STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Technical Publication No. 39

RECONNAISSANCE OF CHEMICAL QUALITY OF SURFACE WATER AND

FLUVIAL SEDIMENT IN THE BASIN, UTAH

by

J. C. Mundorff

Hydrologist, U. S. Geological Survey

Prepared by The United States Geological Survey in cooperation with The Utah State Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Rights Salt Lake City, Utah 1972

CONTENTS Page

Abstract 1 Introduction ...... 3 Purpose of the investigation 3 Methods of investigation 3 Previous studies 5 General description of the basin 5 Climate and streamflow 6 Geology 7 Coal mining ..... 7 Vegetation and land use 7 Chemical quality of the surface water 8 Upper basin ...... 9 Chemical quality at selected sites 10 Suitability of the water for pUblic supply and irrigation 13 Central basin 14 Chemical quality at selected sites ...... 19 Suitability of the water for public supply and irrigation 31 Lower basin ...... 32 Chemical quality at selected sites ...... 32 Suitability of the water for public supply and irrigation 36 Fluvial sediment 36 Selected references 41 Basic data .... 43 Publications of the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights ...... 51 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Plate 1. Map showing locations of water-quality sampling sites and generalized geology . In pocket

2. Map showing generalized altitudinal zones and 1931-60 normal annual and normal October-April precipitation In pocket

3. Map showing dissolved solids, sodium-adsorption ratios, and sulfate concentrations at selected sites In pocket

Figure 1. Photograph of electrical power generation plant on the Price River at Castle Gate 8

2. Photograph of abandoned coal mine and mining wastes in upper Spring Canyon 9

3. Photograph of bed material in Spring Canyon Creek at Helper 10

4. Diagram for classification of irrigation waters 15

5. Map showing soil associations in the irrigated area of the central basin between Price and Wellington 17

6. Detailed soils map showing short reach of Miller Creek and 23

7. Photograph of waste disposal in channel of Meads Wash at Highway 6 and 50 at Price 25

8. Map showing canal system for diversion of water from the San Rafael River basin to the Price River basin 26

9. Aerial photograph of Desert Lake and of drainage into Desert Lake 29

10. Photograph of dry bed of south arm of EEsert Lake on May 15, 1970 30

11. Photograph of Desert Seep Wash about 5 miles downstream from Desert Lake 31

12. Photograph of dissected desert in eastern part of Price River basin ... .. 33

13. Photograph of typical landscape in downstream part of Grassy Trail Creek drainage area in western part of the lower basin ...... 35

II TABLES Page Table 1. Chemical analyses of major soluble constituents in salt efflorescences 22

2. Summary of data on the dissolved-solids concentration of Price River at Woodside, 1952-69 water years ...... 34

3. Sedimentation surveys of small reservoirs on the 39

4. Chemical analyses of surface water at selected sites, July 1969-September 1970 44

5. Periodic determinations of suspended-sediment discharge and particle size .. 49

III

RECONNAISSANCE OF CHEMICAL QUALITY OF SURFACE WATER AND

FLUVIAL SEDIMENT IN THE PRICE RIVER BASIN, UTAH

by

J. C. Mundorff Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey

ABSTRACT

The Price River basin is mainly in Carbon and Emery Counties in east-central Utah, and the total drainage area is about 1,900 square miles. The Price River flows in a generally southeasterly direction toward its junction with the Green River. Altitudes in the basin range from about 10,440 feet above mean sea level in the headwaters to about 4,200 feet at the mouth. Normal annual precipitation (1931-60) is more than 30 inches in headwaters areas and is less than 8 inches in the downstream part of the basin. Surface rocks in the basin range in age from Jurassic to Quaternary, but the rocks having predominant influence on water quality are marine shales of Cretaceous age.

The general chemical characteristics of the main stem of the Price River as determined by a reconnaissance during 1969-70 changed markedly between the headwaters and the mouth. From the headwaters to about the junction with Spring Canyon Creek, the Price River generally had a dissolved-solids content of less than 400 mg/l (milligrams per liter) and was of the calcium bicarbonate type. Beginning at the junction of the Price River and Spring Canyon Creek, inflow to the Price River is mainly from marine shales of Cretaceous age. At Price River at Wellington, which is near the center of the basin, the dissolved-solids content was between about 600 and 2,400 mg/l; the water was of a variable mixed type. At Price River at Woodside, which is about 22 miles upstream from the mouth, the weighted-average dissolved-solids concentration was generally between 2,000 and 4,000 mg/l during an 18-year period of record (1952-69), and the water type was strongly sodium sulfate.

In this report, the Price River basin is divided into upper, central, and lower basins. The upper basin is that part of the Price River basin upstream from Heiner; the central basin is between Heiner and the junction of the Price River and Desert Seep Wash; and the lower basin is downstream from Desert Seep Wash. The upper basin is the major source of water that is used for irrigation in the central basin. The source of this water is mainly snowmelt that is stored in , and the water has a low sodium (alkali) hazard and a medium salinity hazard.

Water in the Price River suffers major deterioration of quality as the stream crosses the central basin. The deterioration results from both geologic and human factors. During the period from November through April, little water is released from Scofield Reservoir; and the upper basin contributes little water to the Price River. During such periods of low flow in the Price River, irrigation return flow and untreated sewage continue to enter the stream; and only low flows are available for dilution of such wastes. From about May to October, major releases are made from Scofield Reservoir; but during this period a large part of the flow is diverted from the Price River into major irrigation canals in the upstream part of the central basin. Untreated sewage and appreciable amounts of irrigation return flow of poor quality enter the Price River downstream from points at which most of the flow is diverted from the river. Thus, during most of the year, the flow in the Price River in the central basin is composed of relatively small amounts of water of good quality from the upper basin and variable amounts of irrigation return flow, waste discharges from municipalities, and natural flow from tributaries that drain areas of marine shales. Although some deterioration in the chemical quality of the Price River probably would occur in the absence of stream regulation and irrigation agriculture in the central basin; deterioration is intensified with the presence of both.

1 Runoff and water use in the lower basin are small. Neither major improvement nor major deterioration in the chemical quality of the water is evident in this area. The poor quality of the Price River in the lower basin results mainly from the geological environment and water use in the central basin.

Sediment data obtained during this reconnaissance were not adequate for a general evaluation of sediment-discharge characteristics of the streams in the Price River basin. Suspended-sediment concentrations as high as 186,000 mg/I were observed on a tributary and as high as 111,000 mg/I were observed on the Price River. A rough estimate of the suspended-sediment discharge of Price River at Woodside indicates that the discharge was at least 1,400,000 tons during the 1970 water year. This amount of sediment would cover 1 square mile to a depth of about 1 foot.

2 INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the investigation

This report on the quality of surface water in the Price River basin was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights. The primary purpose of the reconnaissance on which this report is based was to obtain information about (1) the general chemical characteristics of surface water throughout the basin, (2) the effect of the natural environment and of present water use on these chemical characteristics, and (3) general characteristics of the sediment discharge of selected streams in the basin. A secondary objective was the definition of specific problem areas or reaches in which marked deterioration in water quality was evident.

Methods of investigation

The reconnaissance of the Price River basin was designed primarily to define the chemical quality of surface water during (1) the irrigation season, (2) the postirrigation period in the fall, (3) the period of base flow during the winter and early spring, and (4) the period of snowmelt in late spring and early summer. Water-quality data were obtained one or more times at 71 sites in the basin during August 1969-September 1970. (See table 4 and plate 1.) Concentrations of total dissolved solids and of major ions were determined for nearly all samples. Only specific conductance was determined for those few samples for which the specific conductance indicated no significant change in quality since the previous samples. Concentrations of fluoride, nitrate, boron, phosphate, and selenium were determined for selected samples. The chemical composition of several salt efflorescences from the central part of the basin was determined. Chemical analyses of samples obtained during 1969-70 were made by standard methods of the U.S. Geological Survey.

Water-guality data were obtained by the US. Geological Survey almost continuously during 1946-69 at Price River at Woodside, which is about 22 miles upstream from the mouth. Data were obtained infrequently at several sites in the basin mainly during 1947-51 and 1957-58, and these data are included in table 4. Q:lta that were obtained by Utah State University at a few sites in 1949 were also used.

In this report, metric units are used to indicate temperatures and concentrations of dissolved solids and individual ions determined by chemical analysis. This change from reporting in "English units" has been made as a part of a gradual change to the metric system that is underway within the scientific community. The change is intended to promote greater uniformity in reporting of data. Data for chemical concentrations are reported in milligrams per liter (mg/l) rather than in parts per million (ppm), the units used in earlier reports in this series. For concentrations less than 7,000 mg/I, the numerical value is about the same as for concentrations in parts per million.

Water temperature is reported in the tables in degrees Celsius (DC). The following conversion table shows the relation between degrees Fahrenheit and degrees Celsius.

3 TEMPERATURE-CONVERSION TABLE

Temperatures in °c are rounded to nearest 0.5 degree. Underscored temperatures are exact equivalents. To convert from of to °c where two lines have the same value for of. use the line marked with an asterisk (*) to obtain equiva­ lent °c.

DC OF °c OF °c OF °c OF °c OF °c OF °c OF

2Q.Q :.4. -10.0 14 Q.Q 32 1Q..Q ~ 20.0 .6ll 30.0 .e.2 40.0 liM -19.5 -3 -9.5 15 +0.5 33 10.5 51 20.5 69 30.5 87 40.5 105 -19.0 -2 -9.0 16 1.0 34 11.0 52 21.0 70 31.0 88 41.0 106 -18.5 -1 -8.5 17 1.5 35 11.5 53 21.5 71 31.5 89 41.5 107 -18.0 * 0 -8.0 * 18 2.0 * 36 12.0 * 54 22.0 * 72 32.0 * 90 42.0 * 108

-1.U Q -7.5 18 2.5 36 11...§ 54 22.5 72 32.5 .ao ~ J.Q.a -17.0 1 -7.0 19 3.0 37 13.0 55 23.0 73 33.0 91 43.0 109 -16.5 2 -6.5 20 3.5 38 13.5 56 23.5 74 33.5 92 43.5 110 -16.0 3 -6.0 21 4.0 39 14.0 57 24.0 75 34.0 93 44.0 111 -15.5 4 -5.5 22 4.5 40 14.5 58 24.5 76 34.5 94 44.5 112

-15.0 2 -5.0 23 5.0 41 1.2..Q ~ 25.0 77 35.0 95 45.0 ill -14.5 6 -4.5 24 5.5 42 15.5 60 25.5 78 35.5 96 45.5 114 -14.0 7 -4.0 25 6.0 43 16.0 61 26.0 79 36.0 97 46.0 115 -13.5 8 -3.5 26 6.5 44 16.5 62 26.5 80 36.5 98 46.5 116 -13.0 9 -3.0 27 7.0 45 17.0 63 27.0 81 37.0 99 47.0 117

-12.5 10 -2.5 28 7.5 46 ill 21 ill ~ 37.5 100 47.5 ill -12.0 * 10 -2.0 * 28 8.0 * 46 18.0 * 64 28.0 * 82 38.0 * 100 48.0 * 118 -11.5 11 -1.5 29 8.5 47 18.5 65 28.5 83 38.5 101 48.5 119 -11.0 12 -1.0 30 9.0 48 19.0 66 29.0 84 39.0 102 49.0 120 -10.5 13 -0.5 31 9.5 49 19.5 67 29.5 85 39.5 103 49.5 121

For temperature conversions beyond the limits of the table, use the equations C = 0.5556 (F - 32) and F = 1.8D C + 32. The formulae say, in effect, that from the freezing point of water (O°C. 32°F) the temperature in °c rises (or falls) 5° for every rise (or fall) of 9°F.

4 Suspended-sediment data were obtained at some of the sites during August 1969-September 1970. Because of the short period of data collection and the small number of samples, the sediment data give only a rough indication of sedimentation characteristics of streams in the basin. Most of the sediment transport by streams probably is during very short periods of intense runoff. One such period occurred during the data-collection trip in August 1969, and these data may be indicative of the sediment-transport characteristics of many streams in the basin during periods of intense runoff.

The streambeds were dry at many of the selected sited during some or all of the visits to such sites. Inaccessibility of some sites was a problem during this relatively short reconnaissance. For example, data were not obtained for Little Park Wash, which is a south-flowing tributary immediately east of the top of the Book Cliffs in Tps. 16-18 S. (pI. 1).

Most of the data for water discharge were obtained by nonstandard methods, using a greatly reduced number of sections for velocity determinations, because a fairly reliable approximation of discharge was regarded as adequate for this reconnaissance. Discharges were obtained from stage-discharge relations for sites at Gooseberry Creek near Scofield (site 2), Fish Creek above reservoir, near Scofield (site 3), Price River near Scofield (site 5), White River below Tabbyune Creek, near Soldier Summit (site 7), Beaver Creek near Soldier Summit (site 11), Willow Creek near Castle Gate (site 16), Price River near Heiner (site 19), and Price River at Woodside (site 70). Any detailed comparisons of discharges and water-quality variations in a downstream direction were made using rated discharges or standard measurements.

V. Lambert Jensen and George Birdwell gave valuable assistance in the collection of the field data on water quality and streamflow during the period August 1969-September 1970.

Previous studies

Previous hydrologic studies in the Price River basin have been confined mainly to the collectionofstreamflow records at several sites in the basin and to the collection of water-quality records at one site near the downstream end of the basin. The streamflow records are published in reports of the U.S. Geological Survey (1954, 1961-70, 1964). The water-quality records are published in lorns, Hembree, Phoenix, and Oakland (1964) and by the U.S. Geological Survey in the annual series of Water-Supply Papers titled "Quality of surface waters of the United States." Cordova (1964) made a hydrogeologic reconnaissance of a small part of the headwaters area of the basin to determine the amount of ground water available in that area. Feltis (1966) prepared a report on bedrock aquifers of the Colorado Plateau of Utah, which includes the Price River basin.

Geologic investigations have been made in many parts of the basin in connection with coal, uranium, oil and gas, and other natural resources. These investigations were not hydrologically oriented, but the results are useful in the interpretation of data on the quality of surface waters; some of the reports on these investigations are listed in the references.

Theron B. Hutchings, State Soil Scientist, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, was very helpful in furnishing soils information for part of the Price River basin.

General description of the basin

The Price River basin (pI. 1) is mainly in Carbon and Emery Counties in east-central Utah but small parts of four other counties are included in the total drainage area of about 1,900 square miles. The basin occupies parts of three physiographic sections of the Colorado Plateau-the Uinta Basin, the High Plateaus, and (Hunt, 1956, p. 3). The Price River flows in a generally southeasterly direction, and it crosses the northern end of the San Rafael Swell, which is a low geologic dome.

5 The altitudinal range in the basin is about 6,000 feet. Monument Peak, which is in the headwaters area on the drainage divide between Pleasant Creek in the Price River basin and Huntington Creek in the San Rafael River basin, has an altitude of 10,443 feet above mean sea level. Bruin Point and Mount Bartles, which are on the drainage divide in the in the northeastern part of the Price River basin, have altitudes of 10,285 and 10,047 feet, respectively. The altitude at Price, which is in the central part of the basin, is 5,570 feet. The altitude at the mouth of the Price River at its junction with the Green River is about 4,200 feet. General altitudinal zones in the Price River basin are shown on plate 2.

Populations of the principal cities in the Price River basin in 1970 were Price, 6,218; Helper, 1,964; Wellington, 922; Dragerton, 1,614; and Sunnyside, 485. US. Highway 6 and 50 and the main line of the Dmver and Rio Grande Western Railroad roughly bisect the basin from southeast to northwest.

Sewage-treatment facilities for municipalities in the basin were either nonexistent or inadequate in 1969 and 1970. Information from the Utah State Division of Health indicates that sewage from municipalities having a total population of about 10,000 entered the Price River between Castle Gate and Wellington. A collector system and sewage-treatment plant for municipalities along the Price River are planned for completion and operation by 1972.

Climate and streamflow

Normal annual precipit ation ranges widely within the Price River basin (pI. 2). Altitude, topography, and geographic location relative to the predominant west-to-east storm track are the local factors that affect the amou nt of precipitation. Precipitation generally is less at altitudes of 7,000 to 10,000 feet along the northeastern side of the basin than it is at similar altitudes in the western or headwaters part of the basin. Precipitation during the period October-April (pI. 2) at altitudes above 6,000 feet is mainly snow. On the average, about 50 percent of the total precipitation on the basin falls on the upstream 30 percent of the area, and 35 percent falls on the upstream 20 percent of the area. About 70 percent of the total precipitation falls on areas having altitudes greater than 6,000 feet; and about 65 percent of this total precipitation falls as snow during the period October-April. Thus, a large part of the total water available for use within the basin is derived from snowmelt in sparsely populated areas and at altitudes where water use is small.

Precipitation was near or above normal in most of the basin during 1969, but it was near or below normal during 1970. Plate 2 indicates that normal annual precipitation at Scofield Dam is between 20 and 25 inches; precipitation during 1969 and 1970 was 21.70 and 15.72 inches, respectively. Normal annual precipitation at Price is about 9 inches, and precipitation during 1969 and 1970 was 11.86 and 7.34 inches. Precipitation at Hiawatha was 17.82 inches during 1969 (about 5 inches above normal) and 14.59 inches during 1970. Precipitation at Green River, which is about 11 miles south of the extreme southeastern part of the basin, was 8.99 inches during 1969 (about 3 inches above normal) and was only 4.23 inches in 1970.

The above-normal precipitation during 1969 was reflected by streamflow at six gaging stations in the basin during the 1969 water year.' Flow ranged from about 140 to 200 percent of normal at five stations on tributaries of the Price River and was about 170 and 220 percent of normal at two main-stem stations. The below-normal to near-normal precipitation during 1970 also was reflected by streamflow. Flow ranged from about 30 to 110 percent of normal at five stations on tributaries of the Price River and was 85 percent of normal at a main-stem station in the lower basin.

,A water year is the '2-month period, October' through September 30, designated by the calendar year in which it ends.

6 The combined effect of a pronounced decrease in precipitation in a downstream direction (eastward) and of large-scale use of water for irrigation in the central part of the basin is indicated by the long-term mean discharge at three sites. At Price River near Scofield (drainage area approximately 155 sq mi), the mean discharge (1926-31, 1938-69 water years) was about 60 cfs (cubic feet per second); at Price River near Heiner (drainage area approximately 415 sq mi), the mean discharge (1934-69 water years) was 111 cfs; and at Price River at Woodside (drainage area approximately 1,500 sq mi), the mean discharge (1945-69 water years) was 103 cfs.

Data from the I\Btional Weather Service (formerly U.S. Weather Bureau) show that the temperature range in the basin is at least 150°F (83°C). A maximum temperature of 108° F (42°C) has been recorded at Price in the central part of the basin, and a minimum temperature of -42°F (-41°C) has been recorded at Scofield in the headwaters part of the basin. During 1969, a temperature range of 130°F (73°C) was observed in the basin (maximum, 100°F or 38°C; minimum -30°F or -35°C).

Geology

Rocks that crop out in the Price River basin range in age from Jurassic to OJaternary. The geology of the basin, generalized from Stokes (1964), is shown on plate 1. The general relation of the geology to the types and concentrations of dissolved solids in the surface water in the Price River basin is described in following sections of this report.

Coal mining

The coal fields in the Book Cliffs in Carbon and Emery Counties are the most important source of coking coal in the western United States (Hachman and others, 1968, p. 18-19). The coke produced from this coal is used by steel plants in Provo, Utah, and in southern California. In addition to the production of coking coal, these fields are also of great significance as a source of coal for the electric utility market. The 166,000 kilowatt electrical power generation plant of Utah Power and Light Co. at Castle Gate (fig. 1) is a mine-mouth plant at the junction of the Price River and Willow Creek.

The coal production in the basin is all from underground mines; thus, environmental problems associated with strip mining do not exist. Furthermore, during recent years, coal production from many fields has either decreased markedly, as in the Clearcreek area south of Scofield Reservoir (pI. 1), or stopped completely, as in upper Spring Canyon west of Helper. Both active and inactive mines hcwe a continuing effect on water quality, however, because of millions of cubic feet of mining wastes that are subject to leaching and erosion (figs. 2 and 3) and minor amounts of mine drainage that may enter streams.

Vegetation and land use

Approximately 1,150 square miles, or about 60 percent of the total area of 1,900 square miles of the Price River basin, is classed as "woods-brushwood" (U.S. Geol. Survey, 1960, 1962). A large part of the remaining 760 square miles of the basin is either high-altitude grassland or dissected desert with sparse vegetation. Grazing on hundreds of square miles of public or private lands supports a major cattle and sheep industry in the basin.

The production of sugar beets, hay, and grains is an important industry on irrigated lands in the basin. Water from the Price River and its tributaries is used to irrigate approximately 23,000 acres, or about 36 square miles, in the central part of the basin (L. Lamond Gardner, written commun., 1969). Water from Huntington Creek and Huntington North Reservoir, which

7 Figure 1.-Electrical power generation plant on the Price River at Castle Gate, operated by Utah Power and Light Co. Water from the Price River and coal from mines in the immediate vicinity are used for steam generation. (Photograph by M. D. ReMillard, April 1971).

are in the San Rafael River basin to the south, is diverted into the Price River basin through the Cleveland Canal for the irrigation of approximately 13,000 acres or 20 square miles in the extreme south-central part of the basin (Robert White, U. S. Bur. Reclamation, oral commun., 1970). Thus about 56 square miles or about 3 percent of the land in the basin is irrigated with su rface waters.

CHEMICAL QUALITY OF THE SURFACE WATER

The chemical composition of natural water is derived from many different sources of solutes, including gases and aerosols from the atmosphere, weathering and erosion of rocks and soil, solution or precipitation reactions occurring below the land surface, and cultural effects resulting from activities of man (Hem, 1970). The ways in which solutes are taken up or precipitated and the amounts present in solution are influenced by many environmental factors, especially climate, composition of rocks and soils, and biochemical effects associated with life cycles of plants and animals.

The general chemical characteristics of the main stem of the Price River changed markedly between the headwaters and the mouth. From the headwaters to about the junction with Spring Canyon Creek, water in the Price River generally had a dissolved-solids concentration of less than 400 mgtl (milligrams per liter) and was of the calcium bicarbonate type.2 Beginning at the junction of the Price River and Spring Canyon Creek, inflow to the Price River is mainly

2 Water type indicates the predominant cation and anion expressed in milliequivalents per liter. For mixed water types, the names of all the important cations and anions are given. Milliequivalents per liter is a unit for expressing the concentration of chemical constituents in terms of the interreacting values of the electrically charged particles, or ions in solution. One milliequivalent (per liter) of a positively charged ion will react with one milliequivalent (per liter) of a negatively charged ion. Milligrams per liter is converted to milliequivalents per liter by multiplying by the reciprocal of the combining weight of the ion.

8 Figure 2.-Abandoned coal mine and mining wastes in Upper Spring Canyon. (March 25, 1970).

from streams that drain shales of Cretaceous age; the influence of the geology on the chemical characteristics of the water is increasingly important between Spring Canyon Creek and the mouth of the Price River. At Wellington, the dissolved-solids concentration was between about 600 and 2,400 mg/I, and the water was of a variable mixed type. At Woodside, which is about 22 miles upstream from the mouth, the weighted-average dissolved-solids concentration was generally between 2,000 and 4,000 mg/I during an 18-year period of record (1952-69); water type was strongly sodium sulfate.

The significance of geology, major diversions from the Price River, and water use will be described in following parts of this report. In this report, "upper basin" is defined as the main stem and tributary drainage upstream from the Price River near Heiner; "central basin" is the main stem and tributary drainage between Heiner and the junction of the Price River and Desert Seep Wash; "Iower basin" is the main stem and tributary drainage downstream from Desert Seep Wash. (See pI. 1)

Upper basin

The upper basin is nearly all at altitudes between 7,000 and 10,000 feet, is mostly forested, has an average annual precipitation from about 12 to more than 30 inches, and is used mainly for grazing and coal mining. The generalized geology of the area is shown on plate 1.

The dissolved-solids concentrations of the surface water in the upper basin were low-less than 340 mg/I in the Price River at the downstream end of the upper basin during 1969-70 (pI. 1 and table 4). Most tributaries upstream from Scofield Reservoir had dissolved-solids concentrations of less than 200 mg/I. The dissolved-solids concentration of some ofthe tributaries in the upper basin downstream from the reservoir was as high as 925 mg/I, but the quantity of water from such tributaries generally does not have a major effect on the main stem of the Price River.

9 I o 12 filCHES

Figure 3.-Bed material in Spring Canyon Creek at Helper. Light-colored material on the right was the bed material on September 25, 1969; coal on the left was the bed material on November 6, 1969.

Dissolved-solids concentrations, sodium-adsorption ratios3 , and sulfate concentrations at selected sites in the Price River basin during August and November 1969 and May 1970 are shown on plate 3. Plate 3 shows, for example, that although two tributaries in the upper basin had dissolved-solids concentrations of 514 and 653 mg/I during August 27-29, 1969, the dissolved-solids concentration of the Price River at the downstream end of the upper basin was low (206 mg/l). Data in table 1 and on plate 3 show no significant seasonal fluctuations in either the total dissolved-solids concentrations or the individual constituents in the water.

The general chemical characteristics of the water at selected sites in the upper basin are discussed in the following pages.

Chemical quality at selected sites

Gooseberry Creek near Fairview (site 1 on pI. 1 and table 4) has a drainage area of approximately 7.9 square miles underlain by conglomerate, limestone, sandstone, and mudstone of Tertiary and Cretaceous age. Altitudes range from about 8,600 to 10,000 feet. Dissolved-solids concentration of the water is less than 200 mg/I (table 4), and the water is of the calciu m bicarbonate type.

Gooseberry Creek near Scofield (site 2) is about 4 miles downstream from the Fairview site and is immediately downstream from Lower Gooseberry Reservoir. Geology, altitudes, and climate are similar to those of the drainage area for the Fairview site. Water types are similar at the Fairview and Scofield sites, and dissolved-solids concentration at the Scofield site was also less than 200 mg/1. For dilute waters such as these, a variation of only a few milligrams per liter of either calcium or magnesium could result in a change in type from calcium bicarbonate to magnesium bicarbonate, calcium magnesium bicarbonate, or magnesium calcium bicarbonate.

3Sodium-adsorption ratio (SAR) is the expression of relative activity of sodium ions in exchange reactions with soil, and it is an index of sodium or alkali hazard to the soil.

10 Most of the inflow to Scofield Reservoir is from Fish Creek and Pleasant Creek. Data obtained on June 7, 1970, during the latter part of the spring-snowmelt period, show that the dissolved-solids concentration (about 220 mg/I) and water type (calcium bicarbonate) were similar for these two streams immediately upstream from the reservoir (sites 3 and 4). Data obtained during low-flow periods in August 1969 and August 1970 indicate that the dissolved-solids concentration is significantly higher at Pleasant Creek than that at Fish Creek. The drainage area of Fish Creek is underlain mainly by conglomerate, sandstone, and limestone of Tertiary and Cretaceous age. The drainage area of Pleasant Creek is mainly shale, coal beds, sandstone, and mudstone of Cretaceous age; coal mining, which is no longer active, was intensively developed in the Pleasant Creek area. The low flow in both Pleasant Creek and Fish Creek is probably derived mainly from ground water; and the ground water in the shale contains more bicarbonate, sulfate, and other constituents than does the ground water in sandstone and limestone in the area (R. M. Cordova, written commun., 1971). Therefore, the dissolved-solids concentration of water in Pleasant Creek would be expected to be and is in fact greater than that of the water in Fish Creek during periods of low flow.

Storage of the water in Scofield Reservoir does not cause a significant change in dissolved-solids concentration. Water released from reservoirs tends to have uniform dissolved-solids concentration due to the mixing of water from both low and high flows during storage. The water released from Scofield Reservoir (site 5, Price River near Scofield) simply has the characteristics of the water in both Pleasant and Fish Creeks. Comparison of data obtained at Fish Creek in 1957-58 and for discharge from Scofield Reservoir in 1962 with data obtained at the same sites in 1969-70 indicates no significant change in the general chemical characteristics of the water.

Price River above White River near Colton (site 8) is about 10 miles downstream from Scofield Reservoir. The geology of the drainage area is similar to that of Fish Creek and Pleasant Creek. The water is essentially the same as that released from Scofield Reservoir. For example, on September 25, 1969, the specific conductance of the discharge from Scofield Reservoir was 328 micromhos per centimeter at 25°C and at the site 10 miles downstream was 326.

The principal tributary to the Price River in the upper basin is the White River, which has a drainage area of about 100 square miles at altitudes ranging from about 7,150 feet to about 9,050 feet. The principal rocks underlying the drainage basin are shales of the Green River Formation of Tertiary age; fluvial red beds of Tertiary age and limestones of Tertiary age are less extensive (pI. 1). Data obtained at three sites (sites 6, 7, and 9) on the White River show that the dissolved-solids concentration (about 280 to 370 mg/l) was somewhat higher than that of the Price River upstream from the White River (site 8) (about 175 to 200 mg/I). Calcium concentration was about the same in the Price River and White River (sites 5-9) but magnesium, bicarbonate, sulfate, and silica were significantly higher in the White River. Water type was definitely calcium bicarbonate in the Price River but varied from calcium magnesium bicarbonate to magnesium calcium bicarbonate in the White River.

At Price River below White River near Colton (site 10), the stream discharge is a composite of varying proportions of the Price River regulated by Scofield Reservoir and the unregulated White River. The table below shows the general effects of varying proportions of the two waters on the dissolved-solids concentration of the Price River below White River:

11 Date Location

White River below Price River Price River above Price River below Tabbyune Creek near near Scofield White River, near White River, near Soldier Summit Colton Colton (site 7) (site 5) (site 8) (site 10)

Dis­ Dissolved Dis­ Dissolved Dis­ Dissolved Dis­ Dissolved charge solids charge solids charge solids charge solids (cfs) (mg/I) (cfs) (mg/l) (cfs) (mg/l) (cfs) (mg/I)

1969 Aug. 28 6.4 341 165 175 175 169 Sept. 25 5.4 372 110 177 120 218 Nov. 6 6.0 363 14 187 20 278 1970 May 15 145 316 150 183 300 261 June 3 58 315 250 193 320 219 Aug. 5 7.6 347 230 246 Sept. 1 3.5 328 170 178

The dissolved-solids concentration of the White River remained fairly uniform between 300 and 400 mg/I at a wide range in discharge. Both low and intermediate dissolved-solids concentrations in the Price River below White River were during periods when nearly all the water was released from Scofield Reservoir. In contrast, the highest dissolved-solids concentrations in the Price River below White River were during periods of both low and high flow when the White River was the source of 30 or more percent of the total flow.

Beaver Creek near Soldier Summit has a drainage area of approximately 26 square miles. The dissolved-solids concentration of the water at site 11 was between about 200 and 270 mg/I, and the water was of the calcium bicarbonate type. The chemical characteristics of the water are similar to those of the Price River upstream from Beaver Creek.

Between Beaver Creek and Price River near Heiner (site 19), the tributary inflow shows the influence of decreased precipitation and increased solution of minerals in shale, red beds and other rocks of Tertiary and Cretaceous age. The water of poorest quality is contributed by the southward-flowing streams, which drain the greatest area of shale. A single sample collected in May 1970 from Kyune Creek near Colton (site 12) during minor snowmelt runoff shows that the dissolved-solids concentration was about the same as the poorest quality of water from the White River during low flow (about 370 mg/I). Two sets of data for Horse Creek near Castle Gate (site 13) show a sharp increase in dissolved solids (653 and 733 mg/l), and the sodium and sulfate contents were much higher than those for any upstream site. The water was of a mixed magnesium sodium calcium bicarbonate sulfate type.

Ford Creek at Highway 6 and 50 near Castle Gate (site 15) and Diamanti Canyon at Highway 6 and 50 near Castle Gate (site 14) are adjacent northward-flowing tributaries that drain nonshale areas. Data obtained at these two sites indicate that the dissolved-solids concentrations

12 were about 260 to 350 mg/I, and water types were calcium magnesium bicarbonate or magnesium calcium bicarbonate.

Willow Creek, which has the largest drainage area of any tributary between White River and Helper, joins the Price River at Castle Gate. The electrical power generation plant of Utah Power and Light Co., which uses coal from nearby mines and water from the Price River, is at the junction area. Data obtained at Willow Creek about 5 miles upstream from the mouth (site 16) and at the mouth (site 17) indicate that the chemical characteristics of the water are determined by the characteristics of the upper part of Willow Creek basin. Data obtained in August 1969 and in May 1970 show that the water at Willow Creek near Castle Gate (site 16) and at Willow Creek at mouth at Castle Gate (site 17) was similar in dissolved-solids concentration and in water type. In August 1969, dissolved-solids concentrations were 510 and 514 mg/I at the two sites, and both water types were calcium sodium bicarbonate sulfate. In May 1970, dissolved-solids concentrations were 410 and 419 mg/I, and the water was of the magnesium calcium sodium bicarbonate type at site 16 and magnesium sodium calcium bicarbonate type at site 17.

Price River near Heiner (site 19) is at the downstream end of the upper basin. Although a significant part of the drainage area of the upper basin lies between this site and the junction of the Price River and Beaver Creek, most of the water at this site originates upstream from Beaver Creek. Thus, the quality of the relatively minor flow from Kyune, Horse, and Willow Creeks does not have a significant effect on the Price River during most of the year. Except for one set of data obtained during exceptionally low discharge (10 cfs) on November 12, 1950, the dissolved-solids range at Price River near Heiner (about 160 to 340 mg/I) was fairly similar to that of the Price River below White River (about 170 to 280 mg/I). The water type was generally calcium bicarbonate or calcium magnesium bicarbonate.

When releases from Scofield Reservoir are small or have been stopped, the drainage area downstream from Beaver Creek may have an appreciable adverse effect on the chemical quality of the water at the Heiner site. This is true during periods of either high or low discharge at Heiner. On November 12, 1950, October 29, 1957, and November 6, 1969, the water in the Price River was a mixture of water from the White River and the more mineralized downstream tributaries. The discharge of Price River near Heiner was less than 25 cfs, and the dissolved-sol ids concentration exceeded 320 mg/1. On May 25, 1950, and May 15, 1970, when releases from Scofield Reservoir were low, the discharge of the Price River near Heiner was 280 cfs and the dissolved solids ranged from about 300 to 340 mg/1. The Price River near Heiner commonly contains water of the best quality during periods of intermediate discharges (about 175 to 220 cfs) when the water is predominantly from Scofield Reservoir.

Suitability of the water for public supply and irrigation

The U.S. Public Health Service (1962, p. 6 and 7) established standards to which drinking water and water-supply systems used by common carriers and others subject to Federal quarantine regulations must conform. They state that water should contain no impurity which would cause offense to the sense of sight, taste, or smell and that the following chemical substances should not be present in a water supply in excess of the listed concentrations if other more suitable supplies are or can be made available:

Substance Concentration mg/I Chloride (CI) 250

250

Total dissolved solids 500

45

13 Concentrations of these major ions in the Price River in the upper basin were usually much lower than the allowable limits and did not exceed the limits during any period of observation. The dissolved-solids and sulfate concentrations in Horse Creek and Willow Creek commonly exceeded the limits.

At all observation sites in the upper basin, the water was almost always moderately hard to very hard 4 , except at site 2 where the water was moderately hard to hard.

The upper basin is the major source of water for irrigation in the central basin. A diagram for the classification of irrigation waters (fig. 4) was devised by the U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff (1954, p. 80). As indicated by this figure and by the data in table 4, the water available for diversion from the Price River at the downstream end of the upper basin (site 19) has a medium salinity hazard and a low sodium (alkali) hazard. The U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff emphasizes that in the classification of irrigation waters, the assumption is made that the water will be used under average conditions with respect to soil texture, infiltration rate, drainage, quantity of water used, and salt tolerance of the crops. Large deviations from the average for one or more of these variables may make unsafe the use of what, under average conditions, would be acceptable water. For example, if the water is applied to heavy-textured poorly drained soils in an area of extremely high evaporation rates, the salinity and alkali hazards would increase.

Central basin

The central basin (pI. 1) ranges in altitude from about 10,000 feet in the headwaters areas of Gordon and Miller Creeks to about 5,200 feet at the downstream end. Average annual precipitation exceeds 25 inches in these headwaters areas but is between about 7 and 16 inches in most of the central basin. Nearly all the approximately 56 square miles of irrigated land in the Price River basin is in that part of the central basin having altitudes from about 5,200 to 6,000 feet and having an average annual precipitation of less than 10 inches (pI. 2). Most of the central basin is underlain by the Mancos Shale of Cretaceous age, a marine shale that is commonly carbonaceous or gypsiferous. The Mancos Shale is the predominant geologic influence on the chemical quality of the water in the central basin.

The quality of water in the Price River suffers major deterioration as the stream crosses the central basin. The deterioration results both from natural and human factors, the Price River being a partly regulated stream in the reach of major deterioration. During the winter months, the gates on Scofield Reservoir usually are closed, and the upstream area contributes little water to the Price River. During such periods of low flow in the Price River in the central basin, normal amounts of untreated sewage were discharged into the stream by the towns of Helper, Price, and Wellington; and subsurface return flow from irrigation continues to enter the stream system after the irrigation season. Thus, only low flows are available for dilution of such wastes during the winter. From about May to October, major releases are made from Scofield Reservoir, but during most of this period a large part of the flow is diverted from the Price River into the Carbon Canal (Price River Carbon Canal) and the Price-Wellington Canal in the upstream part of the central basin. For example, on August 28, 1969, the discharge from Scofield Reservoir was 165 cfs, the

4 Hardness of water is the property attributable to the presence of alkaline earths; calcium and magnesium are the principal alkaline earths in natural waters. Hardness is usually n'ported in terms of an equivalent concentration of calcium carbonate. Durfor and Becker (1964, p. 27) use the following classification: Hardness range (mg/l of CaC0 ) Description 3 0-60 Soft

61-120 Moderately hard

121-180 Hard

More than 180 Very hard

14 Figure 4.-Diagram for classification of irrigation waters (U. S. Salinity Laboratory Staff, 1954, p. 80).

15 discharge of the Price River near Heiner was 174 cfs, but it was only 18 cfs at Price on August 29. On September 25, 1969, the discharge from Scofield Reservoir was 115 cfs, it was 109 cfs near Heiner, and was only 10 cfs at Price. Thus, the flow of the Price River in the central basin is reduced markedly during most of the irrigation season. The only periods of high flow in the Price River are usually near the end of the snowmelt season, when Scofield Reservoir is at or near capacity, and during brief and intense periods of runoff resulting from thunderstorms. During most of the year, flow in the Price River in the central basin is composed of relatively small amounts of water of good quality from the upper basin and variable amounts of natural flow from tributaries draining areas underlain by Mancos Shale, of irrigation return flow (both surface and subsurface), and of waste discharge from municipalities along the Price River.

The marked change in the chemical characteristics of the water as the Price River crosses the central basin is shown by the data on plate 3. For example, during the period November 5-7, 1969, the water in the Price River at the upstream end ot the central basin had a dissolved-solids concentration of 333 mg/I, a sodium-adsorption ratio of only 0.2, and a sulfate concentration of 72 mg/I. The Price River near Price had a dissolved-solids concentration of 1,550 mg/I and at Wellington 2,330 mg/I. Near the downstream end of the central basin, the Price River near Mounds had a dissolved-solids concentration of 2,740 mg/I, a sodium-adsorption ratio of 5.1, and a sulfate concentration of 1,730 mg/I. Changes of similar magnitude are evident from data for the periods August 27-29,1969, and May 15, 1970 (pI. 3 and table 4).

A dissolved-solids concentration of 287 mg/I is shown for Carbon Canal near Price (site 25), which is well within the central basin for the period August 27-29,1969. A dissolved-solids concentration of 300 mg/I is shown for Price River at Spring Glen (site 22) and for Carbon Canal near Price (site 25) for May 15, 1970. The water in the Price River in the part of the central basin upstream from major diversions and in the Carbon Canal throughout the central basin (sites 25-28, table 4) is essentially the same water that leaves the upper basin.

Like the streams in the upper basin, streams in the central basin showed no significant seasonal variations in dissolved-solids concentrations. Data on plate 3 and table 4 show, for example, that during the periods August 27-29 and November 5-7,1969, and May 15,1970, the dissolved-solids concentration at Price River at Price (site 29) was 1,560, 1,310 and 1,610 mg/I, respectively, and at Price River at and near Wellington (sites 46 and 47) was 2,200, 2,330 and 2,130 mg/I, respectively.

As part of a soil survey of the "Carbon-Emery Area, Utah," Swenson, Erickson, Donaldson, and Shiozaki (1971) prepared a general soil map in addition to the detailed soil survey of the entire area. The general soil map for the northern part of the area (fig. 5), which is also known as Castle Valley, and the description of the six soil associations are indicators of the general characteristics of the irrigated part of the central basin and of the probable characteristics of irrigation return flow that may enter the stream system. The following quotes are from Swenson, Erickson, Donaldson, and Shiozaki (1971, p. 3 and 4):

"The general soil map *** shows *** the soil associations. A soil association is a landscape that has a distinctive proportional pattern of soils. It normally consists of one or more major soils and at least one minor soil, and it is named for the major soils. The soils in one association may occur in another, but in a different pattern.

"A map showing soil associations is useful to people who want a general idea of the soils ***. Such a map is not suitable for planning the management of a farm or field ***.

16 Castle Gate

T. 13 S.

f------lr------~H#~~------

T. I~ S.

T. 15 S.

T. 16 S.

d'Yr---'------T. 17 S.

I R. 8 E. R. 9 E. R. 10 E. R. II E. o 1 2 3 4 MIL ES L__~ lL__J_

EXPLANAT I ON

SO Il. ASSQC I AT IONS

association: Gently roiling dnd 5 lop i n9 IN 11 rnOC1erate I y fine so I Is ITiOder"ate y dec Dover 5 ha

i.1'"1

'.-d,ll­ ;'llll:,

lilt lor: Ing ,Hi(j we I-(j rei I r

Rock lilr.[1-Shal colllJ\ll

Asso( i (11 ion bUunliar y

Figure 5.-Soil associations in the irrigated area of the central basin between Price and Huntington (adapted from Swenson and others, 1971). 17 "1. Chipeta-Killpack Association

This soil association is made up of gently rolling and gently sloping to moderately steep soils on hills and in intermingled narrow valleys ***. Chipeta soils, on the upper slopes and crests of the hills, occupy about 60 percent of the association. They are slightly to moderately saline and are slowly permeable. The Chipeta soils are underlain at a depth of 20 inches or less by shale that contains salt and gypsum. Much of their surface is bare ***. Gently sloping Killpack soils, on the lower parts of hills, occupy about 30 percent of the association. They are slowly permeable *** underlain by shale at a depth of 20 to 40 inches ** *. Medium-textured Ravola and moderately fine-textured Billings soils occupy minor acreages ***. Other minor acreages are occupied by very strongly saline Saltair and Cache soils ***. Most of the association is in range, but little forage is produced ***. Where the soils have been irrigated, some areas have been abandoned because a high water table has formed and salts and alkali have accumulated.

"2. Ravola-Billings-Penoyer Association

This association consists of nearly level to gently sloping soils on alluvial fans and flood plains and in alluvial valleys between high mesas or benches *** Ravola soils make up about 50 percent of the association. *** are well drained and moderately permeable. *** Billings soils make up about 20 percent *** are slowly permeable *** Penoyer soils ma ke up about 15 percent ** *. This association has the most potential for production of irrigated crops of any in the survey area *** a major part of the alfalfa, corn, sugar beets, small grains and fruit originating in the survey area is produced on these soils.

"3. Saltair-Libbings Association

This association occupies bottom lands and foothills near the towns of Cleveland, *** The soils are mainly saline, are poorly drained ***. The vegetation is saltgrass, wiregrass, sedges, and greasewood. Bare areas are common. Saltair soils make up about 65 percent of the association. *** have 2 percent salt within 20 inches of the surface. Libbings soils occupy 20 percent of the association *** have 2 percent salt within 20 inches of the surface. Their profile contains distinct gypsum horizons.

"4. Sanpete-Minchey Association

This association consists mainly of isolated mesas or benches and their steep colluvial side slopes. The mesa tops are 50 to 200 feet or more above the surrounding area. The mesas are remnants of a strongly dissected alluvial fan or plain formed of alluvium that was deposited by glacial melt water. Soils on the mesas formed in this glacial outwash. *** Most of this association is used for grazing *** these soils need large amounts of phosphorus, especially for legumes. Corn, small grains, and pasture respond to applications of nitrogen.

"5. Chipeta-Persayo-Badland Association

This association is made up of gently sloping and gently rolling to steep soils on hills, and of bare areas consisting mainly of eroded shale outcrops *** the Chipeta and Persayo soils together make up 80 percent of the association. The Chipeta soils are saline, moderately fine textured, and slowly permeable. They are 10 to 20 inches deep over gypsum-bearing shale ***. The Persayo soils *** are typically 10 to 20 inches deep over gypsum-bearing shale ***. The soils have no potential for cultivation *** runoff washes large amounts of sediment from the areas of Badland and Gullied land.

18 "6. Rock Land-Shaly Colluvial Land-Castle Valley-Kenilworth Association

This association is made up of benches and hills, dissected in places by deep ravines."

The downstream reaches of all Price River tributaries in the central basin cross the soil associations shown in figure 5 and described in the preceding quotes. The pronounced difference between the water in the tributaries in the upper basin and the water in tributaries in the central basin is not unexpected in view of the described characteristics of soils and of the soil parent material in the central basin. The return flow from applied irrigation water is undoubtedly of poor quality although the water originally diverted from the Price River is of excellent quality for irrigation of some of the soils, such as the Penoyer soils.

The general chemical characteristics of the water at selected sites in the central basin are discussed in the following pages.

Chemical quality at selected sites

Spring Canyon Creek is the farthest upstream significant tributary of the Price River in the central basin. Coal mining was intensive for many years in Spring Canyon but was stopped in 1970, and large amounts of mining wastes resulted from the coal production (fig. 2). The water at sites 20 and 21 was generally much more mineralized than that of any of the tributaries in the upper basin. Although the water type is classed as magnesium sulfate because of the predominance of these ions (expressed in meq/l), the actual concentrations (expressed in mg/l) of calcium, sodium, and bicarbonate were generally appreciably greater than were the concentration of these ions in upstream tributaries that were classed as calcium bicarbonate or mixed in type. Exceptionally high concentrations of nitrate (38 to 50 mg/l) were observed for four of the five sets of data obtained on this stream; the high nitrate may be related to the mining activity. Spring Canyon Creek enters the Price River upstream from major diversions for irrigation. Flow in the creek is ephemeral. If the creek discharges into the Price River during the irrigation season, most of the discharge and dissolved-solids load are diverted into the Carbon and Price-Wellington Canals. Therefore, the water of poor quality from Spring Canyon Creek may affect the Price River only during low-flow periods in winter months.

Data were obtained one or more times at four sites on the Carbon Canal (sites 25-28) and at two sites on the Price-Wellington Canal (sites 39 and 40). Diversions from the Price River into these major canals is made about 3 miles downstream from Helper. Water is distributed from the Carbon Canal for the irrigation of about 14,300 acres in Castle Valley south of the Price River. Water is distributed from the Price-Wellington Canal for the irrigation of about 6,400 acres north of the Price River. During the irrigation season, the water in the canals is simply Price River water and is similar in quality to that in the Price River near Heiner. During the nonirrigation season, such as on November 6, 1969, when the amount of water diverted or leaked into the canal is small (table 4), deterioration of water quality may be caused by return seepage of irrigation water.

Gordon Creek near Carbonville and Pinnacle Creek near Price drain areas underlain mainly by Mancos Shale of Cretaceous age. The data in table 4 indicate that the water in Pinnacle Creek (site 24) has a much higher dissolved-solids concentration than the water in Gordon Creek (site 23), although the drainage areas are geologically similar. Some possible reasons for the difference in water quality are suggested. An appreciable part of the headwaters of Gordon Creek is at altitudes of 9,000 to 10,000 feet where average annual precipitation exceeds 25 inches; snowmelt runoff is fairly large. Flow probably is perennial in most of the stream length and discharges ranging from 3 to 5 cfs were observed during five different months (table 4). Probably

19 only a small part of the flow is surface or subsurface return flow from irrigation. The drainage area of Pinnacle Creek does not exceed about 9,000 feet in altitude, and average annual precipitation ranges from about 10 to 20 inches. Flow throughout most of the stream length probably is ephemeral and occurs mainly as a result of minor snowmelt or thunderstorms. The small discharges of 0.2 to 0.8 cfs (table 4) observed at Pinnacle Creek were nearly all return surface flow or subsurface seepage from a small irrigated area upstream from the observation site. The quality of water observed at Pinnacle Creek may be a fairly good indicator of the probable quality of return flow in many other parts of the central basin.

The water type for Gordon Creek was calcium sodium magnesium sulfate in August 1969, but was magnesium sodium calcium sulfate during the following four observation periods (table 4). The water type for Pinnacle Creek was sodium calcium magnesium sulfate during all observation periods. Concentrations of sodium, calcium, and sulfate were much higher in Pinnacle Creek than in Gordon Creek.

Data were obtained at sites 29 and 30 on the Price River in the vicinity of Price. The upstream site receives no drainage from Price; the downstream site receives local tributary drainage and sewage discharge from Price. The dissolved-solids concentration was higher at the downstream site at the four times for which concurrent data were obtained at the two sites.

Of particular significance is the pronounced increase in dissolved solids in the reach between Price River near Heiner (site 19), which is near the downstream end of the upper basin, and Price River at Price (site 29). Except for one sample obtained during a period of extreme low flow in November 1950, the poorest quality of water even during low flow at Price River near Heiner had a lower dissolved-solids concentration than the best quality of water at Price during periods of high flow. The sharp deterioration in quality of water during much of the year is caused mainly by the diversion of most of the water from the Price River at a place in the stream system where coincidentally a change in the geology and the practice of irrigation agriculture cause a sharp increase in the dissolved solids of tributary flow to the main stem of the Price River.

During the nonirrigation season, some of the flow from the upper basin is stored in Scofield Reservoir and does not contribute to downstream flows. Thus, during a large part of each year, only relatively small flows are available for dilution of poor quality water downstream from Helper. Some deterioration in the chemical quality of the Price River probably would occur in the absence of stream regulation and irrigation agriculture; the deterioration is intensified with the presence of both.

All the tributaries that enter the Price River in the central basin downstream from Price contribute water that is of poor quality except during periods of snowmelt runoff from headwaters areas. The limitations of this investigation prevented full evaluations of the importance of natural factors, such as extensive areas of gypsiferous shales and of natural saline and alkali soils, relative to man-caused factors, such as irrigation return flow and waste disposal. The tributaries show a poor relation between stream discharge and dissolved-solids concentration because of the highly variable flow of the tributaries and the variable proportions of natural runoff and irrigation return flow. For example, data were obtained at Drunkards Wash at State Highway 10 near Price (site 31) on August 29,1969, at 9:20 a.m. during a low discharge (2.5 cfs) that was mainly irrigation return flow and again at 12:30 p.m. at a high discharge (150 cfs) that resulted from intense thunderstorms southwest of Price. Although the discharge increased sixty­ fold, the dissolved-solids concentration remained essentially the same, and the calcium and sulfate content actually increased with increasing discharge. A small unnamed creek (site 32) about 1 mile south of Drunkards Wash had no flow, during the morning of August 29; but a floodflow of 75 cfs later in the day had a dissolved-solids concentration (2,620 mg/l) similar to that in Drunkards Wash (2,770 mg/I) during the flood.

20 Readily soluble salt efflorescences accumulate in nearly all stream channels in the central basin during periods of low flow. These efflorescences cover the bars, banks, and exposed pebbles and significant areas of the land surface in the drainage area. During some runoff the efflorescences are dissolved and flushed into the stream. Some of the dissolved efflorescence may enter the shallow ground-water body in poorly drained areas and then enter the streams as seepage of exceptionally high dissolved-solids concentration for many days after the overland runoff has ended. Analyses of efflorescence from Drunkards Wash and from five other sites in the central basin (table 1) show that the soluble salts are predominantly sodium and sulfate, although magnesium was also a major constituent in three of the six samples. The solution of these surface salts may result in the high dissolved-solids concentration of the streams during floods.

Miller Creek at Highway 10 near Well ington (site 33) is at the western edge of the area of intensive irrigation and receives no direct return flow from irrigated areas. At times, however, the site offers an unusual opportunity for determining the probable characteristics of subsurface irrigation return flow that has traveled only short distances through soils and underlying rocks of types that are common in the central basin. A small loop in the Carbon Canal crosses Highway 10 a few hundred feet north of site 33; the canal then extends westward for about 1,000 feet, crosses Miller Creek about 1,000 feet upstream from the sampling site, and then extends back eastward and again crosses Highway 10 a few hundred feet south of the site (fig. 6),

On May 15, 1970, Miller Creek had no flow upstream from the canal crossing. Seepage from the banks and bed in the 1,OOO-foot reach of the creek that is within the canal loop resulted in an estimated flow of 0.02 cfs (9 gallons per minute) at Highway 10. The assumptions are made that this seepage water was from the Carbon Canal, that the canal water was a calcium bicarbonate water having a dissolved-solids concentration of about 300 mg/I (see table 4, site 25, entry for May 15, 1970), and that the canal seepage had traveled no more than 1,000 feet through the subsurface. The seepage water, as observed in Miller Creek at Highway 10 (site 33), on the same day had a dissolved-solids concentration of 4,720 mg/I and was of the sodium magnesium calcium sulfate type.

The dissolved-solids concentration at site 33 was much higher on May 15, 1970, than it was during the other three observation periods when some of the flow was from upstream areas. Concu rrent data were obtained on August 29, 1969, and November 6, 1969, at this site and at Miller Creek near Wellington (site 34), which is about 6 miles downstream from site 33, at Highway 10. The data obtained at the two sites on August 29, 1969, should not be compared as an indication of change in dissolved solids in a downstream direction. The flow of 0.5 cfs at the upstream site (table 4) was mainly low flow from areas upstream from the Carbon Canal but probably included some seepage in the 1,000-foot reach between the canal and Highway 10. The flows of 21 and 20 cfs at the downstream site (table 4) resulted from thunderstorm runoff that occurred after the data were obtained at the upstream site. Thus, the data obtained on August 29, represent low flow at the upstream site and floodflow at the downstream site.

The concurrent data obtained on November 6, 1969, however, may be indicative of the chemical characteristics of water that enters the stream between sites 33 and 34. At the upstream site, the flow was 2.0 cfs, had a dissolved-solids concentration of 3,020 mg/I, and was of the magnesium sodium sulfate type. At the downstream site, the flow was 6.0 cfs, had a dissolved-solids concentration of 6,220 mg/I, and was of the sodium magnesium sulfate type. Sodium and sulfate showed large increases downstream. If the 2 cfs of water having a dissolved-solids concentration of 3,020 mg/I reached the downstream site and was included in the 6 cfs of water having a dissolved-solids concentration of 6,220 mg/I, then 4 cfs of water having a concentration of about 7,800 mg/I must have entered the 6-mile reach of Miller Creek between the sites.

21 Table 1-Chemical analyses of major soluble constituents in salt efflorescences

All samples contained varying amounts of non-efflorescences such as soil, bank, and bed material.

Milligrams per liter .l!l E Cll_ CD e::: :::l E e::: M ~- o :::l ~ _.- E 'cn'Cn E °0 e::: M 0t; :::l- .~~ 00 ~-v '':; ~:2: :::lCii -eu ,gU 0- CD CD cn­ :SZ Cll_ Cll:I: ~o .... - 'uu;a- Cll ... .!:!­ ..Cll - :::lei) ::cu 0­ eI)- u- 08 U :2: eI) c.° en U Salt crust above waterline on banks, 9-25-69 457 3,130 14,800 52 332 83 41,200 3.0 Drunkards Wash at Highway 10, near Price.!!

Salt crust from banks and emergent bars, 9-25-69 401 68 6,630 12 244 o 15,500 Soldier Creek, at Highway 6 and 50, near Wellingtonl! N N Salt crust from banks and emergent bars, 9-25-69 401 1,610 8,000 108 284 o 23,900 Coal Creek at Highway 6 and 50, near Wellington1J

Salt deposit on pebbles on bed, Price 9-25-69 14 6.3 160 1 .1 58 o 319 5.0 River at HighwaY 296, at Wellingtonli

Salt crust from banks and bars, Price 9-25-69 417 1,690 8,920 26 388 o 21,900 River, near Mounds!!

Salt efflorescence on soil surface (upper 9-25-69 449 482 7,340 40 240 o 21,500 one quarter of an in 7) about 1 mile west of Desert Lake-1

1/ Fifty grams of dry sample were mixed with 25 milliliters of distilled water. The mixture was shaken for 15 minutes and then allowed to stand for 72 hours. Thesupernatant liquid was decanted, filtered,and analyzed. Variable dilutions were used depending on the concentration of the original 250 milliliters of solution. ?!. Approximately 1.8 grams of salt efflorescence was washed from the rocks and dissolved in 500 milliliters of distilled water. R. 10 E.

N r

I I Unmapped I I I I I L ______. J

o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 FEET ET---~5~--~--~-T--,----r--=r==r-----J DIMILE

EXPLANATION

l~~~u;;j Gull ied land

I:PCE2 :1 Persayo-Chipeta association. I to 20 percent slopes. eroded

~~ Ravola loam. 3 to 6 percent slopes. eroded

I

~y§~ Ravola-Bunderson complex, to 3 percent slopes, eroded

Chip~ta Series: Calcareous; occupy shale hills; formed in residuum that weathered from alkal ine, gypsum-bearing marine shale; sl ightly to moderately saline silty clay and silty clay loam overlies weathered marine shale at a depth of about 17 inches

Persayo Series: Calcareous; formed in residuum that weathered from shale: weak to moderate gypsum horizon overl ies bedrock which is at depth of about 12 inches

Ravola Series: Formed in alluvium washed from shale and sandstone; strongly calcareous loam begins at depth of about 9 inches

Bunderson Series: Calcareous soils on alluvial fans. flood plains. and alluvial plains; alluvium washed from alkaline marine shale and sandstone; representative profile has strongly saline horizons from It to 38 inches and moderately saline from 38 to 72 inches

Figure 5.-Detailed soils map showing short reach of Miller Creek and Carbon Canal (adapted from Swenson and others, 1971, sheets 8 and 9).

23 Concurrent data obtained many times during the period August 1969 to September 1970 at the Price River in the vicinity of Price (sites 29 and 30) and of Wellington (sites 45-47) show that the dissolved-solids concentration was invariably higher at Wellington than at Price. In general, concentrations of calcium, magnesium, sodium, and sulfate all were significantly greater at Wellington. A poor relation exists between water discharge and dissolved-solids concentration in the reach between Price and Wellington, and the water quality is unpredictable, as illustrated by the data for site 46. For example, on August 28, 1969, at a discharge of 28 cfs, the dissolved-solids concentration was 2,200 mg/I; on the following day at a discharge of approximately 300 cfs that resulted from flash flooding, the dissolved-solids concentration decreased only a relatively small amount to 1,780 mg/I although the discharge increased more than tenfold during the period. And at a discharge of approximately 300 cfs on June 11, 1970, the dissolved-solids concentration was only 632 mg/I, whereas a dissolved-solids concentration of 612 mg/I was observed on March 25, 1970, at a discharge of only 60 cfs.

The dissolved-solids concentration of the Price River in the central basin varies with the proportions of water from the upper basin, from irrigation return flow, and from rapid runoff that may flush large amounts of surface salts from tirbutary areas in the central basinVariations in these proportions can result in widely different dissolved-solids concentrations at similar discharges or in similar dissolved-solids concentrations at a wide range of discharges.

Meads Wash, Cardinal Wash, Coal Creek, and Soldier Creek are tributaries that head in the Book Cliffs and flow generally southward across marine shales of Cretaceous age. The drainage areas of these tributaries generally range in altitude from about 5,500 to 8,800 feet; average annual precipitation ranges from about 8 to 16 inches. Grazing is the principal land use. Several square miles of land are in irrigated crops in the downstream parts of the areas bounded by the Price- Wellington Canal on the north and the Price River on the south. Data obtained for these four tributary streams shows that the water that reaches the Price River nearly always had dissolved-solids concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/1.

Data were obtained at three sites on Soldier Creek on August 27, 1969. Soldier Creek at State Highway 53 at Book Cliffs (site 42) had a dissolved-solids concentration of 503 mg/I, and the water was of the magnesium sodium bicarbonate type. Soldier Creek at Highway 53 near Wellington (site 43), which is about midway between the Book Cliffs and the mouth of the stream, had a dissolved-solids concentration nearly four times greater than did the upstream site; the water was sodium magnesium sulfate in type. Soldier Creek at Highway 6 and 50 near the mouth of the stream (site 44) had a dissolved-solids concentration of 3,360 mg/I or more than six times greater than that of Soldier Creek at Book Cliffs.

Such downstream increases in dissolved solids probably are typical of the other southward-flowing tributaries that head in the Book Cliffs. Water from all four of these tributaries was generally strongly sulfate, relative to the anions. Calcium was generally the predominant cation in Meads Wash (site 37) and Cardinal Wash (site 38); sodium generally was predominant in Coal Creek (site 41) and Soldier Creek (sites 43 and 44). Analyses of salt efflorescences from the channels of Coal Creek and Soldier Creek are given in table 1. Irrigation return flow probably has some effect on the downstream reaches of all four streams. Most of 6,400 acres that are irrigated from the Price-Wellington Canal are in the downstream parts of these four drainage areas. These streams periodically receive contributions of garbage and trash that may adversely affect the biologic quality of the stream; figure 7 shows the channel of Meads Wash immediately downstream from U.S. Highway 6 and 50 at the east side of Price. This site is about half a mile upstream from the junction with the Price River, and part of such wastes in the lower parts of the channel are periodically flushed into the Price River by high discharges from upstream areas. .

24 Figure 7.-Waste disposal in channel of Meads Wash at Highway 6 and 50 at Price. (May 15, 1970).

Huntington Creek basin, wh ich is part of the San Rafael River basin, to the south of the Price River basin is the source of water that is diverted into the Price River basin and used for the irrigation of approximately 13,000 acres in the southern part of the central Price River basin. Water from Cleveland Canal and McFadden Branch of Cleveland Canal (Cleveland South Branch Canal) is used for irrigation of land in the Price River basin. Diversion of water from Huntington Creek into Cleveland Canal is made about 4 miles upstream from Huntington. About 3 miles upstream from Huntington water is diverted from Huntington Creek into the North Ditch. Part of this water is diverted into Huntington North Reservoir Feeder Canal (fig. 8) for storage in Huntington North Reservoir. Release from the reservoir can be made through Huntington North Service Canal from which redistribution is made into North Ditch and McFadden Branch of Cleveland Canal.

Data obtained at sites 56-59 in this complex canal system (pI. 1, fig. 8, and table 4) indicate that the water diverted into the Price River basin from the San Rafael River basin was of good quality for irrigation (table 4). The water was similar in quality to that from the upper Price River basin, as indicated by the data for Price River near Heiner (site 19).

Washboard Wash joins Desert Seep Wash about half a mile above the junction of Desert Seep Wash and the Price River; however, because Washboard Wash has a major drainage area within an area of significant irrigation development, it is described separately in this report.

Washboard Wash drains an area that is predominantly of the Chipeta-Killpack and Chipeta-Persayo-Badland soil associations (fig. 5) that have developed on gypsiferous marine shales of Cretaceous age (pI. 1). As indicated by Swenson, Erickson, Donaldson, and Shiozaki (1971, p. 3, 4, 43, 49), the Chipeta and Killpack soils are slightly permeable, have varying degrees of salinity, and are generally not suited to the production of irrigated crops. Where the soils have

25 110°57'30" 110°52'30" I R. 9 E. I R. 10 E.

- 39°22'30"

I

T. 17 S.

I 39°17'30"- 110°57'30" -39°17'30" From unpub! ished records of U.S. Bureau of Reclamat ion

EXPLANATION .61 Water-quality sampling site (see plate 1 and table I)

Figure 8.-Canal system for diversion of water from the San Rafael River basin to the Price River basin. Cleveland Canal and McFadden Branch of Cleveland Canal carry water into the Price River basin.

26 been irrigated, some areas have been abandoned because of the development of saline and alkali conditions. Relatively minor acreages of soils more suited to irrigation are within the soil associations shown in figure 5, and such soils are intensively irrigated. The northern reaches of the Cleveland Canal and the southern reaches of the Carbon Canal extend into this area. Thus, Washboard Wash is the only tributary that receives irrigation return flow of water from both the Price River and San Rafael River basins.

Runoff from the northern part of the Washboard Wash drainage area includes return flow that is nearly all from water supplied by the Carbon Canal. The water flows through Olsen Reservoir before entering the main channel of Washboard Wash several miles downstream. The dissolved-solids concentration at site 35 was as high as 4,920 mg/I; sulfate concentrations ranged from 1,320 to 3,140 mg/I (table 4). Sodium was the predominant cation, although both magnesium and calcium were present in significant amounts. Nitrate was exceptionally high (35 mg/l) in the sample obtained on November 6, 1969, during the postirrigation season of low flow (0.6 cfs). Runoff from the southern part of the Washboard Wash drainage area includes return flow that is mainly from water supplied by the Cleveland Canal. At Washboard Wash near Mounds (site 36) on November 6, 1969, the dissolved-solids concentration (8,610 mg/l), the sulfate concentration (5,680 mg/l), the sodium concentration (1,660 mg/l), and the nitrate concentration (66 mg/I) were the highest observed for any stream in the Price River basin during the period August 1969 to September 1970. Data obtained during this reconnaissance are not adequate to determine whether these high concentrations resulted from natural runoff or from agricultural practices, including irrigation, fertilizer application, and livestock production.

The drainage areas of Desert Lake Wash (Desert Seep Wash)5 and Washboard Wash are underlain by rocks of similar type and receive about the same amounts of precipitation (pis. 1 and 2). The soils in the intensively irrigated area in the vicinity of Cleveland are of the Saltair-Libbings association (fig. 5). Both soils named in the association are poorly drained, saline, and unsuited to irrigation. Within any named soil association, however, appreciable areas of other soils may occur. Thus, in this Saltair-Libbings association, significant areas of soils of the Penoyer, Ravola, Billings, and other series are successfu lIy irrigated under proper irrigation practices. Flow was not observed in Desert Lake Wash upstream from the irrigated lands during any of the visits to the area during the period August 1969 to September 1970; flow from the upstream part of the Desert Lake Wash drainage area probably occurs only during a short snowmelt period and immediately after thunderstorms. The most upstream site at which data were collected was at Desert Lake Wash at Cleveland (site 48). When the low discharges of 1.0 and 1.2 cfs were observed, all the water was known to have originated between the sampling site and the western margin of the irrigated area approximately 2 miles upstream from the sampling site. The water, which apparently was irrigation return flow or canal seepage, was of poor quality, with dissolved-solids concentration exceeding 4,000 mg/1. Sulfate was strongly predominant among anions; magnesium was predominant among the cations, but calcium and sodium were present in large amounts.

Desert Lake Wash near Cleveland (site 50) is about 3 miles downstream from site 48. Additional deterioration in water quality apparently occurs between the two sites. On November 6, 1969, when the dissolved-solids concentration was 4,390 mg/I at site 48, the dissolved-solids concentration at site 50 was 6,970 mg/I; both sodium and sulfate were markedly higher at the

5 U. S. Geological Survey topographic maps or other detailed maps were not available for this part of the Price River basin, and opinions differ regarding nomenclature for this stream. Swenson, Erickson, Donaldson, and Shiozaki (1971, sheet 27) show the stream as "Desert Lake Wash" upstream from Desert Lake. The U. S. Geological Survey (1962) shows the drainage as "Desert Seep Wash" downstream from Desert Lake. Therefore, in this report "Desert Lake Wash" will apply to the drainage upstream from the lake and "Desert Seep Wash" will apply to the drainage downstream from the lake.

27 downstream site. The discharge at site 48 at Cleveland was 1.2 cfs, and the discharge 3 miles downstream at site 50 near Cleveland was 4.0 cfs. None of the increase in discharge was direct surface runoff resulting from rainfall or snowmelt. The increase probably was mainly from irrigation return flow.

Desert Lake is the receiving area both for natural runoff from rainfall and snowmelt and for irrigation retu rn flow from most of the land irrigated with water from the San Rafael River basin (Cleveland Canal and McFadden Branch of Cleveland Canal). In some respects, Desert Lake is similar physically to Great Salt Lake (fig. 9); it has two arms separated by a dike, and the south arm receives nearly all the inflow. The north arm receives natural runoff and irrigation return flow from a relatively small part of the drainage area, but the bed of the north arm apparently is permanently covered with water. The north arm is several feet higher in altitude than is the south arm, and outflow from the north arm is through a small drain a few hundred feet north of the east end of the dike. The outflow, which occurs only after a certain lake stage is reached, enters the south arm of the lake.

The south arm of the lake contains water only during a few weeks each year, usually during late May and June. Figure 10 shows the dry lakebed on May 15, 1970, when the discharge from the lake was 9 cfs. This outflow was directly across the lakebed, and the drop-inlet structure in a small dam at the southeast end of the south arm (see fig. 9) was allowing all inflow to pass through the lake area without storage. During maximum inflow periods in May and June, and probably immediately after major thunderstorm runoff, water is stored in the south arm. After the stored water reaches a few feet in depth, uncontrolled discharge is through a spillway about 150 feet south of the drop inlet.

The water in the north arm of Desert Lake was of the poorest chemical quality observed in the Price River basin. The dissolved-solids concentration of the outflow (site 51) (13,700 mg/l) was about 60 percent higher than the maximum observed for any stream in the Price River basin (table 4). The high dissolved-solids concentration in the north arm undoubtedly results from evaporation of a significant part of the water that enters this arm. The water contains several thousand milligrams per liter of dissolved solids when it enters storage, and large evaporation losses result in increased concentration of dissolved solids. Although large amounts of sulfate salts are precipitated on the shores and bed of the north arm, most of these precipitated salts may be redissolved and flushed from the north arm during short periods of major inflow.

The surface outflow from the north arm of Desert Lake enters the south arm, but it constitutes only a minor part of the inflow to the south arm. Even so, water discharged from the south arm (site 52) was of poor quality; dissolved-solids concentration ranged from 3,760 to 7,900 mg/I during five observation periods (table 4). Water from both arms of Desert Lake was of the sodium magnesium sulfate type.

Data obtained on Desert Seep Wash downstream from Desert Lake (sites 53 and 54) show changes in quality that cannot be adequately explained on the basis of the data available from this reconnaissance. For example, on November 6, 1969, Desert Seep Wash near Mounds (site 54), which is at the mouth of the stream, had a dissolved-solids concentration of 5,970 mg/I at a discharge of 5.3 cfs. On the same day, the discharge from Desert Lake (site 52) was 5.0 cfs and had a dissolved-solids concentration of 7,500 mg/I; the discharge at the outflow drain from Olsen Reservoir (site 35) was 0.6 cfs and had a dissolved-solids concentration of 4,920 mg/I; and the discharge at Washboard Wash near Mounds (site 36) was 2.0 cfs and had a dissolved-solids concentration of 8,610 mg/1. Thus, the discharge at the mouth of ~sert Seep Wash was 2.3 cfs less than the combined discharge of the three major contributors to the flow of the stream; but at the same time the dissolved-solids concentration at the mouth also was much lower than that of

28 N I

MILE U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Stabi I ization and SCALE (APPROXIMATE) Conservation Service, 1961

Figure 9.-Aerial photograph of Desert Lake and of drainage into Desert Lake. Note that most of the drainage enters the normally dry south arm of the lake.

29 Figure 10.-Dry bed of south arm of Desert Lake on May 15, 1970. Inflow to the south arm moved across the lakebed in the small channel eroded in deposited sediment. Inflow and outflow was about 9 cfs.

most of the water measured at upstream sites. No rainfall or snowfall was observed or reported in the Price River basin during the period November 1-6. Undoubtedly water enroute downstream may be lost by seepage and evaporation, and appreciable amounts of dissolved solids are precipitated as extensive salt deposits in stream channels during low-flow periods (fig. 11). This, however, does not adequately explain the lower dissolved-solids concentration of the water at the mouth of the stream.

Price River near Mounds (site 55) is downstream from the junction with Miller Creek but upstream from Desert Seep Wash. Comparison of concurrent data from site 55 and Price River near Wellington (site 47) shows a significant downstream increase in dissolved solids.

The data obtained during this reconnaissance indicate that all the major tributaries in the central basin contribute water of poor quality to the Price River. The geologic environment, the flow depletion caused by major irrigation diversions from the Price River, and the quality of the irrigation return flow contribute to the deterioration in the chemical quality of the water as the Price River crosses the central basin. Furthermore, untreated sewage wastes from a population of about 10,000 are discharged into the Price River as it crosses the central basin. The presence of dense algal growth in some reaches of the Price River in the central basin may reflect the entry of municipal or agricultural wastes into the stream. On September 25, 1969, nitrate concentration was 1.2 mg/I and total phosphate concentration was 0.02 mg/I at Price River at Price (site 29); at Price River near Price (site 30), which is about 2 miles downstream and below the sewage discharge point for Price, the nitrate concentration was 6.4 mg/I, and the total phosphate concentration was 2.7 mg/1.

30 Figure 11.-Desert Seep Wash about 5 miles downstream from Desert Lake. Note white salt deposits on bed and banks of stream. (June 3, 1970).

Suitability of the water for public supply and irrigation

Based on the U.S. Public Health Service (1962) recommended standards for drinking water, the limits for sulfate (250 mg/l) and for total dissolved solids (500 mg/I) were commonly exceeqed in the Price River at and near Price (sites 29 and 30) and were nearly always exceeded in the Price River downstream from Price and in all observed tributaries to the Price River in the central basin. Data were not obtained on various trace elements that might limit the use of the water or on "impurity which would cause offense to the sense of sight, taste, or smell" (U.S. Public Health Service, 1962, p. 6).

Water from all observed streams in the central basin exceeded, and in most cases greatly ) exceeded, the minimum hardness (180 mg/I as CaC03 that results in classification of water as "very hard" (footnote, p. 14).

Nitrate concentrations were generally much higher in Spring Canyon Creek (sites 20 and 21) than those in other streams in the central basin. The recommended nitrate limit of 45 mg/I (U. S. Public Health Service, 1962, p. 7) was exceeded at sites 20 and 21 on March 25,1970.

The suitability of the water for irrigation was variable. The water in the Price River and in all observed tributaries in the central basin generally had a high to very high salinity hazard and a low to medium sodium (alkali) hazard. Data for Price River near Mounds (site 55 in table 4 and fig. 4) show that the water in the Price River near the downstream side of the central basin had a high to very high salinity hazard and a low to medium sodium hazard.

31 Lower basin The lower basin ranges in altitude from 10,285 feet at Bruin Point about 6 miles north-northeast of Sunnyside to about 4,200 feet at the mouth of the Price River. Average annual precipitation is greater than 20 inches at high altitudes along the north side of the lower basin and is less than 8 inches in the south-central part (pI. 2); most of the lower basin receives less than 10 inches. An appreciable part of the lower basin is a sparsely vegetated, dissected desert (figs. 12 and 13). Grazing is the only major land use; probably no more than about 500 acres of bottom lands along the Price River and Grassy Trail Creek are irrigated. The lower basin is underlain by diverse rocks, ranging in age from Jurrasic to Quaternary, that include numerous carboniferous and gypsiferous marine shales. Coal mining is a major industry in the Book Cliffs area in the vicinity of Sunnyside and Dragerton.

Little water originates or is used in the lower basin. Neither major improvement nor major deterioration in the chemical quality of the surface water is evident. For example, data obtained on November 5-7, 1969, at Desert Seep Wash near Mounds (site 54) and Price River near Mounds (site 55), both of which are near the downstream end of the central basin, and data obtained at Price River above Camel Wash near Woodside (site 68), near Woodside (site 70), and at mouth near Green River (site 71) in the lower basin indicate that the dissolved-solids concentration of the Price River was essentially constant across the lower basin (see pI. 3). The few data obtained in the lower basin indicate no seasonal variations. The data suggest that the chemical quality of water in the Price River in the lower basin results mainly from the environment in the central basin.

Chemical quality at selected sites

Few data were obtained on streams in the lower basin, mainly because streamflow is infrequent. Stream channels were dry at the time of all trips to Dugout Creek near Dragerton, Grassy Wash near Woodside, Marsh Flat Wash near Woodside, Summerville Wash near Woodside, Neversweat Wash near Woodside, and the upstream reaches of Cottonwood Wash and other tributaries that are 5 to 8 miles southeast of Desert Lake (pI. 1).

Grassy Trail Creek has the largest drainage area of any tributary in the entire Price River basin. The many tributaries of Grassy Trail Creek have headwaters in a rather wide arc of the Book Cliffs in the northern part of the lower basin and drain large areas of gravels of Quaternary age and shales of Cretaceous age (pI. 1). Data for this stream indicate that the water upstream from the junction with Icelander Creek had dissolved-solids concentrations that ranged from 633 mg/I at Whitmore Canyon near Sunnyside (site 62) to 2,510 mg/I downstream from the junction with Dugout and Rock Creeks near Dragerton (site 64). The water at Whitmore Canyon probably is representative of the drainage from areas having altitudes between about 7,000 and 10,000 feet in the Book Cliffs area of the lower basin.

Icelander Creek is the major tributary to Grassy Trail Creek in the downstream part of its drainage area. Although the geology of the Icelander Creek drainage area is similar to that of the rest of the drainage area of Grassy Trail Creek, the dissolved-solids concentration of Icelander Creek (about 3,200 to 6,100 mg/l) at site 67 is much higher. The water in Icelander Creek was very strongly sulfate; but sodium, magnesium, and calcium all were present in large amounts.

At Price River at Woodside (site 70), water-quality data have been collected nearly continuously since December 1946. During the period December 1946 to September 1949, data were obtained weekly or monthly. Data were not obtained from October 1949 to January 1951, but beginning in February 1951 and extending through 1969 daily records were obtained. Records for 1946-49 and for 1951-63 are published in annual Water-Supply Papers of the U.S. Geological Survey titled "Quality of Surface Waters of the United States." Records for 1964-69

32 Figure 12.-Dissected desert in eastern part of Price River basin. View looking eastward toward Book Cliffs is from top of butte north of Woodside. Indentation in Book Cliffs in centerground is where the Price River enters the lower gorge of the Price River. The junction with the Green River is about 15 channel miles downstream from this point. (May 15, 1970).

are published by the Geological Survey in the annual series titled "Water Resources Data for Utah, Part 2, Water Quality Records." Additional data obtained during the period July 1969 to August 1970 are presented in table 4; these data show that the water ranged from about 2,400 mg/I to about 5,400 mg/I and was strongly sodium sulfate in type.

A brief summary of the data on chemical quality of the water at Price River at Woodside for the 1952-69 water years is given in table 2. The weighted-average dissolved-solids concentration for each year is that which would have resulted if all the flow of Price River at Woodside during a given water year were stored and mixed without evaporation or precipitation of salts. The minimums and maximums shown in the table are for composite periods ranging from a day to a month in length. The weighted-average dissolved-solids concentration was in the range from 2,000 to 4,000 mg/I during most years. The maximum was usually during periods of low flow in November or December. The maximums during 1966 and 1967, however, were during high discharges resulting from early winter storms in the central and lower basins. The minimums were usually during high flows resulting from snowmelt runoff, when a large part of the discharge at Woodside was from the upper basin and high altitudes in the central and lower basin, or during periods of runoff resu Iting from intense thunderstorms. Although Price River at Woodside (site 70) is about 22 miles upstream from the junction of the Price and Green Rivers, the data obtained at Woodside describe the quality of the water that enters the Green River and ultimately the and Lake Powell.

33 Table 2-Summary of data on dissolved-solids concentration of Price River at Woodside, 1952-69 water years

Dissolved solids are calculated from complete analyses for period 1952-61 and are residue on evaporation at 180°C for period 1962-69.

Dissolved solids

Date or Date or Water Annual weighted Maximum composite Minimum composite year average (mgfl) (mg/I) period (mg/I) period

1952 1,380 8,220 Dec. 11 592 May 21-30 1953 3,330 5,260 Nov. 22-30 1,790 Aug. 29·31

1954 3,790 5,470 Mar. 23-29 1,790 Mar. 11-12

1955 2,990 4,880 Dec. 21·31 1,750 Apr. 27-30

1956 4,120 6,470 Oct. 21-31 1,490 Mar. 22-28

1957 2,900 6,470 Nov. 21-30 1,210 Aug. 22

1958 1,700 4,350 Dec. 1-31 915 Apr. 1-30

1959 3,860 5,650 July 1-31 1,850 Sept. 16-19

1960 3,770 6,390 Dec. 1-7 1,880 Sept. 2-20

1961 2,860 7,060 May 1-31 1,040 Aug. 16-17

1962 2,010 7,000 Dec. 19-21 754 Apr. 5-30

1963 3,040 7,030 Dec. 28-31 944 Aug. 5

1964 3,500 7,060 May 6-11 748 Sept. 6

1965 2,080 6,180 Dec. 11-20 828 May 1-8

1966 2,910 5,190 Nov. 20-21 908 Sept. 6-7

1967 2,500 5,130 Dec. 8-11 997 June 18·20

1968 2,920 5,220 Dec. 1-7 739 June 1-7 1969 1,720 4,990 Dec. 1-13 729 May 1-7

34 Figure 13.-Typical landscape in downstream part of Grassy Trail Creek drainage area in western part of lower basin. (June 3, 1970).

Data obtained on November 6, 1969, (table below) indicate that the dissolved-solids concentration of the water in the lower Price River basin results mainly from the physical environment and water use in the central basin.

Dissolved Site Discharge solids number Location Basin lcfs) lmg/I)

19 Price River near Heiner Upper 22 333 55 Price River near Mounds Central 42 2,740 54 D!sert Seep Wash near Mounds Central 5.3 5,970 65 Grassy Trail Creek near Mounds Lower 4.6 1,670 70 Price River at Woodside Lower 63 3,140 71 Price River at mouth near Green River Lower 64 3,040

35 If the flow of the Price River near Mounds were mixed only with the flow of Desert Seep Wash near Mounds, a discharge of 47.3 cfs having a dissolved-solids concentration of 3,100 mg/I would have resulted from the central basin. If this mixture were diluted with the 4.6 cfs of water from Grassy Trail Creek having a dissolved-solids concentration of only 1,670 mg/I, the resulting flow of about 52 cfs would have 2,980 mg/I of dissolved solids. Therefore, in addition to the contributions from the central basin and Grassy Trail Creek, only about 11 cfs of water having an average dissolved-solids concentration of about 4,000 mg/I must have entered the Price River below Mounds to result in the 63 cfs of water having a dissolved-solids concentration of 3,140 mg/I at Woodside.

Suitability of the water for public supply and irrigation

The U. S. Public Health Service (1962) recommended limits for total dissolved solids were exceeded in all the observed streams in the lower basin. And except for Whitmore Canyon near Sunnyside (site 62), the sulfate limits were exceeded in all streams. As in the central basin, water from all streams in the lower basin exceeded, and usually greatly exceeded, the minimum hardness that results in classification of water as "very hard."

Selenium is known to be highly toxic to animals, but generally poisoning results from eating selenium-concentrating plants (Hem, 1970, p. 325). A concentration in water of 0.4-0.5 mg/I was reported by McKee and Wolf (1963, p. 254) to be nontoxic to cattle. The U.S. Public Health Service (1962, p. 8) states that the presence of selenium in excess of 0.01 mg/I shall constitute grounds for rejection of potable water used by common carriers subject to the Federal quarantine regulations. The following data on selenium concentrations in the main stem of the Price River in the upper, central, and lower basins were obtained on November 6, 1969:

Price River below White River, near Colton (site 10) 0.00 mg/I

Price River near Heiner (site 19). 0.00 mg/I

Price River at Price (site 29). .. 0.00 mg/I

Price River at Woodside (site 70). 0.03 mg/I

Price River at mouth, near Green River (site 71)...... 0.00 mg/I

The reason for the occurrence of selenium in the Price River at Woodside but not at the mouth is not known.

Figure 4 and table 4 indicate that the water in streams in the lower basin had a high to very high salinity hazard and a low to high sodium (alkali) hazard. The water at Whitmore Canyon near Sunnyside (site 62) was of the best quality for irrigation-low sodium hazard and near the lower side of high salinity hazard. The water at Price River at Woodside generally had a very high sal i nity hazard and a medium sodium hazard.

FLUVIAL SEDIMENT

Most of the sediment discharge by streams in arid and semiarid areas is transported during a short period of time each year. The highest concentrations of suspended sediment and discharges of suspended sediment are characteristic of high-intensity runoff and usually occur as a result of runoff from thunderstorms. Sediment concentration and discharge during snowmelt runoff increase significantly from concentrations and discharges during base flow but are low relative to those during high-intensity runoff from thunderstorms.

36 In general, concentrations of suspended sediment increase with increasing water discharge, but concentrations of dissolved solids decrease with increasing water discharge. Thus the quality of water, relative to its sediment content, generally is best during periods of low flow; and the quality of water, relative to its chemical content, generally is best during periods of high flow. Further, the range in sediment concentrations generally is much greater than the range in concentrations of dissolved solids; sediment concentrations may range from a few hundred to more than 100,000 mg/I during a short period.

The reconnaissance of the Price River basin was designed primarily to define the chemical quality of surface water during (1) the irrigation season, (2) postirrigation in the fall, (3) base flow during the winter and early spring, and (4) snowmelt in the late spring and early summer. The scope of this investigation was limited and did not include special efforts to obtain data from thunderstorm runoff. During any given reconnaissance trip, thunderstorm runoff was not desirable once the data collection had started; comparability of data obtained during similar runoff conditions throughout the basin was desired. The occurrence of intense thunderstorms on the afternoon of the last day of the trip in August 1969 was extremely fortunate, however, in that it did not negate the principal data obtained during normal runoff; and it permitted the collection of both sediment and chemical-quality data under an extreme range of conditions during a period of only 1 or 2 days.

The wide range in sediment concentrations that may occur during short periods is illustrated by the data for Drunkards Wash (site 31) for August 29, 1969 (table 5). At 9:20 a.m., the sediment concentration at a discharge of 2.5 cfs was only 408 mg/I; at 12:30 p.m., the sediment concentration at a discharge of about 150 cfs during a flash flood was 186,000 mq/1. A small tributary of Drunkards Wash (site 32) about 1 mile south of the site on Drunkards Wash had no flow at 9:30 a.m.; at 12: 15 p.m., the sediment concentration was 130,000 mg/I at a discharge of 75 cfs.

Wide ranges in concentration can occur not only on small tributaries but also on the main stem of the Price River. For example, at a common irrigation-season discharge of 28 cfs on August 28, the sediment concentration at site 46 at Wellington was only 167 mg/1. On August 29, the first flood wave from tributaries reached Price River at State Highway 296 at Wellington. The sediment concentration in the flood wave was 111,000 mg/I at a discharge of 40 cfs. A half hour later, when the discharge had increased to about 300 cfs, the sediment concentration had decreased to 49,700 mg/1.

Extremely high concentrations are typical of flood waves in streams in arid and semiarid areas. The concentration commonly decreases rapidly after the passing of the flood wave, even though the water discharge may increase markedly after the wave passes. Maximum sediment discharge, in tons per day, usually occurs at neither the time of maximum sediment concentration nor the time of maximum water discharge, which normally lags maximum concentration. Maximum sediment discharge usually is slightly after maximum concentration and before maximum water discharge.

The characteristics of the sediment transported by Spring Canyon Creek at Helper (site 21) were unique among the streams observed in the Price River basin. During some periods, the transported sediment is principally coal particles that range up to an inch in diameter (fig. 3). On August 29, 1969, a sample obtained at a water discharge of 0.6 cfs had a suspended-sediment concentration of 2,260 mg/I; approximately 90 percent of the sediment was coal. Thus, the creek was contributing coal at the rate of about 3 tons per day to the Price River. On November 6, 1969, the water discharge was 1 cfs, the suspended-sediment concentration was 502 mg/I, and about 95 percent of the sediment was coal. Appreciable amounts of coal were not observed in Grassy Trail Creek, Willow Creek, or other streams in areas of coal mining.

37 Insufficient sediment data were obtained during this reconnaissance for detailed evaluation of erosion characteristics or sediment yield characteristics of any specific part of the basin. The data in conjunction with field observations do indicate that the upper basin probably contributes a negligible part of the sediment that is discharged into the Green River by the Price River. A large part of both the central basin and the lower basin appears to be highly erodible, but the relative contributions of sediment are not known. The reservoir sedimentation survey data in table 3 indicate that sedimentation is a severe problem in parts of the central basin. Except for the first listed reservoir, which is about 6 miles south of Cleveland and outside the Price River basin, the other reservoirs are in the central basin. Four of the seven surveyed reservoirs had lost about 20 to 55 percent of their original storage capacity because of sediment deposition. Although the extremes in "sediment production" probably are not represented by these seven drainage areas, the average "sediment production" in the central and lower basin probably is within the ranges shown.

Standard sediment investigations, including the collection of daily or more frequent data, were not a part of this reconnaissance. Data on the specific conductance of water are collected daily at Price River at Woodside (site 70), however, and the sediment content of these samples obtained during the 1970 water year was determined in order to make a rough estimate of sediment discharge at Price River at Woodside. These samples were surface samples collected at only one stream vertical; a sediment sampler was not used,and intake velocities were not representative of stream velocities. Estimates based on these nonstandard suspended-sediment samples indicate that the sediment discharge at Price River at Woodside during the 1970 water year was at least 1,400,000 tons. This amount of sediment would cover 1 square mile to a depth of about 1 foot.

The sediment discharge from the 415 square-mile drainage area upstream from Price River near Heiner (site 19) and from irrigated and poorly drained areas in Castle Valley is believed to be small. Thus, at least one third of the 1,500 square miles of drairidge area upstream from Price River at Woodside probably contributes little sediment to the Price River. If the remaining 1,000 square miles of drainage area contributed practically all the 1AOO,OOO tons estimated as the sediment discharge at Price River at Woodside during the 1970 water year, then the average sediment discharge per square mile of drainage area was about 1,400 tons or about 0.8 acre-foot per square mile, which IS within the general range of "estimated long-term annual sediment production" shown in table 3.

Sediment yield or sediment production is highly variable within any drainage area of significant size. Not only does a large part of the sediment discharge of a stream commonly occur during a small part of the time, but a large part of the discharge commonly is from a small part of the drainage area where such factors as sparse vegetation, steep slopes, gullying, and erodible soils result in accelerated erosion relative to surrounding areas. For example, the Chipeta-Persayo-Badland and the Rocky land-Shaly colluvial land-Castle Valley-Kenilworth soil associations (fig. 5) undoubtedly contribute more sediment to the stream system than do the other soil associations shown for this part of the central Price River basin. Thus, although the average annual sediment discharge or sediment production per square mile as described above might be 0.8 acre-foot, the sediment production for any specific square mile or any 1·acre tract within 1 square mile may be much greater or much less than the average. The sources of the transported sediment in any given stream are probably much more concentrated and highly variable than are the sources of the dissolved solids in the stream.

No data were obtained for total sediment discharge of any stream. During floodflows, total sediment discharge may be appreciably greater than measured suspended-sediment discharge. During the flash flood on Drunkards Wash on August 29, 1969, rocks that probably ranged up to boulder-size could be felt striking the sampler and could be heard rolling through the large metal culvert. But the particle-size analysis of suspended sediment for that time (site 31 in table 5) shows no material coarser than fine sand (0.250 mm).

38 Table 3-Sedimentation surveys of small reservoirs on the San Rafael Swell Adapted from King and Mace (1953)

Reservoir Sediment Amual sediment Total Annual sediment production Estimated long- Drainage Original Capacity when Length of Percentage sediment production adjusted for term annual sedi- basin area capacity resurveyed record of original production for period trap efficiency ment production Location (sq mile) (acre-tt) (acre-ft) (years) Acre-ft capacity (acre-ft/sq mile) (acre-ft/sq mile) (acre-ft/sq mile) (acre-ft/sq mile)

SE% sec. 7, 0.14 3.80 2.85 12 0.95 25.0 6.78 0.56 1.1 1.0 T.18S., R.10 E.

SW% sec. 27, .11 6.18 6.02 13 .16 2.6 1.45 .11 .11 .1 T. 17 S., R. 10 E. w to SWY.. sec. 2, 3.45 35.59 16.49 10 19.1 53.7 5.53 .55 2.2 2.2+ T.16S.,R.9E.

SE% sec. 19, .12 19.00 11.29 8 7.71 40.6 64.25 8.03 8.0 4.0+ T. 15 S., R. 12 E.

1 SE% sec. 5, .13 5.13 4.95 12 .18 3.5 1.38 .12 .12 .2 T.15S., R.12 E.

2 NE% sec. 3D, .99 4.21 2.31 11 2.9 55.6 2.93 .27 1.1 1.5+ T. 14 S., R. 12 E.

SE% sec. 23, .46 4.98 3.96 11 1.02 20.5 2.22 .20 .4 .4 T. 14 S., R. 12 E.

1 Including adjacent drainage cut into reservoir. 2 Bulk of sediment deposited on flat before reaching reservoir. The sediment discharge of the streams is not significantly affected by the intensive irrigation in part of the central basin. If large sediment discharges resulting from intense runoff in the drainage areas of Willow Creek, Spring Canyon Creek, or other upstream tributaries enter the Price River during the irrigation season, a large part of this sediment is diverted from the Price River into the Carbon and Price-Wellington Canals. Some of this diverted sediment is deposited in the canals and some is deposited on the land to which the irrigation water is applied. Some of this deposited sediment may eventually be returned to the Price River by natural erosion. In the irrigated part of the central basin, irrigation agriculture may result in lower sediment discharges than would be expected under entirely natural conditions. Modern land-treatment practices and greatly increased vegetal cover resulting from irrigation may result in less erosion and lower sediment discharges than would occur under natural conditions.

40 SELECTED REFERENCES

Abbott, W.O., and Liscomb, R. L., 1956, Stratigraphy of the Book Cliffs in east-central Utah, in Geology and economic deposits of east-central Utah: Intermountain Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists, Seventh Annual Field Conf., p. 120-123.

Cordova, R. M., 1964, Hydrogeologic reconnaissance of part of the headwaters area of the Price River, Utah: Utah Geol. and Mineralog. Survey Water-Resources Bull. 4.

Durfor, C. N., and Becker, Edith, 1964, Public water supplies of the 100 largest cities in the United States, 1962: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1812.

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

Hachman, F. C., Bigler, Craig, and Kirk, W. C. W., 1968, Utah coal-Market potential and economic impact: Bureau of Economic and Business Research through the College of Business and the Center for Economic and Community Development, Utah Univ.

Hem, J. D., 1970, Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water (2nd ed.): U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1473.

Hunt, C. B., 1956, Cenozoic geology of the Colorado Plateau: U. S. Geo!. Survey Prof. Paper 279.

lorns, W. V., Hembree, C. H., Phoenix, D. A., and Oakland, G. L., 1964, Water resources of the Upper Colorado River Basin-Basic data: U. S. Geo!. Survey Prof. Paper 442.

Katich, P. J., Jr., 1954, Cretaceous and early Tertiary stratigraphy of central and south-central Utah with emphasis on the Wasatch Plateau area, in Geology of portions of the high plateaus and adjacent canyon lands, central and south-central Utah: Intermountain Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists, Fifth Annual Field Conf., p. 42-54.

King, N. J., and Mace, M. M., 1953, Sedimentation in small reservoirs on the San Rafael Swell, Utah: U. S. Geo!. Survey Circ. 256.

McKee, J. E., and Wolf, H. W., 1963, Water quality criteria: California State Water Quality Control Board Pub. 3-A.

Spieker, E. M., 1949, The transition between the Colorado Plateaus and the Great Basin in central Utah: Utah Geo!. Soc. Guidebook to the geology of Utah No.4.

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

Stokes, W. L., and Cohenour, R. E., 1956, Geologic atlas of Utah-Emery County: Utah Geol. and Minerlog. Survey.

Stokes, W. L., and Holmes, C. N., 1954, Jurassic rocks of south-central Utah, in Geology of portions of the high plateaus and adjacent canyon lands, central and south-central Utah: Intermountain Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists, Fifth Annual Field Conf., p. 34-41.

Swenson, J. L., Jr., Erickson, D. T., Donaldson, K. M., and Shiozaki, J. J., 1971, Soil survey of Carbon-Emery area, Utah: U. S. Dept. Agriculture general soil map.

41 U. S. Geological Survey, 1954, Compilation of records of surface waters of the United States through September 1950, Colorado River Basin, Part 9: U. S. Geo!. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1313.

...... 1960, Salt Lake City, Utah: Topographic map, scale 1: 250,000.

...... 1962, Price, Utah: Topographic map, scale 1:250,000.

...... 1964, Compilation of records of surface waters of the United States, October 1950 to September 1960, Colorado River Basin, Part 9: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1733.

U. S. Public Health Service, 1962, Drinking water standards: U. S. Public Health Service Bull. 956.

U. S. Salinity Laboratory Staff, 1954, Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils: U. S. Dept. Agricu Itu re Handb. 60.

42 BASIC DATA

43 Table 4.-Chemical analyses of surface water at selected sampling sites, July 1969-September 1970

AnalYSes by U.S. Geological Survey unless indicated otherwise. See plate 1 for locations of map numbers. Sodium: Cnncentrattons reported include pOt8RSium except when a dash or vslue is shown in the pota•• ium column. Dissolved 'solids: Contents less than 2,000 wl'J/l are determined fr(XD residue on evaporation at lSO"C and di••olved-aolida content. gr••ter than 2,000 IIlS/1 are (:alculated from determined constltl1ents, unles.'l otherwise noted, c, calculated frolS! determined conatituents; e, ...tim.ted from specific conductance.

~ MUU ra•• r liter o ... o o 3. o S 0' .o u. . o C- ." C- · o o o Sampling site .~ g ~ ~ o > .~ f D· .o ~ .. o .. o o .~ D o o . o o .. . o .. o o ;;; o ;:; ] u. .. '"· u. "'u z '" 341 1 • ..:' GooseheTTY Cr<"('k near FaL rview 8-28-69 11 1.4 I. ') 53 2.7 232 3.8 2.9 0.9 1'1 193 ". [ 9-25-69 5 1.6 2.0 35 11" 6.2 167 4.2 2.8 .4 142 132 .2 2') l h.8 8-20-70 9.5 2.0 2. 'j 50 [[ 1.3 0.2 225 S.5 1.0 0.1 .4 0.02 199 170 .0 34'i H.l1

C'H'sehl'rry creek near Sc"tield LO-lO-5 I 0.0 257 ,) 8. J 2.2 l89 1:1-28-69 17 6.-2 LJ 12 12 .7 .0 90 I] 3.0 2.1 .1 .1 .0') 90 80 .0 14H I. j 9-2')-69 10 b. [ J .6 108 IJ 6.0 .3.6 lO'i 92 .2 liB 6. b 11-2':>-69 4.0 ').0 1.8 31 14 ').7 164 0 8.0 2,9 1.8 146 1.36 .2 L6') G.'1 8-20-70 16.:1 6. 'i 4.0 16 8.6 .9 .0 95 I) 4.8 1.5 .0 .3 .02 110 68 .11 1')9 8. j

Fish Crl'pk ah,'vl' rcst'rv"ir', near 10 -24 - " 7 tI~ 211 17 [87 14 341:1 8.0 Scufie III ')-19-58 'j88 6.1 55 8.3 5.1 210 6.4 2.0 [.9 18[ 172 o l29 8.1 1-28-58 19 4.4 46 11 5.2 195 10 2.2 .0 169 162 2 .2 J II H.O 8-28-69 15 19 4.2 46 14 2.6 .7 196 11 4.0 .2 .1 ,06 187 172 1[ .[ 6- 7-10 10 155 j.& 59 10 1.7 1.2 230 5.8 2.3 .1 .7 .00 208 188 o .[ ~~~I~:~ 8·19-70 14.°) 11 4.5 42 11 2.) .6 186 13 2..5 .[ .:i .01 172 150 o .1 110 II'L]

l'lt'dSdllt Creek ahove S<.:,,!teld 8-28"6lJ lb 1.2 7.2 67 24 6.5 2.6 278 38 6.8 .3 .[ .08 30] 26h J8 "11 1.1'. Re:;t'rl.'l,j r. lH.'ilr ScofLl'ld 6- /-70 8.0 10 5 .(~ 46 12 2.1 1.5 188 19 3.8 .2 .7 .05 204 1.66 12 .1 32(. /.9 13-19-70 7. ') ? I 7.5 57 2') l'i '2.1 264 37 9.5 .[ .3 30~ 245 2H .4 'Il')i',/

8-,)1-62 17 :?1 56 [4 1.9 219 1.5 .1 205 196 16 .1 lhb 7.'/ 8-28-69 18 Lb", 1.0 41 [4 '2.9 1.2 19] 4.4 .2 .I .05 175 [64 7 .1 ll4 7.1l 9- LS-h9 l'j 11 ') j2M I J - 6-69 6 til 5,2 198 [] 3.9 187 168 ]2') 7,0 h- "3-10 11. cl 2')(1 l.t! ')1 [[ j.O 1.R 20b [[ 4.n .2 ,9 .no 193 71 .1 ltl .' 8,U h- 7 -70 9. '.i 20') ::.J 51 12 2.8 1. J 211 9.8 '.'.1 .2 .7 .02 203 U6 .1 lit! H. I 8-19-10 16.5 220 1.0 43 [) 3.J 1.2 195 12 3.0 .1 .4 .0] 190 16 [ .1 J/5 7.')

White RLvl'r near S'lldier Summit 4- -47 66 30 [6 344 33 4.0 1.5 ]20c 2fl~ 14/ 10 -21-')7 [8 374 29 274 "-19-')8 21.1J 21 58 21 2n lIDI 2[ J.O [.] 299 2% ." 1-28-58 b.9 21 51 29 ]5 1/352 2/ 4.2 In 241 1.0 8-28-69 16 4.6 20 54 2[ J) - 169 24 9.0 .J n6 22] l.il

Whi It, Ri ver lw I"..... Tahhylme Crpek, 8-28-62 1.4 11 63 24 ](. 145 36 6, ., .1 328 254 ." ,/1. H.l nl;'ar Soldit;r SllTluni t 8-28-69 18 h.4 17 53 25 52 1')9 l\ 11 .2 341 2)] II l.'l ',lit. /.M 9-25-69 10 5.f~ 1/1 54 IJ 39 ]]2 37 7.4 .0 372 269 o I.(] IJllh 7.'1 L1- 6-69 2.0 6,0 J,) 375 J9 7.9 'Hd 282 II .'! hi') . I '1-15-70 '2. ') 14') 10 \6 14 [8 1.3 34'2 24 5.0 .3 .8 .07 116 2!:lO o ,'i 'J::' \ i.4 /1 1-"70 8.5 58 16 57 27 21 I.b 3)0 26 ').2 .3 .2 .03 315 252 ." 'l-Jl H, I h- 7 -70 ll.'i 1/.1:1 16 49 23 22 1.3 246 \4 6. -:I .3 .0 .07 liZ 218 I" b ." 'i)O M,:' H- S-70 17.0 7.6 18 53 J2 JO 2.2 358 .12 5.0 .1 .b .08 347 264 o .8 '.lHO 7.q 9- 1-70 15.0 J. ') 1:) 49 33 31 1.0 ]66 28 5.5 .1 .3 .10 328 2')8 o .8 ';78 k ,()

l'ric'e Ri.ver above White River, l1l'dr 8-28-62 ') .0 '2.0 55 l.b 21 213 [7 3.0 .2 197 15[ l'lh H. I e"l tll!1 9 -25 -69 10 110 .8 48 12 3.4 1.2 201 [3 4.1 .2 .1 ,02 17'7 168 .[ J?6 7,L, 5-15-70 j.O 150 l.1 44 16 .3.3 1.4 205 11 4.3 .2 .4 .03 183 Ilh .1 no 1.\

White Rivpr ilhllVt> Priu' Rlv('r, 8-28-62 LJ 10 54 30 38 149 40 8 .[ 337 256 1.0 'l89 e.:! c"lt un 9-2'i-69 9.0 7.n 14 14 1.7 4b 10 .3 .1 .11 2/8 I.J 474 8,:;

III Price River !H'I"w WhIte River, near 8-28-69 19 17') .H 42 14 2.9 1.2 [84 8.8 3.8 .2 .1 .06 169 160 .1 J02 1.') C"lton 9-25-69 12 120 2.9 48 15 11 219 [8 4.7 .0 218 182 .1 lh6 7. / 11- 6-69 • ') 20 7.3 66 24 11 300 29 8. [ .5 278 264 18 ,l 5U'j /.lJ 5 -}5-70 4. ') 300 10 63 18 12 1.4 285 20 4.2 .3 .8 .07 261 232 o .3 4')] 7. ') 6- 3-70 10.5 320 4.6 52 15 6.4 1.6 230 15 4.3 .2 .8 .00 219 192 3 382 fLO 8- 1-70 16.0 230 7.0 45 21 9.0 300 227 28 4.5 .1 1.2 .05 24b 199 [] .1 I~ 1'J !. 7 9- 1-70 16.0 170 1.5 40 12 4. [ 1.) 189 1.2 3.5 .1 .5 .01 178 149 o .[ HI 1,9

[[ Beaver Cr.'ek near S"ldier SUTmltl 8-28-69 17 1. 9 5.9 55 16 18 236 3) 10 .4 241 203 9 .) 41 b 1.', 9,-2'i-69 9, ') I.] ').1 60 18 12 254 27 9.1 .0 271 222 [4 .4 442 !. 7 11- 6-69 0 1.0 9.1 255 2b 8.3 2b'i 228 19 .J 44') ! ..,! 5-1'j-70 j. 5 16 'j. 7 42 ,4 3.4 1.9 169 20 3.0 .2 1.8 .06 207 160 21 I 301 7 J. 6- J-70 1.9 10 4.6 50 11 1.9 1.9 186 19 5.7 .3 .3 .00 20) 171 18 .1 j.l6 H. I 6- 7-70 12 10 4.5 53 13 3.8 1.4 212 18 4.7 .2 .2 .03 221 186 12 .1 j'i4 tJ. I 8- ':l-70 19 1.0 ').5 47 18 b.4 1. 7 210 24 7.0 .1 .3 .01 225 19[ 19 18] H.l

12 KVllne Creek near C"lt ,m 5-1')-70 2.0 9.0 16 48 37 40 1.4 )38 70 fl.7 .3 .7 .09 371 272 1.1 60S 1.4

1) HurSt> Creek near Cast Ie Cate 8-28-69 14 .8 18 21 bS 116 354 0 235 28 .1 65] 322 J2 2. j 1,000 7. '1 5-15-70 7. ') .J 15 72 68 87 1.9 394 0 263 28 .5 .0 .14 733 460 137 1.8 1,100 7.9

14 DLamanti Canyon ..It Hi.>;hway 6 and 50, 5-15-70 3.5 .8 4.0 59 21 6.7 1.2 269 23 9.3 .J 2.2 .04 264 2)6 15 .2 4'i6 7.6 near Cast Ie Cate l'i Ford Creck at Hiy;hway 6 and 50, near 8-28-69 14 .2 6.6 27 49 8.0 284 18 9.1 .6 287 268 15 .2 447 7,6 Castle Catt' 11- 6-69 0 .2 5.5 46 50 10 1.5 129 65 [] .4 .1 .03 353 320 50 .2 613 7.1 S-15-70 3.5 1.1 4.5 56 )2 3.3 1.2 294 20 3.9 .2 .0 .03 260 270 29 .1 457 I. J til Will{)w Creek near Castle Gate 8-28-69 17 4.8 14 21 bl 57 296 141 27 .1 510 )04 61 1.4 R14 1.0 5-1')-70 5. ') 9.0 1') 43 42 49 1.4 326 ~8 12 .4 .0 .10 410 280 13 1.] fl6 J 7.h

44 Table 4.-Chemical analyses of surface water at selected sampl ing sites, July 1969-September 1970-Continued

Mi11illrams er liter

a ;:; N 2. S o Samp I i n~ site

1(}6 82 2/') 24 (i. q L7 I,o,'ill.,w Crt'l-'k dt ITHlllth, <.11 Castle 4-2'l-t.... 7 Ib l3 7,U 2.0 2!~ LH2 1.8 C.lt (' I-I Y-47 44 1]2 l41 .J H-14-47 II 4h n l/lOI 117 II I,l t.'! i()!, :.' ~ 1, -',I I JI - 286 lJ3 1', 1.6 nl it. I.' hI.J9 32U H] 2 K. 1 H-2Y -6'j I~ , ,y II J4 "7 2.8 28'3 192 21 0.4 .1 U.ll 8H I.h 11- b-hq 2.0 2.0 II 48 'd 2.6 313 :' I h 20 .4 .0 . J f) 13!::! HI J.'! 1.J\1 K./ J-2',-/O () 'l.U b ,'1 I.ll 2U 3. 1 197 b'l 12 . 'j 1.0 .12 ltL' _'() 1.1l t,hl .I .'1 "-1')-10 7.u III 14 :,'l ]H 1.7 J09 1'-'9 12 .1 .0 .08 2/.,} 14 1.1, b lH Ii. I b- 1-10 L9 LO j 5 40 17 1.8 262 121:\ 14 .\ .0 .10 J7 I. hlS Ii. I 6- H-7U 16 h.O I 'j 7'; ')(J 2.) 311 2',0 L2 ,4 .4 .14 lJ'! I.!I 'I Hl K ..' K- ')-10 16 I.') 10 ')'j 62 'j.9 185 i,lB 20 ,l · ') .LJ 340 I t,ll)() 1 '1- 1-7ll 2l.'i I, 41 4.2 252 ~J (Ill 17 .4 .16 Il/ I.] HO.I H.

1~4(j K.lI 11'1 I'ric'l' Kivl'r 'i - L ';~ 70 ').0 nu II ')') 21 II 1.7 2'12 24 b.O .J 1.4 .0') '1- 1 ~ 70 I ') thO I.) .l t i l', OJ. I I.l 190 lb .l.'i . t J, .02 ll.: i,'j

Ki !, -.~ '1-4 } hi \2 320 H .() ].') 11')t 1-1'1-41 'lY IJ 21Y h .S 226,' \il 1'1-1 I~ ·47 'i.l 'j() I'J 197 7.1l ./ 2ll, 42 19.: 'J -I 'i-47 4CJ 18 208 I', 6.0 1.8 192, 26 1')\ 1.-\1-41) 2H2 4b ).u " :.'-11-')1 I\ fl6 J7 17 Hl I') 1./ jib 11K!

1,1 l') I'Ti"l' !{i 'It·.lr lir'iT\l'r 3 <~ I-lil'; 188 / ,8 lib :1 h ,() 1.1 )-14-48 ,!l7 l:.' 260 II 1.0 1.4 H- 7-4H L'() 250 48 8.() 't/) 10- ::-413 41 ].8 \7 1':1 4.8 179 :'8 ".0 .1 IbJ, 170 If4 'i_2 r)_')() ~' Hn 16 ")8 2b 18 3D2 16 l.u :.1 JOl:h 2'>.) 114­ ll-L2-')() 10 I ~l h t) 43 lr) l!::!O 84 l8 J.') 4;~~ ]"'1 /IJ', h-20-'lh Ih:! M.() 44 IY 1'1 224 :'\ 1,tl 188 J'!I 7,1) IO·29- c17 24 19 28 :J 268 is '1.\ .8 L'I, " 'j')() r)-24-1H 8'; 1 10 20 17 1/254 .. 8 2.8 ~~ '}4 :)ll 4 \t) K. H· I-')M 219 I.J '17 14 11 - 2uH .'l ',,'i .J 202 177 h .il lh ', h. i 1'1-21'1-\19 11'1 1/4 1.2 4:: l! 10 I.', 198 lJ 7.0 .J .1 .08 lOb 17') II .l lob lJ-?'J-6') U 109 1] 219 ~' b 7. 1 214 188 8 lyr) I.' I t- 6-64 1.5 'j.7 48 44 9.2 27S 14 .0 J'Jj I()O 1'4 'db 7.'J 3-25-70 () iO') 7.3 46 21 ]9 2.1:\ 20b 61 11 .J 2.ll .11 2H6 202 11 .1, 'lbU K.1' S-I ')-70 ').0 280 11 ')6 28 26 1.6 287 66 1.J .J L.0 .(1S JJ6 2')) 'f, ./ b- l-711 16 160 6.1 'i1 I!::! 11 L') ::]1 43 6.7 .1 · ,~ .02 249 :'(1:' 29 .J '.12 M.' 6- 8-70 12 )J(J S.J 46 ! 9 10 1.6 217 ~' 3 4.8 ,2 .1 .O'j 2'10 J'} 3 ,J I

l-25-7tl 11::\2 ~! 62 147 17 447 0 1,220 .6 ',() .'i52,200 1,')30 1,170 l.h ,l)O Ii .11

R-2Y-b9 It) .n It, 120 :~ 2':1 l10 l7 2bJ I,U() 8 I • h L,~' .4H I,B60 ] ,() ~)() ,2bO H .11 <)-2';-69 14 l.n I,.Y 74 /8 1,7 6,1 259 J:~6 28 • '3 H.H •J 9 7h'i ~'Yl .'J I.(ihn J L- b-b9 I.U 12 144 250 lJ6 l8 348 1,2M) 82 • '> 38 .'i1 2,LIll I, IOU I.b 'jl)() .'1 .2 1, 202 17 402 92 • ') (~7 .48 2, '310 l,2'iO 1.7 ,S,O H.I l-2'i-70 ' 26 L 159 l,no

')-16-33 14(J 377 J/b-'W-49 )I() 20 12 3.1 2:\2 b .0 ,L .14 24Hc 2tb 26 ] /8 -29 -49 162 20 16 '}.9 190 b .0 .6 .08 2S4, 202 4" 2/8-30-49 t6:? 20 15 J,9 l/195 6.0 · ') .14 244c 202 42

22 I'rin> River at Sprilll.!; Glen l-25-70 2. ') 11 ') 7.J 54 28 26 3.2 225 U l. ~~ • 3 4 •() • 12 .~60 2'i2 bH '))1 'i- L:J -70 1.5 280 11 57 24 l8 1.8 282 0 7.0 .j 2.0 .07 300 :'4' 10 ',OJ 7.,

23 8-29-69 17 ') .0 'J.6 19!::! 84 192 323 60 4.) 1,730 84u 57S 2.lJ 11- 6-69 H l.r) lJ. t 204 192 I'D J46 62 6.b .4 L 2, 2l~0 I, ]00 1,"20 I.b .1-25-70 4. ') I, .U 6.1 l],i 9h 6J 276 JIl ') .0 1,110 7:L) 'iUb 1.0 "i-1,)-70 14 1.0 '1.J 181 ll8 10!::! 9.8 408 42 .4 4.8 .25 1,760 1, lOU 7h'} 1,4 6- ]-70 lb. ') Y.l 16U LO~' 82 7.7 342 11 .b 1.1 .21 1, 1~20 H20 540 ] . ~'

8-29-69 17 .8 12 419 I'll 66l 373 2,61l0 120 l.8 4,270 1,830 1,520 b. 7 It ,86U l.q ]I- 6-69 8.U .J 10 4'33 260 673 17 35\ J ,O'iO 110 1.2 ) .4 .37 4,130 2,150 1,860 b.3 'i,270 i.'l ')-1')-70 III .2 7.3 388 222 728 16 341 2,870 110 .7 .8 • '30 4, SID 1,880 1,600 7.J ) ,(lOO I.K h- 3-70 U .8 9.1 381 197 631 15 342 2, S20 105 .8 1.2 .)tJ 4,010 1,760 1,4HO 6.') 4,61:\0 H.2

2\ 8-29-69 17 100 5.2 51 22 l8 2.8 219 "3 8.8 .4 2.2 .12 287 40 467 /.1 LL- b-69 4.5 12 6.4 89 52 14 3.3 340 226 23 .3 2.9 .17 676 157 1.1 480 1'1 .~' S- L')-70 H.5 135 11 57 25 18 1.8 282 1,5 6.9 .3 1.8 .04 300 t:l r) 14 1:\.lI 6- j-70 12 150 5.7 56 20 12 1.6 236 1,5 6.1 .3 .9 .0; 269 27 ,4 445 H .~) 9- 1-7U 16. 'J lJO 2.5 52 23 12 1.7 217 53 S.') .1 .7 .04 27) 46 .1 444 S.O

26 Carbon Canal at Highway 10, !::!-2':1-69 17 7'j 2.9 50 23 12 217 ~iO 9.1 1.3 261 218 40 .J :')6 7. ') Price 9- 1-70 18 lOO ).0 49 23 12 L8 210 'i2 5.5.1 .6 ,06 2"i6 217 41 .4 436 7.4

27 Carbon Canal at Hi!',hway la, 8-29-69 17 70 ).9 S4 22 1b 221 10 .8 286 224 43 . ') it 74 "7.K We 11 ingt "n 11- 6-69 10 .2 1.8 72 55 50 3.7 266 2.3 .3 .9 .18 621 406 188 1.1 qOo R.\l

28 Carh"l1 Canal [llo'ar r:LI1\(l 8-24-64 ih hO l.8 55 21 20 224 11 1.2 21:\6 222 38 ,f> 466 I.H

29 Priu' River .It I'ril"t' 8-24-6Y 17 l8 11 158 116 lt~ 1 7.1 370 8;!6 34 Ll .29 1.560 869 'ib6 ::'.1 I,RhO H .1) 9-25-69 Ih 10 7.1 140 lO7 1]] 'j .4 340 7:!6 35 .1 1.2 .29 I, 'i20 788 ;U9 2.1 1,7HO l. 1 11- 6-69 ).0 l', 8.8 UO 9':1 l18 5.1 34"i 595 12 .\ LO .21 1.310 b90 407 2.0 1,610 /.1'1 \-2')70 4.0 110 7.7 61 J] )5 3.4 220 l'i8 14 .3 2.9 .Il /.51 286 106 .9 671 I.K S-l ')-7U 12 bU 8.9 1')0 l15 156 7.6 390 790 J1 .4 2.5 .2 'i 1,610 867 Sl~ 2 2.\ 1, ')20 7.'1 6- 3-70 11.5 140 6.2 64 27 24 2.2 2\6 102 8.5 .4 1.6 •00 386 170 60 .6 [)9ft I• 6-11-70 V.O 2\0 5.9 66 26 24 2.2 2\8 96 II .1 1.2 .08 380 269 \7 ,6 586 H.2 8- 5-70 23.0 lO 5.0 185 l23 171 8.9 334 98\ )\ .4 1.0 .~o 1,860 968 694 2.4 )SO 7.9 9- 1-70 22.0 4.0 11 142 130 166 9.7 387 910 34 .7 .7 .40 1,820 K89 'in 2.t, III) .K

45 Table 4.-Chemical analyses of surface water at selected sampling sites, July 1969-September 1970-Continued

Milli er liter 0 0 .c ('., u • ~" . cc, C S-70 6.0 40 1.8 64 13 38 L!; 228 1&7 1\ 2.4 .1:) 296 109 ~l 47!. Jl8 99 .'1 illb H. 1 h ~l- 70 14 14{1 b.9 n n 36 2.4 270 140 II 3. .09

)2 2,1 .46 lbO 1,4 j() 1,1]() 3.\ II Drunkards Wdsh dt Highway 10, 1H."H 4/8-29-&9 I'i 2.'; 809 3lJ 1\9 304 9.2 )&8 1,/SU 2\ .8 .6 .41 1,490 1,320 ~ , 1 PriCl' ~/8-29-69 14 1')0 14 4'lO 102 212 II 20'i 1,810 no - 9-2'l~69 18 I. ') q.1 405 210 'i0,) ]16 2., ')50 41 2.4 i ,HHU 1,620 'J.l 2,110 1,810 !"02 11 ~ h-fi9 8. r) .0 10 441 248 44·1 II 374 2. ,hOD 46 .6 4.1 .'12 1,·\6 1,1+ 10 4.1 ') -I 'l ~ 10 I hi.'l lJ.O 394 I'll 400 In II 2,070 35 .5 I.H .49 J,IO 1,770

r jO] l,7 )() 2.620 1,llO 1,0'iO 4.'J 1,021) 32 1'1ll1dllll·d ,'ret'K cit Ilighway 10. Il('ill H~2'J-h9 18 I'i 117 11 In Pr i ('('

11') .0 j, ~90 1,740 1, 'i60 4.0 ? HI H .(1 II ~illt'J ilt lIii~ I J- 6-h9 / ,(1 h,i,2"7 rJH l'i9 LJ.'i 1,920 ..' W,' 1Jill t ,\11 ') .9 ',_1 ill I', ,(J2 ,I l'1l 119 649 12 141 .l,UIO I b I .H .0 • HJ 4, .1211 ?, 'jO(J '2,020 .K 'l. .Y H. I b··] J -70 11-\ :!.l) H. ') 208 140 ~l 19 ') 01 280 j,lHO 64 .'1 j 04 .19 1.970 1,100 Hbh

,~ 01 021:\ HllO h4U ',,) ',l!J(1 !:Io(j 14 Mi j 1"1 Cr'_'I,1< IWill' W.'] I in)..\1 ,'11 11<'9h9 17 21 III .110 i.U lOS ] ,2bO 46 !... H :,,',11 ()·<29-0'j .!() 2U J26 10'i 1,220 46 87b 626 1HO H. I Il,/Ieo h.li ~. ~h;~ H.0 b .11 Ii. ') 4U1 'J/O 1,000 12 (1l2 4,060 1"0 .8 II ',',ill I h C ~' )} 719 4.lJ ,H 'J() H,(i l" oJ I,.!l 174 Il,) I 11 )Dh ! ,lt40 4 I • 'i loO IlO 9'10 H9/.. j, 'll,ll H.U 'J- I·/l) 1.1! .0 ::'20 14,1:\ It 48 14 1,1'iO illO .J 2.1 1,160 'i 7

.Vt ,H4U I,U()O 7j4 1 i Iii ,.h I'i t lill t 1til,' d r.l i 11 I r,'lil () 1SV [1 (1'\\" Illl.\~;) -.", 69 IX 12 ,..1 1',6 149 'J21, 1.'4 1,180 H.! h~' .IH 4, '}lIJ ':i o~ )HU B .f! 1{l'sl;'rv< i r, IH'ar H.>lII1J,; 11 - (J-b':l J.U .b 1. J 421 158 Y28 L' j J,140 k J'J 1, iUU 1,400 b -I ~ In I h." .1'.0 1/.4 11') 4/,() 7./ I, J}U .7 b.,' .50 2 lUi 'IlH , ""', o.iI '1- . III :!.O 1')h 162 'd(J 12 : ,740 I.b .'IU 1,llbO Hu4 , tJ /11 K .Ii

~' , ,<)911 HOl) I, ,61:\/.. , iXII h .il lh (', _"J-h'J II Cl.H I" r) 1\(1 III Ihi 1,lbU 12 I,'il'l hK'·J ',i I I, .'1 .',1/0 lioll <.)-" 'J -69 IH "'(l J.J \.!I.. '11 291 I,I}() In ,Hi.. lJ ,46tJ Ii. '1,ii!)IJ H I J- b -69 'I.U ;'.U ',.M 3b l !.!2 l,bbO I', ),()X(J of) 66 obi H,b!n ~) \0- ·/(I Ih I,.'! lIt, i [) 2 lb'~, 'l.'J I, J 80 ,H I b .1 h , [lCJO /IlO II ,!l/l) H I

.!4 ,U ,J, J:.'U 1,ll0 Hb l \0'1 17 """sl, It Iii ,

11', I.\ll([ 1H r:arr!indl W,l;11 ;!( !ligln...·.l\: fJ ~o , H-/'l-6lJ 18 I', 1~' J h I \i 91 .0 11 - h ~6Y L' 4l.1 II 19/ 8. I I,h/ltl ,It ['riu' .." ',-I'j-70 IS .Ii Ii. 'I 168 7'2 710 .b .n ',If, I, II: no.'

39 PI' i (','-I.'!' j Ii 11,',1, 11 i:,lll,il II II i ~hw.l\ H-:'H-69 18.0 h', 2.l Ll IJ\ 1/ 74

40 I'rl"'-Wl,jlilh',L

/ (jOY h. '; J,',!l) H.I 41 Crl'l'k .it Ili ,',ilWdy h dl1d ',ll, H-n-b" 1.1:\ 1.'; 16(1 1HO 'j()1l 1,!ibO _1.0 III 1,1 ,0 \-,',,1 I i'\,c',t,,[] 9-2 'J _he) ,',IJU 10,' l,.'bO Y'JI:\ i.J j II) Ii.ii ')-I')-/t) / ,Il l'lH !:I,'i l,blU I.H .}3 ,I, 'IYO 111"1) ;'7!J \,1')11 ,'i

1"90 1,_'.lI! li () i-1Y-10 In. ') i'.O 176 lJ.j I 140 .6 2.6 .jD ?,790 Hi7 o ~ .,lh 2, 4lO 7'26 i,illl ILl 6,· j III II l.2 IIi! h. \ I 18 .b l,J 711 " I h-II-70 1'1 H. ') 144 i','l I 16 .1 .'3 2, 2hO 980 12 l.U .', 'J()O Ii 0 I

!+2 :).>!di,'r Cn'C'k al llif,hway 'd at 1I",lk 8-21-1:19 2'1 1.:.' H.6 2\ 'ib 16 140 II .0 1.'1 t. I j lis, [W.l[ \01(' II i l\~,t Oil

1,4i(J ,'" III 1i.1,) 41 S"ldil'r Cr",'k dl High\.!.!}' ',I, r1l'

44 ;;"ldi.('f Cre,-k .ll High.... ay 0 and '){) 4 - 2 'i ~!, I 396 .163 1,()2U 6)2 o J ,H20 120 14 6,0')(Je 2,480 1,9')0 K.'J i',I,'/tO I IH'ar \I,'t'l \ ingt un J/6-10- ,'} 29 ·l4 ,"0 'J ,1 1.!26'i && II .2 ,11 l16l 2[2 o 1 0 2 )/0 - 8-27-69 28 1,8 10 220 207 ')6') 147 () :: ,020 1 70 .8 l,360 1,400 1,120 6.h \,70n 8,U 9-25-b9 :.'1 ')38 377 o ;~, 180 7':­ ] ,600l' l, ')10 1,2()(J h .0 3,9YO H ,0 11- 6~69 H.O 8.0 H ,It 134 ';Ie) 168 4.\ ]')') o 700 1\ .4 3.1 .r; 1,440 72') 414 !.7 I, i(j() H. I 5-1')-70 18. ') h.O ').0 148 lJ4 248 H.O 350 o 9/') 3H .i .2 .19 1,860 82') 'lJ8 l,b .',I'lO 8.2 '1-llJ-70 17. 'i 2.0 10 168 112 249 8.4 368 n 1,060 18 .\ 2,4 ,20 1,8:30 880 <') 78 307 :',ILO I,') n- 3-70 17 :.' 00 7.l 216 In 3J'i 6.1 \79 o l, 110 44 .1 .5 .2tl 2,2)0 1,040 12'} 4. \ ,Y6U H, 1 h-ll -70 18.5 8.0 7.9 17b HU 24H 1,.1 17H o 1,ll20 Ib .& 2.6 .21 l,tl70 IhB ')40 1.'1 .',2U(J H.()

'j • 1, 4') Prj c'- Ri V,'l Hi,',hwdV 297, 1\ i-:?·i·/O (, .11 nO Q.8 HO 41 19 I. 'i /40 302 I b .4 • I ') 708 179 I.h '111 1 0 1 e ~'LO 1

I) 1,]')() II, .)b 2,200 1,090 1'17 j .Il /:I.U 4& Prin' Rtvl-r il! Highwdy 296, 8-18-69 1'1 28 7. I 210 116 274 8.1 .4 2.2 :g~:; j()U ,'J 2,7 .31 1 }SO H82 h&& ~) ,l:I , 7.f> 1

j 4,u i 41 Pri Cl' Ri ver Ilcar We 1tingt'lll !:l-2!:l-6Y I q 28 b.4 2}0 13b )09 323 o 1,440 .8 t, 10 H4, ',0 i'.o 9<~'i-69 1.1 20 'j.J 224 156 262 1/394 1,3JO 1, 'DO bll J.l lU /,7 Ii ~ I !ill 54'} 1.1 11- 6-h9 7,0 25 9, ') 232 156 L6U 6. 4 ,)J l,nu .9 1.6 ,IH 2,17() """ I.H ]-25-70 ').0 60 ':1.2 78 )7 ')1 {+.o 242 260 .1 3.1 ,10 601 '48 149 JoJ 8'1'1 I,R 5-15-70 II 60 2.8 19& 13& 29\ 8.8 {+04 1,250 .1 .8 .37 2,130 l,tl')O 119 l.ll 2,bl,n 8.2 b~ 3-70 1') 145 ti.l 97 47 80 3. I 286 332 .', 3.9 .01 824 4 '8 20) 1./ 1,11'111 1.4 9- 1-70 23 I 'j 9.0 261 14') 292 12 443 1,440 .6 2.5 ,43 2,420 1.2'j(J 887 l.b H',II H.2

46 Table 4.-Chemical analyses os surface water at selected sampling sites, July 1969-September 1970-Continued

Milliuams oer liter

.S

o u 3 " v .sit~· "> t Samplinll. v " c ~. .~" o , .0 '0 U "

Pric'e River near Wellingtun 4-25-47 52 15') 1I1 22') 381 932 J5 4. ') 1.hSOc 1-WI 'iJl ,I/() 7 -20-47 14 235 177 389 388 1,690 58 1.4 2,740 1,:310 9% ),J'l(j ,'H() 4-13-49 266 279 181 3/6-30-49 84 llO 71 74 12 1/279 621 20" .8 U .20 1,0,)Oc 'joh nH 1,4 I, "',1) 3/8-29-49 58 240 150 500 25 1/351 1,860 I,g l.2 .)8 J,OOO l,nO nl:i fJ • ~' , Ion ~lO-29-57 19 - 4')2 2,080 1, C)80 1,210 J ,klO

48 D,'sl'rl Lake Wash at Clf.'veland 8-29 -69 14 J.O 9.':J 480 315 38') 12 476 2,HMO J2 .J n ,')0 4,0370 2,490 :!,lOU J,!. '.. ,!4K(! 11- 6-69 8.0 1.2 9.54"\7 l'jU 421 1I 410 2,9UO Jb .6 }O ./2 4,390 2,5302,190 l.b '>,llt) K'

49 1:lll1amcd S [puf!;h I TlIi wpst "f Desl'rl L;lkf'. ne;~r Cl~'v(' land SlllJth channt· L h-3-1U 22 3.0 (•.81')7 281 6'J') 7.7 36') 12 2, 'jOO 47 .6 2.6 .4h J,H90 J,r)cJ () 1,2\0 '1,,11) M. h.K N"rth dlant)!: I ()- 3-7U 19 2.0 ({.9 85 412 11 382 0 1,180 42 .7 .0 .OJ 2,Or)o 6'JH JH', .',hMO H.I

60 1.'2. 10 .60 2,1 r,l) H.b ",i,:U '0 Dt'Sl'll Ldkt' Wasil ill lli/-ihwity J4U, Y-2 ')-6') 1Y 3.U J9J 996 14 483 4,220 twar (: Il'Vl' Ldlld L1- b-6Y 5.) 4.0 48\ 1,100 II 464 4,70U b2 1.9 I') • ',I') 2, 'iDa K .9 ,. , .!KU b- l-IU LH J(, 211 595 'J .6 (tll) 2, JOO 39 .7 4,1 ,U4 1,UbU h ,'I ';,lblJ H•.'

,IJ 11, 'H){l i.K '11 Ull! II,M I,UlH Il<>rth iU'IIl ,,1 Desert ':1-'2.')-69 21 .l::\ ~)./ 168 Jl9 l,UOU 2U IRR 0 9, .>I)() J'J', I.H .2 .60 D,/OO 'J,JHU 1,220 L:lkt" n<',lr I: 1111\\

6', .t.,9 S,HHO lOll J ,/HII Ij.') b,II,O i .'1 )2 D,'sert Wdsli dt (lill j 1,'1.' 9-2'i-h'} 19 6.0 ',.9 273 146 1,040 !J 192 o 3,%0 1.0 b.3 , )) 7, 'lOU 1, 'i40 10 ,KHII .1) J>VSl'rl , nl'ilr E II1H' 11- 6-6') h. 'i i.O .1.9 J/d 'iOS 1,290 I) "+64 (J S ,0::0 HO 2.2 II >120 'l-J'i-/O 22.0 Y.O .H 212 !~b 7 1, ') 'jO 18 246 61 5, 1'iO J It. 2,6 l.6 • '1] 7 ,900 2,100 '2,190 II H,'W(I 6 6- 3-70 19.0 18 [1.2 184 300 924 1I )[4 46 3,100 ',9 ,8 1,4 • ')J 4, /90 1,6'·10 1,3hU LJ .K ',+:0 ,f, tj- \-70 21, ::i I.Cj ?O 197 240 610 15 185 () 2,460 17 ,6 1.8 ,44 3, /60 \ ,480 1, J 60 6.':1 ' 1 ,/1\(1

')] Dt'st'rt Set'p Wilsh llL'ilr E::lllH) 6- 3-70 ttl 26 '1.4 188 J09 955 11 407 6 3,240 60 J.O J.6 .52 4,970 1,/40 1,400 1U

8-29-69 U b.b 4.620U 228 h5tl 9.9 \41 2,5'iO 4' .s 3.9 .40 3,870 l,t.,!+Cl J,lhU ,()(I 11- 6-69 4.0 'i.\ lo4 313 450 1,240 440 4,640 90 13 '.i, Y70 2,6'.\0 2,210 II ,. , ~HI

r ell Price River [lear Ml111nds 9-2'>-69 2(} 25 4,6 n6 170 363 8.0 347 1,b iO ".I') .h .4 .37 2,640 1,240 9'):l I. 'J I 'Iii ;.0 11- 6-69 r).u 42 h.5 221 174 414 1.3 357 1,nO '8 .3 J.4· ,40 7..,740 1,260 Y12. 'J.l 1,12U I.'! h- ]-70 18 160 H.5 106 67 Ul 4.2 292 5]0 19 .5 4.8 .02 1,120 ')40 lOi 2.', 1,1.30 7.1+ 9- 1-70 22 20 1.0 228 151 346 12 354 l,S20 41 .6 2,] .422,480 1,190 900 'I.i, J,(I!O t.')

56 Cleveland Canal at Highway 10, near 8-29-69 II, S() I~ • 5 51 24 11 1. S 224 62 5.4 .2 ,3 .OJ 271 ,J 'I Jh H ,II Hllnt ingt"n 6- 1-10 ]() JIIJ l.B (.7 12 l.6 1.4 184 20 ::.8 .2 '}.4 .00 199 lhfl'" ,I III

17 McFaddt'n Brandl l,f Cleveland Canal 6- J -70 II 20 l.8 4/ II 4.] 1.] 184 ~~ .9 • 2 I .9 .O() ~'O J 1,1 1.'11 at Highway 155 nedr flllntington

58 Nllrth Ditch at Highw<.lY 155, Ileal' 8~29-6'1 lf~ 18 1.4 50 22 12 1.2 243 40 4.9 .2 .8 .0"3 252 2J'i II' Huntington 6 ~ '3 -70 t2. ".I 26 h.O 55 17 8,3 [,6 191 64 2.9 . .1 2.0 .00 275 2UB j)

59 Huntingtol\ Nl'rth Sl'rvict' Canal at 8-29-b'l 20 2J \.3 42 32 27 168 141 5,9 ,2 361 ::: .14 Hi~h.... av l'i5, near H\lntingtt1rl h- 'l-70 19.0 L) 3.8 59 35 28 2,4 218 lS7 6,1 ,4 .0 .00 439 III"" :;

60 clt'v('land Cdnal at Highway 3]2, 8-29-6'-) 14 41 'j.O 48 26 12 222 60 4,6 ,2 284 2:.4 ~h! 1.K Ill'il I' ~: 1ml'

61 McFadden Branch ,,[ Cleveland Canal 8-29-69 19 12 I •.S 42 32 32 167 154 " ,8 ,4 l76 Jrd 101 Iwar Cleve land

02 WhLtm"rl' Canyoll near Sunnyside 8-27-6'J 19 ).4 13 35 46 124 3.1 ))2 2:39 11 ,4 .2 .14 63l 276 J.] '}bl H.I L1- 7 -69 4.0 LS 11 4H !d 123 366 206 12 ,4 058 296 1,1 'J':Il .9

63 Truil Creek ab Vt' jun<:ti.,.lIl 11- 7 -69 2.0 :::.6 12 68 97 181 2.9 364 630 28 .') 2.2 .16 1,240 'i]O 272 1• .1 1.,6611 7.9 with and Ruck (:reeks, near Dragt>rLnll

64 Grassy Trail Creek helow junction 11~ 7-69 ] .0 2.6 12 70 98 181 2.9 359 o 655 26 ,4 2.1 .19 1,240 580 286 1.3 I, b')O 7.H with Duguut and Rnck Creeks, near 5-15-70 21 .2 20 164 219 300 2,8 330 o 1,460 74 ,5 ,0 ,17 2,400 1,310 1,040 3.6 :2,9bO 8, / Dral!;ertnrl S-19-70 11 ,1 19 156 221 299 '1.5 318 o 1,500 72 ,4 ,0 ,16 2,430 1,300 1,040 3.6 .',96() 8,0 6- 3-70 20 .3 18 152 233 315 3,1 307 o 1,560 78 ,7 .0 ,02 2,510 l,J40 1,090 1.7 .1 ,0':/0 1.1:\ 6-11-70 18 b,O 12 104 48 97 4,2 257 a 423 18 ,4 1,5 ,10 872 4'j6 245 ::: ,0 1,160 8. I

65 Grassy Trai 1 Creek near Mounds 9-25-69 22 1.0 lJ 80 114 196 2.9 344 7)lJ 40 ,6 ,2 .20 1,470 670 l88 3,3 1,910 1.b 11- 6-09 'i .0 4.6 12 96 122 223 2.7 155 820 42 ,6 [,4 ,18 l,670 740 !+49 l,b :2,020 I,ll

66 Big Spring Wash near Dragert on 5-15-70 21 .:1 7.8 289 285 456 7.2 )66 2,290 130 .6 1.4 .!

67 Icelander Creek at Highway 6 and 50, 4-25-47 244 272 378 362 2,020 105 2.0 ') ,200 1,730 1,430 '1.0 .1,790 near Dragerton 8-27-69 28 .2 12 697 224 877 234 4,000 150 .0 6,OBO 2,660 2,470 7.4 b, :~40 7. H 11- 6-69 8.0 .4 15 261 304 538 23 293 2,ShU 100 .9 f~.4 I.U 3,950 1,900 1,660 ').4 4,600 i ,lJ 5-15-70 24 1.1 9.8 341 ]89 786 23 29" 3,580 lJ5 .7 1.4 .85 5,420 2,450 2,200 6.9 ),840 8.J ')-19-70 17 .2 9.7])7 41] 834 20 310 3,810 135 .8 1.2 .81 5,710 2,540 2,290 l.:! 6,(l70 H ,I 6-11-70 19.') 1..0 12 353 324 553 22 275 2,820 115 1.0 2.6 .79 4,340 2,210 1,990 '1.1 ", It.,O H, J

68 Pri.ce River ahove Camel Wash, near 11- 'j-69 J.O 61 J.4 192 195 523 7.9 315 0 2,020 60 .5 6.8 ,30 .1,160 1,280 1,020 6.4 3,tllU l.'! Woudside

69 Price River helow SUImlerville Wash, 8-29-69 IR uo 13 441 117 465 12 218 0 2,320 70 .6 1.4 .25 3,5')0 1,':>80 1,400 5.J 3,870 i,') 2. miles abt)Vl:'; ~aginK f>tation, near Wuodside

47 Table 4.-Chemical analyses of surface water at selected sampling sites, July 1969-September 1970-Continued

Hi llL Ji.ttcr c m c "c m c ~ ~ 0 ~'" co ~ ~ 0 . CL U ,j " ~ c 0 . ~ :: " ~ g "0 c . " I / ~ " 0 " .w " S § "m ~ '~ ~ ru . m ru ru § ~ c 0 .,- m ~~ ,C 0 " ~J "~ .c ru .(1 m (J.;"'"' Sampling ~ ~ 0- site . w '0 . m " ;~ ,~ " ~ "j. . 00 . ~ -, ::I; '" 'c " " " '" " " - . 70 Price River ,t Woo 911 1,,9 170 L61 4flU .

71 Price River at lTHHlth, [war Green 6-20-47 II b .4 194 202 fl62 16U .1 .I ,620 1, J 10 l, 1'.10 8.0 1~:; River 9-20-47 J4 '),2 249 229 77j ...'2y I;

1/ Includes carbonate as bicarbonate. 2/ Exact location not known. )1 Analysis hy Utah State University. 41 Sample obtained al 9:20 8.m. 1/ Sample obtained at 12: 30 p.m.

48 Table 5.-Periodic determinations of suspended-sediment discharge and particle size

I 1,,[ IlK;l t i ()Il~ (J r l!lap 1111ITlIH'rs. "I .ncd", i 1,> <'lll'mj['d 1 I, cli V, vislwl aCi,;u/TIU1Cllipll tuh.'; W. in distillt'd water,

______~s'_'·u""_"pl"'·n=ded seJi ment

Sampl ing s i tl' [iner than indicat.·J size, ill millillwtl'r',

o o o o g ~ o o g <5 o o N g o a a o o o o ------_..._------_. --_._... _------

Whitl' H.ivt'r h('L

I'r!l'e Rivt'r dh,'ve Whitt' River, 9-25-69 lO::'O 10 110 46 14 C,,] t "n '1-1 ')-70 0820 J.O 150 16 6.5

Whit" Hivt'r ahL>v!' Price River, 9-2'1-h9 J()'\() ::'22 4.2 e" I t "n

10 I'ril'p Rivl'r bl'!."w White Rivl'r, 8-L8-69 tHUU 19 115 /1 34 C"lt <'11 9-25-69 10 I 'l P 120 48 L6 r ':i-J'i-7U 084':> 4. ) :1.30 394 245 tJ- '3-70 OS')') IU.') no 101 87

II 1\,'

5-1 )-70 09()'j 2.0 637 J'i

lJ l!()rSt'Cn't'kllf'arCastlt'Gau' ')-1')-70 (J920 1.5 .J 119 .1

U+ Iliamarlti Canyun at Highway band ')0, 5-15-/0 (}9J'i 1.1 .8 268 .6 Ileal' Castle Gatt'

I.') F,'rd Creek at Highwav 6 and 50, tl-2H-69 1600 14 2J4 .1 Cl,c;t Ie Calc 'j-I'j-l0 0940 1.5 l.J 120 .4

III Wi II"w Crc·ek near Cast Ie Gate C1 _ LS-JO 1010 'i.S 308 7.5

II WiLI"w Cl"t't'k dt TlltJllth, at CastL(' !:\-2'J-b'l I Y4U 18 'i.9 % 1.5 Cat., 3-25-70 WUlO () 4.0 844 9.1 'i-15-/0 I(I::'(] 7.U 10 184 ) .0 h- ]-70 I Jtj lO 92 2.)

18 l'rin' Hi\l('r <1111\\11' Will(,w Crpl'k,

6-28-')8 ll950 II JJ4 1 ~}8 142 5J 1-16-')8 104') II 289 70 55 60 7-]0-58 0820 lti 244 50 J) 58 8-14-Stl to4') 19 219 33 20 62 8-28-b9 L950 18 174 619 291 9-2')-69 1120 12 to9 115 34 1-25-70 0910 () J09 1,880 )53 s- J r)_10 [(n() ').0 280 587 444 6-1-10 I ')')'j 16 ]60 ]08 299

21 Spring (;

Priu' Rivt'r at Spring Clen 'i-l'1-70 104') 1. 'j 280 695 525

.l-L'i-70 1045 4.5 4.0 '),140 62 64 81 lOa C,f' .\,' r)~15~lO 1100 14 1.0 1,650 13 b- 3-70 0935 Ib. ') 4. ') 1,870 47

24 Pinnae It' Creek Ilear PricL' ')-1 '1-70 ll],) 14 .2 45 ,02

2'i Carh"n Cana l near Price 8-29-h9 084') 17 100 6,470 1,750 5-15-70 1115 8.5 135 701 156 5-15-70 1115 8.5 135 978 356 6- 3-70 093() 12 150 462 187

26 Carl1\ln Canal at Highway 10, 8-29-69 09)0 17 75 1,610 187 Price

:~7 Carholl Canal Cit Highway 10, l:l-?9-69 09'i0 17 70 1,790 ]38 We 11ingtnn

K<~'J-bY 0900 16 60 1,110 lBO

29 Price River at PrieL' Y-2')-b9 1140 Ih 10 96 2.6 3-25-7U 1100 4 40 ),450 llJ 52 67 92 99 lOO C, l' ,v ,\01 'J-L5-70 1140 12 60 268 43 b- 3-70 0955 13.5 140 559 211

\() I'ril'l' River nt>

II DrunLlrds W,u;!l at lIi,>:;hway 10, nt.'ar 8-29-69 0920 I' 2. ') 40B 2.8 Prj Cl' 8-29-69 12 W 14 150 186,000 75,300 8-29-69 1230 15 150 183,000 74,100 18 J3 '7 88 99 100 c, p ,V ,101 9-25-69 1210 18 1.5 66 .J 'i-15-70 1200 16 1.5 281 II

49 Table 5.-Periodic determinations of suspended-sediment discharge and particle size-Continued

Suspended aediment

Sampling site Percent finer than indicated size, in Ini11imeters

N ~ ~ '" ~ N ~ ~ """~ " . " ""~ ~ 0 0 N ""<1"'1 c: ~ . . " N '" " "'" "" " "" " L2 [Innam£'d crf't.'k at Highway 10, near H-29-69 1215 18 75 130,000 26,300 32 36 59 93 100 C, f' ,v ,W Pric!;'

II Millt-'r Crel'k at Highway la, near ')-15-70 \ L5') 15 .02 51 We II in~ti>n

j4 Mill.'r Crt'ek near Wellington 8-29-69 1210 17 21 4,700 266 8-29-69 1400 20 2a 5,090 275 19 19 31 73 9H too c, P, li,W

IS Olltfl,lW drain (r'JIll Olsen (M

6 - \-70 11t~ ') 16 24 1,820 118

II Me.uls Wdsli :It Ili)J,hwdy b iind '10, at 8-29-6'1 [JOU 19 22 49,000 2,910 39 51 H4 YH 100 C ,I' ,\' ,'..' Pr ICI' 'j-l'j-70 ILlO 14 1.2 12

JH Cardindl Wash at 1ll111lth, at HighwdV 8-29-69 1')\0 L8 7.5 n,700 460 6 dnd SO, at Peiu' ')-15-70 1230 18 1.5 84 .J

4L Clh.lL en','k ,It Hi.ghway 6 dnd S'O, near 8-27-69 Ino 28 1.8 101 Wl' 11 in~t()n 5- I 5-70 1320 22.5 7.5 146 ).0 6- 3-70 1040 17 4.0 222 2.4

44 Sll!dil'r Creek at Highway 6 and 50, 11- 6-69 8 8.0 837 18 llCdr Wellington 'J-t,)-70 18. ') 6.0 144 [,8 6- 3-70 L7 '2.0 122 .7

I'rit"t, River at Highway 297, at 6- 3-70 1025 15 L45 875 343 1.1", I! ingt"n

4b I'ri,'(' Rivcr elt IlighwJ.y 2()6, 8-28-69 1730 19 28 L07 LJ Wl'1 [ingtllli 8-29-69 L4UO 20 40 111,000 J.2 ,000 L8 20 30 70 99 100 C, l', V ,W 8-29-69 \4\0 19 300 49,700 40,300 \-25-70 II SO 1 60 7,240 I, l70 41 7\ 95 100 (:,1',\',1-'

1.7 I'rin' Nivt'r ncar WellinglL\ll 6-28-58 1210 23 63 256 44 82 7-16-58 \220 22 40 101 11 76 7-30-')8 1010 21 14 ]8 1.5 84 8-14-58 lLJO 26 28 70 5.3 95 3-25-70 LeOO 5 60 6,950 \,130 '}-15-70 1)05 11 60 07 11 6- 3-70 1030 1 'i 145 1,8S0 724

')2 Desprt Seep Wash

')j LJe,.;prt Sel'p Wash rwar Elm" 6- 3-70 LZOO 16 26 10; l2

'J') Price H.iver near Mounds 9-25-69 1')OQ 20 2'} 239 16 11- 6-69 1430 42 loa L8 6- J-70 1135 18 160 2,240 968

64 (;rassy l'rdL1 Creek Ij{·1""" junctiun ,}-LS-70 lJ40 21 .25 86 .06 with DUf',,,ut dnd R"ck Crpt'ks, near Dr:lf\prt'ln

67 1,'f'landl'r Creek at Highway 6 and 50, ')-L5-70 lJ55 24 1.1 48 .L Ill',lr llragert'Hl

68 Price River above Camel Wash, near 11- 5-69 1430 62 151 26 W'Hldside

69 Pri.ce River he\l1w SummervilLe Wash, 8-29-69 1)45 18 130 78,800 27,700 34 43 71, 99 100 c ,P ,V,W near Woodsi.de

71 Price River at muuth, near Gre~n 11- 6-69 1415 64 203 35 River

1/ Trace (less than 0.05).

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

(*)-Out of Print

TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

No. 1. Underground leakage from artesian wells in the Flowell area, near Fillmore, Utah, by Penn Livingston and G. B. Maxey, U. S. Geological Survey, 1944.

No. 2. The Ogden Valley artesian reservoir, Weber County, Utah, by H. E. Thomas, U. S. Geological Survey, 1945.

*No. 3. Ground water in Pavant Valley, Millard County, Utah, by P. E. Dennis, G. B. Maxey, and H. E. Thomas, U. S. Geological Survey, 1946.

*No. 4. Ground water in Tooele Valley, Tooele County, Utah, by H. E. Thomas, U. S. Geological Survey, in Utah State Eng. 25th Bienn. Rept., p. 91-238, pis. 1-6, 1946.

*No. 5. Ground water in the East Shore area, Utah: Part I, Bountiful District, Davis County, Utah, by H. E. Thomas and W. B. Nelson, U. S. Geological Survey, in Utah State Eng. 26th Bienn. Rept., p. 53-206, pis. 1-2, 1948.

*No. 6. Ground water in the Escalante Valley, Beaver, Iron, and Washington Counties, Utah, by P. F. Fix, W. B. Nelson, B. E. Lofgren, and R. G. Butler, U. S. Geological Survey, in Utah State Eng. 27th Bienn. Rept., p. 107-210, pis. 1-10, 1950.

No. 7. Status of development of selected ground-water basins in Utah, by H. E. Thomas, W. B. Nelson, B. E. Lofgren, and R. G. Butler, U. S. Geological Survey, 1952.

*No. 8. Consumptive use of water and irrigation requirements of crops in Utah, by C. O. Roskelly and Wayne D. Criddle, 1952.

No. 8. (Revised) Consumptive use and water requirements for Utah, by W. D. Criddle, K. Harris, and L. S. Wi lIardson, 1962.

No. 9. Progress report on selected ground water basins in Utah, by H. A. Waite, W. B. Nelson, and others, U. S. Geological Survey, 1954.

*No. 10. A compilation of chemical quality data for ground and surface waters in Utah, by J. G. Connor, C. G. Mitchell, and others, U. S. Geological Survey, 1958.

*No. 11. Ground water in northern Utah Valley, Utah: A progress report for the period 1948-63, by R. M. Cordova and Seymour Subitzky, U. S. Geological Survey, 1965.

No. 12. Reevaluation of the ground-water resources of Tooele Valley, Utah, by Joseph S. Gates, U. S. Geological Survey, 1965.

*No. 13. Ground-water resources of selected basins in southwestern Utah, by G. W. Sandberg, U. S. Geological Survey, 1966.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. 23. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Rush Valley, Tooele County, Utah, by J. W. Hood, Don Price, and K. M. Waddell, U. S. Geological Survey, 1969.

No. 24. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Deep Creek valley, Tooele and Juab Counties, Utah, and Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada, by J. W. Hood and K. M. Waddell, U. S. Geological Survey, 1969.

No. 25. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Curlew Valley, Utah and Idaho, by E. L. Boike and [bn Price, U. S. Geological Survey, 1969.

No. 26. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Sink Valley area, Tooele and Box Elder Counties, Utah, by Don Price and E. L. Boike, U. S. Geological Survey, 1969.

No. 27. Water resources of the Heber-Kamas-Park City area, north-central Utah, by C. H. Baker, Jr., U. S. Geological Survey, 1970.

No. 28. Ground-water conditions in southern Utah Valley and Goshen Valley, Utah, by R.M. Cordova, U.S. Geological Survey, 1970.

No. 29. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Grouse Creek valley, Box Elder County, Utah, by J.W. Hood and Don Price, U.S. Geological Survey, 1970.

No. 30. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Park Valley area, Box Elder County, Utah, by J.W. Hood, U.S. Geological Survey, 1971.

No. 31. Water resources of Salt Lake County, Utah, by Allen G. Hely, R.W. Mower, and C. Albert Harr, U.S. Geological Survey, 1971.

No. 32. Geology and water resources of the Spanish Valley area, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah, by C.T. Sumsion, U.S. Geological Survey, 1971.

No. 33. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Hansel Valley and northern Rozel Flat, Box Elder County, Utah, by J'w. Hood, U.S. Geological Survey, 1971.

No. 34. Summary of water resources of Salt Lake County, Utah, by Allen G. Hely, R.W. Mower, and C. Albert Harr, U.S. Geological Survey, 1971.

52 No. 35. Ground-water conditions in the East Shore area, Box Elder, Davis, and Weber Counties, Utah, 1960-69, by E. L. Boike and K.M. Waddell, U.S. Geological Survey, 1972.

No. 36. Ground-water resources of Cache Valley, Utah and Idaho, by L.J. Bjorklund and L.J. McGreevy, U.S. Geological Survey, 1971.

No. 37. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Blue Creek valley area, Box Elder County, Utah, by E. L. Boike and Don Price, U.S. Geological Survey, 1972.

No. 38. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Promontory Mountains area, Box Elder County, Utah, by J.W. Hood, U.S. Geological Survey, 1972.

WATER CIRCULARS

No.1. Ground water in the Jordan Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah, by Ted Arnow, U. S. Geological Survey, 1965.

No.2. Ground water in Tooele Valley, Utah, by J. S. Gates and O. A. Keller, U. S. Geological Survey, 1970.

BASIC-DATA REPORTS

*No. 1. Records and water-level measurements of selected wells and chemical analyses of ground water, East Shore area, Davis, Weber, and Box Elder Counties, Utah, by R. E. Smith, U. S. Geological Survey, 1961.

* No.2. Records of selected wells and springs, selected drillers' logs of wells, and chemical analyses of ground and surface waters, northern Utah Valley, Utah County, Utah, by Seymour Subitzky, U. S. Geological Survey, 1962.

*No. 3. Ground water data, central Sevier Valley, parts of Sanpete, Sevier, and Piute Counties, Utah, by C. H. Carpenter and R. A. Young, U. S. Geological Survey, 1963.

*No. 4. Selected hydrologic data, Jordan Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah, by I. W. Marine and Don Price, U. S. Geological Survey, 1963.

*No. 5. Selected hydrologic data, Pavant Valley, Millard County, Utah, by R. W. Mower, U. S. Geological Su~vey, 1963.

*No. 6. Ground-water data, parts of Washington, Iron, Beaver, and Millard Counties, Utah, by G. W. Sandberg, U. S. Geological Survey, 1963.

No. 7. Selected hydrologic data, Tooele Valley, Tooele County, Utah, by J. S. Gates, U. S. Geological Survey, 1963.

No. 8. Selected hydrologic data, upper basin, Utah, by C. H. Carpenter, G. B. Robinson, Jr., and L. J. Bjorklund, U. S. Geological Survey, 1964.

No. 9. Ground-water data, Sevier Desert, Utah, by R. W. Mower and R. D. Feltis, U. S. Geological Survey, 1964.

*No. 10. Quality of surface water in the Sevier Lake basin, Utah, by D. C. Hahl and R. E. Cabell, U. S. Geological Survey, 1965.

53 *No. 11. Hydrologic and climatologic data, collected through 1964, Salt Lake County, Utah by W. V. lorns, R. W. Mower, and C. A. Horr, U. S. Geological Survey, 1966.

No. 12. Hydrologic and climatologic data, 1965, Salt Lake County, Utah, by W. V. lorns, R. W. Mower, and C. A. Horr, U. S. Geological Survey, 1966.

No. 13. Hydrologic and climatologic data, 1966, Salt Lake County, Utah, by A. G. Hely, R. W. Mower, and C. A. Horr, U. S. Geological Survey, 1967.

No. 14. Selected hydrologic data, San Pitch River drainage basin, Utah, by G. B. Robinson, Jr., U. S. Geological Survey, 1968.

No. 15. Hydrologic and climatologic data, 1967, Salt Lake County, Utah, by A. G. Hely, R. W. Mower, and C. A. Horr, U. S. Geological Survey, 1968.

No. 16. Selected hydrologic data, southern Utah and Goshen Valleys, Utah, by R. M. Cordova, U. S. Geological Survey, 1969.

No. 17. Hydrologic and climatologic data, 1968, Salt Lake County, Utah, by A. G. Hely, R. W. Mower, and C. A. Horr, U. S. Geological Survey, 1969.

No. 18. Quality of surface water in the Bear River basin, Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, by K. M. Waddell, U. S. Geological Survey, 1970.

No. 19. Daily water-temperature records for Utah streams, 1944-68, by G. L. Whitaker, U. S. Geological Survey, 1970.

No. 20. Water quality data for the Flaming Gorge area, Utah and Wyoming, R.J. Madison, U.S. Geological Survey, 1970.

No. 21. Selected hydrologic data, Cache Valley, Utah and Idaho, L.J. McGreevy and L.J. Bjorklund, U.S. Geological Survey, 1970.

INFORMATION BULLETINS

*No. 1. Plan of work for the Sevier River Basin (Sec. 6, P. L. 566), U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1960.

* No.2. Water production from oil wells in Utah, by Jerry Tuttle, Utah State Engineer's Office, 1960.

*No. 3. Ground-water areas and well logs, central Sevier Valley, Utah, by R. A. Young, U. S. Geological Survey, 1960.

*No. 4. Ground-water investigations in Utah in 1960 and reports published by the U. S. Geological Surveyor the Utah State Engineer prior to 1960, by H. D. Goode, U. S. Geological Survey, 1960.

*No. 5. Developing ground water in the central Sevier Valley, Utah, by R. A. Young and C. H. Carpenter, U. S. Geological Survey, 1961.

*No. 6. Work outline and report outline for Sevier River basin survey, (Sec. 6, P.L. 566), U. S. Depa rtment of Agricu Iture, 1961.

No.7. Relation of the deep and shallow artesian aquifers near Lynndyl, Utah, by R. W. Mower, U. S. Geological Survey, 1961.

54 *No. 8. Projected 1975 municipal water-use requirements, Davis County, Utah, by Utah State Engineer's Office, 1962.

No.9. Projected 1975 municipal water-use requirements, Weber County, Utah, by Utah State Engineer's Office, 1962.

*No. 10. Effects on the shallow artesian aquifer of withdrawing water from the deep artesian aquifer near Sugarville, Millard County, Utah, by R. W. Mower, U. S. Geological Survey, 1963.

No. 11. Amendments to plan of work and work outline for the Sevier River basin (Sec. 6, P. L. 566), U. S. Department of Agricu Iture, 1964.

*No. 12. Test drilling in the upper Sevier River drainage basin, Garfield and Piute Counties, Utah, by R. D. Feltis and G. B. Robinson, Jr., U. S. Geological Survey, 1963.

*No. 13. Water requirements of lower Jordan River, Utah, by Karl Harris, Irrigation Engineer, Agricultural Research Service, Phoenix, Arizona, prepared under informal cooperation approved by Mr. William W. Donnan, Chief, Southwest Branch (Riverside, California) Soil and Water Conservation Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.D.A., and by Wayne D. Criddle, State Engineer, State of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1964.

*No. 14. Consumptive use of water by native vegetation and irrigated crops in the Virgin River area of Utah, by Wayne D. Criddle, Jay M. Bagley, R. Keith Higginson, and David W. Hendricks, through cooperation of Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Agricultural Research Service, Soil and Water Conservation Branch, Western Soil and Water Management Section, Utah Water and Power Board, and Utah State Engineer, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1964.

*No. 15. Ground-water conditions and related water-administration problems in Cedar City Valley, Iron County, Utah, February, 1966, by Jack A. Barnett and Francis T. Mayo, Utah State Engineer's Office.

*No. 16. Summary of water well drilling activities in Utah, 1960 through 1965, compiled by Utah State Engineer's Office, 1966.

* No. 17. Bibliography of U. S. Geological Survey Water Resources Reports for Utah, compiled by Olive A. Keller, U. S. Geological Survey, 1966.

*No. 18. The effect of pumping large-discharge wells on the ground-water reservoir in southern Utah Valley, Utah County, Utah, by R. M. Cordova and R. W. Mower, U. S. Geological Survey 1967.

No. 19. Ground-water hydrology of southern Cache Valley, Utah, by L. P. Beer, 1967. No. 20. Fluvial sediment in Utah, 1905-65, A data compilation by J. C. Mundorff, U. S. Geological Survey, 1968.

No. 21. Hydrogeology of the eastern portion of the south slopes of the Uinta Mountains, Utah, by L.G. Moore and D.A. Barker, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and James D. Maxwell and Bob L. Bridges, Soil Conservation Service, 1971.

No. 22. Bibliography of U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Reports for Utah, compiled by Barbara A. LaPray, U. S. Geological Survey, 1972.

55