)14ccb-1 391955111401301 8/28/2012 7.7 L 890 13.1 399 61.2 59.7(D-17-3)9cbd-1 392056111353801 8/28/2012 7.9 L 651 11.8 319 53.9 44.7

Sevier CountyCentral Sevier Valley(C-23-2)15dcb-4 384757112002201 8/6/2012 7.3 664 12.9 319 64.7 38.4(C-23-2)19dab-1 384702112031001 8/6/2012 7.2 649 13.3 327 62.6 41.4(C-29-2)35bad-1 381440111584001 8/6/2012 7.2 471 14.4 211 58.5 15.7Upper Sevier River area(C-26-1)25acc-1 383115111512501 8/6/2012 7.0 111 10.3 40 11.7 2.6(C-30-2)34bcc-1 380915112003001 8/6/2012 7.5 299 13.5 116 36.3 6.2

Tooele CountyRush Valley(C-5-5)15add-2 402310112231002 6/5/2012 7.0 542 11.8 263 57 29.2(C-8-5)6ddb-2 400849112263902 6/5/2012 7.1 674 16.0 247 48.2 30.7(C-8-5)7ddd-2 400745112263101 6/5/2012 7.2 541 16.4 204 37.5 26.7Skull Valley(C-3-8)28ddb-1 403126112444501 7/19/2012 7.3 585 14.0 180 50.1 13.3(C-4-8)33aba-1 402604112445501 7/19/2012 7.6 1,230 15.4 245 42.9 33.5Tooele Valley(C-2-4)33bdd-1 403629112174801 7/18/2012 7.1 1,030 14.2 287 73.6 25(C-2-4)34adc-1 403608112164201 7/19/2012 7.7 L 899 18.6 371 84.5 39(C-2-4)34dad-1 403556112163001 7/18/2012 7.3 1,040 15.2 386 88.9 39.7(C-2-5)34dbb-1 403602112235701 7/19/2012 7.4 2,110 28.3 315 75.7 30.7(C-2-5)35cab-1 403602112230101 7/18/2012 7.3 3,890 21.0 419 103 39.1Snake Valley—West Desert area(B-10-18)33aaa-1 413300113543001 7/12/2012 7.4 871 12.1 343 102 21.4

Uintah CountyDuchesne River area U(C-3-5)31dcd-1 401012110292101 7/9/2012 9.3 1,800 15.2 17 1.85 2.92




in mg/L

Sodium,dissolved,

in mg/L



3

Bromide, dissolved,

in mg/L


in mg/L


in mg/L

Silica, dissolved,

in mg/L


mg/L


in mg/L




as P

Salt Lake CountySalt Lake Valley

3.5 67.1 269 0.07 180 0.18 18 72.7 706 4.35 0.01623.6 263 202 0.29 529 0.27 29.3 217 1,440 0.66 0.013.1 60.4 290 0.12 194 0.15 16.9 169 874 4.85 0.0413.73 46.3 257 0.07 99.7 0.21 15.8 212 749 2.93 0.0171.9 12 114 0.04 19.7 0.19 10.4 26.9 203 1.65 0.011

San Juan CountyBlanding-Bluff area

1.26 95.2 171 0.02 1.89 0.08 10.1 43.1 272 <0.040 0.0051.01 191 354 0.04 15.1 0.43 9.72 48.1 488 <0.040 0.008

13.2 501 765 1.06 449 1.28 10.7 189 1,900 <0.040 0.006Sanpete County

Central Sevier Valley3.3 332 600 <0.01 332 0.35 35 350 1,680 4.89 0.06

Sanpete Valley1.2 9.33 286 0.02 5.29 0.07 8.54 14.5 335 2.70 0.0051.32 49.6 305 0.09 56 0.2 17.3 106 546 0.88 0.0151.44 29.2 322 0.03 8.34 0.15 12.1 35.3 379 1.97 0.007

Sevier CountyCentral Sevier Valley

3.35 21 270 0.08 27.1 0.33 32.2 44.8 400 1.08 0.0412.31 17.9 307 0.06 13.5 0.18 14 19.6 366 3.09 0.0176.17 15.6 186 0.16 25.9 0.17 45 17.2 300 1.09 0.068

Upper Sevier River area1.95 7.04 48.9 0.02 3.76 0.24 43.6 1.41 94 0.33 0.0624.45 18 136 0.04 8.55 0.24 36.6 6.24 204 0.77 0.152

Tooele CountyRush Valley

1.17 16 196 0.05 42.1 0.17 12.8 21.7 309 1.33 0.0092.61 46.4 168 0.08 97 0.57 15 30.2 386 0.46 0.0052.52 35.4 155 0.07 65 0.68 14.6 24.2 301 0.06 0.006

Skull Valley1.79 47.2 119 0.08 101 0.14 17.8 17.7 353 1.01 0.025

14 182 174 0.20 285 0.12 24.5 54.8 790 8.61 0.015Tooele Valley

2.15 109 218 0.13 137 0.12 12.1 111 616 1.80 0.0461.48 61 235 0.08 51.3 0.07 13.2 173 588 3.12 0.0221.76 76.3 227 0.13 106 0.06 14.4 165 640 3.33 0.0235.13 297 183 0.33 546 0.2 20.7 35.9 1,170 0.48 0.0099.68 644 197 0.69 1,160 0.46 24.2 88.3 2,230 1.47 0.018

Snake Valley—West Desert area8.21 45.4 173 0.21 115 0.29 50 63.3 565 0.53 0.04

Uintah CountyDuchesne River area

1.14 426 540 0.07 170 1.39 14.7 156 1,150 <0.04 0.068



Local identifier


Station number Date

pH, field, in

standard units



Watertemperature,

field, in °C

Hardness, water,

in mg/L as CaCO

3

Calcium, dissolved,

in mg/L


in mg/L

Utah CountyCedar Valley (C-6-2)26cbc-1 401600112023401 7/16/2012 7.4 956 11.2 421 67.7 61.1(C-6-2)29bdb-1 401620112054301 7/16/2012 8.7 228 10.5 93 15.5 13.2Goshen Valley(C-9-1)28ccb-1 395956111572101 7/24/2012 7.2 2,310 17.7 760 199 63.8(D-9-2)9bac-1 400311111432001 7/23/2012 7.2 680 14.7 318 79.2 29.2Northern Utah Valley(D-5-1)20aba-2 402234111511501 7/23/2012 7.3 499 11.3 248 56.2 26.1(D-5-1)21dda-2 402154111495101 7/23/2012 7.6 382 11.5 204 47 21.1Southern Utah Valley(C-9-1)4ddc-1 400309111565101 7/24/2012 7.5 1,390 17.0 345 89 29.9(D-7-2)4cbb-2 401414111435301 7/23/2012 7.7 538 13.0 265 66.7 23.9(D-9-1)36bbc-1 395942111470801 7/24/2012 7.5 527 10.7 280 71.5 24.7

Wasatch CountyHeber Valley(D-3-4)26dba-1 403146111272701 8/30/2012 7.1 752 13.0 367 112 21.6(D-4-4)12dcc-1 402842111263101 8/30/2012 6.8 733 11.9 332 93.9 23.6(D-4-4)13bdd-1 402810111263601 8/29/2012 7.6 475 21.5 239 56.2 24(D-4-5)3dcc-1 402937111214901 8/29/2012 6.8 540 11.7 278 91.2 12.3(D-4-5)4ccb-1 402946111233901 8/30/2012 6.7 414 12.5 211 67.3 10.4(D-4-5)6bcc-2 403003111255801 8/29/2012 7.0 368 12.5 186 56 11.2(D-4-5)16bab-1 402840111232201 8/29/2012 7.1 643 L 12.5 337 92.2 25.9(D-4-5)16ccd-1 402750111232701 8/29/2012 7.1 604 11.9 278 71.2 24.4

Washington CountyCentral Virgin River area(C-41-17)8cbd-2 371348113470301 7/30/2012 7.3 488 18.6 235 67.2 16.2(C-42-11)33bcb-1 370535113062301 7/30/2012 6.9 1,190 17.6 684 160 69.2(C-42-14)15cbd-1 370538113251301 7/30/2012 7.1 2,620 25.5 1,260 268 143

Wayne CountyUpper Fremont River Valley(D-27-2)26ddc-1 382544111392401 8/6/2012 7.3 240 10.7 95 26.6 6.92

Weber CountyEast Shore area(B-5-2)6bdd-4 411153112064601 6/12/2012 7.9 431 16.5 145 35.4 13.8




in mg/L

Sodium,dissolved,

in mg/L



3

Bromide, dissolved,

in mg/L


in mg/L


in mg/L

Silica, dissolved,

in mg/L


mg/L


in mg/L




as P

Utah CountyCedar Valley

3.68 28 187 0.16 135 0.27 55 51.2 578 0.31 0.0360.99 15 113 0.03 12.9 0.14 2.58 0.6 128 0.15 <0.004

Goshen Valley20.2 150 106 0.77 554 0.15 61 124 1,550 21.70 0.0238.04 28.3 269 0.05 30.7 0.2 49.7 40.5 434 3.98 0.032

Northern Utah Valley1.59 14.5 202 0.02 13 0.13 11.8 45.4 302 2.39 0.0070.99 7.24 160 0.02 6.36 0.18 11.2 42.9 230 0.69 0.008

Southern Utah Valley14.7 144 140 0.32 293 0.32 66.5 110 847 2.34 0.0242.53 16.4 232 0.04 12.9 0.19 18.7 44.5 328 <0.04 0.0241.51 7.72 228 0.04 22 0.19 15.9 20.1 311 2.41 0.01

Wasatch CountyHeber Valley

6.06 23.1 261 — 26.9 0.44 19 83.6 4581 2.07 0.022

1.47 27.9 249 — 60 0.09 21.9 38.3 4341 3.95 0.042

1.82 10.3 208 — 20.5 0.25 12.5 17.8 2701 0.39 0.022

3.41 8.58 197 — 38.7 0.07 37 7.71 3501 7.30 0.082

2.56 5.58 170 — 15.2 0.09 40.3 14.8 2771 4.30 0.092

2.08 8.66 161 — 10.3 0.06 29.4 18.1 2381 1.29 0.032

1.66 16.1 290 — 23.6 0.13 29.5 20.1 3981 3.45 0.032

1.16 26 219 — 40.1 0.11 17.2 21.6 3591 5.92 0.022

Washington CountyCentral Virgin River area

2.16 15.2 202 0.07 14.9 0.28 18.5 35.5 299 0.33 0.0122.25 48.4 230 0.53 62.2 0.2 12.3 416 910 <0.04 <0.0049.6 163 170 0.51 285 0.27 21.3 943 2,090 10.30 0.01

Wayne CountyUpper Fremont River Valley

2.74 14.2 105 0.03 6.64 0.24 41 11.6 170 0.27 0.023Weber County

East Shore area7.49 31.5 211 0.03 16.4 0.18 24.7 <0.09 246 <0.04 0.158

1 Dissolved solids determined by sum of constituents.2 Phosphorus, dissolved, in mg/L as P.


Table 6. Concentration of trace elements in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012.[µg/L, micrograms per liter; < , less than; —, no data]

Local identifier(refer to figure 41) Station number Date

Arsenic, dissolved, in

µg/L

Iron, dissolved, in

µg/L

Manganese, dissolved, in

µg/L

Molybdenum, dissolved, in

µg/L

Selenium, dissolved, in

µg/L

Uranium, dissolved, in

µg/L

Beaver County

Beaver Valley(C-29-7)19bcd-1 381625112412901 6/25/2012 5.6 <3.2 3.74 2.7 0.59 21Cove Fort area(C-26-7)26cac-1 383101112365301 8/6/2012 2.5 31.9 0.25 0.354 1.6 3.85Escalante Valley, Milford area (C-28-10)20daa-1 382135112592801 6/18/2012 3.1 17.3 <0.32 2.53 8.1 5.84(C-28-10)29bcc-2 382046113002702 6/18/2012 7 11.2 0.23 2.27 4.7 13.2(C-29-10) 5cdd-2 381835113000001 6/18/2012 2.5 5 0.26 0.578 0.64 28.7(C-29-10)18ddd-1 381649113003401 6/18/2012 2.9 4.2 <0.16 1.77 0.81 58.3(C-29-11)27aad-1 381543113035501 6/18/2012 3.7 <3.2 <0.16 1.53 0.89 12.4

Box Elder County

Curlew Valley(B-12-11)6abb-1 414813113082901 7/13/2012 1.2 3.6 <0.16 0.957 0.97 1.98(B-12-11)8baa-1 414721113072601 7/13/2012 0.45 18.1 <0.8 0.293 1.1 4.38(B-12-11)8bbb-1 414720113075201 7/13/2012 0.92 6.7 <0.32 0.439 1 3.9(B-14-9)5bbb-1 415847112540401 7/12/2012 1.9 3.7 <0.16 0.786 2 1.6(B-15-10)36bbb-1 415939112562201 7/12/2012 2.5 <3.2 <0.16 0.819 1.1 1.74Lower Bear River area(B-11-4)3bac-1 414313112172501 8/31/2012 0.95 4.1 <0.16 0.784 2.8 4.51(B-14-4)1dac-1 415833112150701 8/31/2012 1.8 7.3 <0.16 0.434 1.8 0.904

Cache County

Cache Valley

(A-12-1)29cab-1 414501111520001 8/24/2012 1.4 <3.2 <0.16 0.682 0.2 0.634(A-12-1)31dab-2 414409111523502 8/24/2012 1 <3.2 <0.16 0.47 0.33 0.711(A-13-1)29bcd-1 415020111520401 8/24/2012 6.4 153 66.7 0.772 0.06 0.321(B-11-1)9cdb-1 414209111574001 8/24/2012 13.1 1,770 283 0.15 0.09 <0.004(B-11-1)35cca-1 413840111552601 8/24/2012 23.5 1,850 168 0.671 <0.03 0.004

Davis County

East Shore area (B-2-1)24bad-3 405351111540803 6/11/2012 0.902 <3.2 <0.16 3.2 0.561 3.07(B-4-2)27aba-1 410340112030001 6/11/2012 23.8 256 47.2 0.402 <0.03 0.006(B-6-3)15cbc-1 411523112082101 6/11/2012 22.1 89.2 54.1 3.06 <0.03 0.004(B-9-2)15daa-1 413057112023901 6/12/2012 0.11 249 11 0.534 <0.03 0.326

Duchesne County

Duchesne River area U(C-1-1)24cbb-2 402252109571501 7/10/2012 9 23 16.7 2.06 0.89 6.29U(C-1-2)27ddc-1 402135110051901 7/11/2012 0.69 783 13.1 0.449 <0.03 0.192U(C-1-2)36adc-1 402116110030801 7/11/2012 0.57 528 23.9 0.517 <0.03 0.264U(C-2-2)11bab-1 401946110044601 7/9/2012 0.11 234 9.41 0.415 <0.03 0.137

Grand CountySpanish Valley(D-26-22)16ddd-3 383201109295301 6/22/2012 0.35 27.1 1.5 0.829 7.7 5.02(D-26-22)26cba-1 383043109282401 6/22/2012 0.43 8.9 <0.16 0.807 3.5 4.09


[µg/L, micrograms per liter; < , less than; —, no data]



µg/L

Iron, dissolved, in

µg/L


µg/L


µg/L


µg/L


µg/L

Iron County

Cedar Valley(C-35-11)31dbd-1 374248113075201 6/26/2012 0.89 10.5 <0.16 0.525 1.6 3.01(C-36-12)36adb-1 373743113084201 8/6/2012 0.9 <3.2 <0.16 0.338 1 2.41(C-37-12)23acb-1 373407113100801 6/26/2012 0.68 3.7 <0.16 0.417 12.7 2.18(C-37-12)34abb-1 373236113111401 6/26/2012 0.32 <3.2 <0.16 0.461 0.8 1.86Escalante Valley, Beryl-Enterprise area(C-34-16)28dcc-3 374934113384601 6/19/2012 18.5 5.4 0.18 1.72 1.8 3.12(C-35-15)3dcc-3 374649113305801 6/19/2012 14.7 5.1 2.79 1.38 1.7 3.7(C-35-17)7dad-2 374617113470601 6/19/2012 6.1 <3.2 <0.16 0.785 0.67 5.44(C-36-15)4bad-3 374209113322203 6/19/2012 22.5 <3.2 <0.16 9.09 0.37 1.43(C-36-15)7cdd-2 374040113343102 6/19/2012 26.1 4 <0.16 17.7 0.35 3.3Parowan Valley(C-33-8)22bbc-2 375523112451902 6/25/2012 10.4 <3.2 8.28 1.36 0.12 0.569(C-33-8)31ccc-1 375257112483501 6/25/2012 4.1 <3.2 <0.16 0.467 0.94 2.09(C-33-9)14dbd-2 375548112500401 6/25/2012 9.8 5.4 1.06 1.97 0.23 1.46(C-34-10)13cbd-2 375033112561101 6/25/2012 5.8 <3.2 <0.16 0.718 1.1 3.51

Juab County

Juab Valley(C-14-1)26dbd-1 393342111534501 8/14/2012 1.2 4.5 <0.16 1.99 0.86 2.19(D-11-1)21bbb-1 395059111501901 8/14/2012 0.22 <3.2 <0.16 0.538 5 1.19(D-13-1)5ddb-2 394225111502702 8/14/2012 0.78 <3.2 <0.16 0.681 2.7 2.18

Kane County

Kanab area(C-44-5)6cbb-1 370050112274501 7/31/2012 0.58 15.6 128 3.2 <0.03 0.533R(C-40-4)31bad-1 371740112210601 7/31/2012 0.15 377 180 0.608 <0.03 5.26

Millard County

Pahvant Valley(C-21-5)7cdd-3 385939112272303 6/27/2012 2.1 <3.2 <0.16 1.33 3 3.39(C-23-5)5acd-1 385026112261001 6/27/2012 2.4 <3.2 <0.16 0.277 0.34 0.929(C-23-6)8abd-1 384953112325101 6/27/2012 1.8 <12.8 <0.64 0.749 1.4 4.01(C-23-6)21add-1 384751112312201 6/27/2012 6.3 <3.2 <0.16 1.39 2.5 2.87(C-23-6)28bbb-2 384722112322101 6/27/2012 1.9 <12.8 <0.64 0.708 7.7 12.2Sevier Desert(C-15-4)11add-1 393158112152001 8/16/2012 7 3.9 <0.16 1.24 1.4 4.53(C-15-4)26dcc-1 392859112154601 8/14/2012 1.9 <3.2 <0.16 0.209 4.6 0.877(C-15-5)15dad-1 393046112231301 8/16/2012 4.9 11.5 7.84 2.18 0.21 1.92(C-16-4)18bda-1 392555112203001 8/16/2012 2.3 65 4.41 0.409 1.8 1.74Snake Valley(C-18-19)20ddd-2 391324114000001 8/15/2012 0.87 <3.2 <0.16 0.463 0.36 1.44(C-20-20)1baa-2 390604114025201 8/15/2012 1.4 <3.2 <0.16 0.607 0.67 1.39(C-23-19)4bcd-1 385048113592901 8/15/2012 3.7 <3.2 <0.16 8.63 3.5 3.3

Table 6. Concentration of trace elements in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012.—Continued





µg/L

Iron, dissolved, in

µg/L


µg/L


µg/L


µg/L


µg/L

Salt Lake County

Salt Lake Valley

(A-1-1)31cac-1 404627111532601 7/2/2012 1.3 5.5 <0.16 1.47 1.5 2.05(C-3-1)12ccb-3 403409111542401 7/3/2012 0.34 108 11.5 2.26 1.8 7.5(D-1-1)7abd-6 404506111523301 7/2/2012 1.1 13.6 6.49 1.12 1.7 1.89(D-1-1)19cdb-17 404253111530901 7/3/2012 0.6 4.7 0.24 0.484 1.7 1.23(D-2-1)21dbc-1 403742111503201 7/2/2012 0.94 <3.2 <0.16 2.6 0.43 5.17

San Juan County

Blanding-Bluff area

(D-40-21)25acd-1 371657109331901 8/23/2012 9.4 <3.2 7.45 0.637 <0.03 0.033(D-40-22)30bbb-1 371716109325501 8/23/2012 68.6 4.7 1.44 1.73 <0.03 0.395(D-40-23)27baa-1 371621109211001 8/23/2012 22.6 519 16.7 2.89 0.09 1.52

Sanpete County


(C-19-1)23cac-1 390819111530701 8/6/2012 8.9 <6.4 <0.32 6.1 4.1 10.8Sanpete Valley

(D-15-4)17abb-1 393113111294501 8/28/2012 0.21 <3.2 <0.16 0.236 0.52 1.11(D-17-2)14ccb-1 391955111401301 8/28/2012 1.2 <3.2 <0.16 0.692 6 2.42(D-17-3)9cbd-1 392056111353801 8/28/2012 0.38 4.9 <0.16 1.07 1.1 2.19

Sevier County


(C-23-2)15dcb-4 384757112002201 8/6/2012 3.9 <3.2 <0.16 3.56 1.2 5.31(C-23-2)19dab-1 384702112031001 8/6/2012 1.9 <3.2 <0.16 0.52 0.35 1.97(C-29-2)35bad-1 381440111584001 8/6/2012 1.5 <3.2 0.19 0.521 0.31 6.21Upper Sevier River area

(C-26-1)25acc-1 383115111512501 8/6/2012 2.5 <3.2 <0.16 0.921 0.16 0.111(C-30-2)34bcc-1 380915112003001 8/6/2012 2.2 5.4 0.81 0.695 0.29 1.08

Tooele County

Rush Valley

(C-5-5)15add-2 402310112231002 6/5/2012 1.7 <3.2 <0.16 0.778 1.6 1.93(C-8-5)6ddb-2 400849112263902 6/5/2012 13.2 <3.2 <0.16 2.49 0.81 1.54(C-8-5)7ddd-2 400745112263101 6/5/2012 19.8 <3.2 <0.16 2.96 0.09 1.87Skull Valley

(C-3-8)28ddb-1 403126112444501 7/19/2012 1 <3.2 <0.16 0.586 0.39 0.401(C-4-8)33aba-1 402604112445501 7/19/2012 3.8 36.4 0.47 0.341 0.7 2.9Snake Valley—West Desert area

(B-10-18)33aaa-1 413300113543001 7/12/2012 6.7 12.4 0.16 4.48 3.2 8.06Tooele Valley

(C-2-4)33bdd-1 403629112174801 7/18/2012 1.4 3.3 <0.16 0.516 1.9 2.2(C-2-4)34adc-1 403608112164201 7/19/2012 2 3.3 <0.16 0.305 12.6 1.97(C-2-4)34dad-1 403556112163001 7/18/2012 2.7 4.6 <0.16 0.424 10.3 1.81(C-2-5)34dbb-1 403602112235701 7/19/2012 1.4 29.4 5.36 1.53 0.83 2.06(C-2-5)35cab-1 403602112230101 7/18/2012 4.4 47.8 0.98 3.82 2.2 2.02






µg/L

Iron, dissolved, in

µg/L


µg/L


µg/L


µg/L


µg/L

Uintah County

Duchesne River area

U(C-3-5)31dcd-1 401012110292101 7/9/2012 0.14 <3.2 0.26 0.045 0.04 0.033Utah County

Cedar Valley

(C-6-2)26cbc-1 401600112023401 7/16/2012 5.6 21.9 34.4 38.7 0.92 7.56(C-6-2)29bdb-1 401620112054301 7/16/2012 1.6 43.6 24.5 0.56 0.18 0.169Goshen Valley

(C-9-1)28ccb-1 395956111572101 7/24/2012 3.7 7.9 <0.32 1.74 7.8 6.67(D-9-2)9bac-1 400311111432001 7/23/2012 2.6 <3.2 <0.16 1.06 1.2 2.39Northern Utah Valley

(D-5-1)20aba-2 402234111511501 7/23/2012 0.59 <3.2 <0.16 1.09 1.5 7.41(D-5-1)21dda-2 402154111495101 7/23/2012 0.82 <3.2 <0.16 1.99 1.5 1.83Southern Utah Valley

(C-9-1)4ddc-1 400309111565101 7/24/2012 11.7 <3.2 <0.16 2.03 2.2 5.29(D-7-2)4cbb-2 401414111435301 7/23/2012 1.9 491 73.8 0.928 <0.03 0.019(D-9-1)36bbc-1 395942111470801 7/24/2012 0.42 <3.2 <0.16 0.551 1.6 1.59

Wasatch County

Heber Valley

(D-3-4)26dba-1 403146111272701 8/30/2012 — 5.5 0.17 — — —(D-4-4)12dcc-1 402842111263101 8/30/2012 — <3.2 <0.16 — — —(D-4-4)13bdd-1 402810111263601 8/29/2012 — 8.2 2.97 — — —(D-4-5)3dcc-1 402937111214901 8/29/2012 — 3.6 <0.16 — — —(D-4-5)4ccb-1 402946111233901 8/30/2012 — 15 1.4 — — —(D-4-5)6bcc-2 403003111255801 8/29/2012 — 6.8 0.96 — — —(D-4-5)16bab-1 402840111232201 8/29/2012 — 6 <0.16 — — —(D-4-5)16ccd-1 402750111232701 8/29/2012 — 55 2.53 — — —

Washington County

Central Virgin River area

(C-41-17)8cbd-2 371348113470301 7/30/2012 23.9 34.7 10.3 5.14 0.7 1.58(C-42-11)33bcb-1 370535113062301 7/30/2012 6.3 261 170 5.37 <0.03 8.94(C-42-14)15cbd-1 370538113251301 7/30/2012 7.5 19.3 <0.32 3.17 12.7 11.9

Wayne County

Upper Fremont River Valley

(D-27-2)26ddc-1 382544111392401 8/6/2012 15 5 15.7 1.37 0.15 3.01Weber County

East Shore area

(B-5-2)6bdd-4 411153112064601 6/12/2012 14.2 269 102 0.491 <0.03 <0.004



References Cited

Burden, C.B., and others, 2012, Groundwater conditions in Utah, spring of 2012: Utah Division of Water Resources Cooperative Investigations Report No. 53, 118 p.

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., 1989, Methods for determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. A1, 545 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated, National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1–A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A. [Chapters were published from 1997–1999; updates and revisions are ongoing and can be viewed at http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/mastererrata.html]

Western Regional Climate Center, accessed July 1, 2013, at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu.

UTAHDEPARTMENT OFNATURALRESOURCES

UtahDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality

SPRING OF 2013 - UtahSPRING OF 2013 By Carole B. Burden and others U.S. Geological Survey Prepared...

Documents

Transcript of SPRING OF 2013 - UtahSPRING OF 2013 By Carole B. Burden and others U.S. Geological Survey Prepared...