Search USGSSearch

USGS · 70043723

Hydrologic evaluation of Ashley Valley, northern Uinta basin area, Utah

Abstract

The water resources of the northern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado, were studied during 1971-74. Ashley Valley was evaluated in slightly greater detail than the general area, in order to assess the general relation of ground- and surface-water supplies. In Ashley Valley , the principal source of both irrigation supply and ground-water recharge is the flow from Ashley Creek canyon . Ground-water recharge to the valley fill, however, is mainly from canal and field losses along the west side of the valley. The permeability of the fill in most places is high, and water-level records indicate rapid changes in storage in response to the annual applications of irrigation water. Prior to the distribution of water from Steinaker Reservoir, the short runoff season led to a brief, intense irrigation period that was followed by a long period of post-irrigation drainage. After the reservoir began operation, smaller applications of water were made during a longer season, and ground-water levels rose in parts of the valley , mainly the lower areas. Despite local water-level rises, no perennially gaining reaches of the canals were observed. The amount of ground water available from storage in Ashley Valley is estimated to be 50,000-75,000 acre-feet (62-92 cubic hectometres), or enough water to supply irrigation in the valley for a maximum of 2 years. The ground-water storage varies annually about 10 percent and has not changed significantly. Ground water is discharged from Ashley Valley both by seepage back to Ashley Creek and by evapotranspiration . Evapotranspiration of surface and ground water has increased by an estimate 20 percent above the 48,000 acre-feet (59 cubic hectometers) determined for pre-reservoir conditions. As a result, the water that flows from Ashley Valley has been degraded in chemical quality. The water from Ashley Creek canyon is fresh . Mixing of snowmelt and base flow in Steinaker Reservoir yields a water of more uniform quality; but despite some concentration by evaporation from the reservoir, the outflow from the reservoir is fresh. Ground water in most of the valley is fresh , but the water increases in dissolved-solids concentration toward the south and east as a result of both evapotranspiration and solution of minerals from the valley fill and soils .

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 37° to 42° latitude; -114° to -109° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

James W. Hood. 1977. Hydrologic evaluation of Ashley Valley, northern Uinta basin area, Utah. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70043723

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Hydrology and simulation of ground-water flow in Kamas Valley, Summit County, Utah

Kamas Valley, Utah, is located about 50 miles east of Salt Lake City and is undergoing residential development. The increasing number of wells and septic systems raised concerns of water managers and prompted this hydrologic study. About 350,000 acre-feet per year of surface water flows through Kamas Valley in the Weber River, Beaver Creek, and Provo River, which originate in the Uinta Mountains east of the study area. The ground-water system in this area consists of water in unconsolidated deposits and consolidated rock; water budgets indicate very little interaction between consolidated rock and unconsolidated deposits. Most recharge to consolidated rock occurs at higher altitudes in the mountains and discharges to streams and springs upgradient of Kamas Valley. About 38,000 acre-feet per year of water flows through the unconsolidated deposits in Kamas Valley. Most recharge is from irrigation and seepage from major streams; most discharge is to Beaver Creek in the middle part of the valley. Long-term water-level fluctuations range from about 3 to 17 feet. Seasonal fluctuations exceed 50 feet. Transmissivity varies over four orders of magnitude in both the unconsolidated deposits and consolidated rock and is typically 1,000 to 10,000 feet squared per day in unconsolidated deposits and 100 feet squared per day in consolidated rock as determined from specific capacity. Water samples collected from wells, streams, and springs had nitrate plus nitrite concentrations (as N) substantially less than 10 mg/L. Total and fecal coliform bacteria were detected in some surface-water samples and probably originate from livestock. Septic systems do not appear to be degrading water quality. A numerical ground-water flow model developed to test the conceptual understanding of the ground-water system adequately simulates water levels and flow in the unconsolidated deposits. Analyses of model fit and sensitivity were used to refine the conceptual and numerical models.

Utah