Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

Home , Curlew Valley, Juab Valley, Valley Mountains

SPRING OF 2013 COOPERATIVE INVESTIGATIONS REPORT NO. 54

UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES and UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN UTAH, SPRING OF 2013

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

Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights, and Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality

Published by the Utah Department of Natural Resources Cooperative Investigations Report No. 54 2013

iii

Contents

Introduction ...... 1 Utah’s Groundwater Reservoir ...... 1 Summary of Conditions ...... 2 Major Areas of Groundwater Development...... 7 Curlew Valley...... 7 Cache Valley...... 12 East Shore Area...... 17 Salt Lake Valley...... 22 Tooele Valley...... 28 Utah and Goshen Valleys...... 33 Juab Valley...... 40 Sevier Desert...... 45 Central Sevier Valley...... 52 Pahvant Valley ...... 57 Cedar Valley, Iron County...... 63 Parowan Valley...... 68 Escalante Valley...... 73 Milford Area...... 73 Beryl-Enterprise Area...... 78 Central Virgin River Area ...... 83 Other Areas...... 89 Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012...... 104 References Cited ...... 118

Figures

1. Map showing areas of groundwater development in Utah specifically referred to in this report ...... 3 2. Map showing location of wells in Curlew Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ...... 8 3. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Curlew Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oakley, Idaho, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells ...... 9 4. Map showing location of wells in Cache Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ...... 13 5. Graph showing relation of water level in selected wells in Cache Valley to total annual discharge of the Logan River near Logan, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Logan, Utah State University, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (A-13-1)29bcd-1 ...... 14 6. Map showing location of wells in the East Shore area in which the water level was measured during March 2013...... 18 7. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in the East Shore area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Pineview Dam, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (B-4-2)27aba-1 ...... 19 8. Map showing location of wells in Salt Lake Valley in which the water level was measured during February 2013 ...... 23 iv

9. Graphs showing estimated population of Salt Lake County, total annual withdrawal from wells, annual withdrawal for public supply, and average annual precipitation at Salt Lake City Weather Service Office ...... 24 10. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells completed in the principal aquifer in Salt Lake Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton, and relation of water level in well (D-1-1)7abd-6 to concentration of chloride and dissolved solids in water from the well ...... 25 11. Map showing location of wells in Tooele Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ...... 29 12. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Tooele Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Tooele, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-2-4)33bdd-1 ...... 30 13. Map showing location of wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys in which the water level was measured during March 2013...... 34 14. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton and Spanish Fork Power House, to total annual withdrawal from wells, to annual withdrawal for public supply, to annual discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from three wells ...... 35 15. Map showing location of wells in Juab Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ...... 41 16. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Juab Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Nephi, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-14-1)26dbd-1 ...... 42 17. Map showing location of wells in the shallow artesian aquifer in part of the Sevier Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ...... 46 18. Map showing location of wells in the deep artesian aquifer in part of the Sevier Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ...... 47 19. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in the Sevier Desert to annual discharge of the Sevier River near Juab, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oak City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-15-4)8cba-1...... 48 20. Map showing location of wells in central Sevier Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013...... 53 21. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in central Sevier Valley to annual discharge of the Sevier River at Hatch, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Richfield, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-23-2)15dcb-4 ...... 54 22. Map showing location of wells in Pahvant Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ...... 58 23. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Pahvant Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Fillmore, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells ...... 59 24. Map showing location of wells in Cedar Valley, Iron County, in which the water level was measured during March 2013...... 64 25. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Cedar Valley, Iron County, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual discharge of Coal Creek near Cedar City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells ...... 65 26. Map showing location of wells in Parowan Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013...... 69 27. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Parowan Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-33-8)31ccc-1 ...... 70 28. Map showing location of wells in the Milford area in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ...... 74 29. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in the Milford area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Black Rock, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-29-10)5cdd-2 ...... 75 v

30. Map showing location of wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ...... 79 31. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Enterprise, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-34-16)28dcc-3 ...... 80 32. Map showing location of wells in the central Virgin River area in which the water level was measured during February 2013...... 84 33. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in the central Virgin River area to annual discharge of the Virgin River at Virgin, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at St. George, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-41-17)8cbd-2 ...... 85 34. Map showing location of wells in Cedar Valley, Utah County, in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ...... 90 35. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Cedar Valley, Utah County, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Provo BYU ...... 91 36. Map showing location of wells in Sanpete Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ...... 92 37. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Sanpete Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Manti...... 93 38. Map showing location of wells in Snake Valley and the West Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013 ...... 94 39. Graphs showing relation of water level in selected wells in Snake Valley and the West Desert to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Callao ...... 95 40. Graphs showing relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas ...... 96 41. Map showing location of groundwater sites sampled during the summer of 2012 ...... 105

Tables

1. Areas of groundwater development in Utah specifically referred to in this report ...... 4 2. Number of wells constructed and estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Utah, 2012 ...... 5 3. Total annual withdrawal of water from wells in significant areas of groundwater development in Utah, 2002–2011 ...... 6 4. Estimated withdrawal of water from wells in other areas of Utah, 2012 ...... 89 5. Physical properties and concentration of major ions and nutrients in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012 ...... 106 6. Concentration of trace elements in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012 ...... 114 vi

Conversion Factors, Datums, and Water-Quality Units

Multiply By To obtain

acre-foot 1,233 cubic meter foot 0.3048 meter gallon per minute 0.06301 liter per second inch 2.54 centimeter mile 1.609 kilometer square mile 2.59 square kilometer

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 1929). Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Chemical concentration is reported only in metric units. Chemical concentration in water is reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter (µg/L), which express the solute mass per unit volume (liter) of water. One thousand micrograms per liter is equivalent to one milligram per liter. For concentrations less than 7,000 milligrams per liter, the numerical value is about the same as for concentrations in parts per million. Specific conductance is a measure of the ability of water to conduct an electrical current. It is expressed in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius. Specific conductance is related to the type and concentration of ions in solution and can be used for approximating the dissolved-solids concentration in the water. Commonly, the concentration of dissolved solids (in milligrams per liter) is about 65 percent of the specific conductance (in microsiemens). This relation is not constant in water from one well or stream to another, and it may vary for the same source with changes in the composition of the water. vii

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

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

38°42'15"

14" B A Coordinates for well A (384213112193701) C 38°42'13"

Coordinates for wells 38" B (384213112193801) and 12°19'39" 12°19'37"

C (384213112193802) 1 1 ix

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

Sections within a township Tracts within a section R. 6 W. Section 8

6 5 4 3 2 1

7 8 9 10 11 12 Well b a T. 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 Well S. 19 20 21 22 23 24 b a b a c d 30 29 28 27 26 25 c d

31 32 33 34 35 36 c d

6 miles 1 mile 9.7 kilometers 1.6 kilometers (C-18-6)8cbb-1

B A Salt Lake Base Line

Salt Lake B A City C D

idia n Area of Uintah Base Line and

T. 18 S., R. 6 W. Me r Meridian C D e La k Sal t

Surface-Water Sites— Downstream Order and Station Number Since October 1, 1950, hydrologic-station records in U.S. Geological Survey reports have been listed in order of downstream direction along the main stream. All stations on a tributary entering upstream from a main-stream station are listed before that station. A station on a tributary entering between two main-stream stations is listed between those stations. As an added means of identification, each hydrologic station and partial-record station has been assigned a station number. These station numbers are in the same downstream order used in this report. In assigning a station number, no distinction is made between partial-record stations and other stations; therefore, the station number for a partial-record station indicates downstream- order position in a list composed of both types of stations. Gaps are consecutive. The complete 8-digit (or 10-digit) number for each station such as 09004100, which appears just to the left of the station name, includes a 2-digit part number “09” plus the 6-digit (or 8-digit) downstream order number “004100.” In areas of high station density, an additional two digits may be added to the station identification number to yield a 10-digit number. The stations are numbered in downstream order as described above between stations of consecutive 8-digit numbers. x Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

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

Introduction Utah’s Groundwater Reservoir

This is the fiftieth in a series of annual reports that describe Small amounts of groundwater can be obtained from wells groundwater conditions in Utah. Reports in this series, throughout most of Utah, but large amounts that are of suitable published cooperatively by the U.S. Geological Survey and chemical quality for irrigation, public supply, or industrial use the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water generally can be obtained only in specific areas. The areas of Rights, and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, groundwater development discussed in this report are shown Division of Water Quality, provide data to enable interested on figure 1 and in table 1. Relatively few wells outside of parties to maintain awareness of changing groundwater these areas yield large amounts of groundwater of suitable conditions. chemical quality for the uses listed above, although some This report, like the others in the series, contains basins in western Utah and many areas in eastern Utah have information on well construction, groundwater withdrawals not been explored sufficiently to determine their potential for from wells, water-level changes, precipitation, streamflow, and groundwater development. chemical quality of water. Information on well construction Most wells in Utah yield water from unconsolidated included in this report refers only to wells constructed for basin-fill deposits. These deposits may consist of boulders, new appropriations of groundwater. Supplementary data are gravel, sand, silt, or clay, or a mixture of some or all of these included in reports of this series only for those years or areas materials. The largest yields are obtained from coarse-grained that are important to a discussion of changing groundwater materials that are sorted into deposits of uniform grain size. conditions and for which applicable data are available. Most wells that yield water from unconsolidated deposits are This report includes individual discussions of selected in large intermountain basins that have been partly filled with significant areas of groundwater development in the State for rock materials eroded from adjacent mountains. calendar year 2012. Most of the reported data were collected A small percentage of wells in Utah yield water from by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Utah consolidated-rock (bedrock) aquifers. Consolidated rocks Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights, that have the highest yield are basalt, which contains and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division interconnected vesicular openings, fractures, or permeable of Water Quality. This report is also available online at weathered zones at the tops of lava flows; limestone, which http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/techinfo/ and http://ut.water. contains fractures or other openings enlarged by solution; and usgs.gov/publications/GW2013.pdf. Groundwater conditions sandstone, which contains open fractures. Most wells that in Utah for calendar year 2011 are reported in Burden and penetrate consolidated rock are in the eastern and southern others (2012) and available online at http://ut.water.usgs.gov/ parts of the State in areas where water cannot be obtained publications/GW2012.pdf. readily from unconsolidated deposits. 2 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

Summary of Conditions

The total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Utah Precipitation during calendar year 2012 at 22 of 27 weather during 2012 was about 1,060,000 acre-feet (table 2), which stations included in this report (Western Region Climate is about 215,000 acre-feet more than the revised total for Center, 2012), was less than the long-term average. The 2011 and 145,000 acre-feet more than the 2002–2011 average greatest decrease in precipitation from average was 6.7 inches annual withdrawal (table 3). The increase in withdrawal at Pineview Dam. The greatest increase in precipitation resulted mostly from increased irrigation and public-supply from average was 1.8 inches at Cedar City Federal Aviation use. The total estimated withdrawal for irrigation was about Administration Airport. 574,000 acre-feet, which is about 116,000 acre-feet more than During February and March 2013, about 640 water-level the revised total for 2011. Withdrawal for public-supply use measurements were made in wells for areas included in this was about 309,000 acre-feet, which is 84,000 acre-feet more report. Most water-level data included in the hydrographs than in 2011. Withdrawal for industrial use was about 113,000 in this report are from measurements made during February acre-feet, which is 15,000 acre-feet more than the value for and March, but may include some water-level measurements 2011. Withdrawal for domestic and stock use was about made in April and May. Many of the wells in this report have 64,000 acre-feet, which is the same as in 2011. additional water-level measurements made throughout the From 2011 to 2012, groundwater withdrawal increased year which are not included in this report. All water-level data in 15 of the 16 areas of groundwater development discussed are available online at http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ut/nwis/ in this report (table 2). Withdrawal in Salt Lake Valley gwlevels. increased about 41,000 acre-feet, the largest increase in any In 2012, 310 wells were constructed for new appropriations of the groundwater development areas shown on figure 1. of groundwater, as determined by the Utah Division of Water Withdrawal in the central Sevier Valley decreased about 3,000 Rights (table 2); this is 45 more wells than the total reported acre-feet, the only decrease in any of the areas. The 2012 total for 2011. In 2012, 22 large-diameter wells (12 inches or more) withdrawal was more than the average annual withdrawal for were constructed for new appropriations of groundwater 2002–2011 in 13 of the 16 areas (tables 2 and 3). (table 2), which is 1 more than the total reported for 2011. The amount of water withdrawn from wells is related These new wells are used principally for withdrawal of water to demand and availability of water from other sources, for public supply, irrigation, and industrial purposes. which, in turn, are partly related to local climatic conditions. Summary of Conditions 3

114° 42° 113° 112° Bear 111° Lake 6 EXPLANATION 3 River 5 Area of significant groundwater development— 2 5 River Withdrawals greater than about 20,000 acre-feet Logan Randolph Bear per year. Numbers refer to tables 1, 2, and 3 CACHE

4 Bear 7 1 RICH 7 Area of less significant groundwater development— Withdrawals less than about 20,000 acre-feet per Brigham City year. Numbers refer to table 1 BOX ELDER WEBER Great 8 0 20 40 60 MILES Salt Ogden Lake 9 N 0 20 40 60 KILOMETERS MORGA DAVIS Morgan Flaming Gorge 41° 110° Reservoir 109° Farmington Coalville Manila DAGGETT Jordan SUMMIT 10 Salt Lake City TOOELE Park City

River Uinta 11 Lake 12 17 Duchesne Tooele Fork Heber City Vernal

14a River 16a WASATCH 19 13 18 15 Utah Provo DUCHESNE 14b Lake River River UINTAH UTAH Duchesne White 40° 16b River 14c 16c Green

JUAB

Nephi CARBON 21 Price River

24 20 Price 25a 25b SANPETE Delta River MILLARD Manti Castle Dale San Rafael Sevier 39° Green Lake Green River Muddy EMERY GRAND 23 Fillmore 22 River River SEVIER Richfield River

Creek Colorado 29b

Sevier Moab 38 Milford Dirty BEAVER Loa WAYNE 29a 27 PIUTE Fremont River 36 Devil 26 Beaver Junction

River River 38° 35 IRON 31 Colorado Monticello 28 GARFIELD 33 Panguitch 32 Parowan Escalante Cedar City River SAN JUAN Enterprise Blanding 30 Paria

San WASHINGTON KANE Bluff Juan River 37 River River Virgin Lake St George Powell 34 Kanab 37°

Figure 1. Areas of groundwater development in Utah specifically referred to in this report. 4 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

Table 1. Areas of groundwater development in Utah specifically referred to in this report. [Do., ditto] Number in Area Principal types of water-bearing lithologies figure 1 1 Grouse Creek Valley Unconsolidated deposits 2 Park Valley area Do. 3 Curlew Valley Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits 4 Lower Bear River area Unconsolidated deposits 5 Cache Valley Do. 6 Bear Lake Valley Do. 7 Upper Bear River area Do. 8 Ogden Valley Do. 9 East Shore area Do. 10 Salt Lake Valley Do. 11 Park City area Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits 12 Tooele Valley Do. 13 Rush Valley Do. 14a Skull Valley Unconsolidated deposits 14b Dugway area Do. 14c Old River Bed Do. 15 Cedar Valley, Utah County Do. 16a Northern Utah Valley Do. 16b Southern Utah Valley Do. 16c Goshen Valley Do. 17 Heber Valley Do. 18 Duchesne River area Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits 19 Vernal area Do. 20 Sanpete Valley Do. 21 Juab Valley Unconsolidated deposits 22 Central Sevier Valley Do. 23 Pahvant Valley Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits 24 Sevier Desert Unconsolidated deposits 25a Snake Valley Do. 25b West Desert Do. 26 Escalante Valley, Milford area Do. 27 Beaver Valley Do. 28 Monticello area Consolidated deposits 29a Spanish Valley Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits 29b Upper Colorado River area Do. 30 Blanding-Bluff area Consolidated-rock deposits 31 Parowan Valley Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits 32 Cedar Valley, Iron County Unconsolidated deposits 33 Escalante Valley, Beryl-Enterprise area Do. 34 Central Virgin River area Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits 35 Upper Sevier River area Unconsolidated deposits 36 Upper Fremont River Valley Unconsolidated and consolidated-rock deposits 37 Kanab area Consolidated-rock deposits 38 Cove Fort area Unconsolidated deposits Summary of Conditions 5

Table 2. Number of wells constructed and estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Utah, 2012. Number of wells1 Estimated withdrawal from wells, in acre-feet (rounded) constructed in 2012 Number 2012 Area in Diameter figure 1 Total of 12 inches Public Domestic 2011 total 2, 6 Irrigation Industrial1 Total or more supply1 and stock

Curlew Valley 3 2 1 41,400 0 200 100 42,000 32,000 Cache Valley 5 32 0 17,300 5,600 13,600 2,000 38,000 30,000 East Shore area 9 4 2 7,000 3,800 30,600 5,000 46,000 37,000 Salt Lake Valley 10 5 3 600 337,000 107,400 22,000 167,000 126,000 Tooele Valley 12 10 0 4,514,200 800 13,500 1,200 30,000 21,000 Utah and Goshen Valleys 16 17 1 35,300 11,200 58,900 16,700 122,000 690,000 Northern Utah Valley7 16a 2 0 (4,600) (7,400) (43,600) (8,100) (63,700) (645,400) Southern Utah Valley7 16b 15 1 (9,400) (3,800) (15,200) (8,500) (36,900) (28,100) Goshen Valley7 16c 0 0 (21,300) (0) (100) (100) (21,500) (16,900) Juab Valley 21 4 1 26,900 90 8450 400 28,000 15,000 Sevier Desert 24 6 0 17,000 3,800 1,600 1,200 24,000 20,000 Central Sevier Valley 22 19 1 23,200 8 2,800 1,500 28,000 31,000 Pahvant Valley 23 4 0 113,300 0 880 320 114,000 89,000 Cedar Valley, Iron County 32 2 1 29,700 100 7,500 2,400 40,000 34,000 Parowan Valley 31 4 0 936,900 200 300 350 38,000 32,000 Escalante Valley Milford area 26 6 4 44,700 1021,400 700 140 67,000 53,000 Beryl-Enterprise area 33 10 4 86,500 113,800 550 650 91,000 84,000 Central Virgin River area 34 6 0 7,100 640 18,400 2,400 29,000 28,000 Other areas12, 13 179 4 72,800 24,600 51,600 7,500 156,000 123,000 Total 310 22 574,000 113,000 309,000 64,000 1,060,000 6845,000 1 Data provided by Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights. 2 From Burden and others (2012, table 2). 3 Includes some use for air conditioning, about 2,700 acre-feet. About 94 percent was injected back into the aquifer. 4 Includes some domestic and stock use. 5 Includes some flowing well discharge. 6 Revised. 7 Numbers for Northern Utah Valley, Southern Utah Valley, and Goshen Valley, presented within parentheses, are a subtotal of withdrawal. 8 Previously included some springs. 9 Includes some stock use. 10 Includes 18,900 acre-feet for geothermal power generation. About 99 percent was injected back into the aquifer. 11 Includes 2,810 acre-feet for heating greenhouses. About 95 percent was injected back into the aquifer. 12 Withdrawal totals are estimated minimum. See “Other Areas” section of this report for withdrawal estimates for other areas (table 4). 13 Includes withdrawals for upper Sevier Valley and upper Fremont River Valley that were included with central Sevier Valley in reports prior to number 31 of this series. 6 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

Table 3. Total annual withdrawal of water from wells in significant areas of groundwater development in Utah, 2002–2011. 1 Number Thousands of acre-feet 2002–2011 Area in (rounded) average 2012 figure 1 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (rounded) Curlew Valley 3 238 42 38 29 31 38 44 34 39 32 37 42 Cache Valley 5 33 27 27 29 31 36 34 31 33 30 31 38 East Shore area 9 49 49 46 41 46 52 54 46 43 37 46 46 Salt Lake Valley 10 2140 130 125 110 131 151 135 137 140 126 133 167 Tooele Valley 12 21 22 21 218 221 227 228 25 24 21 23 30 Utah and Goshen Valleys 16 2111 2108 2105 287 299 126 2120 2105 2106 290 105 122 Northern Utah Valley3 16a (264) (268) (266) (246) (58) (72) (267) (260) (258) (245) (60) (64) Southern Utah Valley3 16b (36) (33) (30) (31) (29) (38) (34) (30) (31) (28) (32) (37) Goshen Valley3 16c (11) (7) (9) (10) (12) (16) (19) (15) (17) (17) (13) (21) Juab Valley 21 29 27 26 14 21 26 26 21 22 15 23 28 Sevier Desert 24 36 28 41 24 20 34 44 48 46 20 34 24 Central Sevier Valley 22 11 15 15 17 16 19 24 27 26 31 20 28 Pahvant Valley 23 89 86 85 80 86 89 94 104 106 89 91 114 Cedar Valley, Iron County 32 42 39 40 30 35 40 40 38 38 34 38 40 Parowan Valley 31 39 31 37 27 33 34 38 37 34 32 34 38 Escalante Valley Milford area 26 52 50 44 40 45 49 51 56 62 53 50 67 Beryl-Enterprise area 33 99 92 98 68 79 92 93 93 90 84 89 91 Central Virgin River area 34 27 28 26 29 32 33 29 33 29 28 29 29 Other areas 131 128 129 111 130 155 144 130 134 123 132 156 Total (rounded) 2947 2902 2903 2754 2856 21,001 2998 2965 2972 2845 915 1,060

1 From previous reports in this series. 2 Revised. 3 Numbers for Northern Utah Valley, Southern Utah Valley, and Goshen Valley, presented within parentheses, are a subtotal of withdrawal. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 7

Major Areas of Groundwater Development

Curlew Valley

By Adam S. Birkin The Curlew Valley drainage basin extends across the The relation of the water level in selected observation wells to Utah-Idaho state line and includes the communities of Cedar cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Creek, Kelton, and Snowville (fig. 2). The valley is bounded Oakley, Idaho (replaces Grouse Creek, which has been on the west and east by the Raft River and Hansel Mountains, discontinued), to annual withdrawal from wells, and to which range in altitude from about 6,500 to nearly 10,000 feet. concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells The valley is open to the south, where water draining from it is shown in figure 3. enters Great Salt Lake. Precipitation at Oakley, Idaho in 2012 was about 11.1 The Utah part of Curlew Valley (Utah subbasin) covers inches, which is 2.2 inches less than in 2011 and 0.1 inch more about 550 square miles in Box Elder County. It is an arid to than the average annual precipitation for 1930–2012. semiarid, largely uninhabited area, with a community center at Water levels in Curlew Valley generally rose or declined Snowville. Average annual precipitation in the Utah subbasin less than about 1 foot from March 2012 to March 2013, except is less than 8 inches on the valley floor, and is substantially for three wells with declines of up to about 9.4 feet. These more in the surrounding mountains. large declines were observed in two wells west of Snowville The principal source of water in Curlew Valley is ground- and one well north of Kelton, and were probably the result of water. The groundwater reservoir is primarily composed of large localized withdrawals. confined aquifers in alluvial and lacustrine basin-fill deposits The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples and volcanic rocks. These formations yield several hundred to collected from well (B-12-11)8abb-1, 3 miles north of Kelton, several thousand gallons of water per minute to individual and well (B-14-9)5bbb-1, 10 miles west of Snowville, from large-diameter irrigation wells west of Snowville and near 1972–2011 and 1971–2012, respectively, is shown in figure 3. Kelton. The dissolved-solids concentration in water from well Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Curlew (B-14-9)5bbb-1 increased slightly from September 2011 to Valley in 2012 was about 42,000 acre-feet, which is 10,000 July 2012. Well (B-12-11)8abb-1 was not sampled in 2012. acre-feet more than the value for 2011 and 5,000 acre-feet Dissolved-solids concentrations in water from both wells have more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 generally increased since the early 1970s. (tables 2 and 3). The location of wells in Curlew Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 2. 8 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

113°00' 112°45' 42° IDAHO 00' UTAH 84 42 T. 15 N. Curlew (2) Junction Cedar Creek 30 9 7 3 Deep 10 8 Snowville Pilot Spring Creek Emigrant T. Spring 14

MOUNTAINS 30 N. Crystal Spring RIVER Tenmile C U R L E W V A L L E Y

Creek RAFT 6 4 T. BLACK BUTTE 13 N. CEDAR HILL WILDCAT HILLS MOUNTAINS 30

2 5

Creek

HANSEL

Deep T. 41° 12 45' N. Kelton 1

Locomotive Springs West Lake Mud flat Mud flat East Lake T. 11 N. Mud flat Great Salt Lake

R. 11 W. R. 10 W. R. 9 W. R. 8 W. Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles EXPLANATION Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers Approximate boundary of basin-fill deposits (2) Observation well—Number in parentheses refers to number of wells at that site 1 Observation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 3 Spring

Figure 2. Location of wells in Curlew Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 9

23 1

24 (B-12-9)30cda-1 414411112543701

26 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

27 130 2 140 (B-12-11)5bbb-1 414813113075401 150 No record 160

WATER LEVEL, WATER 170 IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

180 60 3 (B-14-8)5ddd-1 415757112455901 80

100 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

120 115 4 (B-13-10)11dcd-1 415151112565001

120 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

125 84 5 (B-13-10)34ddc-1 85 414818112575001

87 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 3. Relation of water level in selected wells in Curlew Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oakley, Idaho, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells. 10 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

249 6 250 (B-13-11)10cdc-1 415151113052401 251

252

253 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 254 255 150 7 160 (B-14-9)7bbb-1 415754112551301 No record 170 180 190 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 200 210 160 8 162 (B-14-9)9add-1 415703112514501 164 166 168 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 170 172 50 9 52 (B-14-8)1ddd-1 415810112412001 54

56 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 58

60 210 10 (B-14-10)15bbc-1 215 415654112584501

220

225 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

230

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

+10 Oakley, Idaho 0 1930–2012 average annual precipitation 11.0 inches

-10

-20 IN INCHES

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -30

-40 50 1963–2012 average annual withdrawal 28,000 acre-feet

25 WITHDRAWAL, OF ACRE-FEET IN THOUSANDS

0 3,200 (B-12-11)8abb-1 Not sampled in 2012 2,800 414710113071601 3 miles north of Kelton No record 2,400 2,000 Sum of constituents 1,600 Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius 1,200 Calculated from specific conductance 800 1,200 (B-14-9)5bbb-1 1,000 415847112540401 10 miles west of Snowville

CONCENTRATION OF CONCENTRATION 800 DISSOLVED SOLIDS, IN DISSOLVED MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

600 Sum of constituents Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius 400 Calculated from specific conductance

200

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Cache Valley

By V. Noah Derrick Cache Valley covers about 450 square miles in Cache Total discharge of the Logan River (combined flow from County where it is bounded on the east by the Bear River the Logan River above State Dam, near Logan, and Logan, Range and on the southwest by the Wellsville Mountains Hyde Park, and Smithfield Canal at Head, near Logan) during (fig. 4). Groundwater occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill 2012 was about 140,000 acre-feet, which is 184,000 acre-feet deposits in the valley, under both water-table and artesian less than the 2011 total of 324,000 acre-feet and 41,000 conditions. Recharge to the groundwater system occurs acre-feet less than the 1941–2012 average annual discharge. principally along the margins of the valley, and groundwater Precipitation at Logan, Utah State University, was about 15.7 moves toward the center of the valley and west toward Cache inches in 2012. This is about 7.8 inches less than for 2011 and Junction. about 2.6 inches less than the average annual precipitation for Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Cache 1930–2012. Valley in 2012 was about 38,000 acre-feet, which is 8,000 Water levels throughout the valley generally declined from acre-feet more than in 2011 and 7,000 acre-feet more than the March 2012 to March 2013. Declines are probably the result average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). of increased withdrawals for irrigation and public-supply Withdrawal for irrigation was 17,300 acre-feet, of which an use, and less-than-average precipitation. Water levels have estimated 12,000 acre-feet was from flowing wells. Irrigation fluctuated over the entire period of record, as far back as withdrawals were about 3,900 acre-feet more than in 2011. 1935 in many cases, depending on the amount and timing of Withdrawal for public supply was 13,600 acre-feet, 5,300 precipitation and recharge to the unconsolidated deposits from acre-feet more than in 2011. snowmelt runoff. The location of wells in Cache Valley in which the water The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 4. collected during 1970 to 2012 from well (A-13-1)29bcd-1, The relation of the water level in selected observation wells located 1.5 miles west of Smithfield, is shown in figure 5. to total annual discharge of the Logan River near Logan, to The concentration has ranged from 223 to 278 mg/L, with cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at a median value of 258 mg/L. The water sample collected Logan, Utah State University, to annual withdrawal from in August 2012 had a dissolved-solids concentration of wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from 265 mg/L, slightly greater than the median value. well (A-13-1)29bcd-1 is shown in figure 5. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 13

112°00' IDAHO 111°52'30'' 42°00' (2) 8 UTAH

Lewiston CornishCache 61

23 River Canal T. 14 N. 7

Cub

Clarkston Richmond

Y VALLE

CACHE COUNTY BOX ELDER COUNTY

Bear 142

Newton T. 13 N. River

218 5 RANGE Cache Smithfield Junction 6 R. 2 W. 10

4 Hyde Park 89 3 Cutler 91 RIVER T. 12 N.

Reservoir CACHE

Logan 9 Logan 30 23

River

Mendon Little BEAR

Bear Providence WELLSVILLE 89 101 T. 11 N. River

Blacksmith

MOUNTAINS 2 1 10 Wellsville Hyrum Fork

Hyrum Reservoir

T. 10 N. 165 EXPLANATION Little

Approximate boundary of basin-fill deposits Paradise Observation well Bear 8 (2) Observation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 5. Number in parentheses refers to number of wells at that site River 89 Mantua Reservoir T. 9 N. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles 41°30' 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers R. 1 W. Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983 R. 1 E.

Figure 4. Location of wells in Cache Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013. 14 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

110 1 (A-11-1)27cdc-1 413924111493501 120

130 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

140 15 2 (B-11-1)35cca-1 413840111552601 10

5 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE

0 20 3 (A-12-1)17daa-1 18 414642111511401

16 No record

WATER LEVEL, WATER 12 IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE

10 20 4 (B-12-1)8cdb-2 15 414721111590001

5 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE

0 0 5

5 No record

10 (A-13-1)29adc-1 415023111512901 15 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 5. Relation of water level in selected wells in Cache Valley to total annual discharge of the Logan River near Logan, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Logan, Utah State University, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (A-13-1)29bcd-1. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 15

26 6 (B-13-1)30acc-1 24 415008111593901 22 20

18 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE 16 14 15 7 (A-14-1)22bad-1 10 415638111493601

5 No record 0 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET ABOVE OR IN FEET -5 BELOW (-) LAND SURFACE 7 8 (B-15-1)34ccc-1 8 415926111571301

10 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

11 45 9 (A-12-1)31dab-2 414409111523502 40

30 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE

25 0 10 5 (A-12-1)3bbb-1 414857111495801 10 15 20 25 WATER LEVEL, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE 30 35

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

+25 Logan, Utah State University 0 1930–2012 average annual precipitation 18.3 inches

-25 IN INCHES

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -50

-75 500 1941–2012 average 10109001 Combined discharge of Logan River above State Dam annual discharge 400 and Logan, Hyde Park and Smithfield Canal 181,000 acre-feet at Head, near Logan, Utah 300

200 DISCHARGE, OF ACRE-FEET IN THOUSANDS 100

0 40 1963–2012 average annual withdrawal 29,000 acre-feet 30

10 WITHDRAWAL, OF ACRE-FEET IN THOUSANDS

0 280 (A-13-1)29bcd-1 415020111520401 260 1.5 miles west of Smithfield

Sum of constituents 240 Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius Calculated from specific conductance CONCENTRATION OF CONCENTRATION DISSOLVED SOLIDS, IN DISSOLVED MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 220

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

East Shore Area

By Martel J. Fisher The East Shore area is in north-central Utah between the Precipitation at Pineview Dam in 2012 was about 23.9 Wasatch Range and Great Salt Lake within Davis, Weber, and inches, which is about 6.7 inches less than the average annual Box Elder Counties (fig. 6). Groundwater occurs in unconsoli- precipitation for 1949–2012 and about 13.8 inches less than in dated basin-fill deposits under both water-table and artesian 2011. conditions, but most of the water withdrawn by wells is from Water levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 in the artesian aquifers. Water enters the artesian aquifers along most of the wells measured in the East Shore area. Declines the contact between the Wasatch Range and the eastern edge are probably due to increased withdrawal for public-supply of the basin-fill deposits, and generally moves westward use and less-than-average precipitation. Water levels have gen- toward Great Salt Lake. erally declined since the mid-1980s in wells south of Kaysville Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in the East in the East Shore area and have generally declined since the Shore area in 2012 was about 46,000 acre-feet, which is 9,000 mid-1950s in wells north of Kaysville. acre-feet more than was reported for 2011 and the same as the The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). collected from well (B-4-2)27aba-1, 2.3 miles south-southeast Withdrawal for public supply was 30,600 acre-feet in 2012, of Syracuse, from 1969 to 2012, is shown in figure 7. The about 9,600 acre-feet more than in 2011. Withdrawal for irri- median concentration during this period was 399 mg/L. From gation was about 7,000 acre-feet, which is 200 acre-feet less 1969 to 1993, dissolved-solids concentration in water samples than was reported for 2011. Withdrawal for industrial use was ranged from 287 to 633 mg/L. Dissolved-solids concentration about 3,800 acre-feet, which was the same as in 2011. in water samples collected from 1995 to 2012 were much less The location of wells in the East Shore area in which the variable, ranging from 362 to 399 mg/L. The dissolved-solids water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in concentration in the water sample collected in June 2012 figure 6. The relation of the water level in selected observation (367 mg/L) was similar to the median concentration. wells to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Pineview Dam, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (B-4-2)27aba-1 is shown in figure 7. 18 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

112°15' 112°00'

12 EXPLANATION Willard T. 8 N. Approximate boundary of basin-fill deposits Observation well 12 Observation well with corresponding Willard Bay Willard hydrograph—Number refers to Reservoir hydrograph in figure 7

BOX ELDER COUNTY 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles WEBER COUNTY T. 7 N. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 15

134 North 11 Plain City Ogden 9 89

River

West Warren 41°15' T. 6 N.

10 Ogden River Ogden Weber 126

WASATCH 134

Roy Hooper Weber T. 5 N.

Sunset WEBER COUNTY River DAVIS COUNTY 84 West Point 8 Hill Air Force Base Clearfield

RANGE Syracuse 108

7 T. 4 N. 6 89 Great Layton Salt Kaysville Lake 4 273

41°00' Antelope 5 Island T. 3 N. Farmington

Farmington Bay MORGAN COUNTY 15 1 Centerville T. 2 N. 3 Bountiful

Woods Jordan Cross

River 89 2 DAVIS COUNTY

SALT LAKE COUNTYT. 1 N. R 3 W R 2 W R 1 W R. 1 E. Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983

Figure 6. Location of wells in the East Shore area in which the water level was measured during March 2013. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 19

60 1 (B-2-1)13aab-1 50 405449111533701

40 No record 30 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE 20

10 110 2 (A-2-1)31cca-1 405135111531501 120

130 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

140 40 3 (B-2-1)24bad-10 30 405351111540801 (B-2-1)24bad-3 405351111540803 20

10 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE

0 150 4 160 (B-3-1)1bbc-1 410145111543001 170

180 190 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 200

210 10 5

(B-3-1)15aab-1 20 410007111555801 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 7. Relation of water level in selected wells in the East Shore area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Pineview Dam, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (B-4-2)27aba-1. 20 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

25 6

-25 (B-4-1)30bba-1 410337112000501

-50 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET ABOVE OR IN FEET -75 BELOW (-) LAND SURFACE 75 7 (B-4-2)20ada-1 410410112050001 50

25 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE

0 0 8 (B-5-2)33ddc-1 410704112040001 50

100 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

150 50 9 (B-6-2)5acb-2 40 411717112053301 30

20 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE 10

0 30 10 20 10 0 -10 (B-6-2)26ada-1 411348112013601

WATER LEVEL, WATER -20

IN FEET ABOVE OR IN FEET -30 BELOW (-) LAND SURFACE

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

125 11 (B-7-1)34caa-1 411755111561801

150 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

175 30 12

50 (B-8-2)23cdb-1 412439112021601 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

60 +25

-25 Pineview Dam 1949–2012 average annual IN INCHES

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -50 precipitation 30.6 inches

-75 100 1963–2012 average annual withdrawal 75 51,000 acre-feet

25 WITHDRAWAL, OF ACRE-FEET OF IN THOUSANDS

0 800 (B-4-2)27aba-1 410340112030001 600 2.3 miles south-southeast of Syracuse

400 Sum of constituents Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius Calculated from specific conductance CONCENTRATION OF CONCENTRATION DISSOLVED SOLIDS, IN DISSOLVED MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 200

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Salt Lake Valley

By Christopher M. Holt Salt Lake Valley covers about 400 square miles between from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton, the Wasatch Range and the Oquirrh and Traverse Mountains and the relation of the water level in well (D-1-1)7abd-6 to in Salt Lake County (fig. 8). Groundwater occurs in concentration of chloride and dissolved solids in water from unconsolidated deposits in the valley under water-table and the well are shown in figure 10. Precipitation at Silver Lake artesian conditions. Recharge to the aquifers occurs mainly Brighton was about 36.7 inches in 2012, which is about 8.0 along the area where the mountains border the valley. In the inches less than in 2011 and about 5.7 inches less than the southwestern part of the valley, groundwater moves from the average annual precipitation for 1931–2012. base of the Oquirrh Mountains eastward toward the Jordan Water levels declined from February 2012 to February 2013 River. In the northwestern part of the valley, the direction of in most of the wells measured in Salt Lake Valley. Declines movement is mostly toward Great Salt Lake. In the eastern half are probably the result of increased withdrawal for public of the valley, groundwater moves westward from the base of supply and industrial use, and less-than-average precipitation. the Wasatch Range toward the Jordan River. The Jordan River The water level in most of the observation wells was highest drains both surface water and groundwater from the valley. during 1985–87, which corresponds to a period of much- Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Salt Lake greater-than-average precipitation. Levels have generally Valley in 2012 was about 167,000 acre-feet, which is 41,000 declined since 1987. acre-feet more than in 2011 and 34,000 acre-feet more than The concentrations of dissolved solids and dissolved the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and chloride (from 1931–2012 and 1935–2012, respectively), in 3). Withdrawal for public supply was about 107,400 acre- water samples collected from well (D-1-1)7abd-6, a flowing feet, which is 31,300 acre-feet more than the total for 2011. well at 800 South 500 East in Salt Lake City, are shown in Withdrawal for industrial use was about 37,000 acre-feet, figure 10. The concentration of dissolved solids has ranged which is 9,600 acre-feet more than the total for 2011. from 554 to 879 mg/L with a median value of 695 mg/L. The location of wells in Salt Lake Valley in which the water The concentration of dissolved solids generally increased level was measured during February 2013 is shown in figure from 576 mg/L in December 1931 to 879 mg/L in July 2009. 8. Estimated population of Salt Lake County, total annual The dissolved-solids concentration in July 2012 (874 mg/L) withdrawal from wells, annual withdrawal for public supply, increased 43 mg/L from July 2011. The dissolved chloride and average annual precipitation at the Salt Lake City Weather concentration generally increased from 52 mg/L in July 1935 Service Office (International Airport) are shown in figure 9. to 194 mg/L in July 2012, with a median value of 120 mg/L. Precipitation at Salt Lake City during 2012 was about 12.8 The dissolved chloride concentration increased only slightly (9 inches, about 6.3 inches less than in 2011 and about 2.5 inches mg/L) from August 2011 to July 2012. less than the average annual precipitation for 1931–2012. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells completed in the principal aquifer to cumulative departure Major Areas of Groundwater Development 23

112°00' EXPLANATION Approximate boundary of basin-fill deposits Observation well T. 2 N. 2 Observation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 10

111°45' DAVIS COUNTY

SALT LAKE COUNTY

2 Salt Lake City municipal boundary T. 1 N.

112°15' Great Salt 1 Lake 80 Salt Lake City Tailings pond 186 40°45' 12

3 201 5 T. 1 S.

Magna RANGE

215 15 4 SALT LAKE COUNTY

TOOELE COUNTY SALT Holladay 8 Murray

Kearns 7 111 T. 2 S. 6 215 MOUNTAINS LAKE 68 WASATCH Midvale

Sandy 48 River 10 VALLEY 209 89 9 T. 3 S. OQUIRRH

Lark Jordan

Herriman 111 71 Riverton Draper

40°30' 11

SALT LAKE COUNTY UTAH COUNTYT. 4 S. R. 3 W. R. 1 E. MOUNTAINS R. 2 W. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 TRAVERSE Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 R. 1 W. Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983

Figure 8. Location of wells in Salt Lake Valley in which the water level was measured during February 2013. 24 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

1,200

1,000

800

600 400 ESTIMATED POPULATION, IN THOUSANDS 200 No record 0 250 Total annual withdrawal 200 1931–2012 total average annual withdrawal 100,000 acre-feet Public supply annual withdrawal 1963–2012 average annual withdrawal for public supply 150 65,600 acre-feet

100

WITHDRAWAL, 50 OF ACRE-FEET IN THOUSANDS

0 30 Salt Lake City Weather Service Office (International Airport) 1931–2012 average annual precipitation 15.3 inches 20

10 IN INCHES PRECIPITATION, 0

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 9. Estimated population of Salt Lake County, total annual withdrawal from wells, annual withdrawal for public supply, and average annual precipitation at Salt Lake City Weather Service Office (International Airport). Major Areas of Groundwater Development 25

130 1 140

150

160 (A-1-1)31cac-1 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 170 404627111532601 No record 180 18 2 16 (B-1-2)19aca-1 404826112062201 14 12

10 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE 8 6 40 3 (D-1-1)16caa-1 404356111503901 50

70 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

80 250 4 (D-2-1)2bbb-3 260 404055111485001

270

280 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 290

300 8 5 6 (C-1-2)22bdd-4 404306112031201 4 No record 2 0 -2

WATER LEVEL, WATER -4

IN FEET ABOVE OR IN FEET -6 BELOW (-) LAND SURFACE

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 10. Relation of water level in selected wells completed in the principal aquifer in Salt Lake Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton, and relation of water level in well (D-1-1)7abd-6 to concentration of chloride and dissolved solids in water from the well. 26 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

50 6 60 (D-2-1)21bca-1 403803111505301 70

80 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 90

100 10 7 (C-2-1)13dad-2 403833111532802 20

30 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

40 60 8 (C-2-2)9bdb-1 70 403949112043301

90 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

100 60 9 (D-3-1)18cba-1 70 403330111531601

90 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

100 35 10 40 (C-3-1)1cab-2 403511111541501 45

50 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 55

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

15 11 20 (C-4-1)3bad-1 403020111561901 25

35 WATER LEVEL , IN FEET BELO W LAND SURFAC E 40 45 +50 Silver Lake Brighton 1931–2012 average annual precipitation 42.4 inches 0

IN INCHE S -50 CUMULATIV E DEPARTURE ,

-100 15 12 (D-1-1)7abd-6 404506111523301 10

5 Flowing well at 800 South 500 East in Salt Lake City WATER LEVEL , IN FEET ABOVE LAND SURFAC E

0 200 (D-1-1)7abd-6 160 404506111523301 Flowing well at 800 South 500 East in Salt Lake City

120

CHLORIDE, I N 80 No record CONCENTRATION O F MILLIGRAMS PER LITE R 40 900 N

(D-1-1)7abd-6 800 404506111523301 Flowing well at 800 South 500 East in Salt Lake City 700 No record No record 600 Sum of constituents Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius Calculated from specific conductance

CONCENTRATION O F 500 DISSOLVED SOLIDS, I MILLIGRAMS PER LITE R

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Tooele Valley

By Paul Downhour Tooele Valley lies between the Stansbury and Oquirrh to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Mountains and extends south from Great Salt Lake to South Tooele, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentra- Mountain. The total area of the valley is about 250 square tion of dissolved solids in water from well (C-2-4)33bdd-1 is miles within Tooele County (fig. 11). Groundwater occurs in shown in figure 12. Precipitation at Tooele during 2012 was the bedrock and unconsolidated basin-fill deposits in Tooele about 15.0 inches, which is about 4.9 inches less than in 2011 Valley under both water-table and artesian conditions, but and about 2.9 inches less than the average annual precipitation most of the water withdrawn by wells is from artesian aquifers for 1936–2012. in the unconsolidated deposits. Water levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Tooele in most of the wells measured in Tooele Valley. The largest Valley in 2012 was about 30,000 acre-feet, which is about decline, about 3.2 feet, was observed in a well about 4 miles 9,000 acre-feet more than the total for 2011 and 7,000 acre- west of Stansbury Park. Declines are probably the result of feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 increased withdrawals for irrigation and public-supply use, (tables 2 and 3). Withdrawal for irrigation was about 14,200 and less-than-average precipitation. acre-feet, which is 3,100 acre-feet more than the total for The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples col- 2011. Withdrawal for public supply was about 13,500 acre- lected from well (C-2-4)33bdd-1, located at Erda, from 1977 feet, which is 6,100 acre-feet more than in 2011. Withdrawal to 2012, is shown in figure 12. The concentration has ranged for industrial use was about 800 acre-feet, which is 300 acre- from 456 to 616 mg/L with a median value of 509 mg/L. The feet less than in 2011. maximum concentration was measured in the water sample The location of wells in Tooele Valley in which the water collected during July 2012. The dissolved-solids concentration level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 11. has generally increased since 1977. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells Major Areas of Groundwater Development 29

112°30' 112°15'

SALT LAKE COUNTY

TOOELE COUNTY 40°45' 80

Intermittent Solar Boat Harbor waterbody evaporation ponds Great Salt Lake 201

80 T 1 S

Union Pacific 36 31 36 1 31 Canal Road 1 6 5 1 6 36 Ezra Taft Intermittent Lake Point

MOUNTAINS waterbody Factory Dunne 138 Springs

Burmeste r Mill Warm Stansbury Pond Springs Creek Lake Mill Pond Spring T 2 S 6 Canal 138 Stansbury MOUNTAINS Fishing Creek Park 3 Not measured in 2013

Sixmile Sixmile 2 Rose 36 Spring Spring Fishing Creek 4 Erda 36 7 31 Spring 36 31 (3) 31 Grantsville 1 6 1 6 8 1 6

STANSBURY TOOELE 10

VALLEY T 3 S Grantsville Tooele 11 Big reservoir OQUIRRH Spring Tooele 9 112 Army Depot 36 31 (TEAD) 36 31 36 31

40°30' 1 6 1 6 1 6

T 4 S South Mountain

Rush Stockton Lake R. 6 W. R. 5 W. R. 4 W. R. 3 W. Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers Approximate boundary of basin-fill deposits (3) Observation well—Number in parentheses refers to number of wells at that site 9 Observation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 12

Figure 11. Location of wells in Tooele Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013. 30 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

25 1 (C-2-4)2baa-3 20 404054112155901

10 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE

5 10 2 0 (C-2-4)27cdc-1 403634112171501 -10

-20

WATER LEVEL, WATER -30

IN FEET ABOVE OR IN FEET -40 BELOW (-) LAND SURFACE 40 3 (C-2-4)28aac-1 403716112174801 Not measured in March 2013 50

60 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

70 40 4 (C-2-4)31ada-1 30 403613112200101

10 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE

0 1 5 (C-2-5)5acc-3 0 404024112261801

-1

-2 WATER LEVEL, WATER -3 IN FEET ABOVE OR IN FEET BELOW (-) LAND SURFACE

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 12. Relation of water level in selected wells in Tooele Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Tooele, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-2-4)33bdd-1. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 31

14 6 (C-2-5)20acc-1 12 403748112261201

8 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE

6 70 7

100 (C-2-6)36dcc-1 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 403539112282901 110 180 8 (C-3-4)9aaa-1 403447112173801 200

220 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

240 350 9 (C-3-4)30aac-1 403202112200001 375

400 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

425 190 10

200 (C-3-5)7dcc-1 403350112271801

210

220 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

230

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

210 11 (C-3-5)22dab-1 220 403234112232601

230

240 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

250 +25 Tooele 0 1936–2012 average annual precipitation 17.9 inches

-25 IN INCHES

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -50

-75 40 1963–2012 average annual withdrawal 30 25,000 acre-feet

10 WITHDRAWAL, OF ACRE-FEET IN THOUSANDS

0 650 (C-2-4)33bdd-1 600 403629112174801 at Erda No record No record 550

500 Sum of constituents Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius 450 Calculated from specific conductance CONCENTRATION OF CONCENTRATION DISSOLVED SOLIDS, IN DISSOLVED

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 400

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Utah and Goshen Valleys

By Lincoln Smith Utah Valley is bounded by the Wasatch Range, West with many dating back to 1935. From March 2005 to March Mountain, and the northern extension of Long Ridge. The 2007, most water levels in Utah and Goshen Valleys rose as a Valley is divided into two groundwater basins, northern and result of average to greater-than-average precipitation in 2005 southern, which are separated by Provo Bay in northern Utah and 2006, following 6 years of less-than-average precipitation. Valley (fig. 13). Goshen Valley is bounded by West Mountain, The relation of the water level in selected observation wells Long Ridge, the Lake Mountains, and the East Tintic Moun- to cumulative departure from average precipitation at Silver tains (fig. 13). Groundwater in Utah and Goshen Valleys Lake Brighton and Spanish Fork Power House, to total annual occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits under both withdrawal from wells, to annual withdrawal for public water-table and artesian conditions, but most wells discharge supply, to annual discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla, and to from artesian aquifers. The principal groundwater recharge concentration of dissolved solids in water from three wells is area for the basin-fill deposits is in the eastern part of the shown in figure 14. Discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla in valley, along the base of the Wasatch Range. 2012 was about 159,800 acre-feet, which is 10,600 acre-feet Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Utah and less than the 1933–2012 annual average and 127,700 acre-feet Goshen Valleys in 2012 was about 122,000 acre-feet, which is less than in 2011. Precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton in 32,000 acre-feet more than the revised value for 2011, and 2012 was about 36.7 inches, which is about 5.7 inches less 17,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for than the long-term average (1931–2012) and about 8.0 inches 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). Withdrawal in northern Utah less than in 2011. Precipitation at Spanish Fork Power House Valley was about 63,700 acre-feet, which is 18,300 acre-feet in 2012 was about 16.2 inches, which is about 3.1 inches less more than the revised value for 2011. Withdrawal in southern than the long-term average (1930–2012) and about 8.8 inches Utah Valley was about 36,900 acre-feet, which is 8,800 less than in 2011. acre-feet more than in 2011. Withdrawal in Goshen Valley was The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples about 21,500 acre-feet, which is 4,600 acre-feet more than in collected from wells (C-9-1)28ccb-1, located 4 miles north of 2011. The increase in total pumpage from all three valleys was Elberta, (D-7-2)4cbb-2, located 2 miles west of Provo at the mainly due to increased withdrawals for public-supply use. mouth of the Provo River, and (D-9-1)36bbc-1, located 1 mile The location of wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys in which north of Santaquin, is shown in figure 14. The concentration of the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in dissolved solids in water from well (C-9-1)28ccb-1 has ranged figure 13. Water levels declined from March 2012 to March from 498 to 1,550 mg/L with a median value of 716 mg/L. 2013 in most of the wells measured in Utah and Goshen The concentration of dissolved solids in the July 2012 sample Valleys. Declines are probably due to increased pumpage (1,550 mg/L), is the maximum value measured in water from because of less-than-average precipitation and decreased this well. The dissolved-solids concentration in water from availability of surface water. Water levels in Utah and Goshen well (D-7-2)4cbb-2 has ranged from 278 to 539 mg/L with a Valleys generally rose in the early 1980s. The rise corresponds median value of 321 mg/L. Water collected from this well in to a period of greater-than-average precipitation and recharge July 2012 had a dissolved-solids concentration of 328 mg/L, from surface water. Water levels generally declined from 1985 near the median value. The dissolved-solids concentration in to 1993 in Utah Valley and generally rose from 1993 to 1998. water from well (D-9-1)36bbc-1 has ranged from 153 to This rise is the result of greater-than-average precipitation 311 mg/L with a median value of 286 mg/L. The concentration during this period. Water levels generally declined throughout of dissolved solids in the July 2012 sample (311 mg/L), is the Utah Valley from March 1999 to March 2005. During this maximum value measured in water from this well. period, water levels in some wells were the lowest on record, 34 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

111°45'

TRAVERSE Alpine MOUNTAINS T. 4 S.

92 Not measured in 2013 Jordan Creek 112°00' 2 Fork SALT LAKE COUNTY Dry WASATCH

UTAH COUNTY River 1 Lehi 74

American American (2) 73 Fork 146 3 (2) T. 5 S. 6 4 Pleasant Grove 68 5 15 RANGE Lindon

114 Orem T. 6 S. Pelican Point 7 78 Provo 40°15' River WASATCH

Provo S LAKE MOUNTAIN LAKE Utah Lake 89 T. 7 S. Provo Bay

8 RANGE 9 Springville Spanish Hobble Palmyra Creek Mapleton Fork Spanish Lake Fork Benjamin Shore Slough T. 8 S. Goshen Bay VALLEY

Benjamin 10

147 Beer MOUNTAIN Creek 14 11

WEST 6 Salem UTAHPayson Spring Creek R. 3 E. 68

RANGE T. 9 S. 12 40°00' Genola Spring 13 Lake

VALLEY Santaquin WASATCH Elberta 6 Goshen (2) 15 Goshen Summit T. 10 S.

Reservoir

Currant MERIDIAN LAKE SALT EXPLANATION

S Creek R. 1 E. Approximate boundary of basin-fill deposits R. 2 E. (2) Observation well—Number in parentheses Creek Ridge refers to number of wells at that site

0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

MOUNTAIN C EAST TINTI EAST GOSHEN15 Long 13 Observation well with corresponding R. 1 W. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers hydrograph—Number refers to Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 hydrograph in figure 14 Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983

Figure 13. Location of wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys in which the water level was measured during March 2013. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 35

) 5 – 1

E 0 (D-5-1)8dcc-1 402333111513401 –5 –10 –15 –20

LAND SURFAC –25 ABOVE OR BELOW (

WATER LEVEL, IN FEET –30 250 2

E (D-4-1)36cab-1 Not measured in March 2013

W 275 402550111471801 300 325

350 WATER LEVEL , IN FEET BELO LAND SURFAC 375 400 30 3 E E (C-5-1)13dac-5 402246111532701 20 No record

10 WATER LEVEL , IN FEET ABOV LAND SURFAC

0 50 4 E E 40

No record 30 (D-5-1)20cbc-1 No record 402159111520101 20 WATER LEVEL , IN FEET ABOV LAND SURFAC

10 40 5 E

E (D-5-1)27aac-1 402133111484601 35

No record

30 WATER LEVEL , IN FEET ABOV LAND SURFAC

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 14. Relation of water level in selected wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton and Spanish Fork Power House, to total annual withdrawal from wells, to annual withdrawal for public supply, to annual discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from three wells. 36 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

150 6 (D-5-2)21cba-1 160 402215111434701

170 No record 180 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 190

200 20 7

10 No record

0 (D-6-2)28bad-1 401621111432501

-10 20 8 (D-7-3)33baa-6 15

WATER LEVEL, WATER 401021111362701

IN FEET ABOVE OR IN FEET 10 BELOW (-) LAND SURFACE 5

-5 12 9 (D-7-2)34dcd-1 10 400932111415101

8 No record

6 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE 4

2 10 10 (D-8-2)25dac-3 20 400527111392401

40 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 50

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Figure 14. Relation of water level in selected wells in Utah and Goshen Valleys to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Silver Lake Brighton and Spanish Fork Power House, to total annual withdrawal from wells, to annual withdrawal for public supply, to annual discharge of Spanish Fork at Castilla, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from three wells.— Continued Major Areas of Groundwater Development 37

75 11 (C-9-1)4ddc-1 80 400309111565101 85

90 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 95

100 200 12 (C-9-1)29acc-1 210 400015111575301

220

230

WATER LEVEL, WATER 240 IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

250 70 13 80 (D-9-1)36bbc-1 395942111470801 90 100 110 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 120 130 35 14 30 (D-9-2)2dad-2 400341111402101 25 20 15 10 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE 5 0 200 15 210 (C-10-1)31cdd-1 395340111590001 220 230 240 250 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 260 270

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

+50 Silver Lake Brighton 1931–2012 average annual precipitation 42.4 inches 0

-50

-100 +25 Spanish Fork Power House 0 1930–2012 average annual precipitation 19.3 inches

-25

-50

DEPARTURE, IN INCHES DEPARTURE, CUMULATIVE -75

-100 200 Total annual withdrawal 1963–2012 total average annual withdrawal 99,000 acre-feet 150 Public supply withdrawal 1963–2012 average annual withdrawal for public supply 30,900 acre-feet 100

50 WITHDRAWAL, OF ACRE-FEET OF IN THOUSANDS

0 400 10150500 Spanish Fork at Castilla, Utah T 300 1933–2012 average annual discharge 170,400 acre-feet

200 ACRE-FEE THOUSANDS

DISCHARGE, 100 OF IN

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

1,600 Sum of constituents Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius 1,200 Calculated from specific conductance No record

800 (C-9-1)28ccb-1 395956111572101 4 miles north of Elberta 400 600 Sum of constituents 500 Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius Calculated from specific conductance 400 No record (D-7-2)4cbb-2 300 401414111435301 2 miles west of Provo at mouth of Provo River 200 DISSOLVED SOLIDS, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER DISSOLVED 350 (D-9-1)36bbc-1 No record 300 395942111470801 1 mile north of Santaquin 250

200 Sum of constituents Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius 150 Calculated from specific conductance CONCENTRATION OF CONCENTRATION 100

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Juab Valley

By Robert J. Eacret Juab Valley, in central Utah, is about 30 miles long and The location of wells in Juab Valley in which the water about 4 miles wide. It is bounded on the east side by the level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 15. Wasatch Range and the San Pitch Mountains, and on the west The relation of the water level in selected observation wells side by the West Hills and Long Ridge (fig. 15). Groundwater to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at drains from the valley in two directions—in northern Juab Nephi and to annual withdrawal from wells, is shown in figure Valley it drains north via Currant Creek into Utah Lake, and in 16. Precipitation at Nephi during 2012 was about 10.6 inches, southern Juab Valley it drains south via Chicken Creek into the which is about 3.7 inches less than the average annual precipi- Sevier River. The northern and southern parts of Juab Valley tation for 1935–2012, and about 1.8 inches less than in 2011. are separated topographically and hydrologically by Levan Water levels declined in all of the wells measured in Juab Ridge, a gentle rise near the midpoint of the valley floor. Valley from March 2012 to March 2013 (fig. 16). Declines are Groundwater in Juab Valley occurs in the unconsolidated probably the result of increased withdrawal for irrigation and basin-fill deposits under both water-table and artesian condi- less-than-average precipitation. Water levels generally rose tions; artesian conditions are prevalent in the southern part of from 1978 to their highest level in 1985–87. This rise corre- the valley. Most of the recharge to the groundwater reservoir sponds to a period of greater-than-average precipitation during occurs on the eastern side of the valley along the Wasatch 1978–86. Water levels generally declined from the late 1980s Range and the San Pitch Mountains. Groundwater moves to 2012, although there was a substantial rise from 1993 to to discharge points at the northern and southern ends of the 1999. valley. The groundwater divide between the northern and The concentration of dissolved solids in water from well southern parts of Juab Valley is near Levan Ridge. (C-14-1)26dbd-1, located 2 miles west of Levan, is shown in Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Juab Val- figure 16 (this well replaces (C-12-1)24baa-1). The dissolved- ley in 2012 was about 28,000 acre-feet, which is 13,000 acre- solids concentration in two water samples, collected in August feet more than the amount reported for 2011 and 5,000 acre- 2011 and August 2012, were 772 and 811 mg/L, respectively. feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). Major Areas of Groundwater Development 41

Currant 31 T. 10 S. 111°55' 36 6 1 1 6 Creek EXPLANATION 111°45' Approximate boundary of basin-fill deposits 5 Observation well UTAH COUNTY 28 JUAB COUNTY Reservoir T. 5 Observation well with corresponding Mona 11 hydrograph—Number refers to Reservoir 6 S. hydrograph in figure 16 Mona

RANGE Spring 39°50' 1 15

0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles 36 31 36 RIDGE Mona 31 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers 6 6 6 1 1

WASATCH

Creek

LONG

T. 12 S.

Currant

31 31 36 31 36

Nephi 1 6 132 6 6 1 VALLEY 8 132 2 T. 13 S.

31 36 31 31 36 Levan Ridge 6 6 1 6 1 9 HILLS

SAN PITCH MOUNTAINS

T. 14 S. WEST

JUAB 28

15 3 Levan

31 31 31 36 Chicken 10 36 Creek 6 1 6 1 6 1

4 Levan Peak 8,330 feet

Deep Creek 39°30' T. 15 S. Chicken Creek Reservoir

Little

Salt Creek 31 36 31 36 31 36 R. 2 E. R. 2 W. R. 1 W. R. 1 E. Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983

Figure 15. Location of wells in Juab Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013. 42 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

23 1 24 (C-11-1)24ddd-1 25 395008111524101 26 27 28 29 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 30 31 0 2 10 (D-13-1)18bbc-1 20 394112111522401 30 40 50 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 60 70 20 3 (C-14-1)27aaa-1 393418111543701 30

40 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

50 20 4 (C-15-1)12aba-1 40 393143111523301

80 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

100 25 5 (D-11-1)4cad-1 395259111405701

No record 50 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 16. Relation of water level in selected wells in Juab Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Nephi, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-14-1)26dbd-1. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 43

20 6 30 (D-11-1)17cdd-1 395101111510001 40 50 60 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 70 80

) 50 – 7

E (D-12-1)19cdc-1 394455111520701 25 No record

0 LAND SURFAC ABOVE OR BELOW ( WATER LEVEL, IN FEET –25 10 8 (D-13-1)7bbd-2 20 394204111521901

40 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 50

60 140 9 (D-14-1)6dbb-1 160 393721111514501

180

200 No record WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

220 120 10 140 (D-14-1)31dab-1 393301111512501 160 180 200 220 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 240 260

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

+25 Nephi 1935–2012 average annual precipitation 14.3 inches 0

–25 IN INCHES

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, Station located 5 miles south-southwest of Nephi prior to 1942 –50 40 1963–2012 average annual withdrawal 21,000 acre-feet 30

10 WITHDRAWAL, OF ACRE-FEET IN THOUSANDS

0 900 (C-14-1)26dbd-1 850 (C-12-1)24baa-1 394545111531001 393342111534501 2 miles west of Levan 800 4.5 miles north-northwest of Nephi 750 Sum of constituents Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius 700 Calculated from specific conductance No record 650 CONCENTRATION OF CONCENTRATION DISSOLVED SOLIDS, IN DISSOLVED

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 600

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 16. Relation of water level in selected wells in Juab Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Neph, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-14-1)26dbd-1.—Continued Major Areas of Groundwater Development 45

Sevier Desert

By Travis L. Gibson The part of the Sevier Desert described here covers about Most water levels in the shallow artesian aquifer rose or 2,000 square miles in northern Millard and southern Juab declined less than 1 foot from March 2012 to March 2013. Counties (figs. 17 and 18). It principally includes the broad, These minor changes were probably due to fluctuations in gently sloping areas that radiate from the Canyon Mountains localized pumping. The water level in most wells in the to the east, the Drum Mountains to the west, and several non- deep artesian aquifer rose from March 2012 to March 2013 continuous mountains to the north. Groundwater occurs in the in spite of increased groundwater withdrawals, less-than- Sevier Desert in unconsolidated deposits under water-table average precipitation, and decreased discharge of the Sevier and artesian conditions. Most of the groundwater is discharged River during this period. The rise in water levels may be the from wells completed in either of two artesian aquifers—the result of persistent recharge of the deep artesian aquifer from shallow or deep artesian aquifer. The Sevier River enters the the greater-than-average precipitation that occurred during Sevier Desert from the east and is a source of recharge to the the winter of 2010-2011 and less-than-average groundwater aquifers. withdrawals in 2011. Some water levels declined in the deep Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in the artesian aquifer from March 2012 to March 2013. This may Sevier Desert in 2012 was about 24,000 acre-feet, which is have been due to localized groundwater withdrawals for 4,000 acre-feet more than in 2011 and about 10,000 acre-feet irrigation. less than the 2002-2011 average annual withdrawal (tables Periods when the water level in the shallow and deep 2 and 3). The increase in withdrawals from 2011 to 2012 aquifers generally rose (including 1980–89, 1995–99, was mainly due to increased pumpage for irrigation, which 2006–07, and since 2010) correspond to greater-than-average coincides with decreased withdrawal of surface water from the precipitation, less-than-average groundwater withdrawals, Sevier River. and greater than average discharge of the Sevier River. The location of wells in the Sevier Desert in which the Periods when the water level in the shallow and deep aquifers water level was measured during March 2013 is shown in generally declined (including 1988–94, 2001–05, and 2008– figures 17 and 18. The relation of the water level in selected 10) correspond to less-than-average precipitation, greater- observation wells to annual discharge of the Sevier River than-average groundwater withdrawals, and less-than-average near Juab, to cumulative departure from average annual discharge of the Sevier River. precipitation at Oak City, to annual withdrawal from wells, The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well collected from well (C-15-4)8cba-1, located 2.5 miles east (C-15-4)8cba-1 is shown in figure 19. of Lynndyl, from 1958 to 2011, is shown in figure 19. The Discharge of the Sevier River near Juab in 2012 was concentration has ranged from 1,490 to 2,340 mg/L, with a 261,900 acre-feet, 125,000 acre-feet less than in 2011 median value of 2,030 mg/L. This well was not sampled in and 80,500 acre-feet more than the long-term average 2012. (1935–2012). Precipitation at Oak City was about 11.2 inches in 2012, about 1.8 inches less than the 1930–2012 average annual precipitation and about 5.4 inches less than in 2011. 46 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

113°00' 112°15' WEST TINTIC 1 MOUNTAINS DESERT 39°45' MOUNTAIN Creek T. 12 S.

EAST TINTIC Creek MOUNTAINS

KEG MOUNTAIN

Cherry Tanner 6

T. 13 S.

GILSON DESERT MOUNTAINS T. 14 S.

MOUNTAINSDRUM JUAB COUNTY MILLARD COUNTY Leamington Lynndyl 3 4 Central Canal Utah T. 15 S. SEVIER 5 174 Fool Creek Reservoir LITTLE DRUM 6 MOUNTAINS River 7 8 125 T. 16 S. 99 Sevier DMAD Reservoir Oak City MOUNTAINS 10 Gunnison Oak Bend 125 Creek Reservoir Delta 50 T. 17 S. Hinkley

Deseret Oasis CANYON 9 257

39°15' River T. 18 S. 6

Sevier Beaver T. 19 S.

River Union Pacific Clear Lake R. 11 W. R. 10 W. R. 8 W. R. 9 W. R. 7 W. R. 6 W. R. 5 W. Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 R. 4 W. R. 3 W. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION 0 2 4 6 8 10 Kilometers Approximate boundary of basin-fill deposits Observation well 9 Observation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 19

Figure 17. Location of wells in the shallow artesian aquifer in part of the Sevier Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 47

113°00' 112°15' WEST TINTIC MOUNTAINS DESERT MOUNTAIN 39°45' Creek T. 12 S.

EAST TINTIC Creek MOUNTAINS

KEG MOUNTAIN

Cherry Tanner 6

T. 13 S.

GILSON DESERT MOUNTAINS T. 14 S.

MOUNTAINSDRUM JUAB COUNTY MILLARD COUNTY Leamington

Lynndyl Canal Central Utah SEVIER T. 15 S. 174 1D 125 Fool Creek LITTLE DRUM Reservoir MOUNTAINS 3D River 2D T. 16 S. 99 Sevier DMAD Reservoir Oak City MOUNTAINS Gunnison 4D Oak Bend 125 Creek Reservoir Hinkley Delta 50 T. 17 S.

Deseret Oasis CANYON

257

39°15' River 5D T. 18 S. 6

Sevier Beaver T. 19 S.

River Union Pacific Clear Lake R. 11 W. R. 10 W. R. 9 W. R. 8 W. R. 7 W. R. 6 W. Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 R. 5 W. R. 4 W. R. 3 W. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION 0 2 4 6 8 10 Kilometers Approximate boundary of basin-fill deposits Observation well 5D Observation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number with letter ‘D’ refers to deep artesian aquifer hydrograph in figure 19

Figure 18. Location of wells in the deep artesian aquifer in part of the Sevier Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013. 48 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

180 1 (C-12-6)15bac-1 190 394700112303501

200

210 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

220 12 2 14 (C-14-7)1cab-1 393758112351701 16 18 20 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 22 24 10 3 (C-15-4)8cba-1 393154112192901 No record 15

20 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

25 5 4 (C-15-7)23bac-1 393020112362201

10 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

15 220 5 (C-16-4)18bda-1 392555112203001 240

260 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

280

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 19. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Sevier Desert to annual discharge of the Sevier River near Juab, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Oak City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-15-4)8cba-1. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 49

10 6

No record

(C-16-7)1dcd-1 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE 392650112345101 0

) 5 − 7 0

−5 No record

−10 −15 (C-16-8)21bcb-1 LAND SURFACE −20 392455112454201 ABOVE OR BELOW ( WATER LEVEL, IN FEET WATER −25 0 8 (C-16-8)24baa-1 5 392505112415501

15 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

20 15 9 (C-18-6)2bbb-2 391714112300301 10

5 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE

0 0 10 (C-17-8)12bcb-1 5 392121112422401

15 WATER LEVEL, WATER LAND SURFACE IN FEET BELOW IN FEET

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

) 10 − 1D (C-15-5)26baa-1 0 392939112224101

-10 No record

-20

LAND SURFACE -30 ABOVE OR BELOW ( WATER LEVEL, IN FEET WATER -40 0 2D (C-16-5)18caa-1 10 392538112270201

30 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

40 5 3D (C-16-8)12ddd-2 10 392601112412201

WATER LEVEL, WATER 25 IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

30 0 4D (C-17-7)12aba-1 10 392129112345101

WATER LEVEL, WATER 40 IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

50 12 5D 10 (C-18-8)24ada-2 391420112412001 8

4 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE 2 0

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

+25 Oak City 0 1930–2012 average annual precipitation 13.0 inches

−25 IN INCHES

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, −50

−75 1,000 10219000 Sevier River near Juab, Utah 750 1935–2012 average annual discharge 181,400 acre-feet

500

DISCHARGE, 250 OF ACRE-FEET IN THOUSANDS

0 60 1951–2012 average annual withdrawal 50 22,000 acre-feet 40 30

20 WITHDRAWAL, OF ACRE-FEET IN THOUSANDS 10 0 2,400 (C-15-4)8cba-1 2,200 393154112192901 2.5 miles east of Lynndyl 2,000 Not sampled in 2012 No record 1,800 Sum of constituents 1,600 Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius Calculated from specific conductance CONCENTRATION OF CONCENTRATION

DISSOLVED SOLIDS, IN DISSOLVED 1,400 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Central Sevier Valley

By Bradley A. Slaugh Central Sevier Valley, located in northern Piute, Sevier, the 1940–2012 average annual discharge. Precipitation at and southern Sanpete Counties, in south-central Utah, is Richfield Radio KVSC was about 7.7 inches in 2012, which surrounded by the Sevier and Wasatch Plateaus to the east and is about 0.4 inch less than the 1950–2012 average annual the Tushar Mountains, Valley Mountains, and Pahvant Range precipitation and about 3.1 inches less than in 2011. to the west (fig. 20). Altitude ranges from 5,100 feet on the Water levels in central Sevier Valley generally declined valley floor at the north end of the valley near Gunnison to from March 2012 to March 2013. Hydrographs for selected more than 12,000 feet in the Tushar Mountains. Groundwater wells show that March water levels generally rose from about occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits under both water- 1978 to 1985 and declined from 1985 to about 1993. Since table and artesian conditions. 1993, water levels have fluctuated depending upon the amount Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in central and timing of precipitation and recharge to the basin-fill Sevier Valley in 2012 was about 28,000 acre-feet, which is aquifer from snowmelt runoff. 3,000 acre-feet less than reported for 2011 and 8,000 acre- The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 collected from well (C-23-2)15dcb-4, located 0.1 mile south of (tables 2 and 3). Sevier River in Venice, from 1955 to 2012, is shown in figure The location of 25 wells in central Sevier Valley in which 21. The concentration has ranged from 307 to 630 mg/L, with the water level was measured during March 2013 is shown a median value of 414 mg/L. There were substantial increases in figure 20. The relation of the water level in selected and decreases in dissolved-solids concentration during the observation wells to annual discharge of the Sevier River mid- to late 1960s and 1980s. Dissolved-solids concentrations at Hatch, to cumulative departure from average annual in samples collected from 1990 through 2012 show little precipitation at Richfield, to annual withdrawal from wells, variability and are generally near the median value for all and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well sample concentrations. (C-23-2)15dcb-4 is shown in figure 21. Discharge of the Sevier River at Hatch in 2012 was about 65,500 acre-feet, which is about 15,300 acre-feet less than Major Areas of Groundwater Development 53

112°00' 111°45' 111°30' 28 Yuba JUAB COUNTY T. 16 S. Dam SANPETE COUNTY Sevier Bridge Reservoir River 89 T. 17 S. Pitch

Sevier

SAN PITCH San MOUNTAINS

SANPETEVALLEYManti River MOUNTAINS 39°15' Gunnison T. 18 S. GUNNISON- Fayette Reservoir SEVIER BRIDGE Six Mile RESERVOIR Creek BASIN VALLEY

T. 19 S. 1 Gunnison PLATEAU Centerfield Twelve Creek REDMOND- Mile GUNNISON BASIN 89 T. 20 S. Axtel WASATCH SANPETE COUNTY VALLEY 2 SEVIER COUNTY 39°00' Redmond 50 AURORA- 3 T. 21 S. REDMOND Salina BASIN Aurora Salina Creek

Gooseberry 70 T. 22 S. Vermillion SEVIER SEVIER- Rocky Ford SIGURD Sigurd Reservoir BASIN Creek Lost 4 Venice Creek T. 23 S.

Richfield 38°45' RANGE Glenwood 6 112°15' 5 T. 24 S. Central Elsinore Not measured in 2013 PAHVANT 7 8 Austin Joseph Monroe T. 25 S. 9 Monroe PLATEAU Flat Koosharem Clear Creek Reservoir Sevier Creek

70 Poverty T. 26 S. R 4 W R 3 W SEVIER R 4½ W 38°30' SEVIER COUNTY R. 4 E. PIUTE COUNTY R. 2 E. R. 3 E. Beaver Creek R. 1 E.

Marysvale Sevier River T. 27 S. EXPLANATION 62 Approximate boundary of groundwater basin Approximate boundary of basin-fill deposits 89 JUNCTION- MARYSVALE Observation well BASIN T. 28 S. 10 Observation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to

MOUNTAINS hydrograph in figure 21

City Piute Reservoir

Creek T. 29 S. Creek 38°15' TUSHAR Junction Otter 0 5 10 Miles Kingston Otter Creek East Reservoir 0 5 10 Kilometers 10 Fork T. 30 S. Sevier Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 River Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983 R. 4 W. R. 3 W. R. 2½ W. R. 2 W. R. 1 W.

Figure 20. Location of wells in central Sevier Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013. 54 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

20 1 (C-19-1)23cac-1 390819111530701 22

24 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

26 3 2 4 (C-21-1)1cab-1 390035111515001 5 6 7 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 8 9 40 3 41 (C-21-1)27cca-2 385644111540501 No record 42 43

44 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 45

46 10 4 9 8

7 6 (C-23-2)15dcb-4 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE 5 384757112002201

4 3 5 2 1 0 No record -1 -2 -3 (C-24-2)7bac-2 WATER LEVEL, WATER -4 384357112035001

IN FEET ABOVE OR IN FEET -5 BELOW (-) LAND SURFACE

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 21. Relation of water level in selected wells in central Sevier Valley to annual discharge of the Sevier River at Hatch, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Richfield, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-23-2)15dcb-4. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 55

105 6 110 (C-24-3)10bcc-1 384340112073201 115

120

125 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 130 135 184 7 (C-24-3)25bdb-1 186 384116112045801

188

Not measured in March 2013 190 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

192 65 8 70 (C-25-3)6abd-1 383921112175901 75

80 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 85

90 36 9 (C-25-4)28abd-1 38 383602112152901

42 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

44 15 10 (C-30-3)15bba-1 381220112114001 20

25 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

+20 Richfield Radio KVSC +10 1950–2012 average annual precipitation 8.1 inches

0 IN INCHES

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -10

-20 300 10174500 Sevier River at Hatch, Utah 1940–2012 average annual discharge 200 80,800 acre-feet

100 DISCHARGE, OF ACRE-FEET IN THOUSANDS

0 35 30 1963–2012 average annual withdrawal 19,000 acre-feet 25 20 15 10 WITHDRAWAL, OF ACRE-FEET IN THOUSANDS 5 0 700 (C-23-2)15dcb-4 600 384757112002201 0.1 mile south of Sevier River 500 in Venice, Utah No record 400 Sum of constituents 300 Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius Calculated from specific conductance DISSOLVED SOLIDS, DISSOLVED CONCENTRATION OF CONCENTRATION 200 IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Pahvant Valley

By Nickolas R. Whittier Pahvant Valley, in southeastern Millard County, extends Water levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 from the vicinity of McCornick in the north to Kanosh in the in most parts of Pahvant Valley; however, there were a few south, and from the Pahvant Range and Canyon Mountains wells in the southwest part of the valley in which water levels on the east and northeast to a low basalt ridge known as The rose slightly. Water-level declines of more than 6 feet were Cinders on the west (fig. 22). The area of the valley is about observed in several wells north of Flowell. These declines are 300 square miles. Groundwater drains west to the valley from probably the result of continued large localized withdrawals the mountainous terrain to the east. Groundwater occurs in for irrigation. Water levels generally declined from the early basin-fill deposits in the valley under both water-table and 1950s until 1982 as a result of generally less-than-average artesian conditions. precipitation and increased withdrawals. Water levels rose Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Pahvant substantially from 1982 to 1985 as a result of greater-than- Valley in 2012 was about 114,000 acre-feet, which is about average precipitation and decreased withdrawals for irrigation. 25,000 acre-feet more than was reported in 2011 and 23,000 Water levels generally have declined throughout the valley acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for since the mid-to-late 1980s. 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). Withdrawal for irrigation in 2012 The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples was about 113,300 acre-feet, which is 24,900 acre-feet more collected from wells (C-21-5)7cdd-2 and (C-21-5)7cdd-3, than was reported in 2011. located in the Flowell area, from 1954 to 2012, and from The location of wells in Pahvant Valley in which the water well (C-23-6)8abd-1, located in the Kanosh area, from 1957 level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 22. to 2010, is shown in figure 23. Wells (C-21-5)7cdd-2 and The relation of the water level in selected observation wells (C-21-5)7cdd-3 are located near each other and are finished to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation in the same aquifer. The dissolved-solids concentrations in at Fillmore, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to water samples from these wells were combined to give an concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells extended temporal record for this constituent. Dissolved-solids is shown in figure 23. concentrations in water samples from wells in the Flowell area Precipitation at Fillmore during 2012 was about 12.7 have ranged from 707 to 1,080 mg/L, with a median value inches, which is about 2.6 inches less than the average annual of 879 mg/L. The concentration of dissolved solids in water precipitation for 1930–2012 and about 6.8 inches less than in samples from well (C-23-6)8abd-1 has ranged from 2,350 to 2011. 5,990 mg/L, with a median value of 4,465 mg/L. 58 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

112°30' 112°15' 39°15' 1 50 T. 18 S.

2 CANYON

McCornick MOUNTAINS

Central

Utah

T. 19 S. Canal

50 4 Holden

100 T. 20 S. 5 6 15

7 Chalk Creek

Flowell 100 T. 21 S. 8 Fillmore

THE CINDERS

11 VALLEY

Creek T. 22 S. Meadow Meadow RANGE

PAHVANT Hatton 10 R. 4 W. EXPLANATION

Corn PAHVANT 133 Approximate boundary of basin-fill deposits 12 15 Observation well 10 Observation well with corresponding Kanosh hydrograph—Number refers to T. 23 S. hydrograph in figure 23 Creek

38°45' 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles R. 6 W. R. 5 W. Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983

Figure 22. Location of wells in Pahvant Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 59

30 1 (C-18-5)16bbc-1 40 391522112253401

60 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

70 20 2 40 (C-18-5)28dda-1 391302112243301 60 80 100 120 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 140 160 50 3 (C-19-4)29bcd-1 75 390758112194601

100

125 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

150 0 4 (C-20-4)6dbd-1 20 390558112202301

60 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 80

100 20 5

40 No record

60 (C-20-5)24bda-1 390344112214301 80 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

100

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 23. Relation of water level in selected wells in Pahvant Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Fillmore, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells. 60 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

0 6 20 (C-20-5)26ddd-1 390216112222001 40

60 80 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 100 120 30 7 (C-21-5)7cdd-2 35 385939112272302

WATER LEVEL, WATER 50 IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

55 25 8

−25 (C-21-5)21aba-1 385844112245801 −50

−75 20 9 (C-21-5)33aad-1 0

LAND SURFACE 385650112243601 −20

−40

−60 WATER LEVEL, IN FEET ABOVE OR BELOW (-) LEVEL, IN FEET WATER −80 25 10 (C-22-5)33cdd-2 50 385053112252401

100 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

125

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

0 11 (C-22-6)11acd-1 5 385453112292701

15 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

20 20 12 (C-23-6)17baa-1 30 384906112330601

50 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

+25 Fillmore 1930–2012 average annual precipitation 15.3 inches 0

-25 IN INCHES CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE,

-50 120 1946–2012 average annual withdrawal 100 69,000 acre-feet 80 60 40 WITHDRAWAL, OF ACRE-FEET IN THOUSANDS 20 0 1,200 Flowell area Sum of constituents Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius 1,000 Calculated from specific conductance

(C-21-5)7cdd-2 385939112272302 800 (water-table aquifer) (1954–58) (C-21-5)7cdd-3 385939112272303 (water-table aquifer) (1960–2012) 600 7,500 (C-23-6)8abd-1

384953112325101 No record No record 5,000 CONCENTRATION OF CONCENTRATION DISSOLVED SOLIDS, IN DISSOLVED MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Kanosh area 2,500 Sum of constituents Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius Calculated from specific conductance 0

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Cedar Valley, Iron County

By James H. Howells Cedar Valley is in eastern Iron County, southwestern Utah. Coal Creek was about 18,800 acre-feet in 2012, which is The valley covers about 220 square miles from the vicinity of 28,600 acre-feet less than in 2011, and 5,900 acre-feet less Rush Lake in the north to the community of Kanarraville in than the average annual discharge for 1936 and 1939–2012. the south and includes Cedar City on its eastern edge (fig. 24). Groundwater levels declined from March 2012 to March Groundwater in Cedar Valley occurs in unconsolidated 2013 in most parts of Cedar Valley. The largest declines, basin-fill deposits, mostly under water-table conditions. The greater than 6 feet, were measured in four wells north and west principal source of recharge to the basin-fill aquifer is water of Cedar City. Water-level declines probably resulted from from Coal Creek, some of which seeps directly from the locally increased withdrawals and decreased recharge. Water- stream channel into the groundwater system. level rises were measured in one well west and three wells Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Cedar north of Cedar City. Water-level rises probably resulted from Valley in 2012 was about 40,000 acre-feet, which is 6,000 decreased localized withdrawals and increased recharge. acre-feet more than in 2011 and 2,000 acre-feet more than the The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). collected from well (C-37-12)23acb-1, located 2.3 miles The location of wells in Cedar Valley in which the water northeast of Kanarraville, from 1966 to 2012, and well level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 24. (C-35-11)31dbd-1, located about 4 miles northwest of Cedar The relation of the water level in selected observation wells City, from 1977 to 2012, is shown in figure 25. The dissolved- to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at solids concentration in water from well (C-37-12)23acb-1 Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual has ranged from 347 to 1,050 mg/L, with a median value of discharge of Coal Creek near Cedar City, to annual withdrawal 506 mg/L; the concentration of dissolved solids from 1966 to from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water 2012 has generally increased. For well (C-35-11)31dbd-1, the from selected wells is shown in figure 25. concentration of dissolved solids in water samples has ranged Precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration from 364 to 1,020 mg/L, with a median value of 543 mg/L. Airport in 2012 was about 12.6 inches, which is about 2.6 From 1987 to 2012, the concentration has generally increased. inches less than in 2011 and about 1.8 inches more than the average annual precipitation for 1949–2012. Discharge of 64 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

113°10' 113°00' 1 36 31 36 31 36 31

1 6 1 6 2 1 6

3 Rush Lake

37°50' T. 34 S. THE BALD HILLS 19

36 31 36 Y 31 36 31 4

1 6 1 6 1 6 VALLE Gap n Enoch Win

15 Iron Springs THE THREE PEAKS

T. 35 S. 130 R

GRANITE MOUNTAIN 36 31 6 31 CEDA 5 (2) 36 R. 10 W. 36 31

1 6 1 6 Coal 1 6

EIGHTMILE HILLS 56 7 Creek 56 Cedar City 14 T. 36 S. Quichapa Lake

CROSS HOLLOW HILLS

Hamilton Fort 36 31 36 31 8 36

1 6 1 6 EXPLANATION NORTH Approximate boundary of basin-fill deposits HILLS Observation well 37°35' (2) Observation well with corresponding 9 6 hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph T. 37 S. in figure 25. Number in parentheses refers to 15 number of wells at that site

Kanarraville 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles 36 31 31 36 R. 13 W. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers R. 12 W. R. 11 W. Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983

Figure 24. Location of wells in Cedar Valley, Iron County, in which the water level was measured during March 2013. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 65

30 1 (C-33-11)31aad-2 (C-33-11)30ddd-2 375341113072502 35 375352113072402

40 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE (C-33-11)31aad-1 375341113072501 45 10 2 (C-34-11)1daa-1 15 375233113015501

25 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

30 21 3 22

23 24 (C-34-11)9cdc-1 374521113014801 25 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 26 27 5 4 (C-35-11)4aba-1 10 374744113055001

20 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 25

30 40 5

100 (C-35-11)33aac-1 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 374304113052901 120

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 25. Relation of water level in selected wells in Cedar Valley, Iron County, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual discharge of Coal Creek near Cedar City, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from selected wells. 66 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

10 6

50 (C-35-12)34dcd-2 374226113110401 (C-35-12)36caa-1 70 374249113090701 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

90 0 7

(C-36-12)12dba-1 60

WATER LEVEL, WATER 374105113085001 IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

80 30 8 (C-36-12)32dcc-1 50 373710113132701

90 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

110 10 9 (C-37-12)14abc-1 30 373509113101101

70 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

90 +25 Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport 1949–2012 average annual precipitation 10.8 inches 0

IN INCHES -25 CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE,

-50

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

100 10242000 Coal Creek near Cedar City, Utah 75 1936, 1939–2012 average annual discharge 24,700 acre-feet

DISCHARGE, 25 OF ACRE-FEET OF IN THOUSANDS

0 50 1938–40 irrigation only (entire valley) 1945–55 irrigation only (valley north of Hamilton Fort) 1956–62 irrigation only (entire valley) 1963–2012 total (entire valley) 1938–40, 1945–2012 average 25 annual withdrawal 26,000 acre-feet WITHDRAWAL, OF ACRE-FEET OF IN THOUSANDS

0 1,200

1,000 (C-35-11)31dbd-1 374248113075201 About 4 miles northwest of Cedar City 800

600 Sum of constituents Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius 400 Calculated from specific conductance

DISSOLVED SOLIDS, DISSOLVED 200 1,100 (C-37-12)23acb-1 900 373407113100801 2.3 miles northeast of Kanarraville

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 700 Sum of constituents Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius No record Calculated from specific conductance 500 CONCENTRATION OF CONCENTRATION

300

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Parowan Valley

By James H. Howells Parowan Valley is in northern Iron County, southwestern inches less than the value for 2011 and 1.8 inches more than Utah. The valley covers about 160 square miles west of the the average annual precipitation for 1949–2012. Hurricane Cliffs and includes the towns of Paragonah and Water levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 in Parowan (fig. 26). Groundwater occurs in unconsolidated all parts of Parowan Valley for which data are available. The basin-fill deposits under both water-table and artesian largest decline, about 6.3 feet, was measured in a well north- conditions. west of Parowan. Water levels in Parowan Valley generally Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in Parowan have declined since 1950. Some rises occurred during Valley in 2012 was about 38,000 acre-feet, which is about 1973–74, 1983–85, 1996–99, 2006, and 2012. Declines in 6,000 acre-feet more than was reported for 2011 and 4,000 water levels are probably the result of continued large local acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002– withdrawals for irrigation. Rises are probably the result of less 2011 (tables 2 and 3). The increase is mainly due to increased withdrawal for irrigation and several years of greater-than- withdrawals for irrigation. average precipitation. The location of wells in Parowan Valley in which the water The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 26. collected from well (C-33-8)31ccc-1, located 2 miles west The relation of the water level in selected observation wells of Paragonah, from 1961 to 2012, is shown in figure 27. to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at The concentration has ranged from 257 to 885 mg/L, with Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual a median value of 290 mg/L. The water sample collected withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved in June 2012 had a dissolved-solids concentration of 290 solids in water from well (C-33-8)31ccc-1 is shown in mg/L. With the exception of relatively high dissolved-solids figure 27. concentrations in water samples collected in 1970, 1973, and Precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration 1974, concentrations have varied little. Airport in 2012 was about 12.6 inches, which is about 2.6 Major Areas of Groundwater Development 69

112°45' 112°40'

36 31 36 31 Not measured in 2013 1

1 6 1 6

T. 32 S. 38°00'

Wash VALLEY 11

Fremont 36 31 36 31 112°55'

1 6 R. 7 W. 1 6 1 6

T. 33 S.

PAROWAN Little Salt Lake 2 4 36 31 36 31 Paragonah 8 5 1 6 1 6

6 12 R. 8 W. 7

CLIFFS 10 Parowan 9 37°50' T. 34 S. HURRICANE EXPLANATION 15 Approximate boundary of basin-fill deposits Observation well 8 Observation well with corresponding hydrograph—

Creek Number refers to hydrograph in figure 27 36 31 31 Summit 36

Parowan 1 6 1 0 1 2 3 Miles

R. 10 W. R. 9 W. 0 1 2 3 Kilometers Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983

Figure 26. Location of wells in Parowan Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013. 70 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

70 1 (C-31-7)31cca-1 80 380337112414401

Not measured in March 2013 100 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

110 60 2 80 (C-33-8)28cad-1 100 375402112455401 (C-33-8)28cda-1 375400112460801 120 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 140

160 0 3 (C-32-8)13bca-1 380130112425201 10

20 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

30 0 4 20

40 (C-33-9)35bac-1 375345112504201 60 (C-33-9)35bac-2 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 80 375338112502801 100 0 5 20

60 (C-34-8)5bca-1

WATER LEVEL, WATER 375241112471001 IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 80

100

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 27. Relation of water level in selected wells in Parowan Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-33-8)31ccc-1. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 71

0 6 10 20 (C-34-9)7aad-1 (C-34-9)7ccc-1 375152112541001 30 375115112550601

40 No record 50 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 60 70 20 7

40 (C-34-9)8dad-2 375127112530601 60

WATER LEVEL, WATER 100 (C-34-9)8dad-3 IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 375127112530602 120 20 8 40 60 (C-33-9)35ddd-1 80 375303112495101 100 120

WATER LEVEL, WATER (C-33-9)35ddd-2 IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 140 375303112495102 160 40 9 (C-34-9)16cdd-2 60 375033112523401

100 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

120 50 10 (C-34-10)13cbd-2 375033112561101 75

100 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

125

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

20 11 15 (C-32-8)27dca-1 375915112442901 10 No record 5 0

LAND SURFACE -5 ABOVE OR BELOW (-)

WATER LEVEL, IN FEET -10 50 12

100 (C-34-9)11aac-1 375153112500201 150 (C-34-9)11bca-1 375148112503701 200 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

250 +25 Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport 1949–2012 average annual precipitation 10.8 inches 0

IN INCHES -25 CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE,

-50 40 1938–40, 1945–2012 average annual withdrawal 23,000 acre-feet 30

20 1938–40, 1945–62 irrigation only 1963–2012 total WITHDRAWAL, OF ACRE-FEET IN THOUSANDS 10

0 1,000 (C-33-8)31ccc-1 800 375257112483501 2 miles west of Paragonah Sum of constituents 600 Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius Calculated from specific conductance 400 CONCENTRATION OF CONCENTRATION DISSOLVED SOLIDS, IN DISSOLVED MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 200

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Escalante Valley Milford Area

By Bradley A. Slaugh The Milford area is in southwestern Utah and includes that Water levels declined from March 2012 to March 2013 part of Escalante Valley lying entirely within Beaver County in most of the Milford area. The amount of water-level rise west of the Mineral Mountains, the southern part of Millard or decline depends largely on groundwater withdrawals, the County, and a small area in the northern part of Iron County amount and timing of precipitation, and recharge to the basin- (fig. 28). Groundwater occurs in unconsolidated basin-fill fill aquifer from the Beaver River. Since the early 1950s, water deposits in the valley. levels generally have declined in the south-central Milford Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in the area in response to the long-term effects of groundwater Milford area of Escalante Valley in 2012 was about 67,000 withdrawals. Water-level rises during 1983–85 resulted acre-feet, which is 14,000 acre-feet more than was reported from greater-than-average precipitation during 1982–85 and for 2011 and 17,000 acre-feet more than the average annual increased recharge to the basin-fill aquifer from record flow in withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). This increase the Beaver River during 1983–84. was most likely the result of increased pumpage for irrigation The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples due to decreased availability of surface water and less-than- collected from well (C-29-10)5cdd-2, located 5 miles south average precipitation. of Milford, from 1969 to 2012, is shown in figure 29. The The location of wells in the Milford area in which the water concentration has ranged from 477 to 909 mg/L with a median level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 28. value of 572 mg/L. The dissolved-solids concentration in The relation of the water level in selected observation wells the June 2012 sample was 477 mg/L. With the exception of to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation a relatively high dissolved-solids concentration in the water at Black Rock, to annual withdrawal from wells, and sample collected in 2001 (909 mg/L), concentrations have to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well varied little. (C-29-10)5cdd-2 is shown in figure 29. Precipitation at Black Rock in 2012 was about 6.6 inches, about 7.1 inches less than in 2011 and about 2.4 inches less than the 1952–2012 average annual precipitation. 74 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

113°00' EXPLANATION Approximate boundary of basin-fill deposits 38°45' Observation well 1 Observation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to Black hydrograph in figure 29 Rock T. 24 S.

0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles

0 2 4 6 8 10 Kilometers Antelope Spring 113°15' 257

Cove Creek T. 25 S. 1

River

MOUNTAINS MILLARD COUNTY BEAVER COUNTY Read

T. 26 S.

Beaver FRANCISCO

SAN 38°30'

ROCKY RANGE 2

MOUNTAINS T. 27 S.

21 VALLEY

Low Line MINERAL

Milford

Canal Canal

3 THE PASS T. 28 S. 4

6 129 BRADSHAW MOUNTAIN 7 Beaver

T. 29 S. Union Pacific Railroad 21 River 38°15'

Minersville 9 Reservoir 8 Thermo Siding Minersville 5 T. 30 S. 10 ESCALANTE BEAVER COUNTY 130 IRON COUNTY R. 10 W. R. 9 W.

T. 31 S. BLUE KNOLL Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983 R. 14 W. R. 13 W. R. 12 W. R. 11 W.

Figure 28. Location of wells in the Milford area in which the water level was measured during March 2013. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 75

15 1 (C-25-10)26caa-1 383631112564001 16 No record

17 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

18 340 2 (C-27-10)12ddd-1 341 382814112550101

342

343 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

344 0 3 10 (C-28-10)19add-3 20 382138113003303 30 40 50 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 60 70 0 4 (C-28-10)28cdd-1 20 382020112585901

60 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

80 80 5

100 (C-30-10)17cca-1 381147113002001 (C-30-10)6ddd-1 381319113003501 120 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

140

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 29. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Milford area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Black Rock, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-29-10)5cdd-2. 76 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

20 6 No record

40 (C-29-11)4baa-1 381925113054001

60 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

80 20 7 40 (C-29-11)13add-1 381716113014101 60

WATER LEVEL, WATER 100 IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

120 50 8 60 (C-30-11)12bbb-1 381318113024801 70

80 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 90

100 50 9 (C-30-12)3ddd-1 381323113103701 55

60 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

65 42 10

No record 46 (C-30-13)34bba-1 380943113181001

48 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

+20 Black Rock +10 1952–2012 average annual precipitation 9.0 inches

0 IN INCH E S

CUMULATI V E DEPARTUR E , -10

-20

75 1931–2012 average annual withdrawal 41,000 acre-feet 50

25 WITHDRAWA L , OF ACRE-FE E T IN THOUSAN D S

0 1,000 900 Sum of constituents Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius 800 Calculated from specific conductance 700

600 (C-29-10)5cdd-2 381835113000001 500 5 miles south of Milford CONCENTRATION O F DISSOLVED SOLIDS, I N MILLIGRAMS PER LIT E R 400

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Escalante Valley Beryl-Enterprise Area

By Howard K. Christiansen The Beryl-Enterprise area covers about 800 square miles Water levels declined slightly from March 2012 to March at the southern end of Escalante Valley, southeast of the 2013 in most of the wells measured in the Beryl-Enterprise Wah Wah Mountains in Iron County, and a small area in area. Water levels throughout most of the area have declined Washington County in the vicinity of the community of steadily since 1950 and have shown little or no recovery Enterprise (fig. 30). Groundwater occurs in unconsolidated during periods of greater-than-average precipitation. For basin-fill deposits in the valley. example, water-level measurements in well (C-36-16)29daa-1, Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in the about 5 miles northeast of Enterprise (fig. 31), have shown a Beryl-Enterprise area in 2012 was about 91,000 acre-feet, decline of nearly 133 feet from March 1946 to March 2013. which is 7,000 acre-feet more than in 2011 and 2,000 acre- Declines such as this one are a result of continued large feet more than the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 withdrawals for irrigation beginning in about 1950. (tables 2 and 3). The concentration of dissolved solids in one water sample The location of wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area in collected from well (C-34-16)28dcc-3, located 6 miles south- which the water level was measured during March 2013 is southeast of Beryl, is shown in figure 31 (this well replaces shown in figure 30. The relation of the water level in selected well (C-34-16)28dcc-2). The concentration of dissolved solids observation wells to cumulative departure from average annual in the water sample collected in June 2012 was 478 mg/L. precipitation at Enterprise, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-34-16)28dcc-3 is shown in figure 31. Precipitation at Enterprise in 2012 was about 12.0 inches, which is about 2.1 inches less than the average annual precipitation for 1955–2012 and about 0.5 inch more than in 2011. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 79

113°55' 113°15'

38°05'

T. 31 S. MOUNTAINS Union Pacific Railroad

WAH WAH T. Lund 32 S. 1

VALLEY

T. 2 Zane 33 S.

Avon Beryl Table 3 Butte

T. 4 34 S. Modena

ESCALANTE5

6 T. 35 Iron Springs S.

ANTELOPE RANGE Beryl 7 Junction 8 9

56 Newcastle T. Newcastle 36

18 Reservoir S. Pinto Pinto IRON 10 MOUNTAIN

IRON COUNTY Mountain Creek WASHINGTON COUNTY 37°35' Shoal Meadow Creek Enterprise T. 37 Cr S.

Creek

Pine 11 R. 15 W. R. 18 W. R. 14 W. R. 13 W. R. 17 W. R. 16 W. R. 12 W. Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 0 2 4 6 8 Miles Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983 0 2 4 6 8 Kilometers EXPLANATION Approximate boundary of basin-fill deposits Observation well 9 Observation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 31

Figure 30. Location of wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area in which the water level was measured during March 2013. 80 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

2 1

No record 4

5 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE (C-32-14)28bbb-1 375952113260601 6 60 2 (C-33-16)30aac-1 375429113403901 65

75 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

80 5 3

10 (C-34-15)1bad-1 375245113290001

20 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

25 20 4 (C-34-16)22bad-1 30 375009113374501

60 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

70 0 5

25 No record

50 (C-35-15)6cdd-1 75 374649113342501 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

100

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 31. Relation of water level in selected wells in the Beryl-Enterprise area to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Enterprise, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-34-16)28dcc-3. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 81

40 6 (C-35-17)14ccc-1 60 374505113433701

100 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 120

140 40 7 60 (C-35-17)36dcc-1 374228113420101 80 100 120 140 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 160 180 100 8

120 (C-36-15)4bad-3 374209113322203 140

160

180 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

200 50 9 75 (C-36-16)3ddc-1 374041113373501 No record 100

125

WATER LEVEL, WATER 150 IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

175 80 10 (C-36-16)29daa-1 120 373735113393801

160

200 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

240

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

10 11 (C-37-17)14dcd-2 20 373338113431502

No record 40 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

50 +10

-10

-20

IN INCHES Enterprise CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -30 1955–2012 average annual precipitation 14.1 inches -40 150 1937, 1940, 1945–2012 average annual withdrawal 71,000 acre-feet 100

50 WITHDRAWAL, OF ACRE-FEET IN THOUSANDS

0 1,000 Sum of constituents (C-34-16)28dcc-2 Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius 374834113384301 Calculated from specific conductance 800 6 miles south-southeast of Beryl

No record 600 (C-34-16)28dcc-3 374934113384601 6 miles south-southeast of Beryl DISSOLVED SOLIDS, DISSOLVED CONCENTRATION OF CONCENTRATION 400 IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Central Virgin River Area

By Howard K. Christiansen The central Virgin River area is between the Pine Valley Discharge of the Virgin River at Virgin in 2012 was Mountains and the Hurricane Cliffs, and is bounded by the about 82,900 acre-feet, which is 151,200 acre-feet less than Beaver Dam Mountains to the southwest, in Washington the value for 2011 and about 51,000 acre-feet less than the County (fig. 32). Major groundwater development includes long-term average for 1931–70 and 1979–2012. Precipita- water from valley-fill aquifers that is used primarily for irrigation at St. George in 2012 was about 8.4 inches, which is tion, and water from consolidated-rock and valley-fill aquifers about 0.2 inch more than the average annual precipitation for that is used primarily for public supply. Most of the wells are 1930–2012 and 6.0 inches more than in 2011. located near the Virgin and Santa Clara Rivers. Water levels from February 2012 to February 2013 gener- Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in the ally declined in most of the central Virgin River area. The central Virgin River area in 2012 was about 29,000 acre-feet, largest decline, about 7.9 feet, was observed in a well east which is about 1,000 acre-feet more than in 2011 and the same of Bloomington in the Fort Pearce Wash area. Declines are as the average annual withdrawal for 2002–2011 (tables 2 and probably the result of continued large withdrawals for public 3), mainly due to a small increase in withdrawal for irrigation. supply and irrigation use. Withdrawal for industrial use decreased slightly, and with- The concentration of dissolved solids in water samples drawals for public supply and for domestic and stock use were collected from wells (C-41-17)8cbd-1 and (C-41-17)8cbd-2, about the same as in 2011. located 1.5 miles south of Gunlock Reservoir, from 1966 to The location of wells in the central Virgin River area in 2012, is shown in figure 33. These wells are located near each which the water level was measured during February 2013 is other and are finished in the same aquifer. The dissolved-solids shown in figure 32. The relation of the water level in selected concentrations in water samples from both wells were com- observation wells to annual discharge of the Virgin River at bined to give an extended temporal record for this constituent. Virgin, to cumulative departure from average annual pre- The concentration has ranged from 255 to 313 mg/L with a cipitation at St. George, to annual withdrawal from wells, median value of 290 mg/L. The dissolved-solids concentration and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well in the water sample collected in July 2012 (292 mg/L) is very (C-41-17)8cbd-2 is shown in figure 33. close to the median value. 84 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

113°15'

1 Kanarraville 113°45' 37°30' 2

113°30' New Harmony T. 38 S. CLIFFS

Highway

HURRICANE Central Ash Creek Reservoir Loop T. 39 S. Baker MOUNTAINS Legacy Reservoir

Veyo VALLEY Pintura

Ash Creek CLIFFS

PINE Creek T. 40 S. Gunlock Anderson Junction

LaVerkin

Gunlock HURRICANE Reservoir Silver Reef Toquerville

Snow Canyon Leeds 17 18 Quail Cree k

Leeds Creek 9 Virgin North Fork T. 41 S. River La Verkin Ivins Virgin Reservoir Shivwits Ivins Hurricane 9 Santa 6 BEAVER DAM MOUNTAINS Harrisburg Santa Clara Junction 3 Clara Washington 59 River 4

7 CLIFFS T. 42 S. 8 St George 5

10 HURRICANE

Fort

Bloomington SAND Pearce 11 MOUNTAIN River LITTLE CREEK T. 43 S. 15 Wash MOUNTAINS Virgin 9 37°00' WASHINGTON COUNTY R.17 W. UTAH MOHAVE COUNTY R.16 W. R.15 W. R.14 W. ARIZONA R.13 W. Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 R.12 W. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 0 2 4 6 8 Miles Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION 0 2 4 6 8 Kilometers Approximate boundary of valley-fill deposits Observation well 9 Observation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 33

Figure 32. Location of wells in the central Virgin River area in which the water level was measured during February 2013. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 85

20 1 (C-37-12)34abb-1 30 373236113111401

50 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

60 35 2 (C-38-12)9aab-1 40 373040113122501

50 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

55 30 3 (C-42-14)12dbb-1 40 370850113223001

60 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

70 85 4 (C-42-14)15cbd-1 370538113251301 90

95 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

100 20 5 21 (C-42-15)34dba-2 370517113310402 22

23 24 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 25 26

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 33. Relation of water level in selected wells in the central Virgin River area to annual discharge of the Virgin River at Virgin, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at St. George, to annual withdrawal from wells, and to concentration of dissolved solids in water from well (C-41-17)8cbd-2. 86 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

25 6 (C-42-16)5bbb-1 371004113404201 30

35 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

40 15 7

25 (C-42-16)22cba-1 30 370650113380201 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

35 15 8 (C-42-16)26bcc-1 370617113371101 20

25 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

30 130 9 140 150 (C-43-15)24dcc-1 370125113290401 160

170 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE (C-43-14)31bab-1 180 370037113281401 190 35 10 (C-43-15)4ddc-1 370404113320301 40

45 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

35 No record 11 (C-43-15)16dac-1 40 370231113320301

50 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

55 +20

+10

-10 IN INCHES

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -20 St. George 1930–2012 average annual precipitation 8.2 inches -30 400 09406000 Virgin River at Virgin, Utah 1931–70, 1979–2012 average 300 annual discharge 133,900 acre-feet

200

DISCHARGE, 100 OF ACRE-FEET IN THOUSANDS

0 40 1970–2012 average annual withdrawal 21,000 acre-feet 30

10 WITHDRAWAL, OF ACRE-FEET IN THOUSANDS

0 325 (C-41-17)8cbd-1 371347113470301 1.5 miles south of 300 Gunlock Reservoir

275 Sum of constituents (C-41-17)8cbd-2 Residue on evaporation at 180 degrees Celsius 371348113470301 Calculated from specific conductance 1.5 miles south of Gunlock Reservoir CONCENTRATION OF CONCENTRATION DISSOLVED SOLIDS, IN DISSOLVED MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 250

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Other Areas

By Martel J. Fisher Total estimated withdrawal of water from wells in other Sanpete Valley to cumulative departure from average annual areas of Utah (table 4) in 2012 was about 156,000 acre-feet, precipitation at Manti is shown in figure 37. which is 33,000 acre-feet more than the estimate for 2011 and Water levels in many of the selected wells in Sanpete Val- 24,000 acre-feet more than the average annual withdrawal for ley rose from the late-1970s to the mid-1980s as a result of 2002–2011 (tables 2 and 3). The largest increases were due to greater-than-average precipitation and have varied since the increased withdrawals for irrigation use. In most of the areas mid-1980s, but overall have declined. Water levels declined listed in table 4, withdrawals in 2012 were more than in 2011, in most of the selected observation wells from March 2012 to except in Ogden Valley, where public-supply use decreased March 2013. slightly, and in Grouse Creek Valley, where irrigation with- The location of wells in Snake Valley and the West Desert drawals decreased slightly. in which the water level was measured during March 2013 is The location of wells in Cedar Valley, Utah County, in shown in figure 38. The relation of the water level in selected which the water level was measured during March 2013, is observation wells in the area to cumulative departure from shown in figure 34. The relation of the water level in observa- average annual precipitation at Callao is shown in figure 39. tion wells in Cedar Valley to cumulative departure from aver- Water levels in many of the selected wells in Snake Val- age annual precipitation at Provo BYU is shown in figure 35. ley and the West Desert declined, or rose only slightly, from Water levels in selected wells in Cedar Valley generally March 2012 to March 2013. Water levels rose sharply in the rose during the 1970s. Water levels rose sharply from the early early to mid-1980s as a result of greater-than-average precipi- to mid-1980s as a result of greater-than-average precipitation, tation, but have generally declined since the mid-1980s. then declined during the mid-to-late 1980s and early 1990s. The relation of the water level in wells in the remaining Water levels in these wells have been relatively stable since selected areas of Utah (table 4) to cumulative departure from 1995. Water levels declined in most of the wells from March average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas is 2012 to March 2013. shown in figure 40. Water levels declined or rose only slightly The location of wells in Sanpete Valley in which the water in most of the selected observation wells from March 2012 to level was measured during March 2013 is shown in figure 36. March 2013. The relation of the water level in selected observation wells in

Table 4. Estimated withdrawal of water from wells in other areas of Utah, 2012. Estimated withdrawal from wells (acre-feet)

Number in 2012 Area figure 1 2011 total Public Domestic and Total Irrigation Industrial (rounded) supply stock (rounded)

1 Grouse Creek Valley 1,300 0 0 20 1,300 1,600 2 Park Valley area 2,400 0 0 10 2,400 1,500 4 Lower Bear River area 4,300 460 7,400 200 12,400 9,100 8 Ogden Valley 0 0 11,900 20 11,900 12,100 13 Rush Valley 4,600 300 260 30 5,200 4,700 14 Skull Valley, Dugway area, and Old River Bed 3,300 5,200 5,000 10 13,500 7,500 15 Cedar Valley, Utah County 3,000 0 4,300 40 7,300 6,200 20 Sanpete Valley 8,000 2,600 940 4,000 15,500 7,500 25a Snake Valley 22,800 0 90 50 22,900 14,900 27 Beaver Valley 10,200 20 530 480 11,200 6,700 Remainder of State 12,900 16,000 21,200 2,600 52,700 50,900 Total (rounded) 72,800 24,600 51,600 7,500 156,000 123,000 90 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

112°05' 112°00' West TRAVERSE MOUNTAINS

Canyon Eagle Mountain Creek 73 Cedar Pass

T. 5 S.

OQUIRRH MOUNTAINS 1 36 31 40°20'

1 6 Cedar Fort

T. 6 S.

3 4 Fairfield

73 VALLEY 36 31 40°15'

1 6 LAKE MOUNTAINS Sinks

T. 7 S.

CEDAR

THORPE HILLS

40°10' 36 31 EXPLANATION Approximate boundary of basin-fill deposits 1 6 Observation well 3 Observation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 35

T. 8 S.

0 1 2 3 4 Miles

0 1 2 3 4 Kilometers

R. 3 W. R. 2 W. Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 R. 1 W. Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983

Figure 34. Location of wells in Cedar Valley, Utah County, in which the water level was measured during March 2013. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 91

220 1 (C-5-2)34dab-1 230 402019112023201

240 No record

250 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

260 70 2 80 (C-6-2)15bbb-1 401818112034201 90 100

110 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 120 130 45 3 (C-6-2)26cbb-1 50 401607112023401

60 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

65 25 4 (C-6-2)29bdb-1 20 401620112054301

10 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN ABOVE FEET 5 LAND SURFACE

0 +50 Provo BYU 1981–2012 average annual precipitation 19.5 inches +25

0 IN INCHES CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE,

-25

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 35. Relation of water level in selected wells in Cedar Valley, Utah County, to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Provo BYU. 92 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

111°30' UTAH COUNTY SANPETE COUNTY

T. 12 S.

39°45' 89 111°45'

Milburn

T. 13 S. PLATEAU

Fountain 31 Green

Fairview 1 132 WASATCH T. 14 S.

JUAB COUNTY

SANPETE COUNTY 2 San Pitch River Mount Pleasant Freedom (2) Moroni 116 Wales Reservoir 117 T. 15 S. 39°30' Wales

Chester Spring City R. 5 E.

T. 16 S. VALLEY AINS (2)

MOUNT

Ephraim

River 3

(3) T. 17 S.

SAN PITCH EXPLANATION

Pitch PLATEAU Approximate boundary of basin-fill deposits San (3) Observation well—Number in parentheses SANPETE4 refers to number of wells at that site Manti 4 Observation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to 39°15' hydrograph in figure 37 T. 18 S. Gunnison WASATCH Reservoir

Sterling R. 3 E. R. 4 E. Nine Mile Reservoir

T. 19 S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers Mayfield

T. 20 S.

R. 2 E. Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983

Figure 36. Location of wells in Sanpete Valley in which the water level was measured during March 2013. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 93

30 1 25 (D-14-2)13aaa-1 393630111383301 20

15 10 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN ABOVE FEET LAND SURFACE 5 0 20 2 (D-15-4)4bcd-1 25 393241111290501 30

WATER LEVEL, WATER 40 IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

45 0 3 (D-17-3)9cbd-1 392056111353801 20

40 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

60 70 4

(D-18-2)12bab-1 391610111384501 90 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

100 +25 Manti 1930–2012 average annual precipitation 13.0 inches 0

IN INCHES -25 DEPARTURE, CUMULATIVE

-50

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 37. Relation of water level in selected wells in Sanpete Valley to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Manti. 94 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

114°00' Ibapah 113°10' T. 9 S. 40°00'

T. 10 S. RANGE 1 TOOELE COUNTY Callao JUAB COUNTY Goshute Fish Springs T. 11 S.

CREEK

T. 12 S. DEEP

Trout Creek T. 13 S.

T. 14 S. JUAB COUNTY MILLARD COUNTY

T. 15 S. Gandy

T. 16 S.

DESERT

CONFUSION RANGE T. 17 S.

2 T. 18 S.

39°10'

T. 19 S.

Border 50 6 3 T. 20 S.

Sevier Lake Garrison T. 21 S. 4 Union Pacific Railroad

T. 22 S.

257 T. 23 S.

R. 10 W. R. 9 W. R. 8 W. T. 24 S. 21 WEST

T. 25 S. MILLARD COUNTY BEAVER COUNTY

NEVADA T. 26 S. MOUNTAINS UTAH SAN FRANCISCO R. 12 W. R. 11 W. Wah Wah EXPLANATION Ranch T. 27 S. Approximate boundary of Snake Valley Observation well T. 28 S. 4 Observation well with corresponding hydrograph—Number refers to hydrograph in figure 39 T. 29 S.

T. 30 S. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles 38°10' R. 19 W. R. 18 W. R. 17 W. R. 16 W. R. 15 W. R. 14 W. R. 13 W. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers Base from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graph data, 1989 Hillshade from U.S. Geological Survey 10-meter National Elevation Dataset, 1999–2005 Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 12, North American Datum of 1983

Figure 38. Location of wells in Snake Valley and the West Desert in which the water level was measured during March 2013. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 95

6 1 (C-11-16)6cbc-4 4 395355112423601

0 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET ABOVE OR IN FEET −2 BELOW (-) LAND SURFACE 5 2 (C-18-19)28bcc-1 10 391251114000001

20 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

25 25 3 (C-20-19)21acc-1 390312113591701

30 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

35 50 4 (C-22-19)6bcc-1 385607114015601 60

70 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

80 +10

-10

-20 IN INCHES CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -30 Callao 1939–2012 average annual precipitation 5.7 inches -40

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 39. Relation of water level in selected wells in Snake Valley and the West Desert to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at Callao. 96 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

10 (B-10-18)16dda-1 20 413535113544501 Grouse Creek Valley 30

40 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 50

60 0 (B-13-13)28ddd-2 5 414904113194501 Park Valley area

15 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

20 +10 Oakley, Idaho 0 1930–2012 average annual precipitation 11.0 inches

-10

-20 IN INCHES

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -30

-40 4 (B-10-3)3cdd-1 5 413729112100501 lower Bear River area 6

7 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

8 +25

-25 Pineview Dam 1949–2012 average annual

IN INCHES precipitation 30.6 inches

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -50

-75

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 40. Relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas. Major Areas of Groundwater Development 97

(A-13-5)21dab-1 415124111225401 0 Bear Lake Valley No record

-5 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET ABOVE OR IN FEET -10 BELOW (-) LAND SURFACE +25 Laketown 0 1930–2012 average annual precipitation 12.1 inches

-25 IN INCHES

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -50

-75 2

4 (A-12-7)26bba-2 414539111073401 upper Bear River area 6

No record 8

WATER LEVEL, WATER 10 IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

12 +10

-10 IN INCHES

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -20 Woodruff 1948–2012 average annual precipitation 9.4 inches -30

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 40. Relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas.—Continued 98 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

10 (A-6-2)18bad-1 411544111461001 20 Ogden Valley

30 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

40 +25

-25 Pineview Dam 1949–2012 average annual IN INCHES

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -50 precipitation 30.6 inches

-75 2 4 (D-3-5)29cac-1 403127111240301 6 Heber Valley

8 No record

10 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 12 14 1

(D-2-6)20dcc-1 403731111172101 Kamas Valley 2 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

3 +40 Heber City +20 1930–2012 average annual precipitation 15.3 inches

0 IN INCHES

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -20

-40

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 40. Relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas.—Continued Major Areas of Groundwater Development 99

6 U(B-1-1)31ddb-1 402611110020101 Duchesne River area 8

WATER LEVEL, WATER 12 IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

14 +20 Neola 1957–2012 average annual precipitation 8.8 inches +10

0 IN INCHES

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -10

-20 4

No record 6

(D-4-21)14cdd-1 8 402748109314501 Vernal area 10 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

12 +10

-10 Vernal Airport IN INCHES 1948–2012 average annual

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -20 precipitation 8.3 inches

-30

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 40. Relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas.—Continued 100 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

8 (C-8-5)20cdd-1 10 400601112255401 Rush Valley 12

14 WATER LEVEL, WATER

IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 16

18 70

No record 80

(C-7-8)10cbd-1 90 401312112442301 Dugway area WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

100 +10

-10

-20

IN INCHES Dugway CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -30 1946–2012 average annual precipitation 7.6 inches -40

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

10 (C-29-7)19bcd-1 381625112412901 15 Beaver Valley

20 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

25 +25 Cedar City Federal Aviation Administration Airport 1949–2012 average annual precipitation 10.8 inches 0

-25 IN INCHES CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE,

-50 150 (D-33-24)30dab-1 375243109191301 175 Monticello area

200 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

225 +20 +10

0 -10 -20 IN INCHES Blanding

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, 1930–2012 average annual -30 precipitation 12.5 inches -40

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 40. Relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas.—Continued 102 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

0 (D-26-22)27aaa-1 383109109285501 20 Spanish Valley

40 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE

60 85

90 (D-36-22)35bba-1 373712109281701 95 Blanding-Bluff area

100 105 WATER LEVEL, WATER IN FEET BELOW IN FEET LAND SURFACE 110 115 +20

+10

0 IN INCHES

CUMULATIVE DEPARTURE, -10 Bluff 1930–2012 average annual precipitation 7.7 inches -20

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

20 E W 30

50 (C-36-3)6dba-1 374205112091501 WATER LEVEL , IN FEET BELO LAND SURFAC 60 upper Sevier River area

70 6

E (D-28-4)36cdb-1 W 8 381940111253501 upper Fremont River Valley 10

12 WATER LEVEL , IN FEET BELO LAND SURFAC 14

16 +25

-25 Hatch 1949–2012 average annual

IN INCHE S precipitation 11.6 inches

CUMULATIV E DEPARTURE , -50

-75

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 40. Relation of water level in wells in selected areas of Utah to cumulative departure from average annual precipitation at sites in or near those areas.—Continued 104 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

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

From June through September 2012, the U.S. Geological are stored in the USGS National Water Information System Survey (USGS) Utah Water Science Center, in cooperation (NWIS) database and are available online at http://waterdata. with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division usgs.gov/ut/nwis/qw. of Water Quality, sampled water from 110 wells located in Water-quality field blanks were collected to determine if 21 counties (fig. 41). Samples were collected during this time samples were being contaminated during equipment decon- period to limit seasonal variability in the data. The majority tamination and/or sample collection and processing proce- of water samples were collected from irrigation wells. Field dures. A field blank is an inorganic blank water sample that parameters that were measured at the time the water samples is prepared by the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory, were collected included pH, specific conductance, and water carried in the field, and processed using the same methods temperature. Chemical constituents that were analyzed in the and equipment as the environmental water samples. The field water samples included major ions, dissolved solids, nutrients blank is subject to processing in the field, preservation, ship- (nitrate plus nitrite and orthophosphate), and selected trace ment, laboratory handling procedures, and analytical proto- elements. The USGS National Water Quality Laboratory in cols. Eleven field blank water samples were processed during Denver, Colorado, analyzed the water samples. Field param- the 2012 sampling period. Analytical results for all constitu- eter values and analytical results for major ions, dissolved ents in the field blanks were less than the laboratory reporting solids, and nutrients are shown in table 5. Analytical results limits. for trace elements are shown in table 6. Replicate water samples also were collected at two wells. The water samples were collected using protocols in the A replicate sample is collected concurrent with an environ- USGS National Field Manual for the Collection of Water- mental sample and is used to assess the repeatability of the Quality Data (U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated). Ana- laboratory analytical results. Analytical results for the replicate lytical methods used by the laboratory are described in Fish- water samples were in good agreement with the environmental man and Friedman (1989). Water-quality data in this report samples, agreeing within 2 percent for all constituents. Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012 105

114° 42° 113° 112° 111° (B-15-10)36bbb-1 (B-14-9)5bbb-1 (B-14-4)1dac-1 Bear (A-13-1)29bcd-1 Lake (B-12-11)6abb-1 (B-12-11)8abb-1 (B-12-11)8bbb-1 (B-12-11)8baa-1 (A-12-1)29cab-1 EXPLANATION (B-11-4)3bac-1 (A-12-1)31dab-2 Logan (B-11-1) 9cdb-1 Randolph (A-11-1)35cca-1 Groundwater site and identifier (B-11-1)35cca-1 (refer to tables 5 and 6) (B-10-18)33aaa-1 CACHE (B-9-2)15daa-1 RICH Brigham City BOX ELDER Great Salt 0 20 40 60 Miles Lake WEBER (B-6-3)15cbc-1 0 20 40 60 Kilometers Ogden (B-5-2)6bdd-4 MORGAN (B-4-2)27aba-1 Morgan Flaming Gorge 110° 109° 41° DAVIS Reservoir Farmington Manila (B-2-1)24bad-10 Coalville SUMMIT DAGGETT (A-1-1)31cac-1 Wendover (D-1-1)7abd-6 (D-1-1)19cdb-17 Salt Lake City SALT LAKE TOOELE (C-2-4)33bdd-1 (C-2-4)34adc-1 (D-2-1)21dbc-1 (D-4-5)4ccb-1 (C-2-5)34dbb-1 (C-2-4)34dad-1 (C-2-5)35cab-1 (C-3-8)28ddb-1 (C-3-1)12ccb-3 (D-3-4)26dba-1 Heber Tooele (D-4-5)6bcc-2 (D-4-5)3dcc-1 (D-4-4)12dcc-1 (D-4-5)16bab-1 DUCHESNE Vernal (C-4-8)33aba-1 (D-4-5)16ccd-1 U(C-1-1)24cbb-2 (C-5-5)15add-2 (D-5-1)20aba-2 (D-5-1)21dda-2 U(C-1-2)27ddc-1 (D-4-4)13bdd-1 U(C-1-2)36adc-1 (C-6-2)26cbc-1 U(C-2-2)11bab-1 (C-6-2)29bdb-1 WASATCH Utah (D-7-2)4cbb-2 Lake Provo U(C-3-5)31dcd-1 (C-8-5) 6ddb-2 UINTAH UTAH Duchesne (C-8-5)7ddd-2 Strawberry (D-9-2)9bac-1 40° (C-9-1)4ddc-1 Reservoir (D-9-1)36bbc-1 (C-9-1)28ccb-1

(D-11-1)21bbb-1

JUAB Nephi (D-13-1)5ddb-2 CARBON (C-14-1)26dbd-1 Price (C-15-4)8cba-1 (C-15-5)15dad-1 (C-15-4)11add-1 (D-15-4)17abb-1 (C-15-4)26dcc-1 SANPETE (C-16-4)18bda-1 Delta (D-17-3)9cbd-1 (D-17-2)14ccb-1 (C-18-19)20ddd-2 Manti Castle Dale

(C-20-20)1baa-2 MILLARD (C-19-1)23cac-1

39° (C-21-5)7cdd-3 Fillmore EMERY Green River GRAND (C-23-19)4bcd-1 Highway 21 Well (C-23-6)8abd-1 (C-23-5)5acd-1 (C-23-2)15dcb-4 (C-23-6)28bbb-2 (C-23-6)21add-1 Richfield (C-23-2)19dab-1 SEVIER Moab (D-26-22)16ddd-3 (C-26-7)26cac-1 (C-26-1)25acc-1 (D-26-22)26cba-1 (D-27-2)26ddc-1 BEAVER (C-28-10)20daa-1 (C-28-10)29bcc-2 PIUTE Loa (C-29-10)5cdd-2 (C-29-7)19bcd-1 WAYNE (C-29-11)27aad-1 Junction (C-29-10)18ddd-1 Beaver (C-29-2)35bad-1

(C-30-2)34bcc-1 38° (C-33-9)14dbd-2 IRON (C-33-8)22bbc-2 Monticello (C-34-10)13cbd-2 (C-33-8)31ccc-1 GARFIELD (C-34-16)28dcc-3 Parowan (C-35-15)3dcc-3 Panguitch (C-35-17)7dad-2 (C-36-15)4bad-3 (C-35-11)31dbd-1 (C-36-15)7cdd-2 (C-36-12)36adb-1 Cedar City SAN JUAN

(C-37-12)34abb-1 (C-37-12)23acb-1

WASHINGTON Bluff R(C-40-4)31bad-1 (D-40-22)30bbb-1 (C-41-17)8cbd-2 KANE (D-40-21)25acd-1 (D-40-23)27baa-1 (C-42-14)15cbd-1 Lake (C-42-11)33bcb-1 Powell St George Kanab 37° (C-44-5)6cbb-1

Figure 41. Location of groundwater sites sampled during the summer of 2012. 106 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

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

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

pH, field, Specific Water Hardness, Local Calcium, Magnesium, Station in conductance, temperature, water, identifier Date dissolved, dissolved, number standard field, field, in mg/L as (refer to figure 41) in mg/L in mg/L units in µS/cm at 25°C in °C CaCO 3 Beaver County Beaver Valley (C-29-7)19bcd-1 381625112412901 6/25/2012 7.2 498 13.5 164 50.8 9.07 Cove Fort area (C-26-7)26cac-1 383101112365301 8/6/2012 7.9 634 14.8 270 82.3 15.7 Escalante Valley, Milford area (C-28-10)20daa-1 382135112592801 6/18/2012 7.0 2,110 19.5 902 188 105 (C-28-10)29bcc-2 381543113035501 6/18/2012 7.6 737 15.5 267 80 16.4 (C-29-10)5cdd-2 382046113002702 6/18/2012 7.1 790 21.4 310 72.8 31.2 (C-29-10)18ddd-1 381835113000001 6/18/2012 7.0 768 15.4 346 103 21.5 (C-29-11)27aad-1 381649113003401 6/18/2012 7.2 888 16.7 402 121 24.1 Box Elder County Curlew Valley (B-12-11)6abb-1 414813113082901 7/13/2012 7.5 751 14.9 271 80.1 17.3 (B-12-11)8bbb-1 414720113075201 7/13/2012 7.2 2,580 14.2 705 200 49.9 (B-12-11)8baa-1 414721113072601 7/13/2012 7.2 3,960 13.5 1,400 406 93.2 (B-14-9)5bbb-1 415847112540401 7/12/2012 7.0 1,400 17.3 513 151 33.1 (B-15-10)36bbb-1 415939112562201 7/12/2012 7.5 488 16.0 196 58.5 12.1 Lower Bear River area (B-11-4)3bac-1 414313112172501 8/31/2012 6.8 1,950 14.9 616 134 68.3 (B-14-4)1dac-1 415833112150701 8/31/2012 7.1 734 12.1 281 71.1 25 Cache County Cache Valley (B-11-1)9cdb-1 414209111574001 8/24/2012 6.8 915 13.0 352 94.5 28 (B-11-1)35cca-1 413840111552601 8/24/2012 7.0 693 12.0 227 56.6 20.8 (A-12-1)29cab-1 414501111520001 8/24/2012 7.2 488 20.9 224 54 21.6 (A-12-1)31dab-2 414409111523502 8/24/2012 7.4 402 16.3 213 50.3 21.3 (A-13-1)29bcd-1 415020111520401 8/24/2012 7.3 438 13.4 199 41.5 23.1 Davis County East Shore area (B-2-1)24bad-3 405351111540803 6/11/2012 7.8 452 15.7 94 27.6 6.17 (B-4-2)27aba-1 410340112030001 6/11/2012 8.1 599 13.7 46 11.6 4.09 (B-6-3)15cbc-1 411523112082101 6/11/2012 8.3 409 15.8 33 7.83 3.26 (B-9-2)15daa-1 413057112023901 6/12/2012 8.4 607 16.1 9 1.93 0.907 Duchesne County Duchesne River area U(C-1-1)24cbb-2 402252109571501 7/10/2012 6.8 736 14.5 398 86.6 44.2 U(C-1-2)27ddc-1 402135110051901 7/11/2012 7.3 329 12.5 181 51.1 12.9 U(C-1-2)36adc-1 402116110030801 7/11/2012 7.4 326 11.9 172 46.2 13.8 U(C-2-2)11bab-1 401946110044601 7/9/2012 7.4 334 15.1 169 43.2 14.8 Grand County Spanish Valley (D-26-22)16ddd-3 383201109295301 6/22/2012 7.4 1,280 16.0 613 158 52.9 (D-26-22)26cba-1 383043109282401 6/22/2012 7.5 906 15.8 418 110 34.4 Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012 107

ANC, Nitrate plus Potassium, Sodium, Bromide, Chloride, Fluoride, Silica, Sulfate, Solids, dissolved, Orthophosphate, fixed end point, nitrite, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, in residue at 180°C, dissolved, in mg/L lab, dissolved, in in mg/L in mg/L in mg/L in mg/L in mg/L in mg/L mg/L in mg/L as P in mg/L as CaCO mg/L as N 3 Beaver County Beaver Valley 6.33 29.6 162 0.06 20.5 0.88 40 33.3 297 1.35 0.034 Cove Fort area 2.68 23.2 148 0.17 93.2 0.19 40.9 25.8 392 1.48 0.03 Escalante Valley, Milford area 5.02 66.3 89 1.44 481 0.64 31.3 274 1,390 2.86 0.013 6.15 40.9 130 0.19 98.9 0.38 42.6 77.1 474 2.60 0.032 4.13 35.4 107 0.26 113 0.46 31.3 114 486 0.92 0.015 4.63 27.5 249 0.18 52.3 0.25 34.1 68.1 477 2.56 0.039 5.79 28.3 244 0.27 73.7 0.41 32.7 92.3 555 5.69 0.052 Box Elder County Curlew Valley 2.84 39.8 128 0.13 121 0.15 16.3 28.3 470 0.49 0.01 7.34 251 173 0.48 658 0.09 22.1 291 1,770 3.77 0.013 10.3 218 110 0.81 1,180 0.06 21.2 64.8 2,980 2.57 0.01 13.5 51.2 114 0.28 357 0.17 54 24.3 1,010 1.98 0.026 8.22 17.4 142 0.05 55.2 0.19 58.2 18.4 339 0.80 0.026 Lower Bear River area 5.9 192 302 0.25 246 0.17 25 349 1,320 7.58 0.015 2.27 47.1 211 0.11 98.6 0.12 16.4 29.5 436 1.58 0.021 Cache County Cache Valley 8.3 47.7 387 0.11 76.3 0.61 48.9 0.19 529 <0.04 0.192 11 52.1 302 0.06 49.5 0.33 44.5 <0.09 402 <0.04 0.762 5.5 17.9 221 0.02 15.7 0.22 21.9 19.9 288 1.20 0.024 1.59 8.38 206 0.02 7.22 0.11 11.4 11.3 230 0.48 0.018 1.64 24.9 230 0.02 8.58 0.09 10.6 11.1 265 0.13 0.01 Davis County East Shore area 0.81 60.1 167 0.04 28.7 0.23 16.2 22.7 269 1.48 0.047 5.51 112 262 0.06 41.1 0.36 28.5 0.21 367 <0.04 0.61 9.68 71.4 197 0.04 15.9 0.31 19.2 0.22 254 <0.04 0.253 1.73 139 310 0.02 13.8 0.62 14.8 1.2 387 <0.04 1.36 Duchesne County Duchesne River area 1.14 18.1 348 0.11 5.77 1.5 56.4 62.3 502 0.18 0.019 3.36 4.24 146 0.02 0.54 0.54 8.46 36.7 214 <0.04 <0.004 3.9 3.79 135 0.02 0.69 0.87 7.49 41.3 199 <0.04 <0.004 3.32 11.2 140 0.02 1.25 0.6 9.31 47.5 220 <0.04 <0.004 Grand County Spanish Valley 2.97 64.3 197 0.21 32.5 0.25 15.3 467 998 4.87 0.006 2.72 44.4 214 0.14 20.3 0.2 14.1 248 651 3.69 0.006 108 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

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

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

pH, field, Specific Water Hardness, Local Calcium, Magnesium, Station in conductance, temperature, water, identifier Date dissolved, dissolved, number standard field, field, in mg/L as (refer to figure 41) in mg/L in mg/L units in µS/cm at 25°C in °C CaCO 3 Iron County Cedar Valley (C-35-11)31dbd-1 374248113075201 6/26/2012 7.9 1,170 14.0 661 130 81.5 (C-36-12)36adb-1 373743113084201 8/6/2012 7.0 803 13.1 447 111 41 (C-37-12)23acb-1 373407113100801 6/26/2012 7.4 1,410 14.5 698 157 74.1 (C-37-12)34abb-1 373236113111401 6/26/2012 7.1 816 12.5 466 120 40.1 Escalante Valley, Beryl-Enterprise area (C-34-16)28dcc-3 374934113384601 6/19/2012 7.1 790 18.0 288 87.2 17.2 (C-35-15)3dcc-3 374649113305801 6/19/2012 7.2 1,290 13.8 541 130 52.4 (C-35-17)7dad-2 374617113470601 6/19/2012 7.4 484 15.8 167 52.6 8.75 (C-36-15)4bad-3 374209113322203 6/19/2012 7.4 791 21.2 142 45.1 7.07 (C-36-15)7cdd-2 374040113343102 6/19/2012 7.4 929 24.4 200 52.3 16.9 Parowan Valley (C-33-8)22bbc-2 375523112451902 6/25/2012 7.9 495 16.6 64 15.4 6.32 (C-33-8)31ccc-1 375257112483501 6/25/2012 7.3 482 14.7 214 44.5 25 (C-33-9)14dbd-2 375548112500401 6/25/2012 7.9 725 16.2 207 34.3 29.6 (C-34-10)13cbd-2 375033112561101 6/25/2012 7.4 475 12.8 221 43.3 27.3 Juab County Juab Valley (C-14-1)26dbd-1 393342111534501 8/14/2012 7.4 1,170 13.7 534 114 60.4 (D-11-1)21bbb-1 395059111501901 8/14/2012 7.4 530 12.9 266 64.8 25.3 (D-13-1)5ddb-2 394225111502702 8/14/2012 7.2 1,510 12.6 475 129 37.2 Kane County Kanab area (C-44-5)6cbb-1 370050112274501 7/31/2012 7.0 2,100 15.1 712 178 65.1 R(C-40-4)31bad-1 371740112210601 7/31/2012 7.1 2,010 11.4 1,100 149 176 Millard County Pahvant Valley (C-21-5)7cdd-3 385939112272303 6/27/2012 7.1 1,500 12.1 546 120 59.8 (C-23-5)5acd-1 385026112261001 6/27/2012 7.4 580 15.0 265 71.2 21.2 (C-23-6)8abd-1 384953112325101 6/27/2012 7.0 7,670 14.9 2,170 542 198 (C-23-6)21add-1 384751112312201 6/27/2012 7.5 1,230 14.2 347 64.8 44.9 (C-23-6)28bbb-2 384722112322101 6/27/2012 7.6 6,590 13.4 2,320 415 312 Sevier Desert (C-15-4)11add-1 393158112152001 8/16/2012 7.1 1,770 14.5 518 122 51.5 (C-15-4)26dcc-1 392859112154601 8/14/2012 7.3 962 15.0 417 113 32.6 (C-15-5)15dad-1 393046112231301 8/16/2012 7.5 925 15.3 313 61.1 38.9 (C-16-4)18bda-1 392555112203001 8/16/2012 7.6 1,340 17.1 573 119 67 Snake Valley (C-18-19)20ddd-2 391324114000001 8/15/2012 7.9 339 21.9 121 29.6 11.5 (C-20-20)1baa-2 390604114025201 8/15/2012 7.6 433 15.1 184 46.1 16.8 (C-23-19)4bcd-1 385048113592901 8/15/2012 7.7 447 12.1 209 39.8 26.7 Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012 109

ANC, Nitrate plus Potassium, Sodium, Bromide, Chloride, Fluoride, Silica, Sulfate, Solids, dissolved, Orthophosphate, fixed end point, nitrite, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, in residue at 180°C, dissolved, in mg/L lab, dissolved, in in mg/L in mg/L in mg/L in mg/L in mg/L in mg/L mg/L in mg/L as P in mg/L as CaCO mg/L as N 3 Iron County Cedar Valley 2.44 12.4 132 0.07 14.7 0.2 19.4 467 865 2.51 0.009 1.87 15.1 300 0.04 7.03 0.11 18 146 527 1.51 0.009 2 53.5 144 0.67 133 0.07 16.6 435 1,050 2.08 0.018 1.99 16.1 318 0.06 8.69 0.17 16.9 131 540 1.01 0.012 Escalante Valley, Beryl-Enterprise area 8.02 35.1 132 0.45 120 1.1 66.9 58.5 531 1.13 0.027 5.29 64.6 126 0.56 167 0.37 57.3 299 866 1.15 0.026 7.46 32.5 146 0.09 20.5 0.59 69.8 66 356 0.95 0.024 4.47 119 156 0.13 37.4 1.38 51.8 182 546 0.77 0.027 3.73 126 122 0.12 41.9 1.4 42.9 280 639 0.49 0.017 Parowan Valley 1.44 80.5 121 0.08 69.8 0.46 22.9 18.2 294 0.31 0.024 2.59 23.3 202 0.07 22.2 0.18 27.3 21.1 290 1.60 0.027 2.61 61 111 0.21 142 0.38 20.7 31.9 396 0.10 0.023 4.55 16.2 200 0.07 17.5 0.24 40.5 24.6 330 1.74 0.025 Juab County Juab Valley 3.11 65.1 247 0.05 58.9 0.18 19.1 298 811 1.86 0.02 0.91 12.3 209 0.05 20.5 0.09 9.19 38.1 310 1.68 0.006 3.58 141 347 0.10 215 0.13 23.4 114 898 5.45 0.029 Kane County Kanab area 9.79 254 312 0.24 56.8 0.36 13.7 859 1,690 0.06 0.004 10.1 112 382 0.11 26.6 0.42 13.2 858 1,630 <0.04 0.005 Millard County Pahvant Valley 4.85 115 311 0.28 171 0.15 24 241 999 5.25 0.022 1.88 25.1 249 0.05 26.9 0.16 18.7 26.2 350 1.06 0.035 75.4 851 322 2.34 1,930 0.86 34 1,210 5,310 1.91 0.067 4.93 116 185 0.35 189 0.4 24.7 141 742 5.43 0.019 11.9 512 177 2.85 1,770 0.22 27 788 4,690 36.30 0.019 Sevier Desert 5.44 188 280 0.25 258 0.31 20.4 255 1,120 0.80 0.017 1.62 46.4 174 0.19 76.9 0.09 13.1 179 594 10.50 0.015 3.66 67.3 175 0.15 166 0.3 27.1 49.4 544 0.16 0.016 3.6 40.8 125 0.40 293 0.11 25.5 48.2 844 10.80 0.014 Snake Valley 1.73 23.9 135 0.04 19.5 0.11 13.3 9.75 195 0.19 0.007 1.24 19.1 143 0.10 33.1 0.12 16.7 25.9 249 0.65 0.01 2.52 13.9 153 0.05 11.8 1.53 19.6 61 276 0.29 0.009 110 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

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

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

pH, field, Specific Water Hardness, Local Calcium, Magnesium, Station in conductance, temperature, water, identifier Date dissolved, dissolved, number standard field, field, in mg/L as (refer to figure 41) in mg/L in mg/L units in µS/cm at 25°C in °C CaCO 3 Salt Lake County Salt Lake Valley (A-1-1)31cac-1 404627111532601 7/2/2012 7.0 1,180 13.8 459 114 42 (C-3-1)12ccb-3 403409111542401 7/3/2012 7.4 2,390 19.2 573 143 52.1 (D-1-1)7abd-6 404506111523301 7/2/2012 7.0 1,360 14.5 605 147 57.8 (D-1-1)19cdb-17 404253111530901 7/3/2012 7.4 1,100 14.9 529 141 42.9 (D-2-1)21dbc-1 403742111503201 7/2/2012 7.9 334 13.6 150 39.8 12.3 San Juan County Blanding-Bluff area (D-40-21)25acd-1 371657109331901 8/23/2012 8.9 416 — 11 3.14 0.856 (D-40-22)30bbb-1 371716109325501 8/23/2012 8.9 796 19.6 5 1.26 0.427 (D-40-23)27baa-1 371621109211001 8/23/2012 7.5 3,110 19.4 102 24.6 9.75 Sanpete County Central Sevier Valley (C-19-1)23cac-1 390819111530701 8/6/2012 7.0 2,600 11.7 759 112 116 Sanpete Valley (D-15-4)17abb-1 393113111294501 8/28/2012 7.6 L 580 10.1 320 68.4 36.1 (D-17-2)14ccb-1 391955111401301 8/28/2012 7.7 L 890 13.1 399 61.2 59.7 (D-17-3)9cbd-1 392056111353801 8/28/2012 7.9 L 651 11.8 319 53.9 44.7 Sevier County Central Sevier Valley (C-23-2)15dcb-4 384757112002201 8/6/2012 7.3 664 12.9 319 64.7 38.4 (C-23-2)19dab-1 384702112031001 8/6/2012 7.2 649 13.3 327 62.6 41.4 (C-29-2)35bad-1 381440111584001 8/6/2012 7.2 471 14.4 211 58.5 15.7 Upper Sevier River area (C-26-1)25acc-1 383115111512501 8/6/2012 7.0 111 10.3 40 11.7 2.6 (C-30-2)34bcc-1 380915112003001 8/6/2012 7.5 299 13.5 116 36.3 6.2 Tooele County Rush Valley (C-5-5)15add-2 402310112231002 6/5/2012 7.0 542 11.8 263 57 29.2 (C-8-5)6ddb-2 400849112263902 6/5/2012 7.1 674 16.0 247 48.2 30.7 (C-8-5)7ddd-2 400745112263101 6/5/2012 7.2 541 16.4 204 37.5 26.7 Skull Valley (C-3-8)28ddb-1 403126112444501 7/19/2012 7.3 585 14.0 180 50.1 13.3 (C-4-8)33aba-1 402604112445501 7/19/2012 7.6 1,230 15.4 245 42.9 33.5 Tooele Valley (C-2-4)33bdd-1 403629112174801 7/18/2012 7.1 1,030 14.2 287 73.6 25 (C-2-4)34adc-1 403608112164201 7/19/2012 7.7 L 899 18.6 371 84.5 39 (C-2-4)34dad-1 403556112163001 7/18/2012 7.3 1,040 15.2 386 88.9 39.7 (C-2-5)34dbb-1 403602112235701 7/19/2012 7.4 2,110 28.3 315 75.7 30.7 (C-2-5)35cab-1 403602112230101 7/18/2012 7.3 3,890 21.0 419 103 39.1 Snake Valley—West Desert area (B-10-18)33aaa-1 413300113543001 7/12/2012 7.4 871 12.1 343 102 21.4 Uintah County Duchesne River area U(C-3-5)31dcd-1 401012110292101 7/9/2012 9.3 1,800 15.2 17 1.85 2.92 Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012 111

ANC, Nitrate plus Potassium, Sodium, Bromide, Chloride, Fluoride, Silica, Sulfate, Solids, dissolved, Orthophosphate, fixed end point, nitrite, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, in residue at 180°C, dissolved, in mg/L lab, dissolved, in in mg/L in mg/L in mg/L in mg/L in mg/L in mg/L mg/L in mg/L as P in mg/L as CaCO mg/L as N 3 Salt Lake County Salt Lake Valley 3.5 67.1 269 0.07 180 0.18 18 72.7 706 4.35 0.016 23.6 263 202 0.29 529 0.27 29.3 217 1,440 0.66 0.01 3.1 60.4 290 0.12 194 0.15 16.9 169 874 4.85 0.041 3.73 46.3 257 0.07 99.7 0.21 15.8 212 749 2.93 0.017 1.9 12 114 0.04 19.7 0.19 10.4 26.9 203 1.65 0.011 San Juan County Blanding-Bluff area 1.26 95.2 171 0.02 1.89 0.08 10.1 43.1 272 <0.040 0.005 1.01 191 354 0.04 15.1 0.43 9.72 48.1 488 <0.040 0.008 13.2 501 765 1.06 449 1.28 10.7 189 1,900 <0.040 0.006 Sanpete County Central Sevier Valley 3.3 332 600 <0.01 332 0.35 35 350 1,680 4.89 0.06 Sanpete Valley 1.2 9.33 286 0.02 5.29 0.07 8.54 14.5 335 2.70 0.005 1.32 49.6 305 0.09 56 0.2 17.3 106 546 0.88 0.015 1.44 29.2 322 0.03 8.34 0.15 12.1 35.3 379 1.97 0.007 Sevier County Central Sevier Valley 3.35 21 270 0.08 27.1 0.33 32.2 44.8 400 1.08 0.041 2.31 17.9 307 0.06 13.5 0.18 14 19.6 366 3.09 0.017 6.17 15.6 186 0.16 25.9 0.17 45 17.2 300 1.09 0.068 Upper Sevier River area 1.95 7.04 48.9 0.02 3.76 0.24 43.6 1.41 94 0.33 0.062 4.45 18 136 0.04 8.55 0.24 36.6 6.24 204 0.77 0.152 Tooele County Rush Valley 1.17 16 196 0.05 42.1 0.17 12.8 21.7 309 1.33 0.009 2.61 46.4 168 0.08 97 0.57 15 30.2 386 0.46 0.005 2.52 35.4 155 0.07 65 0.68 14.6 24.2 301 0.06 0.006 Skull Valley 1.79 47.2 119 0.08 101 0.14 17.8 17.7 353 1.01 0.025 14 182 174 0.20 285 0.12 24.5 54.8 790 8.61 0.015 Tooele Valley 2.15 109 218 0.13 137 0.12 12.1 111 616 1.80 0.046 1.48 61 235 0.08 51.3 0.07 13.2 173 588 3.12 0.022 1.76 76.3 227 0.13 106 0.06 14.4 165 640 3.33 0.023 5.13 297 183 0.33 546 0.2 20.7 35.9 1,170 0.48 0.009 9.68 644 197 0.69 1,160 0.46 24.2 88.3 2,230 1.47 0.018 Snake Valley—West Desert area 8.21 45.4 173 0.21 115 0.29 50 63.3 565 0.53 0.04 Uintah County Duchesne River area 1.14 426 540 0.07 170 1.39 14.7 156 1,150 <0.04 0.068 112 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

Table 5. Physical properties and concentration of major ions and nutrients in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012.—Continued [µS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; °C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; ANC, acid neutralization capacity; —, no data; <, less than; L, laboratory value]

pH, field, Specific Water Hardness, Local Calcium, Magnesium, Station in conductance, temperature, water, identifier Date dissolved, dissolved, number standard field, field, in mg/L as (refer to figure 41) in mg/L in mg/L units in µS/cm at 25°C in °C CaCO 3 Utah County Cedar Valley (C-6-2)26cbc-1 401600112023401 7/16/2012 7.4 956 11.2 421 67.7 61.1 (C-6-2)29bdb-1 401620112054301 7/16/2012 8.7 228 10.5 93 15.5 13.2 Goshen Valley (C-9-1)28ccb-1 395956111572101 7/24/2012 7.2 2,310 17.7 760 199 63.8 (D-9-2)9bac-1 400311111432001 7/23/2012 7.2 680 14.7 318 79.2 29.2 Northern Utah Valley (D-5-1)20aba-2 402234111511501 7/23/2012 7.3 499 11.3 248 56.2 26.1 (D-5-1)21dda-2 402154111495101 7/23/2012 7.6 382 11.5 204 47 21.1 Southern Utah Valley (C-9-1)4ddc-1 400309111565101 7/24/2012 7.5 1,390 17.0 345 89 29.9 (D-7-2)4cbb-2 401414111435301 7/23/2012 7.7 538 13.0 265 66.7 23.9 (D-9-1)36bbc-1 395942111470801 7/24/2012 7.5 527 10.7 280 71.5 24.7 Wasatch County Heber Valley (D-3-4)26dba-1 403146111272701 8/30/2012 7.1 752 13.0 367 112 21.6 (D-4-4)12dcc-1 402842111263101 8/30/2012 6.8 733 11.9 332 93.9 23.6 (D-4-4)13bdd-1 402810111263601 8/29/2012 7.6 475 21.5 239 56.2 24 (D-4-5)3dcc-1 402937111214901 8/29/2012 6.8 540 11.7 278 91.2 12.3 (D-4-5)4ccb-1 402946111233901 8/30/2012 6.7 414 12.5 211 67.3 10.4 (D-4-5)6bcc-2 403003111255801 8/29/2012 7.0 368 12.5 186 56 11.2 (D-4-5)16bab-1 402840111232201 8/29/2012 7.1 643 L 12.5 337 92.2 25.9 (D-4-5)16ccd-1 402750111232701 8/29/2012 7.1 604 11.9 278 71.2 24.4 Washington County Central Virgin River area (C-41-17)8cbd-2 371348113470301 7/30/2012 7.3 488 18.6 235 67.2 16.2 (C-42-11)33bcb-1 370535113062301 7/30/2012 6.9 1,190 17.6 684 160 69.2 (C-42-14)15cbd-1 370538113251301 7/30/2012 7.1 2,620 25.5 1,260 268 143 Wayne County Upper Fremont River Valley (D-27-2)26ddc-1 382544111392401 8/6/2012 7.3 240 10.7 95 26.6 6.92 Weber County East Shore area (B-5-2)6bdd-4 411153112064601 6/12/2012 7.9 431 16.5 145 35.4 13.8 Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012 113

ANC, Nitrate plus Potassium, Sodium, Bromide, Chloride, Fluoride, Silica, Sulfate, Solids, dissolved, Orthophosphate, fixed end point, nitrite, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, dissolved, in residue at 180°C, dissolved, in mg/L lab, dissolved, in in mg/L in mg/L in mg/L in mg/L in mg/L in mg/L mg/L in mg/L as P in mg/L as CaCO mg/L as N 3 Utah County Cedar Valley 3.68 28 187 0.16 135 0.27 55 51.2 578 0.31 0.036 0.99 15 113 0.03 12.9 0.14 2.58 0.6 128 0.15 <0.004 Goshen Valley 20.2 150 106 0.77 554 0.15 61 124 1,550 21.70 0.023 8.04 28.3 269 0.05 30.7 0.2 49.7 40.5 434 3.98 0.032 Northern Utah Valley 1.59 14.5 202 0.02 13 0.13 11.8 45.4 302 2.39 0.007 0.99 7.24 160 0.02 6.36 0.18 11.2 42.9 230 0.69 0.008 Southern Utah Valley 14.7 144 140 0.32 293 0.32 66.5 110 847 2.34 0.024 2.53 16.4 232 0.04 12.9 0.19 18.7 44.5 328 <0.04 0.024 1.51 7.72 228 0.04 22 0.19 15.9 20.1 311 2.41 0.01 Wasatch County Heber Valley 6.06 23.1 261 — 26.9 0.44 19 83.6 4581 2.07 0.022 1.47 27.9 249 — 60 0.09 21.9 38.3 4341 3.95 0.042 1.82 10.3 208 — 20.5 0.25 12.5 17.8 2701 0.39 0.022 3.41 8.58 197 — 38.7 0.07 37 7.71 3501 7.30 0.082 2.56 5.58 170 — 15.2 0.09 40.3 14.8 2771 4.30 0.092 2.08 8.66 161 — 10.3 0.06 29.4 18.1 2381 1.29 0.032 1.66 16.1 290 — 23.6 0.13 29.5 20.1 3981 3.45 0.032 1.16 26 219 — 40.1 0.11 17.2 21.6 3591 5.92 0.022 Washington County Central Virgin River area 2.16 15.2 202 0.07 14.9 0.28 18.5 35.5 299 0.33 0.012 2.25 48.4 230 0.53 62.2 0.2 12.3 416 910 <0.04 <0.004 9.6 163 170 0.51 285 0.27 21.3 943 2,090 10.30 0.01 Wayne County Upper Fremont River Valley 2.74 14.2 105 0.03 6.64 0.24 41 11.6 170 0.27 0.023 Weber County East Shore area 7.49 31.5 211 0.03 16.4 0.18 24.7 <0.09 246 <0.04 0.158

1 Dissolved solids determined by sum of constituents. 2 Phosphorus, dissolved, in mg/L as P. 114 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

Table 6. Concentration of trace elements in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012. [µg/L, micrograms per liter; < , less than; —, no data] Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Selenium, Uranium, Local identifier Station number Date dissolved, in dissolved, in dissolved, in dissolved, in dissolved, in dissolved, in (refer to figure 41) µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L Beaver County Beaver Valley (C-29-7)19bcd-1 381625112412901 6/25/2012 5.6 <3.2 3.74 2.7 0.59 21 Cove Fort area (C-26-7)26cac-1 383101112365301 8/6/2012 2.5 31.9 0.25 0.354 1.6 3.85 Escalante Valley, Milford area (C-28-10)20daa-1 382135112592801 6/18/2012 3.1 17.3 <0.32 2.53 8.1 5.84 (C-28-10)29bcc-2 382046113002702 6/18/2012 7 11.2 0.23 2.27 4.7 13.2 (C-29-10) 5cdd-2 381835113000001 6/18/2012 2.5 5 0.26 0.578 0.64 28.7 (C-29-10)18ddd-1 381649113003401 6/18/2012 2.9 4.2 <0.16 1.77 0.81 58.3 (C-29-11)27aad-1 381543113035501 6/18/2012 3.7 <3.2 <0.16 1.53 0.89 12.4 Box Elder County Curlew Valley (B-12-11)6abb-1 414813113082901 7/13/2012 1.2 3.6 <0.16 0.957 0.97 1.98 (B-12-11)8baa-1 414721113072601 7/13/2012 0.45 18.1 <0.8 0.293 1.1 4.38 (B-12-11)8bbb-1 414720113075201 7/13/2012 0.92 6.7 <0.32 0.439 1 3.9 (B-14-9)5bbb-1 415847112540401 7/12/2012 1.9 3.7 <0.16 0.786 2 1.6 (B-15-10)36bbb-1 415939112562201 7/12/2012 2.5 <3.2 <0.16 0.819 1.1 1.74 Lower Bear River area (B-11-4)3bac-1 414313112172501 8/31/2012 0.95 4.1 <0.16 0.784 2.8 4.51 (B-14-4)1dac-1 415833112150701 8/31/2012 1.8 7.3 <0.16 0.434 1.8 0.904 Cache County Cache Valley (A-12-1)29cab-1 414501111520001 8/24/2012 1.4 <3.2 <0.16 0.682 0.2 0.634 (A-12-1)31dab-2 414409111523502 8/24/2012 1 <3.2 <0.16 0.47 0.33 0.711 (A-13-1)29bcd-1 415020111520401 8/24/2012 6.4 153 66.7 0.772 0.06 0.321 (B-11-1)9cdb-1 414209111574001 8/24/2012 13.1 1,770 283 0.15 0.09 <0.004 (B-11-1)35cca-1 413840111552601 8/24/2012 23.5 1,850 168 0.671 <0.03 0.004 Davis County East Shore area (B-2-1)24bad-3 405351111540803 6/11/2012 0.902 <3.2 <0.16 3.2 0.561 3.07 (B-4-2)27aba-1 410340112030001 6/11/2012 23.8 256 47.2 0.402 <0.03 0.006 (B-6-3)15cbc-1 411523112082101 6/11/2012 22.1 89.2 54.1 3.06 <0.03 0.004 (B-9-2)15daa-1 413057112023901 6/12/2012 0.11 249 11 0.534 <0.03 0.326 Duchesne County Duchesne River area U(C-1-1)24cbb-2 402252109571501 7/10/2012 9 23 16.7 2.06 0.89 6.29 U(C-1-2)27ddc-1 402135110051901 7/11/2012 0.69 783 13.1 0.449 <0.03 0.192 U(C-1-2)36adc-1 402116110030801 7/11/2012 0.57 528 23.9 0.517 <0.03 0.264 U(C-2-2)11bab-1 401946110044601 7/9/2012 0.11 234 9.41 0.415 <0.03 0.137 Grand County Spanish Valley (D-26-22)16ddd-3 383201109295301 6/22/2012 0.35 27.1 1.5 0.829 7.7 5.02 (D-26-22)26cba-1 383043109282401 6/22/2012 0.43 8.9 <0.16 0.807 3.5 4.09 Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012 115

Table 6. Concentration of trace elements in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012.—Continued [µg/L, micrograms per liter; < , less than; —, no data] Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Selenium, Uranium, Local identifier Station number Date dissolved, in dissolved, in dissolved, in dissolved, in dissolved, in dissolved, in (refer to figure 41) µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L Iron County Cedar Valley (C-35-11)31dbd-1 374248113075201 6/26/2012 0.89 10.5 <0.16 0.525 1.6 3.01 (C-36-12)36adb-1 373743113084201 8/6/2012 0.9 <3.2 <0.16 0.338 1 2.41 (C-37-12)23acb-1 373407113100801 6/26/2012 0.68 3.7 <0.16 0.417 12.7 2.18 (C-37-12)34abb-1 373236113111401 6/26/2012 0.32 <3.2 <0.16 0.461 0.8 1.86 Escalante Valley, Beryl-Enterprise area (C-34-16)28dcc-3 374934113384601 6/19/2012 18.5 5.4 0.18 1.72 1.8 3.12 (C-35-15)3dcc-3 374649113305801 6/19/2012 14.7 5.1 2.79 1.38 1.7 3.7 (C-35-17)7dad-2 374617113470601 6/19/2012 6.1 <3.2 <0.16 0.785 0.67 5.44 (C-36-15)4bad-3 374209113322203 6/19/2012 22.5 <3.2 <0.16 9.09 0.37 1.43 (C-36-15)7cdd-2 374040113343102 6/19/2012 26.1 4 <0.16 17.7 0.35 3.3 Parowan Valley (C-33-8)22bbc-2 375523112451902 6/25/2012 10.4 <3.2 8.28 1.36 0.12 0.569 (C-33-8)31ccc-1 375257112483501 6/25/2012 4.1 <3.2 <0.16 0.467 0.94 2.09 (C-33-9)14dbd-2 375548112500401 6/25/2012 9.8 5.4 1.06 1.97 0.23 1.46 (C-34-10)13cbd-2 375033112561101 6/25/2012 5.8 <3.2 <0.16 0.718 1.1 3.51 Juab County Juab Valley (C-14-1)26dbd-1 393342111534501 8/14/2012 1.2 4.5 <0.16 1.99 0.86 2.19 (D-11-1)21bbb-1 395059111501901 8/14/2012 0.22 <3.2 <0.16 0.538 5 1.19 (D-13-1)5ddb-2 394225111502702 8/14/2012 0.78 <3.2 <0.16 0.681 2.7 2.18 Kane County Kanab area (C-44-5)6cbb-1 370050112274501 7/31/2012 0.58 15.6 128 3.2 <0.03 0.533 R(C-40-4)31bad-1 371740112210601 7/31/2012 0.15 377 180 0.608 <0.03 5.26 Millard County Pahvant Valley (C-21-5)7cdd-3 385939112272303 6/27/2012 2.1 <3.2 <0.16 1.33 3 3.39 (C-23-5)5acd-1 385026112261001 6/27/2012 2.4 <3.2 <0.16 0.277 0.34 0.929 (C-23-6)8abd-1 384953112325101 6/27/2012 1.8 <12.8 <0.64 0.749 1.4 4.01 (C-23-6)21add-1 384751112312201 6/27/2012 6.3 <3.2 <0.16 1.39 2.5 2.87 (C-23-6)28bbb-2 384722112322101 6/27/2012 1.9 <12.8 <0.64 0.708 7.7 12.2 Sevier Desert (C-15-4)11add-1 393158112152001 8/16/2012 7 3.9 <0.16 1.24 1.4 4.53 (C-15-4)26dcc-1 392859112154601 8/14/2012 1.9 <3.2 <0.16 0.209 4.6 0.877 (C-15-5)15dad-1 393046112231301 8/16/2012 4.9 11.5 7.84 2.18 0.21 1.92 (C-16-4)18bda-1 392555112203001 8/16/2012 2.3 65 4.41 0.409 1.8 1.74 Snake Valley (C-18-19)20ddd-2 391324114000001 8/15/2012 0.87 <3.2 <0.16 0.463 0.36 1.44 (C-20-20)1baa-2 390604114025201 8/15/2012 1.4 <3.2 <0.16 0.607 0.67 1.39 (C-23-19)4bcd-1 385048113592901 8/15/2012 3.7 <3.2 <0.16 8.63 3.5 3.3 116 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

Table 6. Concentration of trace elements in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012.—Continued [µg/L, micrograms per liter; < , less than; —, no data] Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Selenium, Uranium, Local identifier Station number Date dissolved, in dissolved, in dissolved, in dissolved, in dissolved, in dissolved, in (refer to figure 41) µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L Salt Lake County Salt Lake Valley (A-1-1)31cac-1 404627111532601 7/2/2012 1.3 5.5 <0.16 1.47 1.5 2.05 (C-3-1)12ccb-3 403409111542401 7/3/2012 0.34 108 11.5 2.26 1.8 7.5 (D-1-1)7abd-6 404506111523301 7/2/2012 1.1 13.6 6.49 1.12 1.7 1.89 (D-1-1)19cdb-17 404253111530901 7/3/2012 0.6 4.7 0.24 0.484 1.7 1.23 (D-2-1)21dbc-1 403742111503201 7/2/2012 0.94 <3.2 <0.16 2.6 0.43 5.17 San Juan County Blanding-Bluff area (D-40-21)25acd-1 371657109331901 8/23/2012 9.4 <3.2 7.45 0.637 <0.03 0.033 (D-40-22)30bbb-1 371716109325501 8/23/2012 68.6 4.7 1.44 1.73 <0.03 0.395 (D-40-23)27baa-1 371621109211001 8/23/2012 22.6 519 16.7 2.89 0.09 1.52 Sanpete County Central Sevier Valley (C-19-1)23cac-1 390819111530701 8/6/2012 8.9 <6.4 <0.32 6.1 4.1 10.8 Sanpete Valley (D-15-4)17abb-1 393113111294501 8/28/2012 0.21 <3.2 <0.16 0.236 0.52 1.11 (D-17-2)14ccb-1 391955111401301 8/28/2012 1.2 <3.2 <0.16 0.692 6 2.42 (D-17-3)9cbd-1 392056111353801 8/28/2012 0.38 4.9 <0.16 1.07 1.1 2.19 Sevier County Central Sevier Valley (C-23-2)15dcb-4 384757112002201 8/6/2012 3.9 <3.2 <0.16 3.56 1.2 5.31 (C-23-2)19dab-1 384702112031001 8/6/2012 1.9 <3.2 <0.16 0.52 0.35 1.97 (C-29-2)35bad-1 381440111584001 8/6/2012 1.5 <3.2 0.19 0.521 0.31 6.21 Upper Sevier River area (C-26-1)25acc-1 383115111512501 8/6/2012 2.5 <3.2 <0.16 0.921 0.16 0.111 (C-30-2)34bcc-1 380915112003001 8/6/2012 2.2 5.4 0.81 0.695 0.29 1.08 Tooele County Rush Valley (C-5-5)15add-2 402310112231002 6/5/2012 1.7 <3.2 <0.16 0.778 1.6 1.93 (C-8-5)6ddb-2 400849112263902 6/5/2012 13.2 <3.2 <0.16 2.49 0.81 1.54 (C-8-5)7ddd-2 400745112263101 6/5/2012 19.8 <3.2 <0.16 2.96 0.09 1.87 Skull Valley (C-3-8)28ddb-1 403126112444501 7/19/2012 1 <3.2 <0.16 0.586 0.39 0.401 (C-4-8)33aba-1 402604112445501 7/19/2012 3.8 36.4 0.47 0.341 0.7 2.9 Snake Valley—West Desert area (B-10-18)33aaa-1 413300113543001 7/12/2012 6.7 12.4 0.16 4.48 3.2 8.06 Tooele Valley (C-2-4)33bdd-1 403629112174801 7/18/2012 1.4 3.3 <0.16 0.516 1.9 2.2 (C-2-4)34adc-1 403608112164201 7/19/2012 2 3.3 <0.16 0.305 12.6 1.97 (C-2-4)34dad-1 403556112163001 7/18/2012 2.7 4.6 <0.16 0.424 10.3 1.81 (C-2-5)34dbb-1 403602112235701 7/19/2012 1.4 29.4 5.36 1.53 0.83 2.06 (C-2-5)35cab-1 403602112230101 7/18/2012 4.4 47.8 0.98 3.82 2.2 2.02 Quality of Water from Selected Wells in Utah, Summer of 2012 117

Table 6. Concentration of trace elements in water samples collected from selected wells in Utah, summer of 2012.—Continued [µg/L, micrograms per liter; < , less than; —, no data] Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Selenium, Uranium, Local identifier Station number Date dissolved, in dissolved, in dissolved, in dissolved, in dissolved, in dissolved, in (refer to figure 41) µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L Uintah County Duchesne River area U(C-3-5)31dcd-1 401012110292101 7/9/2012 0.14 <3.2 0.26 0.045 0.04 0.033 Utah County Cedar Valley (C-6-2)26cbc-1 401600112023401 7/16/2012 5.6 21.9 34.4 38.7 0.92 7.56 (C-6-2)29bdb-1 401620112054301 7/16/2012 1.6 43.6 24.5 0.56 0.18 0.169 Goshen Valley (C-9-1)28ccb-1 395956111572101 7/24/2012 3.7 7.9 <0.32 1.74 7.8 6.67 (D-9-2)9bac-1 400311111432001 7/23/2012 2.6 <3.2 <0.16 1.06 1.2 2.39 Northern Utah Valley (D-5-1)20aba-2 402234111511501 7/23/2012 0.59 <3.2 <0.16 1.09 1.5 7.41 (D-5-1)21dda-2 402154111495101 7/23/2012 0.82 <3.2 <0.16 1.99 1.5 1.83 Southern Utah Valley (C-9-1)4ddc-1 400309111565101 7/24/2012 11.7 <3.2 <0.16 2.03 2.2 5.29 (D-7-2)4cbb-2 401414111435301 7/23/2012 1.9 491 73.8 0.928 <0.03 0.019 (D-9-1)36bbc-1 395942111470801 7/24/2012 0.42 <3.2 <0.16 0.551 1.6 1.59 Wasatch County Heber Valley (D-3-4)26dba-1 403146111272701 8/30/2012 — 5.5 0.17 — — — (D-4-4)12dcc-1 402842111263101 8/30/2012 — <3.2 <0.16 — — — (D-4-4)13bdd-1 402810111263601 8/29/2012 — 8.2 2.97 — — — (D-4-5)3dcc-1 402937111214901 8/29/2012 — 3.6 <0.16 — — — (D-4-5)4ccb-1 402946111233901 8/30/2012 — 15 1.4 — — — (D-4-5)6bcc-2 403003111255801 8/29/2012 — 6.8 0.96 — — — (D-4-5)16bab-1 402840111232201 8/29/2012 — 6 <0.16 — — — (D-4-5)16ccd-1 402750111232701 8/29/2012 — 55 2.53 — — — Washington County Central Virgin River area (C-41-17)8cbd-2 371348113470301 7/30/2012 23.9 34.7 10.3 5.14 0.7 1.58 (C-42-11)33bcb-1 370535113062301 7/30/2012 6.3 261 170 5.37 <0.03 8.94 (C-42-14)15cbd-1 370538113251301 7/30/2012 7.5 19.3 <0.32 3.17 12.7 11.9 Wayne County Upper Fremont River Valley (D-27-2)26ddc-1 382544111392401 8/6/2012 15 5 15.7 1.37 0.15 3.01 Weber County East Shore area (B-5-2)6bdd-4 411153112064601 6/12/2012 14.2 269 102 0.491 <0.03 <0.004 118 Groundwater Conditions in Utah, Spring of 2013

References Cited

Burden, C.B., and others, 2012, Groundwater conditions in Utah, spring of 2012: Utah Division of Water Resources Cooperative Investigations Report No. 53, 118 p. Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., 1989, Methods for determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water- Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. A1, 545 p. U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated, National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1–A9, available online at http://pubs.water. usgs.gov/twri9A. [Chapters were published from 1997– 1999; updates and revisions are ongoing and can be viewed at http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/mastererrata. html] Western Regional Climate Center, accessed July 1, 2013, at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu.

UTAH Utah DEPARTMENT OF Department of NATURAL Environmental RESOURCES Quality