Hydrology and simulation of the ground-water flow system in Tooele Valley, Utah
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
Geology topics
Bernard J. Stolp
Publications and source records attributed to Bernard J. Stolp.
Hydrology and simulation of ground-water flow in Juab Valley, Juab County, Utah.
Plans to import water to Juab Valley, Utah, primarily for irrigation, are part of the Central Utah Project. A better understanding of the hydrology of the valley is needed to help manage the water resources and to develop conjunctive-use plans. The saturated unconsolidated basin-fill deposits form the ground-water system in Juab Valley. Recharge is by seepage from streams, unconsumed irrigation water, and distribution systems; infiltration of precipitation; and subsurface inflow from consolidated rocks that surround the valley. Discharge is by wells, springs, seeps, evapotranspiration, and subsurface outflow to consolidated rocks. Ground-water pumpage is used to supplement surface water for irrigation in most of the valley and has altered the direction of groundwater flow from that of pre-ground-water development time in areas near and in Nephi and Levan. Greater-than-average precipitation during 1980-87 corresponds with a rise in water levels measured in most wells in the valley and the highest water level measured in some wells. Less-than average precipitation during 1988-91 corresponds with a decline in water levels measured during 1988-93 in most wells. Geochemical analyses indicate that the sources of dissolved ions in water sampled from the southern part of the valley are the Arapien Shale, evaporite deposits that occur in the unconsolidated basin-fill deposits, and possibly residual sea water that has undergone evaporation in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits in selected areas. Water discharging from a spring at Burriston Ponds is a mixture of about 70 percent ground water from a hypothesized flow path that extends downgradient from where Salt Creek enters Juab Valley and 30 percent from a hypothesized flow path from the base of the southern Wasatch Range. The ground-water system of Juab Valley was simulated by using the U.S. Geological Survey modular, three-dimensional, finite-difference, ground-water flow model. The numerical model was calibrated to simulate the steady-state conditions of 1949, multi-year transient-state conditions during 1949-92, and seasonal transient-state conditions during 1992-94. Calibration parameters were adjusted until model-computed water levels reasonably matched measured water levels. Parameters important to the calibration process include horizontal hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, and the spatial distribution and amount of recharge from subsurface inflow and seepage from ephemeral streams to the east side of Juab Valley.
Utah↗
Hydrology and simulation of ground-water flow in southern Utah and Goshen Valleys, Utah
The ground-water resources of southern Utah and Goshen Valleys were assessed from 1988 to 1993 to determine the effects that additional ground-water withdrawals would have on water levels, surface water, and water quality. Recharge, movement, and discharge of ground-water were emphasized. The main ground-water system in southern Utah and Goshen Valleys is in the unconsolidated basin-fill deposits. Recharge to the ground-water system from streams, canals, irrigation, precipitation, intermittent and ephemeral runoff, and subsurface inflow was estimated to be 120,000 acre-feet in southern Utah Valley and 30,000 acre-feet in Goshen Valley in 1990. Discharge from the ground-water system to springs and drains, by evapotranspiration, to wells, streams, canals, Utah Lake, and sewer systems was estimated to be 130,000 acre-feet in southern Utah Valley and 33,000 acre-feet in Goshen Valley in 1990. Release from storage from March 1990 to March 1991 was estimated to be 9,800 acre-feet in southern Utah Valley and 3,400 acre-feet in Goshen Valley. Observed water-level fluctuations indicate that irrigation is not a major source of recharge in either valley and that precipitation is not a major source in Goshen Valley. In southern Utah Valley, water levels in March 1991 were not significantly different from water levels in March 1965. In Goshen Valley, water levels in March 1991 were higher than water levels in March 1965. A three-dimensional, finite-difference, ground-water flow model was used to simulate the ground-water system in the unconsolidated basin-fill deposits of southern Utah and Goshen Valleys. The steady-state conditions of 1949 and annual transient-state conditions from 1949 to 1990 were used to calibrate the model. Model-computed water-level declines of less than 20 feet are projected if municipal well withdrawals increase by 10,000 acre-feet per year. Model-computed water-level declines of 20 feet in southern Utah Valley and 40 to 80 feet in Goshen Valley are projected if well withdrawal is increased by 200 percent of the 1990 withdrawals.
Utah↗
Hydrology and potential for ground-water development in southeastern Tooele Valley and adjacent area in the Oquirrh Mountains, Tooele County, Utah
Communities in southeastern Tooele Valley, Utah, are growing, and future demand for water is expected to increase. To prepare for this demand, local surface- and ground-water resources were evaluated. Average streamflow in Settlement, Middle, and Soldier Canyons is about 6,000, 2,100, and 3,900 acre-feet per year, respectively. The combined average perennial streamflow of Pine, Pole, Swensons, Leavetts, and Pass Canyons is about 700 acre-feet per year. Average ground-water recharge to basin-fill deposits in southeastern Tooele Valley is about 44,000 acre-feet per year. Discharge approximately equals recharge. Specific capacity of wells in the basin fill ranges from less than 1 to 180 gallons per minute per foot of drawdown, and dissolved-solids concentration ranges from 363 to 1,550 milligrams per liter. Stream-channel deposits are recharged mainly by streamflow losses and subsurface inflow. Average discharge from stream-channel deposits in Settlement and Middle Canyons is about 2,100 and 3,400 acre-feet per year, respectively. Specific capacity of wells in the stream-channel deposits ranges from less than 1 to 45 gallons per minute per foot of drawdown, and dissolved-solids concentration ranges from 320 to 350 milligrams per liter. Average ground-water recharge to consolidated rock is about 42,000 acre-feet per year. Discharge, mainly by subsurface outflow to southeastern Tooele Valley, approximately equals recharge. Locations of springs in consolidated rock are not correlated with known topographic or geologic features. Specific capacity of wells in the consolidated rock ranges from less than 1 to 97 gallons per minute per foot of drawdown, and dissolved-solids concentration ranges from 220 to 1,400 milligrams per liter. Areas southwest of Tooele City and near Lincoln are considered to have potential for additional ground-water withdrawal.
Utah↗
Selected hydrologic data for southern Utah and Goshen Valleys, Utah, 1890-1992
This report contains hydrologic data collected in southern Utah and Goshen Valleys from 1890 to 1992. Southern Utah and Goshen Valleys are south of Salt Lake City in Utah County, north-central Utah. The area is bounded on the east and south by the Wasatch Range, on the south by Long Ridge, on the west by the East Tintic Mountains and the Mosida Hills, and on the north by a line through about the middle of T. 7 S. Southern Utah Valley and Goshen Valley are divided by the northern tip of Long Ridge, West Mountain, and Utah Lake (Cordova, 1970). The area is in the Basin and Range physiographic province described by Fenneman (1931), and includes about 390 square miles. Most of the data in this report were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights. Some of the earlier data were published previously by Cordova (1969 and 1970). The purpose of this report is to provide hydrologic data for use by the general public and by officials managing the area's water resources, and to document data collected during a 4-year study of the ground-water resources in southern Utah and Goshen Valleys. Tables 1 to 8 contain selected ground- and surface-water data. Select data, including well depth and water level, is given for over 400 wells, and chemical analyses are given of samples from about 90 wells. The numbering system used in Utah for hydrologic-data sites is illustrated in figure 1. Hydrologic-data sites are shown on plate 1. These data could not have been collected without the cooperation of local residents and officials of irrigation companies and municipalities, who permitted access to their wells and property.
Utah↗
Hydrology of the L.C. Holding coal-lease tract and adjacent areas, southwestern Utah, and potential effects of coal mining
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management recognized a need for baseline hydrologic data and an understanding of the hydrologic system in the L.C. Holding coal-lease tract in order to determine the potential effects of mining on the water resources of the area. The potential impacts of mining on the hydrology of the area are of concern because Zion National Park is less than 3 miles from the westernmost part of the lease tract. Much of the water that passes through the Park either originates in the lease tract or traverses it. Runoff from melting snowpacks and summer thundershowers contributes most of the flow to perennial streams in the area. Base flow is sustained by spring discharge and diffuse seepage. Regional groundwater movement is southward. Most of the geologic formations in the study area contain aquifers. The water table of the regional aquifer is about 870 ft deep in the Navajo Sandstone. Groundwater issuing from the Navajo Sandstone on the east side of Zion Canyon has specific conductance values several times larger than groundwater from the west side, indicating recharge to the Navajo from the overlying strata, which contain water of larger specific conductance. Potential effects of mining in the area include: (1) increased dissolved-solids concen- trations and decreased pH values in both surface and groundwater; (2) dewatering of aquifers, causing a decrease or cessation of flow to some springs; and (3) land subsidence and associated subsidence fractures.
Utah↗
Physical characteristics and chemical quality of selected springs in parts of Juab, Millard, Tooele, and Utah counties, Utah
Hydrologic, geologic, and partial water quality data were collected at 90 selected springs in west-central Utah, and chemical analyses performed on water samples from 62 of the springs. Descriptions of the physiographic and geologic conditions, climate, and vegetation patterns for the study area are included. Allowable limits of certain chemical constituents in water for human and livestock consumption are included with the water quality data. Three classifications of springs were established based on physical characteristics of the springs, and chemical composition of the springflow: (1) mountain springs; (2) non-thermal valley springs, and (3) thermal valley springs. Mountain springs are in and near recharge areas, have seasonal variations of discharge and temperature, typically discharge from extrusive and metamorphic geohydrologic units, and generally discharge freshwater. Non-thermal valley springs are peripheral to recharge areas, have seasonal variations of discharge and temperature, typically discharge from a variety of geohydrologic units, and have variable water composition. Thermal valley springs are near topographic low areas of valleys , and have little seasonal variation of discharge or temperature. They typically discharge from unconsolidated deposits (but the discharge probably has flowed through buried carbonate geohydrologic units). They also have a considerable range of water composition that reflects the relative complexity of the groundwater system. (Author 's abstract)
Utah↗
Hydrologic maps of the Price 30 x 60-minute quadrangle, Utah
Four hydrologic maps of the Price 30 x 60-minute quadrangle, Utah show that the hydrology of the area is extremely variable. Normal annual precipitation ranges from less than 8 to more than 25 inches. Corresponding ranges are less than 0.1 to more than 5 inches for average annual runoff, 0.1 to 3.0 acre-ft/sq mi/yr for sediment yield, less than 200 to more than 6,000 milligrams/L for concentrations of dissolved solids in streamflow, and less than 500 to more than 2,000 milligrams/L for concentrations of dissolved solids in shallow groundwater. Variations in the hydrologic characteristics result from differences in geology, precipitation, soils, vegetative cover, and land use. (USGS)
Water-Resources Investigations Report↗