DWQ-2024-001794

STATE OF UTAH
DEPAR'IMENI'OF NATURAL RESClJRCES
Technical Publication No.93
GroUNIrWATER RE9JlIRCES AND SIMJIATED EFFECTS OF WITHDRAWALS
IN '!HE FASI'SIDRE AREA OF GREAT SALT lAKE,illAR
By
I:avid W.Clark,Cynthia L.Aj;pel,
Patrick M.Lambert,and Robert L.Puryear
Prepared by the
Uni ted States Geological Survey
in cooperation with the
Utah Departllent of Natural Resources
Division of Water Rights
1990
..............................................................................................
..................................................
....................................................
1
2
2
2
3
7
7
14
14
14
16
20
27
27
28
28
20
26
26
80
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
36
39
39
43
56
56
56
57
57
64
64
73
75
78
Page
................................
................................................
............................................................................................................
Movement
Water-level fluctuations
Seasonal fluctuations
Long-term fluctuations
water-level-change maps
1946-47 to 1985
1953-55 to 1985
1969 to 1985
Storage
Discharge
wells
waterways and springs
Evapotranspiration
Diffuse seepage to Great Salt Lake
Sumnary of the hydrologic budget for t.l1e East Sl'x:>re
aqL1if er sys teIll ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Recharge
Recharge area
Seepage fran natural channels and irrigation
canals
Weber River
Ogden River
Other major streaI!5
Ungaged perennial,epherreral,am
intermittent streams
Irrigation canals
Infiltration fran irrigated fields,lawns,am gardens
Direct infiltration fran precipitation •••••••••••••••••••
SllJ:surfac:e inflow .
.Evidence of iIlflow .
ca.lClllatioo of infl~••••.•••••••.•••••.•••"••••
systen .
Abstract
Introduction
Puq:ose am score •••••••
~tion and ];i1ysie>graphy .
Geohydrologic setting
Climate
Population and lam use
Previous investigations
Well-numbering system used in Utah ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Ackoowledgnents
Surface water
Groum water
Geology am hydraulic prorerties of the East Shore aquifer
iv
a:Nl'ENrS--eontinued
Page
Groom water-eontinued
ChenUcal quality and temperature ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••80
Relation to hydrology and geology ••••••••••••••••••••••••81
01en.ica.l caDp:)si tion ...•••••••••••••••••••••.••.••••••.••84
SlIitability for lISe ••••••••••••••••••••••ill.• • • • • • • • • • • • • •85
O'1.anges in water qua.lity •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••90
'1'errI>er ature ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••94
Sinulation of the East Soore aquifer system in the Weber Delta area 95
Design and construction of the digital-computer model.........95
General discription of the model.........................95
Subdivision of the Weber Delta part of the East Shore
~ifer systen ••••.•.•••...•••.••••••••••..•.••.••...••98
J.t:>Clel gr id •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••98
I3c>lllldary condi tioos •••••••••••.•••••••••••••••.•••••.•.••99
~el para:rn.eters •.•••••.....•...••••••.••••••.••••••••••.•.•.•100
Initial oooo.itioIlS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••100
Redlarge •.•••••••..••••••.•..••••••••••.••••.••..•.••••.•100
Ilydraulic pr~rties ••..•....••.•.••...•••..•••.••••.....101
Disctla.rge ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••106
~el ca.libration ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••107
Steady-state ca.libration ••••••.•••••••••••••.••••••••••••107
Transient-state calibration •••••••.••••••.••••.•••.•.•••.III
5eI'lSitivity ana.lysis 138
Predictive sinulations •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.138
StnTrna.ry aIld oonclusions ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••144
RefererlCes cited .••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••147
ILWSTRATICNS
Plate 1.Map shCMing fX)tentiooetric surface of the East Soore aquifer system,
excluding the Sunset ~ifer,March 1985
Page
Figure 1.Map shooing location of the East Shore area of Great
sa.lt I..ake ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••4
2.Generalized block diagram shCMing water-bearing
fonnations,probable directions of ground-water
IlOverrent,and areas of recharge and disctla.rge ••••••••6
3.Map shCMing recharge areas and major fault zones •••••••8
4.Map shCMing land use and land-use change,1968-85 ••.•••12
5.Diagram shCMing well-numbering system used in Utah......15
6.Hydrogra{i1 of nonthly nean flow of the Weber River at
Gateway,Utah,1969-84 ••••••••••••••••...••....••.•..20
7.Map shooing area where the Sunset and Delta aquifers
of the East Shore ~ifer systan can be
differentiated,and the fX)tentiatetric surface of the
Sunset aquifer,March 1985 ••••••••••••••••••••.••.•.•22
v
IJLUS'IRATIONS-COntinued
Page
Figure 8.Hydrograph shooing relation between annual floo of
centerville Creek and highest water level in well
(A-2-1}lBabd-12,water years 1950-84 ••••••••••••••...28
9.Map showing location of perennial,epherrEral,and
intermittent streams and cross-section lines used to
compute subsurface inf100 ..•.••...••..•..•••••••••••34
10.Map showing location of wells for which hydrographs are
sh<::JYlIl in figures 11-26 40
Figures 11-26.Hydrographs shooing:
11.water levels in a well near Vbods Cross,1936-37,
1946-47, 1955-56,and 1984-85 ••••••••.•••••••••••43
12.water levels in a well southwest of Fannington,
1955-56,1958-59,and 1984-85 ••••.•••••.•••••••••44
13.water levels in a well near Hill Air Force Base,
1964-65 and 1984-85 ••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••44
14.water levels in a well near Kaysville,1936-37,
1946-47, 1955-56,and 1984-85 ••••••••••••••••••••45
15.water levels in a well near Great Salt Lake,
1955-56,1958-59,1963-64,and 1984-85 •••••••••.•45
16.water levels in a well near Great Salt Lake,
1936-37, 1953-54,1958-59,and 1984-85 ••••••••••.46
17.water levels in a well near Wilson,1936-37,
1955-56,1959-60,and 1984-85 ••••••••••••••••••••46
18.water levels in a well south of Willard,1953-54,
1958-59,1959-60,and 1984-85 ••••••.••.••••••••••47
19.water levels in a well near East Layton,1984-85 •••48
20.water levels in a well canpleted in oonsolidated
rock near Harrisville,1984-85 •••••••••••••••••••48
21.water levels in a well north of Slaterville,1984-85 49
22.water levels in a well west of WOods Cross,1936-85 49
23.water levels in wells near Kaysville,1984-85 ••••••50
24.water levels in wells near Great Salt Lake,1984-85 50
25.water levels in wells north of Roy,1984-85 ••••••••51
26.water levels in wells near Pleasant View,1984-85 ..51
Figure 27.Ccxrparison of cumulative departure frem the average
annual precipitation at the ~den Pioneer Powerhouse
to:a)water levels in well (B-5-2)33<Xi~1 and
wi thdrawal frem wells for nunicipal and industrial
use in the Weber Delta area;and b}water levels in
well (B-2-1}26aad-l and withdrawal frem wells for
rmnicipal and industrial use in the Bountiful area •••52
28.Hydrographs shONing water levels in selected wells,
1936-85 53
Figures 29-31.Map:;showing:
29.O1ange in water levels in the East Shore aquifer
system,Bountiful area,1946-47 to 1985 .•.•••••••58
30.O1ange in water levels in the East Shore aquifer
system,1953-55 to 1985 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••60
31.Change in water levels in the East Shore aquifer
system,1969 to 1985 •••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••62
vi
lILUS'lRATION:i-COntinued
Page
Figure 32.Bar graph shCMing withdrawal frem wells for rrunicipa1
and industrial use,1955-84 •••••••••.•••.•••••••••••.•65
33.Map shCMing approximate boundary of flCMing-well area,
1954 am 1985,am location of sections used to
estimate discharge frem flowing wells .••••.••.••.•..•68
Figures 34-39.Hydrogra};ils shCMing:
34.water level in am discharge frem well
(B-1-1)IQaac-l,1963-85 ••••••••••.•••.•••••••••••70
35.water level in and discharge frem well
(B-7-1)30dca-l,1963-85 •.•.••••••••••••••••••••.••70
36.water level in am discharge frem well
(B-7-2)32bbb-l,1963-85 •••••••••.••••••.•••••••••70
37.water level in am discharge frem well
(B-l-l)lQaac-l,1984-85 71
38.water level in am discharge frem well
(B-7-1)3Odca-l,1984-85 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••71
39.water level in am discharge frem well
(B-5-3)lSdda-l,1984-85 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••72
40.Bar graph shCMing total discharge fran 27 selected
flCMing wells,1963-85 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••73
41.Map showing areas of different rates of drain
discharge and c:xxrputation lines used for estimating
diffuse seepage to Great salt Lake ••••••••.•.••••••••76
42.section fran Weber canyon to Great salt Lake sh:>wing
flow path of ground water and values for specific
ooooucta.nce 83
Figures 43-52.Map:;sh:>wing:
43.O1anical eatltX'sition of water fran wells,and
areas where temperature of water frem wells
exceeds 20 degrees celsius •••••••••••••••••••••••86
44.O1loride concentration of water fran wells and
selected.spr ings 88
45.IDeation of evapotranspiration,general-head
boundary,and inactive cells in the rrodel of the
East Shore aquifer system •••••••.•••••••.••.••.••96
46.Transmissivity of layer 2 •••••••••••.•••••••.••••••102
47.Transmissivity of layer 3 .•••••••••.•••••••••••••••104
48.Rate and location of constant recharge values and
drain areas used for steady-state sirrulations
in the IOCldel of the East Soore aquifer system ••••108
49.IDeation of cells used in the calibration of the
nodel of the East Shore GqUifer systan •••••••••••112
50.Comparison of potentiometric contours based on
rreasured water levels for 1955 and contours of
corputed water levels,ItkXiel layer 2 •••••••••••.•114
51.Comparison of potentiometric contours based on
rreasured water levels for 1955 am contours of
c:xxrputed water levels,model layer 3 •••••••••••••116
52.IDeation of cells cxmtaining flowing and pmtped
~lls ...•..•.•..•..••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••120
vii
ILLUS'IRATI(N)-eontinued
Page
Figure 53.Graph shaving groum-water budget resulting fran
steady-state am transient-state calibrations ••••.•••123
54.Map shaving cxxrparison of neasured am canp.1ted
changes in water levels in layer 3,1955-85 ••••••••••124
Figures 55-63.Hydrogra}';tls shaving:
55.Measured am canp..1ted water levels during 1956-85
for an observation well in layer 1 •.•.•••.•••••••126
56.Measured am canp.1ted water levels during 1956-85
for observation wells in layer 2 •••••..••••.•••••127
57.Measured am canp..1ted water levels during 1955-85
for observation wells in layer 3 •.•.....•....••..128
58.~asured am canp.1ted water levels during 1956-85
for an observation well in layer 3 •...•••••..•.•.131
59.~asured am canp.1ted water levels during 1958-85
for an observation well in layer 3 •••.....•••.•••131
60.~asured am canp.1ted water levels during 1965-85
for an observation well in layer 3 •••.•••••..••••131
61.~asured am colplted water levels dur ing 1968-85
for observation wells in layer 3 •••.•••••••••.•••132
62.~asured am canp.1ted water levels during 1970-85
for an observation well in layer 3 .•••••••.•••••.133
63.~asured am canp.1ted water levels during 1971-85
for an observation well in layer 3 ••••••••••••..•133
Figures 64-67.MaPs shaving:
64.CaIparison of PJtentiooetric contours based on
neasured water levels for 1985 am contours of
CDlpUted water levels,IOCdel layer 2 ••.•.••••.•.•134
65.COmparison of potentiooetric contours based on
neasured water levels for 1985 am contours of
CDlpUted water levels,model layer 3 •••••••••••••136
66.Sinulated changes in water levels duri~
1985-2005,in model layer 3,usi~a recharge
rate of 107,000 acre-feet per year .•••••.••••••.•140
67.Sinulated changes in water levels during
1985-2005,in nodel layer 3,using a recharge
rate of 100,000 acre-feet per year ••••••••••••••.142
viii
Table 1.~nnal monthly precipitation for 1951-80 at Bear River
Refuge,~den Sugar Factory,Ogden Pioneer
R:Merhouse,and Pineview Dam climatologic stations ...10
2.Population in the East Shore area ••...•.••.•••..••..•••11
3.Estimated infleM to East Soore area fran major streams,
water years 1969-84 .....•.•........•......•..•.......17
4.Estimated infleM to East Shore area fran ungaged
perennial,intermittent,am e{ileneral streans,water
years 1969-84 ....................................•...18
5.Results of aquifer tests .•••••.••••••••.•••.•••..••.••.25
6.SUnmary of recharge to the Fast Shore aquifer system •.•26
7.Estimated annual subsurface infleM fran oonsolidated
roc::::J{to resin fill 33
8.Vertical gradients between water-bearing units of
different depths in the East Shore area,1985 .•...•.•38
9.Primary reason for water-level fluctuations in
oose-rvation ~lls ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••42
10.Estimated discharge by diffuse seepage to Great
5a.lt I..a.ke ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••79
11.Appro.'Cimate hydrologic budget for the East Shore aquifer
system,1969-84 81
12.Specific conductance of water fran streans at high am
low fleM,selected spr ings,and Gateway tunnel ..•...•82
13.O1emical analyses of water fran selected wells sampled
before 1970 am after 1980 .••..••.•.••••.••••••••••.91
ix
OONIJERSICN FAC'IDRS AID RELATED INFCRMATICN
For readers who prefer to use rcetr ic units,oonversion factors for inch-p:>Und
units used in this report are listed below:
M.1ltiply inch-round units
acre
acre-foot
cubic foot per second
cubic foot per day
cubic mile
foot
foot per acre
foot per day
foot per mile
foot squared per day
gallon per minute
ind1
mile
square mile
To obtain metric units
0.4047 hectare
4,047 square rceter
0.001233 cubic hectatEter
0.02832 cubic meter per second
0.02832 cubic meter per day
4.168 cubic kilaneter
0.3048 meter
0.7532 meter per hectare
0.3048 meter per day
0.1894 meter per kilometer
0.0929 meter squared per day
0.06309 liter per second
25.40 millirceter
2.540 centi.neter
1.609 kilaneter
2.590 square kilatEter
Chemical concentrations and water temperatures are given in metric
units.Chemical concentration is given in milligrams per liter (mg/L)or
micrograms per liter (1J.9/L).Milligrams per liter is a unit expressing the
concentration of chemical constituents in solution as weight (milligrams)of
solute per unit volurce (liter of water).Q1e thoosaoo micrograms per liter is
equivalent to 1 milligram per liter.For ooncentrations less than 7,000 mg/L,
the numerical value is about the same as fer concentrations in parts per
million.
Chemical concentration in terms of ionic interacting values is given in
milliequivalents per liter (maq/L).Meq/L is ru.urerically equal to equivalents
per million.
x
Water temperature is given in degrees Celsius (OC),which can be
oonverted to degrees Fahrenheit (OF)by the follCMing equation:
OF =1.8 (OC)...32
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929)--a geodetic
datum derived fran a general adjustIrent of the first-order level nets of both
the united States and canada,fonnerly called "Sea Level Datum of 1929".
xi
GRJUND-WA'lER RES:XlRCES AND SIKJIATED EFFECl'S OF WITHDRAWALS
IN '!HE FAST SIDRE ARPA OF GRFAT SALT IAKE,urAH
By L\:lvid W.Clark,Cynthia L.~l,
Patrick M.Lambert,and Robert L.Puryear
u.s.Geological SUrvey
The ground-water resources in the East Shore area of Great Salt Lake,
Utah,were studied to better define the ground-water system;to document
changes in groond-water levels,quality,and storage;and to sinulate effects
of an increase in groom-water witlrlra\tals.The East Shore aquifer system is
in basin-fill deposits,and is primarily a oonfir~system with unconfined
parts near the nnmtain front.
Recharge to and discharge from the East Shore aquifer system were
estimated to average about 160,000 acre-feet per year during 1969-84,with
minor amounts of water beiB;J rE!OOVed fran storage duriB;J that period.Major
sources of ground-water recharge are seepage fran surface water in natural
channels and irrigation canals,and subsurface inflow fran consolidated rock
to the basin-fill deposits.Discnarge of groom water is primarily to wells,
water courses,springs,and as diffuse seepage to Great salt Lake.Average
annual surface-water inflow to the study area was estimated to be 860,000
acre-feet for the period 1969-84.Annual withdrawal of groum water for
nunicipal and industrial use increased fran about 10,000 acre-feet in 1960 to
JOOre than 30,000 acre-feet in 1980 to supply a pop.1lation that increased fran
175,000 in 1960 to 290,000 in 1980.
Long-term trends of ground-water levels indicate a steady decline at
JOOst observation wells since 1952,despite near normal or increased
precipitation since the late 1960's.water levels declined as much as 50 feet
near the principal pumpiB;J center in the east-central part of the study area.
'Ihey declined as much as 35 feet JOOre than five miles fran the pumping center.
'Ihe increase in withdrawals and subsequent water-level declines have caused
about 700 wells wi thin 30 square miles to cease flCMing since 1954.
A nl.1I'lerical IIDde1 of the East Shore aquifer system in the Weber Delta
area was constructed and calibrated using water-level data and changes in
groooo-water withdra\tals for 1955-85.Predictive sinulations were made based
on doubling the 1980-84 rate of municipal and industrial withdrawals for 20
years,and using both average and below-average recharge rates.The
sinulations indicated \tater-level declines of an additional 35 to 50 feet near
the principal pumping center;a decrease in natural discharge to drains,
evapotranspiration,and Great Salt Lake;and a decrease in ground-water
storage of 80,000 to 115,000 acre-feet after 20 years.
1
INI'RnJCI'ION
Increased ground-water withdrawal by municipal and military users in the
East Sb::>re area of Great salt Lake has caused widespread water-level declines.
water levels have declined as nuch as 50 feet in sane areas since 1952.State
and local water managers and water users needed an updated evaluation of
ground-water conditions and a tool with which to simulate effects of future
changes in recharge and discharge of ground water.
Purpose and Scope
During 1983-85,the U.S.Geological Survey evaluated the grouoo~ater
resources of the Fast Shore area.of Great salt Lake,Utah.'!he study was done
in cooperation with the Utah Department of Natural Resources,Division of
water Rights.Objectives of the study were to add to the understaooing of the
area's ground-water hydrology,to determine dlanges in ground-water coooitions
since the 1960-69 study by BoIke and waddell (1972),aoo to simulate effects
of potential future ground-water withdrawals on ground-water levels,
discharge,and storage.
Infonnation collected duriD;J this study included discharge fran ~lls;
water levels in ~lls;drillers'logs of wells;water samples for chemical
analysis;seepage losses from or gains to canals,streams,and drains;and
hydraulic properties of aquifers.A digital-computer model of the ground-
water system was constructed on the basis of this and other information.
'!his report emphasizes ground water in the basin-fill deposits of the
East Shore area,referred to as the East Sb::>re aquifer system.'!he rep:>rt
describes ground-water conditions,including recharge,movement,and
discharge,water levels,water quality,and voll.1Iles of water in storage.In
addition,the rep:>rt describes a canp.1ter sinulation of the aquifer system in
the weber Delta area (fig.1),including simulated effects of potential
changes in ground-water recharge and discharge.A separate report (D.W.
Clark,U.S.Geological Survey,written cammun.,1990)includes a oamputer
sinulation of the aquifer system in the Ebuntiful area (fig.1).The results
and interpretations presented here are based primarily on data presented by
Plantz am others (1986).Their rep:>rt contains records of water quality,
discharge,water levels,and drillers'logs for wells in the area.
IJxation and Physiografhy
'!he East Sb::>re area is a valley or basin lCMland north of salt Lake Ci ty
between the ~stern margin of the wasatch RaD;Je and the eastern shore of Great
Salt Lake (fig.1).It is at the eastern edge of the Basin and Range
fhysiographic province (fig.1),am is a densely p:>p..1lated urban-industrial-
suburban area.The largest city is Ogden,which had a population of about
64,000 in 1980 (U.S.Department of eatrrerce,1980).Hill Air Force Base (fig.
1),the area I s largest errployer,includes about 10 square miles of the study
area.
The study area is about 40 miles 10D;J am fran 3 to 20 miles wide.It
includes all of ravis County,about one-half of ~ber County,and a snall part
of southern Box Elder County.'!he southern bourXiary is the Davis-salt Lake
County line,and the northern boundary is about 1 mile north of the town of
2
Willard.The eastern boundary is the oonsolidated rock of the Wasatch Range
and the western boundary is several miles west of the Great Salt Lake
shoreline.
The East Shore study area includes two somewhat separate hydrologic
areas,the Bountiful area and the Weber I::elta area.The BoJntiful area is
between the Salt Lake-ravis County line and the line bet\tJeell TcMnship;2 am 3
North.The weber Delta area is considered in this report to start at the
oorthern em of the Ebuntiful area am c:altinue to the north ecge of the study
area.
'!he total anount of laoo within the stooy area fluctuates with the level
of Great Salt Lake.During this study,the level of the lake rose at an
unprecedented rate,inundating large tracts of lowlying lam near its eastern
shore.During 1969-82 the level of the lake was at an average altitooe of
aboot 4,199 feet,rot duri~1983-84 the lake rose rapidly to an altitude of
about 4,209 feet.At a lake level of 4,199 feet,the study area is about 430
square miles,~ereas at a lake level of 4,209 feet,the study area is about
330 square miles.
'!he study area contains two distinct physiogra];i1ic units.The eastern
unit is composed of benches (terraces)adjacent to the wasatch Range that
extem westward in a series of large steplike units (fig.2).These terraces,
formed by Pleistocene Lake Bonneville (Gilbert,1890)have since been
dissected by closely spaced mountain-front streams.The second unit is a
valley-lowland plain with minor topographic relief that exteoos fram the
western edge of the terraces to the shores of Great salt Lake (fig.2).The
valley-lowlam plain ranges in width from 1 or 2 miles sooth of Farmington am
near Willard to abcut 14 miles north of Ogden,but this width varies with
changing levels of Great salt Lake.
'!he altitude of the valley floor ranges fram about 5,000 feet near the
Wasatch Range to about 4,200 feet at the eastern margin of Great salt Lake,
depeooing on the lake level.'!he crest of the Wasatch Range is about 4,000-
5,000 feet above the valley floor;the altitude of the highest peaks are II[)re
than 9,700 feet.
Ged'lydrologic Setting
'!he East Soore aquifer system lies within an elo~ate graben formed by
normal faulting along the Wasatch fault zone to the east and an uooefined
fault zone near the shore of Great Salt Lake to the west (fig.2).
Displacement along the wasatch fault zone may be as much as 10,000 feet (Feth
and others,1966,p.21).A major fault is inferred to trend southward just
east of the consolidated rocks exposed at Little Mountain aoo toward Eboper
Ebt Springs (fig.3)(Feth and others,1966,p.22).This fault oorrespoOOs to
the western edge of the graben near the soore of Great salt Lake (Cole,1982,
p.592).
The Wasa tch Range is a::JIPCSed of rnetam:>rphic and sedimentary rocks that
range fram Precanbrian to Tertiary in age.The rocks in the Wasatch Range
south of the Ogden River primarily are Precambrian gneiss,SChist,and
quartzite,whereas north of the river the Wasatch Range also contains
3
EXPLANATION FOR FIGURE 1
STUDY AREA
~Bountiful area
bd Weber Delta area
---4.200 TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR--Shows altitude of land surface.Dashed contour represents historic high
water elevation of Great Salt Lake.Contour interval,in feet,variable.National Geodetic Vertical
Datum of 1929
CLIMATOLOGIC STATIONS
Bear River Refuge
Ogden Sugar Factory
Ogden Pioneer Powerhouse
Pineview Dam
4
,
'-
I
I
\
"
"'-....,
'y "-'\
)
f
)
/
j
111 °30 ,
I
r--~,
(
River
(_/
,
t r,C~CHECO
,~,{~-~~-~
"'-,;'WEBER CO
"----
Brigham City 0
~.
112°15 1
I
(
I
(
U1
C5
Morgan
.~
"'6
"'~
East Canyon
Reservoir
"?,.'""'~
Echo ~'J;ReservoIr
Coalville
o 10MlLES
I I
o 1'0 KILOMETERS
Figure 1.--Location of the East Shore area of Great Salt Lake.
Figure 2.--Generalized block diagram showing water-bearing formations.probable directions
of ground-water movement (arrows).and areas of recharge and discharge.
6
Paleozoic limestones,dolomites,shales,and quartzites.Tertiary
conglomerates are exposed in the area south of Bountiful.
Basin-fill deposits ccrtprising the East Shore e:quifer system were eroded
from the mountains and deposited in the grabens during Pleistocene Lake
Bonneville and pre-Lake Bonneville time.The basin fill is composed of
unconsolidated and semi-consolidated sediments in a series of interbedded
alluvial am lacustrine dep:>sits.~t of the sediments are coarse grained
near the mountains,particularily near the IlO.1ths of canyons,~1here delta,
alluvial-fan,and mudflow materials predominate.Fine-grained sediments
predaninate tCMard the western edge of the graben,where llDst of the dep::>si ts
are lacustrine.'lhe total thickness of the basin fill generally is unknown,
but is estimated to be approximately 6,000 to 9,000 feet thick in the Weber
Delta area (Feth arrl others,1966,p.22).en the basis of shallow seismic-
reflection surveys,the total thickness may be as much as 6,300 feet near the
weber River in T.5 N.,R.2 W.south of Slaterville (fig.3)(Feth and others,
1966,p.28);on the basis of gravity data,the thickness may be as much as
7,500 feet urrler Hill Air Fbrce Base (Glenn and others,1980,p.37-47).The
thickness of basin-fill deposits decreases substantially toward the western
edge of the graben.The thickness of the basin fill in the Bountiful area is
unknorrm;harever,the deepest well in the area was canpleted in unconsolidated
material at a depth of 1,985 feet (Ttatas and Nelson,1948,p.86).
Further description of the geology of the East Shore area can be fmoo
in Feth and others (1966)and Thomas and Nelson (1948).In addition to
subsurface geology,paleontology,and structure,e.uaternary arrl surficial
geology are detailed in those rep:>rts.
Climate
The climate of the East Shore area is temperate and semiarid with a
typical frost-free season fran May to mid-october.Precipitation increases
fran west to east across the valley lowland and on the adjoiniD;J IOOuntains as
altitude increases (table 1);the mean annual tenperature differs little with
altitude.The normal annual precipitation ranges from less than 12 inches
near Great Salt Lake to nore than 20 inches near the IlO.1ntain front.J:Uring
1983,~ver,precipitation was more than twice the normal quantity (National
CCeanic and Atnospheric Administration,Envirormental Data service,1984).
Pcpulation and Lam Use
The East Shore area is one of the fastest-growing regions in the United
states:its p:>p.1lation has increased about 66 percent since 1960.The 1980
population was about 290,000;abaJt 260,000 peq>le lived within incorporated
areas (table 2).The p:>p.1lation has increased everywhere except within the
ci ty of Ogden;in many places the population has doubled or tripled since
1960.The increase in pq;>ulation has occurred primarily in the southern part
of the area,and in suburban areas,which have expanded onto former
agricultural lands.
The 1968-85 change in land use from irrigated cropland and natural
vegetation to urban is shown in figure 4.There was an increase of about
12,000 acres of land classified as urban,of which 75 percent was formerly
7
T.5 N.
Can
~
»
tn
»
-\
C")
:I:
5 MILES
_·t·-
\,
43
4 5 KILOMETERS
'/--~'J-~+
I
i··....f~~~/1·
JL~/ee"'Spq"g Cr
I\,~~)weber
2
32
I "I
o
T.8 N.
CONTOUR INTER VAL.IN FEET,VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929O~~
~s~~~~
West Poin
'r-~'V
\:,-\VV
/
~~'i
\\lLJ ,j\1t
V
-1
>
.------()'.p
~.
'7~.-+-
0:':~\
"
112~5',.
--
/;~/,,>;
,}(,
,-;/~~
I '1"I"'.J'~\/I~,!BOX ELDER CO ,"..'.,';;-._---7i,,rWEBE-R-CO--'-~---------~==7\'---'---'
\/'-::'.,'.
I /',....':I'-(i ..'-","",-•~C,;..._d~,I,1;.(:-
)/,...~'~."".,f\'i/1i~""-~.~~~en/'
/!',-:":".1,C::~=S-I~?c,...\/-:---j-;PlainCity en '\,
/-."'~"t"'j~"'i~';;I~'l --I ."''-,.1 ...,I.'';\c::...~i -,1m'"Farr \V~t "$:"--f!....tv"'~,:?:::-'V~':'<II~:),-.===-._.I ··~~.C~
i "\_\".Wat,;en~"'~t'l"'.~-/'.-,''J'\<-..'l',..-.E "<.::>'",,-Ca na I _J.;:~-~'----~_~;,r'~l"I/"----/
I ~\,-,e.;/I
\r:__~~!
.wI'
".~\-\~'.Q +1
'''----._--,c,,\-'?mI West W a.rl:~d
~\\'o~<1<1 r:,,('0 :If "Slo"g"/'
.....1 <,.g!,-"o~Oo!'-;-~
.,.,~"."-.III •'c ~r- ,,\IINorth "---f-";/--
II,-~--11"~."."i-P~"'-,_:;.'/./
,I,.#-,or'+~L ~."'//,'.....
\,.--,~',..I""..,:J'~..11..'\\.j ("t:\!'~///)~'tJ-, -t ..1..,'.'}C·'L'"u ~\ //1 'I 'f~,i~,•.:;·~:·.t",:-~-~_,'"..>.~~~oi~~l~.f-~~J7----:;::r=~{I y":",:
'0 ;"'"..10,'1 I";,....~.:;::;:(~~S::.."'-~:;~-'+•\~~~)/~:i~
""",.1·,·"".I /Q ,~~\"i ..1"_,j"'\.Jig er!(':'0°/~
""."""'--i ,-<,Ie"I R~~~\~v~-,:::,~/-~-.Hoope~,~~EBERt co I oy '.:>:"':...'
_____.Yi~~·--:-<\f/-----~~o'DAVIS ·CO---WW..•......•.':-..'T:.'~.....•...•.:.'..---~~:."~~J/:/:1,)Wi "I ",·<J':-f6.-t .,/~o Clinton'I.'····,·'finooper,,'I'.
'sprin~'
)..\.,
"•J.V·i~.,
!
I
41°15'-\
[
co
FAULT--Dashed where approximately located.Bar and
ball on downthrown side (mod ified from Davis,1983,
1985)
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125.000 quadrangle.
Great Salt Lake and vicinity,Utah.1974
T.l N.
T.3 N.
T.4 N.
-t'~·-e(ii,-
:0
'l>
/~
C)
""'
/'
T.2 N.
's fO,;'C "ere;1<
UL
0 ....
'~~~
9:ef?!?.
occ}'
c-~;ek
//-----_/
.Cf~c,,--j
v-c::~~
c"
--'+\"]~i5l<S_c;r-""3-
-¢""~~n."."<!..~f../....)/~-",Q..~/
~~a~_ri~~/~//C1~eV.
./
/
/
,,-.,1,.
.~:.:
F'West
/Bountifulc
~..--;
f·"".
'-'-!'(~-"I"-.,I
'.1:_,j.:i7-
R.1 W.
4'
s
I..,--~
~/:,~,-
'.,
,d.._,I",I,"'\
~:;~,
''''''1
,I,",,
(Farmington
j{(I)'~./
,//---
:::-.,1",,1..
'"~--.:;,~.~"'.-i,'l"r .J,
~:~,..~
".~
"j "I"".
I
__11~__._
'/.
.~
,I."I"-
,
Clearfield
Syracuse
R.2 W.
,'~,..
.j.,II"
"I"
FARMINGTON
>,V(/
.'"~7---.(
_,f"~
.....
7f-.
~.
y
'"z~~-"')J-{'~';..-,.'.
\".:I
oJ'
7 .....
''';'''
R.3W.
<J\
\
"P
"2o
"P
"2
-\
rn
\o
'<lrn
SECONDARY RECHARGE AREA
PRIMARY RECHARGE AREA
EXPLANATION
R.4 W.
4]'>00'4-
III
[ill,
\0
Figure 3.--Recharge areas and major tauh zones.
Table 1.--Normal rrrmthly precipitation for 1951-80 at Bear River Refuge,
Ogden Sugar Factory,Ogden Pi~PaNerhouse,am.Pineview Dam
c1irrato1ogic stations
(Data from National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Enviromrental Data Service,1983)
{);Jden Pioneer
Bear River Ogden Sugar Powerhoose Pineview Dam
Refuge (altitude Factory (alti tude (altitude (altitude
4,210 feet)4,280 feet)4,350 feet)4,940 feet)
Month Precipitation (inches)
Jan.1.16 1.52 2.36 3.83
Feb..98 1.27 1.90 3.11
Mar..89 1.41 2.05 3.06
Apr.1.40 2.06 2.52 3.05
May 1.31 1.71 2.14 2.68
June 1.16 1.43 1.58 1.72
July .35 .50 .65 .71
Aug..64 .72 .98 1.09
sept..87 1.10 1.20 1.46
Q::t.1.05 1.27 1.58 2.11
:tt>v.1.03 1.36 1.73 2.76
Dec..96 1.30 1.89 3.21
Annual 11.80 15.65 20.58 28.79
10
Tcible 2.-Population in the East SlrJre area
(Data fran u.s.Deparbnent of camerce,Bureau of Census,1971 and 1980)
1980 Percent 1970 Percent 1960 Percent
census charge census charge census chao:Je
Location 1970-80 1960-70 1960-80
East Shore Area 289,280 29.0 224,203 28.3 174,782 65.5
Box Elder County
Willard City 1,242 18.9 1,045 28.4 814 -52.6
Davis County 146,360 47.8 99,024 52.9 64,760 126.0
Bountiful 32,978 18.4 27,853 63.5 17,039 93.5
centerville 8,041 146.1 3,268 38.4 2,361 240.6
Clearfield 17,937 34.7 13,316 50.8 8,833 103.1
Clinton 5,781 227.0 1,768 72.5 1,025 464.0
East Layton 3,537 363.6 763 71.8 444 696.6
Fanningtion 4,692 85.7 2,526 29.5 1,951 140.5
Fruit Heights 2,731 241.4 800 357.1 175 1,460.1
Kaysville 9,804 58.3 6,192 71.6 3,608 171.7
Layton 22,603 66.2 13,603 50.7 9,027 150.4
N::>rth salt
Lake City 5,588 160.8 2,143 29.5 1,655 237.6
South weber 1,580 47.3 1,073 180.9 382 313.6
Sunset 5,739 -8.4 6,268 48.0 4,235 35.5
SyraOlse 3,692 100.3 1,843 73.7 1,061 248.0
west Balntiful 3,559 185.6 1,246 31.9 945 276.6
west Point 2,168 112.5 1,020 70.3 599 261.9
';ix)ds Cross 4,274 36.8 3,124 184.5 1,098 289.3
weber County 141,678 14.1 124,130 13.7 109,208 29.7
Harrisville 1,376 83.7 749
N::>rth C9den 9,316 77.2 5,257 100.6 2,621 255.4
Ogden 64,444 -7.2 69,478 -1.0 70,197 -8.2
Plain City 2,374 53.9 1,543 33.9 1,152 106.1
Pleasant View 3,997 97.1 2,028 118.8 927 331.2
Riverdale 3,840 3.7 3,704 100.4 1,848 107.8
Roy 19,718 37.4 14,356 55.4 9,239 113.4
South C9den 11,358 13.7 9,991 34.9 7,405 53.4
Uintah 720 80.0 400 16.3 344 109.3
washington
Terrace 8,217 13.5 7,241 12.4 6,441 27.6
Total for 261,302 29.0 202,598 30.3 155,426 68.1
inoorporated
areas
Total for 27,978 29.5 21,605 11.6 19,356 44.5
uninoorporated
areas
11
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125,000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and vicinIty,Utah,1974
T.l N.
T.3 N.
T.4 N.
//-
-'~.-T.2 N.
/Sf6ne ~-C~ee-l<
UL
.--'00-"-cS'ee'"
:t:l
'l>
/C!:
'.)/C"l..,4·.~_-----"_----'---
';r;.,'Fiirmington -0'""
cL£~
creek_
ft i~"~.-----/
.~'I··t\,--Cr ¢'.:·/.
/",tp.fE!!-//~)/
\~V C~
l \J''':!!i"!'j'''/~~e~
Centervi!J.e":~lIe C'~'-cellter
'.~-s;:,
\~~----'f
~
''''4-"(__I
\
---f\N.}.\L.a kecl.'.
'~-J~:~~\:,
?-',~\i~:-
7;.....MV-'~"'I::",r.O--~AITIA
R.1 W.
,<I.."I"
."
I·..··
-:'-'1 *-t..----·,,....
~~~&~~-~
.,..""=-('.J'!:./'":i:--,,_I
~I'."
_-_L
r'''~
~¥1.
II __.__~
!---I
FAl?ilUNGTON
I
I
BAIY-....--....----.-.-'--r--------
R.2 W.I
'Zf"i.
,.\~-Yl/~,.,j,---../:f ~/
'.,-....~.~~,."..j II...IS"~-"
'"~.....
',,"~""-1/""""'""-~..._..,::<::.;,:~~."/~'::\<"
"",-
-t
7-f-
<$-
,
\
"'-.
<P
7
'C"A
,
\
R.3 W.
<J\r
""2o
----..._--~-~-.~---~---..,-------~
EXPLANATION
------------
!il
..,.1"
·<.-,~,l'
URBAN AREAS IN 1985 THAT WERE
NOT URBAN IN 1968--Derived from
aerial photos,1985
"',""2
-\
I"ro
"tl
I"
R.4 W.
,,
4~OOI +-'I
\.
1::::::::1 MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
URBAN AREAS AS OF 1968--Modified
from Haws,1970-
I-'
(,oJ
Figure 4.--Land use and land-use change,1968--85.
classified as irrigated crcpland.Total acres of irrigated cropland and
natural vegetation in the project area decreased by aboot 10 percent during
1968-85.
Previous Investigations
'.lb:IIas and Nelson (1948)conducted a a:oprehensive study during 1946-
48 of the hydrology of the Bamtiful area at the soothern end of the East
Shore area.Their study included water-level and discharge measurements at
more than 400 wells.Feth and others (1966)studied the geology and
hydrology of the Weber Delta area,which includes the oorthern part of the
East Shore area.Their report includes a discussion of ground-water
conditions for 1953-56 and a potentianetric map for December 1955.Smith
and Gates (1963)conducted a study of the East Shore area to determine
changes in water levels and groond-water quality fran 1953 to 1961.BoIke
and Waddell (1972)reported on water levels and changes in ground-water
quality in the East Shore area during 1960-69i they compiled a generalized
map of ground-water quality.A map series of groond-and surface-wa.ter
resources and geology of the Wasatch Front (Price and Jensen,1982a,1982bi
Price and LaPray,in press;Davis,1983,1985)have recently been
a:opleted.
~ll-Ntunbering System USed in utah
The system used to number wells in Utah is based on the cadastral
land-survey system of the U.S.Government.The number,in addition to
designating the well,describes its p:>sition in the land net.By the land-
survey system,the State is divided into four quadrants by the salt Lake
Base Line and Meridian,and these quadrants are designated by A,B,C,and
D,indicating respectively the northeast,northwest,southwest,and
southeast quadrants.lIllIrbers designating the township and range (in that
order)follow the quadrant letter,and all three are enclosed in
parentheses.'Ihe nllIIber after the parentheses indicates the section,and
it is followed by three letters indicating the quarter section,the
quarter-quarter section,and the quarter~rter~rtersection--generally
10 acres 1 ;a,b,c,and d indicate,respectively,the oortheast,northwest,
southwest,and sootheast quarters of each subdivision.The number after
the letters is the serial number of the well within the lo-acre tract.If
a well cannot be located within a 10-acre tract,one or two location
letters are used and the serial nlillber is anitted.Thus,(B-7-l)30dca-l
designates the first well constructed or visited in the NEiswtSE!,sec.30,
T.7 N.,R.2 W.'Ihe nllIIbering system is illustrated in figure 5.
AcknCMled;prents
Special acknowledgments are extended to the residents,the officials
of various cities and towns,irrigation companies,conservancy districts,
lAlthoogh the basic land unit,the section,is theoretically I square
mile,many sections are irregular.Sum sections are subdivided into 10-
acre tracts,generally beginning at the southeast corner,and the surplus
or soortage is taken up in the tracts along the oorth and west sides of the
section.
14
Sections within a township Tracts within a section
ab
c
(t----::>"""-:7-'S-''''----1 M i le--------
LAKE
lB.
I T.7 N.,R.1 w.
SAL T
R 1 W
6 5
..~2 I
7 8 9 I~"12
18 17 16 15 \-13
·I~20 21 22 '\2..
""~
K 27 \25
30 _____29 26
WHile ~
31 32 ~~35 \~
I 6 Miles
..............~\
~
T
7
N
o
I
I z...,-c-
<r
~
:IE
I
I c
,~
""...
-'
I
I -I -'...
'"-----
"Salt Lake City ,
I
I,
I
I
1
I
I_____J
Figure 5.--Well-numbering system used in Utah.
15
and industries in the East Soore area who gave permission for the use of their
wells for water-level measurerrents and aquifer testing and who provided other
useful information for this study.'lhe cx:x::peration of officials of the State
of Utah and Box Elder,Davis,and Weber Counties was helpful and is
appreciated.
Surface water is the primary source of irrigation water in the East
Shore area,and it is also used extensively by municipalities and industries
as part of their water supply.Average annual (1969-84)surface"ater inflow
to the East Shore area fran all sources,but IOOStly fran nine major streams,
is estimated to be about 860,000 acre-feet.The estimated surface-water
inflow from the nine streams for water years 1 1969-84 is shown in table 3.
'lhe inflow for 1928-47 is given in Feth and others (1966,p.34),and the
inflow for 1948-60 is given in Smith and Gates (1963,p.15).
calculations of inflow from major streams are based on continuous
recx:>rds of water st.age at sate stations and p:lrtial recx:>rds at other stations,
which were correlated to long-term records fran nearby streartE.The estimated
flCM of Eblmes,Ricks,Parrish,Stone,ani Mill Creeks for 1969-84 is based on
recx:>rds of annual flCM available fran 1950 to 1968,which were correlated with
long-term records of flow for City Creek in northern salt Lake COunty.The
estimated flow for 1972-75 and 1980-84 for Farmington Creek was based on
annual flow fran 1950-71 and 1976-79 cx:>rrelated with flCM of City Creek.The
estimated flCM for Centerville Creek for 1981-84 is based on records of annual
flow for 1950-80 cx:>rrelated with flCM of City Creek.Flow of the Ogden River
was estimated fran the carmissioner's reIX>rts of the Ogden River distribution
system for 1969-81 (Barnett,1969-77,Bergoout,1978-81)by cxxrt>ining the flCM
of the river at a gage dCMIlStream fran Pineview Reservoir,flow at the Pioneer
powerhouse,and flCM in the Ogden-Brigham and Ogden Highline canals.FICM for
1982-84 was estimated by adding the total releases from Pineview Reservoir
(Pineview Reservoir personnel,written camnun.,1985)ani the flow at the
gagin;station on \'I1eeler Creek.The estimates for the Ogden River do not
include flow from several other small streams downstream from the gagin;
station.'lbtal flCM of the ~ber River was estimated fran records of flow at
the gaging station near Gateway and from records of flow diverted to the
Gateway Tunnel contained in the commissioner's reports of the Weber River
distriwtion system (Jdmson,1969-84).
The estimated average annual inflow to the East Shore area from
perennial,ephemeral,ani intermittent streams for which there are 00 records
of flow is about 47,000 acre-feet (table 4).The streams with mean annual
flow greater than 1,000 acre-feet generally are perennial upstream fran the
canyon roouths,ani water often reaches the valley lowland during periods of
high flow.M:>st of the water in eJ;i1eneral ani intermittent streams seeps into
alluvial fans or high benchlands where the definable channels terminate.
1All surface"ater records in this report are given by water year.A
water year is the 12 m::mths eniing septanber 30 ani designated by the year in
which it enis.
16
2able 3.-Estimated inflaN to East S1r>re area fran major strea:I11S,
hater years 1969-84
[Flow in thousand acre-feet]
water Ogden Weber Holmes Farmington Ricks Parrish centerville Stone Mill Total
year River River Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek
1969 233 617 4 13.3 2 2 2.4 4 8
886
1970 196 403 3 10.4 2 2 2.4 3 7 629
1971 232 561 4 14.4 3 2 3.4 4 9 833
1972 270 611 4 13 2 2 3.1 4 7 916
1973 203 501 3 12 2 2 2.8 3 7 736
1914 245 610 4 15 3 2 3.6 5 9 897
1975 241 641 5 17 3 2 3.5 5 11 929
1976 188 431 3 9.0 2 1 2.2 3 6
645
1977 62 166 2 5.8 1 1 1.3 1 2 242
1978 179 448 4 14.8 3 2 3.3 4 8 666
1979 198 373 3 9.5 2 1 1.8 2 4 594
1980 271 565 3 10 2 1 2.5 3 5 862
1981 84 303 2 8 1 1 2 2 4 401
1982 236 609 4 14 3 2 3 4 9 884
1983 329 996 4 16 3 2 3 5 10 1,368
1984 468 1,052 4 14 3 2 3 4 8 1,558
Average
annual 227 555 4 12 2 2 3 4 7 816
17
Table 4.-EstiIrated inflow to East Sh:Jre area fran un:jaged perennial,
intermittent,and ephemeral streams,hater years 1969-84
Stream
Willard Creek
Holmes Canyon
Pearsons Canyon
Unnamed SW.of Willard Peak
Maguire Canyon
Pine and Ridge Canyons
Barrett Canyon
Unnamed E.of Barrett Canyon
Unnamed S.of Chilly Peak
North Ogden Canyon
Coldwater Canyon
One Horse Canyon
Garner Canyon
Jumpoff Canyon
Unnamed S.of Jumpoff Canyon
Unnamed NW.of Johnson Draw
Unnamed W.of Johnson Draw
Johnson Draw
Dry Canyon
Goodale Creek
Unnamed E.of Sardine Canyon
Cold Water Canyon
Warm Water Canyon
Hidden Valley
Taylor Canyon
Waterfall Canyon
Strongs Canyon
Beus Canyon
Burch Creek
Dry Canyon
Spring Creek
Corbett Creek
North Fork of Kays Creek
Middle Fork of Kays Creek
South Fork of Kays Creek
Snow Creek
North Fork of Holmes Creek
Baer Creek
Shepard Creek
Rudd Creek
Steed Creek
Davis Creek
Unnamed N.of Ricks Creek
Barnard Creek
Unnamed S.of Centerville
Canyon
Unnamed N.of Stone Creek
Holbrook Creek
North Canyon
Hooper Canyon
Unamed SW.of Hooper Canyon
Drainage
area (A)
(square
miles)
4.1
.7
.8
1.6
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
.8
.7
1.5
.4
.6
.4
.8
1.1
3.4
.7
1.9
.6
.4
2.4
1.2
1.4
1.5
2.5
1.0
2.1
1.8
1.6
2.0
1.9
1.0
2.5
4.3
2.8
1.2
3.1
2.3
1.0
1.7
.5
1.0
4.9
2.4
1.2
3.6
Mean draina~e
alti tude (E)
(thousands
of feet)
7.39
7.05
6.97
7.07
6.74
6.55
6.69
6.90
6.71
6.53
6.76
6.50
6.10
6.85
6.10
6.37
6.04
6.29
6.50
6.62
5.89
6.36
6.04
6.25
6.79
7.21
7.07
6.70
7.47
6.23
6.62
6.53
6.82
7.35
7.24
6.66
7.11
7.09
6.94
6.16
7.05
6.42
6.12
6.73
5.75
6.19
7.16
6.26
5.80
5.01
Mean annual
flow (Q)
(cubic feet
per second)
4.0
.7
.8
1.5
1.0
.8
1.0
.9
1.5
1.9
1.5
.6
.4
1.2
.3
.4
.2
.5
.8
2.2
.4
1.2
.3
.3
1.8
1.2
1.3
1.1
2.7
.6
1.5
1.2
1.3
2.1
1.9
.8
2.2
3.5
2.2
.7
2.6
1.4
.6
1.3
.2
.6
4.1
1.3
.6
0.9
Mean annual
flow
(acre-feet
per year)
2.900
510
580
1.100
720
580
720
650
1.100
1.400
1.100
430
290
870
220
290
140
360
580
1.600
290
870
220
220
1.300
870
940
800
2.000
430
1.100
870
940
1.500
1.400
580
1.600
2.500
1.600
510
1,900
1,000
430
940
140
430
3.000
940
430
650
18
Total (rounded)47,000
'!he flow in the streams listed in table 4 was cx:rtpUted by the eq:uation:
o =7.69 x 10-4 (A)0.883 (E)3.65 (1)
where:o =nean annual flow,in cubic feet per seoom;
A =drainage area,in square miles;and
E =nean altitude of the drainage basin,in thoosams of feet.
Equation 1 was derived fran lOD;1-term flow records for 25 streams in the
Wasatch Range with similar drainage-area size and mean altitude.The average
sltandard error of estimate was 28 percent and the oorrelation coefficient was
0.95.
IXlriD;1 the water years 1969-84,an average of 64 percent of the total
inflow to the East StK>re area was fran the Weber River am 91 percent of the
total inflow was from the Ogden and Weber Rivers combined.Greater than
normal precipitation for most of 1969-84 resulted in the annual flow in the
two rivers beiD;1 about 140 percent of the average annual flow during 1928-61.
The seasonal fluctuation of flow is extremely large;the largest flows
are caused by spriD;1 snowmelt.The hydrograph of flow in the Weber River
(fig.6)is considered typical of streams in the area,even thoogh the river
is regulated by reservoirs.Fluctuation in total annual flow can also be
extremely large,as indicated by the flow in the Weber River for the drought
year of 1977 and the flood years of 1983 and 1984.'!he largest mean IOOnthly
flow for 1983 and 1984 was ten times greater than the largest nean roonthly
flow of 1977.During 1983-84,total annual surfac~ter inflow to the East
Shore area in major streams averaged 1,463,000 acre-feet.
IXlring 1969-84,an average of aboot 350,000 acre-feet of surface water
was diverted annually fran about 60 irrigation systems into irrigation canals,
pipelines,and other aqueducts for irrigation use (Jdmson,1969-84;Barnett,
1969-77;Berghout,1978-81).This aroount is about 40 percent of the total
surfac~ter inflow to the area during 1969-84.'!he remaining 60 percent of
surface-water flow was used for other purposes or occurred during OCtober
through June,when there is little or no demand for irrigation use.A
tabulation of the estimated amount of surface water used in the East Shore
area follows:
Use
Irrigation
Powerplants
Wildlife habitat
M.micipal or industrial
Unused or
unacoounted for
Total
Aver age annual use,
acre-feet
350,000
85,000
57,000
40,000
328,000
860,000
19
Percent of annual
surf~ter inflow
40
10
7
5
38
100
2,000
3,000
5,000 ........-....-..,..-.,......,-.....-..,..-.,..."'"""l-...,.-..,.-.,..-,.......,~...,.-.,..--,
ozo
~4,000
V')
a::w
Q.
f-
W
W
U.
U
llJ
:Ju
Z
s;1,000
o
..J
U.
1969 1970 1975 1980 1984
Figure 6.--Monthly mean flow of the Weber River at Gateway,Utah,1969-84.
Surface-water inflow to Great Salt Lake from the East Shore area is
estimated to be about 650,000 acre-feet per year for 1969-84,or about 75
percent of the total surface-water inflow to the area.This total was
calculated fran data for 1971-76 in a report on total inflow to Great Sal t
Lake (Waddell and Barton,1980,p.37-40),and data for the sane period fran
tab~es 3 and 4 in this report.Some of this inflow is return or unused
irrigation water,or ground water that seeped into natural channels or
irrigation canals.
GOOUND WATER
The East Shore aquifer system is defined as consisting of saturated
alluvial deposits between the Wasatch Range and Great salt Lake and which
includes artesian cquifers plus a deep unconfined cquifer along the mountain
front.The shallow water-table zone in the top:>graphically low parts of the
area is part of the overall ground-water system of the East Shore area but is
not considered part of the East Shore aquifer system as defined in this
report.The shallow water-table zone was not included because of lack of data
on recharge to the zone by infiltration of precipitation,large amounts of
seepage fran irrigation,and infiltration of urban runoff and water fran urban
activities,and a similar lack of data on discharge fran the zone.
Geology and Hydraulic properties of the East Shore Aquifer System
The East Shore aquifer system is primarily confined with sane unconfined
parts along the mountain front.The consolidated rocks in the mountains
contain water,but they are considered to be only a source of recharge to the
East Shore aquifer system.
Feth and others (1966,p.36-37)described the Weber Delta area and
Thomas and Nelson (1948,p.167-172)the Bountiful area of the East Shore
aquifer system.The Weber Delta area was described as containing two oonfined
cquifers,the Sunset and Delta,and locally lU1JlaIl'e(j parts of those aquifers.
The Ibuntiful area was descr ibed as containing shallow,intermediate,and deep
20
artesian aquifers.In this report,rowever,the Fast Shore aquifer system is
defined as the saturated sediments between the Wasatch Range and the study
area's western boundary,excluding the shallow water-table zone in the
topographically low parts of the area but including the Sunset and Delta
aquifers.
The East Shore aquifer system contains individual confined aquifers that
have previously been defined and named,unconfined laterally-upgradient
extensions of those aquifers,multiple confined zooes within the individual
aquifers,and confined and unconfined zones of the aquifer system outside of
the areas where individual aquifers have previously been defined.The
individual.confined aquifers,as previoosly defined,typically are separated
by predominately fine-grained layers several feet to several hundred feet
thick which can cause a substantial difference in the hydraulic head (which
generally increases with depth in the tqx:lgraJ;t1ically lCMer parts of the East
910re area)between the aquifers.Where confining layers are thin or more
permeable,groond water easily IIDveS vertically throogh them fran one aquifer
t.o another.This is evident when a well canpleted in a deep aquifer zone is
p.mped and water-level declines are cbserved in wells CXXlpleted in a shallCMer
aquifer zone.The water-level declines in the shallower aquifer zone are a
result of leakage through the confining layers separating the zones.Ibwever,
where confining layers are tens to hundreds of feet thick and less permeable,
little vertical roovement takes place,and pmping a well in a deep aquifer
zone results in ooly small water-level declines in an overlying aquifer zone.
The SUnset and Delta aquifers,as defined by Feth and others (1966),
were delineated in the central part of the Weber Delta area from about
Kaysville north to Plain City and fran the western part of Hill Air FOrce Base
west to lix:per (fig.7).Near Great salt Lake the aquifers are composed of
thin alternating layers of silt,clay,and sand,and are difficult to
differentiate.Within each aquifer,alternating layers of fine and coarse-
grained materials occur.Within the central part of the weber Delta area,
wells <XIIpleted at depths fran 200 to 400 feet were considered to be canpleted
in the Sunset aquifer,and wells cx:etpleted at a depth greater than 400 feet
were considered to be cx:etpleted in the Delta aquifer.In all areas ootside of
the central part of the weber Delta area,no delineation of indiviual aquifers
\'1ithin the East Shore aquifer systen was made.
The top of the Sunset aquifer is as shallow as 200 feet below land
surface in sane locations,but is roore typically between 250 and 400 feet
below land surface (Feth and others,1966,p.37).The aquifer is canp:>sed of
sand;mixtures of gravel,sam,and clay;or sand and clay.The thickness of
the aquifer ranges fran 50 to 200 feet.'!be SUnset aquifer is less permeable
than roost of the rest of the East Shore system and consequently fewer wells
are completed in the Sunset.The material composing the aquifer becomes
progressively finer grained toward Great salt Lake.
The Delta aquifer,which is asslltled to underlie rocst of the Weber Delta
part of the East Soore aquifer system,is IIDstly canp:>sed of deltaic deposits
of the Weber River that extend westward fran the IOOUth of weber canyon.The
top of the aquifer is fran 500 to 700 feet below land surface in most
locations (Feth and others,1966,p.36).The aquifer is estimated to be
between 50 and 150 feet thick.The total thickness has been penetrated by few
wells,and thus is unknown in many places.1he Delta aquifer primarily is
21
T.5 N.
~
):>
c.n
):>
-\
CJ
::I:.
T.6 N.
'84
5 MILES4
-"----------------"[Gate,waY Tunnel
5 KILOMETERS
3
-~s~Q~~/1
4
Taylor can-----.,--'-
2
32
.>.W ebe CSout~~~":::-"-_.~r \Veber
"''''-----,'b"~\_,S~._
i
o
o
.~,
T.7 N.
T.8 N.
CONTOUR INTERVAL.IN FEET.VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
,HILL
,\-;F BASE
112~O'
Ir61<'gr.~
\~llard
~~Ill>
~---l_
(jV?>~\)
",,\V
/
/
-----,--1
~~>
,\,~-
A~D
\,;\\.1,.
"I,.
,.1"
I,±
~-
,,1_,
.,1"
,I,,.1.,,I.
~..
___~7\~-~'-+----f/...
~
_,I"
I"~4-"j.,~
,1,4 "I,.
~,_,L.,
7...t~""
.,1""I'.2!.::....
.,l',~,I,
_,1,-,I.
o -...",,I,~
\-i ."~"':.,--,
~,I,
-'-..~,-
/c:
~-....."";~.
/
/
..J
~
,/-<12/2
..___----0'P
~,
'y.:-.
"1,,"I.,
112~5'
----
Bg~_ELPE8~Q -:-,:;----._
/WEBER CO
II'",'"T
/'_."
/
/
;'
41°15'-
tv
tv
AREA WHERE THE SUNSET AND DELTA AQUIFERS CAN
BE DIFFERENTIATED
T.1 N .
T.3 N.
T.4 N.
m
::0
~
'2
C"l
/
/West
Bountiful.
/
",~-i-_
,.\~"'P 'ParminRto n ,,-,
J:)Or,e.
!\,~
c
___i \<:)...-.e,
II T~-~~~:a<1 ~"':~
~-:"-~/--<;'~eek
1\.\1t\~I'S ~:r_ee~k
-\~~-.----6"/'~\t-~J'?J~~Y!a_rg Cf :~/
-'\//G'~
\\"parr(~'/~~~~".+-C~~tervilWr~.i\\e "G{ee+-+,,':~~~Te"te
JJ __
i I~\T.2 N.
r-----+I.kolt=j!II I BO·~NTIFtltc:ueeH
~_'._,.Creel?
,/,HolbrooK
~.~
,,"'~
~~.-f-(;.~~1 1:=;.-4/~,..,,~
Saltl Lake\/~Val'•~
•/Verda ~J'v
~"~C:~f)Yon
4'
_f
...l .ILQ~y 1~<::9---/0
SALT LAKE CR.1 W.R.1 E.
"t..
,\I,
"If.,,1,-
R.2 W.
,'~,..,.1,.
"I,"I,
FAR.II/NerO/v
--
'"7'
f;..
"
EXPLANATION
R.3W.
v·
7'
'"\,>,
POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR--Shows altitude of the
potentiometric surface in wells completed in the Sunset
aquifer,in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum
of 1929.Dashed where approximately located.Contour
interval 10 feet
OBSERVATION WELL COMPLETED IN THE SUNSET
AQUIFER--Number is altitude of water level,in feet
above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
L
R.4 W.
1>
Z
-\
("
r
41°00'~-L~0
1)
("
<i>
r "1>
Z
0
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125,000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and vicinity,Utah,1974
4,278•
-4,220--
'"W
Figure 7.--Area where the Sunset and Delta aquifers of the East Shore aquifer system can
be differentiated,and the potentiometric surface of the Sunset aquifer,March 1985.
c:onpc:sed of mixtures of gravel,sand,and silt.The aquifer material becomes
progressively finer grained t(YWard Great salt Lake.
In the Bountiful area,all wells greater than 100 feet deep were
considered to be completed in the F~st Shore aquifer systern.Near the
rrountain front,the aquifer system is composed of either mudflow deposits
which are poorly sorted and only slightly penneable,or sediments deposited at
the rrouths of the najor stream channels,which are coarse grained and more
permeable.Farther fran the roountains,the sediments oonsist of alternating
layers of gravel,sand,and clay.Th:ltas and Nelson (1948,p.167)defined
the shallow artesian aquifer as being from 60 to 250 feet below land surface,
the inter.mediate artesian aquifer as being from 250 to 500 feet below land
surface,and the deep artesian aquifer as being at depths greater than 500
feet.In this rePOrt,these aquifers were not differentiated because they
have neither substantial lithologic differences or large vertical head
differences.
Unconfined parts of the East Shore aquifer systan generally are present
only as lateral extensions of the oonfined aquifers upgradient in a small area
near the mountain front within the recharge area (fig.3).'!he sediments in
these parts of the aquifer system typically are ooarse grained:finer grained
oonfining layers are thin or absent.Unoonfined ground water that is not part
of the East Shore aquifer system as defined in this report is present in
flood-plain deposits along stream channels,in isolated perched water-table
aquifers on the bench areas,and throughout the valley lowlands within a few
feet of land sur face .
Transmissivity and storage coefficient were determined from aquifer
tests and by reanalyzing aquifer tests conducted prior to this study.The
results of the tests are given in table 5.
Values of transmissivity determined fran aquifer tests range from 150 to
30,000 feet squared per day.'!he smallest values generally are from wells
nearer the western edge of the valley lowland where the aquifers are
predaninately fine-grained and thinly bedded,and fran sane wells finished in
unfractured rock or in rrudflow deposits near the rrountain front.The largest
values of transmissivity generally are from wells finished in thick coarse-
grained alluvium near the center of the valley,under the benchlands,or near
river or stream channels.
The values in table 5 do not necessarily represent the full range of
transmissivity in the study area.Values estimated from other methods
including specific-capacity data (Theis and others,1963,p.331-340),
lithologic data from drillers'logs,and previously published results of
aquifer tests,indicate that transmissivity nay be much larger in the area
south of Ogden and near Hill Air Force Base.
Values of storage coefficient for the oonfined parts of the Fast Soore
aquifer systan are fairly oonsistent throughout the study area.The values
range from about 3 x 10-6 to 1 X 10-4 with an average value of about
9 x 10-5 •
24
~e 5.-Results of aquifer tests
Location:p.~.ell;F.flowing well:I.injection .ell.
Methals of ana lysi s:tt4.Hantush nalified nethal (Hantush.1960»;SLM.Straight-l ine solution metlnd (Jacm am
Lotman.1952);1M.Injection method (Coqler and others.1967.p.264.265)
Transmissivity (T)Storage
Location (feet squared per day)ooefficient (S)wel'tested ObServat1<Jl Methcx1 of
well Date Discharge Dra~Recovery Drawda!m Recovery analysis
(gallons
per minute)
(A-2-1)7dca-1 P 10-47 400 1.8JO SLM
2Ocdd-1 P 10-47 26 6.700 SLM
28bca-1 P 4-76 1.500 5.000 SLM
32ccl>-2 P 2-58 1.000 30.000 SLM
34cdl>-l P 7-81 24.>roo SLM
34dcc-1 P 7-76 1.2!ll 1.000 SU4
(B-2-1)13acd-1 F 3-47 38 200 SU4
13cdd-2 F 4-47 105 1.700 SLM
26bdd-2 F 3-47 2!ll 2.000 SLM
26cdd-1 F 5-36 53 1.000 SLM
26dca-3 F 3-47 275 7.100 SU4
(B-3-1)5dda-1 F 3-85 200 4.000 SLM
15aal>-l I 5-85 33 150 1M
(B-4-1)19daa-1 P (B-4-1 )19cd 10-53 1.800 10.000 2.6 X 10-4 tt4
2Ocbb-1
Dbba-1
(B-4-2)12bbb-1 P (B-4-2)2.dad 4-53 1.3))17 .000 1.2 X 10-4 tt4
12bdc
(B-4-2)14baa-1 P 3-85 275 7.700 SU4
(B-5-2)3laa-1 P (B-5-2)3laa-2 3-85 5!ll 5.100 5.))0 1.5 X 10-4 1.4 X 10-4 tt4
(B-5-2)16daa-2 P 8-85 1.800 16.700
4.4 X 10-5 SU4
(B-5-2)16dcd-1 13,100 Ifo\
(B-5-2)22dcd-1 P 6-84 1.600 23.500
5.6 X 10-5 2.9 X 10-6 SLM
(B-5-2)llaac-1 3.500 3.8lO tt4
14bdc-1
16dCd-1
26daa-1
36bcc-1
(B-6-1)4bbd-1 P 8-68 7!ll 4.300
3.1 x 10-4 SLM
~B-6-1~5cdb-l 700 tt4
B-7-1 33dbd-1
(B-6-2)25 P (B-6-2)25bbc-1 4-54 l.m 1.2 X 10-4 Ifo\
25bbc-3
25bca-1
25bc1>-1
(B-6-2»))ada-1 F 3-85 100 2,!llO SU4
(B-7-3)31daa-4 P 12-fB 120 1.))0
7.3 X 10-5 SLM
(B-7-3)31aac-1 1.600 tt4
32cbl>-l
(B-7-3)31dal>-l P (B-7-3)31dac-1 12-fB 54 380 4.4 X 10-5 tt4
(B-7-3)31d P (B-7-3)31daa-1 12-fB 35 1.500 1.4 X 10-5 tt4
25
Recharge
Annual recharge to the East Shore aquifer system is estimated to have
averaged about 153,000 acre-feet during 1969-84 (table 6).The ultimate
source of nost of the recharge water is precipitation in the nnmtaioous areas
of numerous basins that drain to the East Shore area.The aquifer system is
recharged by seepage of water from streams,canals,irrigated fields,lawns
and gardens,by infiltration of precipitation,am by subsurface inflow from
oonsolidated rock of the Wasatch Range to basin-fill depcsits.
Table 6.--SU117I1laI'lj of recharge to the East Shore aquifer system
Source
seepage fran natural channels
am irrigation canals
seepage fran irrigated fields
seepage fran lawns am gardens
Infiltration from precipitation
Subsurface inflow
Total
Estinated annual recharge
(acre-feet)
60,000
5,000
3,000
10,000
75,000
153,000
Recharge Area
Recharge to the East Soore aquifer system was calculated only for the
area near the front of the Wasatch Range,where the surficial and underlying
sediments are permeable enough to transmit water downward to the alluvial
aquifers.The zone of perneable sediments extends as far as 7 miles west of
the mouth of Weber Canyon to less than one-fourth of a mile west of the
m::mntain front in areas north of ~den and south of Farmington (fig.3).The
recharge area oonsists of two parts (fig.3)that have different potential for
accepting recharge by Cbwnward IOOVanent.'!he pr imary recharge area is nearest
the nountain front;it is underlain by predominately permeable sands and
gravel that enhance infiltration of recharge water.'!he seoorrlary recharge
area is farther fran the mountains;it is underlain by some finer grained
sediments that partially impede downward movement and therefore probably
accepts direct infiltration less readily than areas closer to the mountain
front (Feth and others,1966,p.39).Altoough 00 direct relation was koown
for infiltration rates between the recharge areas,for the purpose of
calculating recharge,it was assumed that the rate of infiltration in the
seoorrlary recharge area was one-half of the rate of the primary area.
26
Seepage from Natural Channels and Irrigation Canals
The average annual recharge during 1969-84 by seepage from natural
channels and irrigation canals that cross the recharge areas was estimated to
be about 60,000 acre-feet,primarily as seepage from channels of major
streams.In areas where the streams enter the valley lowland,the natural
channels contain gravel,boulders,and larger sized material that are
permeable and susceptible to seepage.Fluctuations of water levels in serre
wells near stream channels show a relation to fluctuations in annual
streamflow.The relation between the highest water level in a well and the
annual flow in Centerville Creek for the water years 1950-84 is shown in
figure 8 and indicates possible recharge fram the stream upgradient fram the
well.
weber River
The average annual recharge by see,Page fram the weber River during 1969-
84 was estimated to be 26,000 acre-feet.seepage losses were estimated to
range fram about 12,000 acre-feet in the drought year of 1977 to about 38,000
acre-feet per year during the high water and flood years of 1983 and 1984.
'The estimates are ba.sed on a series of flow measuranents made during this and
other projects including a concurr€'.nt study on canal and river losses (Herbert
and others,1986).Losses fram the river occur in the river channel for
about It to 2 miles downstream from the lYOuth of Weber Canyon (fig.3).The
river channel oontains large boulders and oobbles and is entrenched within a
flood plain about one-quarter mile wide.Even during high flow the river
generally stays within its channel and does not spill onto the flood plain.
Losses from the river at the mouth of Weber Canyon were estimated to range
fram about 3 percent of the floo during high flow to about 20 percent of the
flow during low or base flow.These estimates are based on seepage
measuranents made during this and other studies during IOOderate and low flG/s.
The total monthly flow of the river at the mouth of Weber Canyon was
determined by subtracting the total diversions fram the river cbwnstream from
the gaging station near Gateway fram the floo near Gateway.Estimated losses
during four high-flow months (March-June)account for one-half of the
estimated total annual losses.Losses during low-floo periods are estimated
to be about 20 cubic feet per seoond,whereas average losses during high-flow
periods are estirrated to be about 60 cubic feet per seoond.
The sediments in and underlying the river channel near the canyon mouth
are extremely penreable.They apparently are at least hundreds of feet thick
and there is no evidence of finer grained layers to impede downward movement
of recharge water.
west of the primary recharge area (fig.3),mwever,there is evidence
in drillers'logs of shallow wells of a perched zone near and probably
underlying the river.Feth and others (1966,p.41)reported possible
eastward movement of water toward the mountains in this shallow zone.
Although all seepage studies conducted on the river during this study show
substantial gains in the flaY of the river in this area,these gains are mst
likely water moving fran permed zones on the adjacent benchlands and flood
plains into the river channel.'!hey are not believed to be return flow fram
upstream river losses (Feth and others,1966,p.41).
27
4.000 35 wu«
3.500 u.
0::30 :J
Vl
3.000 0
Z
f-25 «w ..Jw2.500 Wll.>W 20 00::II)u 2.000 ««f-z W-15 w
:5:1,500 u.
0 Z
..J
LL
1,000 10 ..J.
w
>
W
..J
500 5 0::
W
f-«
0 ~
1ft 0 1ft 0 1ft 0 •1ft ••..........co ClOGtGtGtGtGt-Gl Gl
Figure B.--Relation between annual flow of Centerville Creek and highest
water level in well (A-2-1 )18abd-12.water years 1950-84.
CJ3den River
Annual recharge from the CJ3den River is a small percentage of the total
annual flow of the river.The annual recharge is estimated to average about
3,000 acre-feet and to range from 2,000 to about 4,000 acre-feet.These
estimates are based on the average monthly flow at the mouth of Ogden Canyon
for 1969-81 and on results of seepage measurements made during this and
previous studies.Seepage losses are estimated to average about 3 cubic feet
per second (Feth and others,1966,p.41)and are estimated to range fram
about one to five percent of the flow.The area near the mouth of Ogden
Canyon appears similar to the area near the mouth of Weber Canyon in
topography and in the composition of the riverbed deposits;however,only
minimal recharge to the Fast Shore aquifer system is estimated from this major
source of surface water.
other major streams
The average annual recharge from the other major streams,listed in
table 3,is estimated to total about 8,500 acre-feet.This estimate is based
on records and estimates of monthly flow and seepage measurements made on
three streams assumed to be representative of the other major streams.
Measurements to detect seepage losses were made on Mill,Parrish,and
Holbrook Creeks during high flows in June 1985.Fach stream was divided into
three sections,the uppermost section starting where the stream is entrenched
in consolidated rock,and the lower section generally ending at the west
boundary of the primary recharge area (fig.3).Measurable losses of flow in
all three streams,were fairly consistent,ranging from about 10 to 20 percent
of the flow.seepage losses occurred in the middle section generally between
altitudes of about 4,800 and 4,600 feet.
28
Average annual recharge for 1969-84 fran Mill Creek was estimated to be
1,800 acre-feet by assllIling a seepage loss of 15 percent at high flow,based
on measurerrents,and a maximum of 50 percent loss during low flow,based on
information from local residents and observations.Total annual recharge is
aboot 25 percent of the total annual flow.
Using similar procedures,average annual recharge was estimated to be
430 acre-feet fran Parrish Creek and 750 acr~feet frem Iblbrook Creek.Total
annual seepage loss is about 25 percent of the total annual flow of these tw:>
streams.
EStimates of the average annual recharge frem other streams for 1969-84,
based on a 25 percent seepage loss,are:Iblmes Creek,880 acre-feet;Ricks
Creek,580 acre-feet;Qenterville Creek,680 acr~feet;and Stone Creek,880
acre-feet.The recharge from Farmington Creek was decreased to about 20
percent of the annual flow,or about 2,500 acr~feet per year for 1969-84,
because of summertliDe diversions from the stream upstream of the recharge
area.
ungaged perennial,e};i1aneral,and intermittent streans
Recharge frem smaller streams generally is by seepage into alluvial fans
near the IInlths of canyons and is estimated to total about 12,500 acre-feet
per year.No accurate estimates of losses are available for most of these
streams.For this study,it was assumed that seepage losses from these
streams range fran 25 to 50 percent of the total annual fla-l,depending on the
location of the stream and the estimated amount of annual flow.Seepage
measurements indicate larger losses in the primary recharge area than in the
seoondary area.Therefore,streams that cross only the secondary recharge
area (fig.3)were assumed to have no more than a 25-percent seepage loss,
whereas IIDSt of the streams that cross the primary recharge area were assumed
to have an annual loss of 50 percent of their total flow.Streams that cross
the primary recharge area and have an estimated annual flow of about 1,500
acre-feet or greater (table 4)were assurred to have a loss of about 25 percent
of the total annual fla-l on the basis of measurerrents of Holbrook and Par r ish
Creeks.The streams listed in table 4 that are tributaries to the Ogden River
between the gage bela-l Pineview Reservoir and the IIDuth of the canyon are not
included in these estimates.
Irrigation canals
Irrigation canals within the recharge area range in size fram small
ditches to the Davis-Weber Canal,which annually transJ.X)rts about 70,000 acre-
feet of water.Most of the major canals in the recharge area are lined with
ooncrete am,therefore,lose little if any water by seepage.
The Davis-Weber Canal system has been in operation for many years;its
concrete lining is cracked and in poor condition in places.Seepage
measurements made on 9 reaches of the canal during sturmer 1985 as part of a
OOllCUrrent study (Herbert and others,1986)indicated losses near the head and
end reaches of the canal,with little evidence of losses from the middle
reaches.A ma jor part of the canal system lies wi thin the recharge area,and
rrost losses from the canal are considered to recharge the East Shore aquifer
29
system.The average annual recharge frem the canal is estimated to be about
10,000 acre-feet.
'!he other canals am ditches in the recharge area are either lined and
have small or no seepage losses,or are small,unlined ditches that carry a
minimal aroount of water.Losses frem these canals were assuned to be minimal
when canpared to losses fran awlied irrigation water and were,therefore,not
estimated.
Infiltration frem Irrigated Fields,Lawns,am Gardens
'!he average annual recharge fran awroximately 6,000 acres of irrigated
cropland in the recharge areas is estimated to be 4,500 acre-feet.Abalt 75
percent,or 4,500 acres,of the irrigated cropland is in the secondary
recharge area.The aIOOUnt of recharge fran applied irrigation water depends
on several factors including the quantity of water applied,the type of
application,consumptive use by crq;>s,am the perneabilty of the soils.Q1
the basis of other studies (Feth and others,1966,p.43;Clark and Appel,
1985,p.29;and u.s.Bureau of Reclamation 1967 and 1968,1969)it was
estimated that 4 feet of water per year was applied to all cropland.In the
pr imary recharge area,where perneable materials occur at the surface,about
30 percent of the applied water,or 1,800 acre-feet,was estimated to recharge
the East Shore aquifer system.If 15 percent of the awlied water infiltrated
to the East Shore aquifer system in the secondary recharge area,where the
surface materials are less perneable,the estimated recharge there was 2,700
acre-feet.
'!he average annual recharge fran lawns am gardens in the recharge areas
is estimated to be 3,000 acre-feet.AJ;:proximately 16,000 acres of land under
predaninately urban (and sate suburban)use (including streets and buildings)
is in the recharge area.This total includes about 12,500 acres in the
secondary recharge area and 3,500 in the primary recharge area.The water
applied to these predaninately urban areas is fran treated municipal suppl ies
and from canals am pipelines.The anount of water awlied annually to these
areas is unknown but was estimated based on seasonal municipal water-use
records to be about 1 foot per acre,or a total of 16,000 acre-feet.~be
seepage loss from this awlied water is estimated to be the same as that for
irrigated fields,or 30 percent in the primary recharge area (about 1,000
acre-feet)and 15 percent in the secondary recharge area (about 2,000
acre-feet).
Direct Infiltration fram Precipitation
The average annual recharge by direct infiltration of precipitation in
the recharge areas is estimated to be about 10,000 acre-feet;but it may vary
considerably from one year to the next depending on aIOOUnt,intensity,season,
and type of precipitation.'!he average annual precipitation in the recharge
area is estimated to be about 20 inches,based on records at the Ogden Pioneer
Powerhouse station (table 1).The recharge area includes about 45,000 acres,
of which 13,000 acres is in the primary recharge area and the remaining 32,000
acres is in the secomary recharge area.Q1.the basis of previous estimates
(Feth and others,1966,p.43),it was assllIIEd that 20 percent of the average
annual precipitation infiltrates in the primary recharge area and 10 percent
30
infiltrates through the less permeable sediments in the secondary recharge
area.
Suoourface Inflow
Suoourface inflow to the Fast Shore aquifer system fran consolidated
rocks is estimated to be about 75,000 acre-feet per year as described in the
following sections.Most of the inflow is assumed to be by direct water
roverrent fran fissures am joints and along faults in the consolidated rock of
the wasatch Range to the unconsolidated basin-fill deposits (fig.2).In the
southern b~)-thirds of the study area,the Wasatdl Range is pr imar ily carposed
of thick sequences of Precambrian netaIIOrphic rocks,whidl in sate areas have
been extensively faulted and fractured.water is asswned to enter the rock
from seepage of snowmelt percolating down through the mountain soils into
fractures or into the weathered mantle overlying the rock.
Evidence of inflCM
The occurrence of suoourface recharge cannot be directly measured,am
estinates are based on only limited available data am assumptions;however,
indirect evidence exists of subsurface inflCM fran consolidated rock to the
basin-fill deposits.'!he indirect evidence includes data fran wells canpleted
in consolidated rock;springs in consolidated-rock areas;differences in the
chemical quality of water fran wells,streams,am springs;and cxxnparison of
hydraulic heads between wells canpleted in rock am in basin fill where there
are only small arrounts of redlarge fran other sources.
Numerous wells have been completed at or near the surficial contact
between the basin fill and consolidated rock,and data from these wells
indicate that in some areas the rock is penneable and that water does rove
from consolidated rock to alluvium.sane wells ex:ttpleted in consolidated rock
near North Ogden and from Farmington to Bountiful discharge freshwater in
quantities of about 50 gallons per minute by artesian flow,indicating that
some of the consolidated rock is capable of transmitting substantial
quantities of water.wells near Bountiful generally are more prcrluctive when
completed in "fractured"rock or near faults indicating the fractured
netaIIOrphic rock is transmitting water that may be recharging the downgradient
basin fill.Water levels in some wells that are canpleted in the alluvium
near the nnmtain front,yet distant fran sources of surface water,fluctuate
seasonally,probably in response to red"large by seepage from srnmelt roving
into the alluvium from consolidated rock.For exanple,the water level in a
well penetrating consolidated rock east of Ogden declined at least 46 feet
from september 1984 to April 1985 and rose at least 36 feet in the next 2
mnths,probably due in part to redlarge to consolidated rock.
'!he occurrence of springs discharging from consolidated rock,water flCM
into the Gateway Tunnel,and gains in flCM in the weber River where it flows
on rock are evidence that consolidated rock in the Wasatch Range contains
water in substantial quantities.Feth and others (1966,p.42)reported on
the discharge of spr ings near the lIOuth of Weber Canyon,which imicates rocks
in the Wasatch Range are capable of contributing appreciable VOlUIIES of water
to the basin fill.~en the Gateway Tunnel was drilled through the Wasatch
Range,considerable water was el1Calntered at varioos places (Feth am others,
1966,p.42).The flow into the tunnel was measured for 2 years and ranged
31
fran about 0.5 to 1.0 cubic foot per second.'lhe hydrografi'l of the flow (Feth
and others,1966,pl.7)indicates that fractures and fissures in metanorphic
rocks receive recharge fran sn<:MIIelt,which oormally would flow to the basin
fill or the weber River if it had oot been intercepted by the tunnel.Flow
measurements made on the Weber River near the nouth of Weber canyon during
this study were cxxrpared with reoords of flow at the Gateway gaging station
several miles up:ltream.'lhe a:xrparison indicates that the river oonsistently
gains as much as 25 cubic feet per second,or about 10 percent of the total
flow,during lO\rflow periods in that ream.Only mioor tributaries join the
weber River in the reach between the measurenent sites;therefore,the gain is
probably ground-water inflCM frem oonsolidated rock.
Springs that discharge from consolidated rock in the Wasatch Range
annually supply a total of about 4,000 acre-feet of water for nunicipalities
near the roountains.These springs generally supplement the available surface
water and have a reasonably predictable annual disd1.arge.
calculation of inflow
In order to estimate the subsurface inflow frem the oonsolidated rock to
the unoonsolidated basin fill,the following variation of the Darcy equation
was used to estimate subsurface flow frem all sources to);X)9raphically higher
than the cross section:
Q =TIL
where:
Q =discharge,in cubic feet per day;
T =transmissivi ty,in feet squared per day;
I =hydraulic gradient (dirrensionless);and
L =length,in feet,of the cross section through which flow occurs.
(2)
'lhe flow was carq;:uted through a cross section that follows a line along
the eastern flank of the valley as close to the basin fill-rock oontact as
available data would permi t.'lhe line was divided into 13 segments based on
differences in hydraulic properties and available data.The location of the
cross section line segments is shown in figure 9,and the estimated flow
across toose segments is given in table 7.
'lhe total annual flow of about 130,000 acre-feet cemputed through the
section includes about 55,000 acre-feet per year of recharge from other
sources upgradient of the section.It is assumed that all recharge from
natural channels,about 50,000 acre-feet,occurs near the mouths of the
canyons upgradient frem the section.In addition,about 3,500 acre-feet of
recharge directly fran precipitation,1,000 acre-feet fran irrigated fields,
and 500 acre-feet fran lawns and gardens is asslllled to occur upgradient of the
section on the basis of land use there.The adjusted total recharge fran
subsurface inflow,therefore,is estimated to be about 75,000 acre-feet per
year.
32
Table 7.--Estimated annual subsurface inflow
from cxmsolidated rock to basin fill
Line segnent Hydraulic Length Discharge (Q)
numbers for Tran3Ilissivity gradient of
cross section (T)(I)segnent Cubic feet Acre-feet
(see fig.9)(feet squared (dim:msionless)(feet)per day per year
per day)(roomed)(rounded)
1 10,000 0.0029 28,700 830,000 7,000
2 1,500 .046 21,800 1,500,000 13,000
3 3,000 .032 8,300 800,000 6,700
4 2,000 .017 13,200 450,000 3,800
5 5,000 .025 5,600 700,000 5,900
6 1,000 .032 33,000 1,100,000 9,200
7 25,000 .019 8,200 3,900,000 33,000
8 1,000 .05 44,500 2,200,000 18,000
9 1,500 .067 7,900 790,000 6,600
10 1,000 .043 13,500 580,000 4,900
11 1,000 .03 15,500 460,000 3,900
12 2,000 .06 12,900 1,500,000 13,000
13 500 .06 20,800 620,000 5,200
Total (rounded)130,000
Less recharge within the recharge areas upgradient fran
computation line (fig.9)Streams ...................50,000
Direct precipitation ••••••3,500
Irrigated fields ••••••••••1,000
Lawns and gardens •••••••••500
Subtotal 55,000
Total subsurface inflow fran consolidated rock ••••75,000
33
T.5 N,
~
»
V)
»
-\
C'")
:I:.
5 MILES
GateWaY"Tunn-etGateway
,"-Corbett Cr
4
Can
3
4 5 KILOMETERS
----"--.f!~~~/1
k:.~~,
<>6 o,j"y
'0'~r /'1'.v,C'./t"~/CC"
"'-':",5 pn"g C~
i S4
I River ',~---/
2
CONTOUR INTERVAL,IN FEET,VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
2 3
--+-.\++_YY.a.l.!tlJ~an
,'Sout'::::-~,Weber Weber \
-,.",",,~/"~~{c..~.a-=.."""_
i ,HILL
A7 j<BASE
Sunset
O':o.~..:s~~~~
/~,
/0'1
(l'
<,<).":),~.,'>1"'.'1\"~/"
'('///......Taylor
//--'
,,//,//
/.
//......
///~/r:::'rJ
t-----+--/C]'
'I>~<V
Y'~\'v
~~'{
"'4.,1,.
'..
',..1:.
~4""",,~~.,.~ot;~$~~OL....
J './J-j
~II.
'),,\..
".'-'"-.;~.,
"I",I,
AltO
"ll'v'
'f-
"t,.
"I.,~';;"_,II,,l,
.,l,.
''''';<;'''J",
,",.1"
)~
",'Ii
/0I~Roy
.;:;../--Hooper./··i
'..~",,'.,7 /!_.'...WE;,BEfl ..CO.._U{-_·~...!.{-;,.~-~--,0 DAVIS CO
..---l(;--',I )/\);'I--~\..,;:.,·~,a f::"0-$.I
,;:;:.,""'~!~/Y>Chnton;
.....
__1,-,1',1;",
...,--=-
~,.I.,
•,J••"I•....•~.,l,
_,If,
j
~~-~"
C,:",.-z.
.,p.
77'J~'
/c'-~
~
.___----c\-p
~,
-y
~.
"I.,,.I.,
BOX ELDER CO .",
//w,a,"co~~?~~~~-l~£~::~~---.
"I,\0-8a'~/~,(,:~':
."'""~~t ::Cr"t'~7.~~.,,-.;:~.~~).,.."",,"'~J'~~)"\..,:=-(~,
-Wanen ....(
,~.,__".'..".I..'C~~a 1/'-----.<::>';~/'----
e~/;
1>'"I
.<:_.._~7 )
~I
""2 'r~'eO:..~""'est Warre..'.n.
.<:1
:Ii
4-,I,~.~""-.----.~I
'"I ,\I'North "1./
.f,#4-,'I:.'I',¥~~"
,"
112~51
---
41°15'--
w.e-.
"
T.3 N.
T.4 N.
Q!:<?!,'i'.
Fk'
'.i.../
"",",,1,_,1.
.,.
\
\
/Farmingtoll
=.:::/"/,r _
-~
"'~/'-,f
,
Clearfield
Syracuse
\,,1,_,I'
V ,»_,.C<'
''Y)~....."~r".',.J //~'--'-<7'I-/,,0 eek_~<,j'_'-".,'0 0,'..",".",,'%""-----'-~"-I '-.L--k,,~'/'.;,'fro"H""c<",'"~,.~;..:.:~."~~:s'";:As,,'1-//"~
,V -+ia~;r;;'~g t 011 6;:""'/',y "'-",-.,~dd Cr\~Ru
',0-
',to 0 ...::_s.teaci."~f
·f
.......1••
~
7+
~,
,.<:'''__,I.
"-,
if'
7
<',,>,
I
\,
<J\
\
J>
2o
":?
7-
-\
I"
\o
'<l
I"
~-----
<
,~~-/",T\
41°00'+
T.1 N.
w
~
"
--\.....~..'\N"i,al Lakerc./\/'\./'O''-'l\1
-'.""~;\"--
-,
-;:l.
)
R.1 W.
4'"
aI".,
r'"~.'
i ./'--kI~"-Cr.e e.,_Y ,ltL..,--
\It\~-'t /,\~..--f¢~/_/
"rd C/*.---i./'(r.I-~--'"~-q,Q.,/
F.1/?/I'
IINCT
ON /JAIl'.'"-\~J ~~/~
.--',.eo"""/";.,,
I '~"""C....",.'.•,.entervl.r
tll
R.'W.,,'4--..,'C'""--'J.;l~"".":.
1 ..,-""',
l -,....__I VwT est."",..:;f:~.:-,/J3ountifulc
~""
EXPLANATION
R.3W.
LINE OF CROSS SECTION FOR COMPUTATION OF
SUBSURFACE INFLOW AND LINE-SEGMENT
NlJMBER··Arrows indicate direction of ground-water
flow
'\L
R.4 W.
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125.000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and Vicinity,Utah,1974
---;i-
w
VI
Figure 9.--Location of perennial,ephemeral,and intermittent streams and cross-section lines
used to compute subsurface inflow.
Movanent
Ground water in the East Soore aquifer system generally roves westward
fran the IOOUntain front toward Great salt rake (pI.1,fig.7).A downward
component of movement exists througoout the recharge area near the rrountain
front (fig.2)where heads decrease with depth.An upward component of
IOOvement exists where water is confined and heads increase with depth;water
rroves upward throogh confining beds fran deeper parts of the aquifer system to
shallower parts of the system.The hydraulic connection within the aquifer
system depends on the thickness of the clay layers and other fine-grained
sediments between separate parts of the aquifer system.Generally,where the
clay or other fine-grained depcsits are thick,the hydraulic connection within
the aquifer system is less.
The upvard hydraulic gradient may be reversed locally because of large-
scale withdrawals of water from wells.'lhis may occur seasonally as well as
during a period of years.Near warren aoo Little ~untain,hydraulic heads in
the Sunset aquifer and the deeper part of the East Shore aquifer system
indicate doonward rrovenent of groooo water from the shallow to the deep parts
of the aquifer system.Water levels in wells near South veber and Hill Air
Force Base have declined to below the confining layer(s)between aquifers,aoo
thus,water-table conditions now exist where artesian conditions were
previously present.
Potentiometric-surface maps were prepared for the East Soore aquifer
system based on water levels measured in March 1985.A map of the Sunset
aquifer (based on water levels fran wells canpleted at depths from 200 to 400
feet)was prepared for the central Weber Delta area where that aquifer had
been delineated (fig.7).A separate map was prepared for the remainder of
the East Soore aquifer system,including the Delta aquifer aoo excluding water
levels from wells in the Sunset aquifer (pI.1).'!he p:>tentiooetric-surface
map:;aoo ground-water rrovenent in the East Soore aquifer system are descr ibed
in the following paragraI;i1s.
Water in the Sunset aquifer generally moves from east to west,
perpendicular to the contours shown in figure 7.The hydraulic gradient is
about 0.001 (5 feet per mile)and is consistent throughout much of the area
west of Ogden.Near Kaysville the gradient may be steeper,however,the
water-level altitude is knam for only t\\O wells.
The configuration of the potentiometric surface for the rest of the
East Soore aquifer system,including the Delta aquifer and excluding the
Sunset,is shown on plate 1.Movement of ground water generally is
perpendicular to the contours sham.'!he map includes water levels in wells
dr illed deeper than 400 feet in the central part of the veber Delta area aoo
water levels in all other wells outside of this area,including wells
completed in the unconfined parts of the East Shore aquifer system aoo all
wells cxxrpleted at depths greater than 100 feet in the Bountiful area.Some
of the irregularities in the potentiometric surface may be caused by the
decline of water levels due to large-scale withdrawal of water fran wells or
by differences in hydrostatic head due to differences in the depth of the
wells.
36
Near the mountain front,water levels are affected primarily by
redlarge fran streams and fran subsurface inflow.In the ~rth ~den area,a
large amount of the recharge occurs by subsurface inflow fran consolidated
rock,as imicated by the configuration of the potentianetric contours.This
recharge,possibly together with a thinner section of basin fill or rossibly
lower penneability downgradient,causes the altitude of the potentianetric
surface to be higher than in the rest of the Weber Delta area;in this area,
wells cx:rrpleted at relatively shallow depths flow.
In the Bountiful area,the shape of the water-level contours,which
generally bulge westward fran the nountain front,reflect recharge fran Mill
and Holbrook Creeks am recharge by subsurface inflow from consolidated rock.
'!he p:>tentiaretric surface in the B::>untiful area may also have been affected
by wittXJrawal of water fran wells.
The potentiometric contours of the East Shore aquifer system near
Riverdale are concave to the west along the ~ber River.'!he water levels are
most likely affected by recent large-scale ground-water pumpage in the
ilmEdiate area.
Near Great salt Lake,water lOClVes fran the deepest parts of the East
Shore aquifer system by upward leakage into overlying dep:lsits.The water
levels near ~st Weber and Taylor,sooth of Harrisville,near Hooper Slough,
and southwest of Farmington are affected by discharge,probably by upward
leakage to drains and evapotranspiration.The water levels at the southern
end of the East Shore area indicate possible movement of water toward the
Jordan River.
The gradient of the potentianetric surface ranged fran about 0.00017 (1
foot per mile)west of Hooper to about 0.012 (65 feet per mile)near West
Bountiful.In 1985,the gradient fran South Weber to the center of Hill Air
Force Base was 0.001 (5 feet per mile)which is about the same as in 1960.
Farther west however,the gradient has becane less steep since 1960.In 1985,
the gradient fran Riverdale to Hooper was 0.00086 (4 feet per mile)canpared
to 0.0014 (7 feet per mile)in 1960.This dlange in gradient is probably a
result of the withdrawals from wells near the mouth of Weber Canyon.The
gradient typically steepens near the edge of the benches where aquifer zones
thin,sediments becx::ma more fine-grained,and transmissivity decreases.The
gradient toward Great salt Lake is quite steep in the area between Farr ~st
and Willard where it is about 0.0045 (24 feet per mile)and also in the area
between Farmington am.Bcuntiful where it is alx:>ut 0.0052 (28 feet per mile).
The vertical gradient within the Fast Srore aquifer system var ies with
depth and location,and in 1985 ranged fran -0.096 to 0.104 (table 8).The
negative gradients indicate Cbwnward IIK)Venent of ground water,which is nonnal
in recharge areas,whereas the p:lsitive gradients indicate upward lOClVanent,
which is normal in discharge areas.A large positive vertical gradient
generally indicates a less permeable confining layer between water-bearing
zones,whereas a small gradient may indicate a more penneable confining layer
and,therefore,perhaps more discharge by upward leakage to drains and
evapotranspiration.The gradients stDwn in table 8 were calculated based on
the difference in the altitudes of the p:ltentiaretric heads in pairs of wells
divided by the difference in depth of the wells or tcp of perforations of the
wells.
37
Table 8.-Vertical gradients bet~water-bearin]uni ts of different
depths in the East Shore area,1985
Altitude of Depth of well (D)Gradient
potentianetric or tq;>of (dimensionless)
well mmlber surface perforations (P)[(-)dCMIlWard gradient,
(feet)(feet)(+)upward gradient]
(A-2-1)7dca-l 4,289 355 (P)
(A-2-1)7ddd-l 4,302 220 (P)-0.096
(A-2-1)lBabd-7 4,307 90 (D)
(A-2-1)lBabd-12 4,304 280 (D)+.016
(B-3-1)Sdda-l 4,278 873 (P)
(B-3-1)Sddb-2 4,238 328 (P)+.073
(B-3-1)Sdda-l 4,278 918 (D)
(B-3-1)Sddb-3 4,271 655 (D)+.027
(B-3-1)Sddb-2 4,238 338 (D)
(B-3-1)Sddb-3 4,271 655 (D)+.104
(B-5-2)3aab-2 4,255 272 (P)
(B-6-2)34dbb-l 4,267 648 (P)+.032
(B-5-2)6bdd-2 4,228 75 (P)
(B-5-2)6bdd-4 4,233 285 (P)+.024
(B-5-2)6bdd-3 4,248 609 (D)
(B-5-2)6bdd-4 4,233 303 (D)+.049
(B-5-2)6b<Xl-2 4,228 83 (D)
(B-5-2)6b<Xl-3 4,248 609 (D)+.038
(B-5-2)30baa-1 4,241 306 (P)
(B-5-2)30caa-2 4,258 614 (P)+.055
(B-6-1)4bbd-5 4,306 1,133 (D)
(B-6-1)4bda-l 4,399 165 (D)-.096
(B-6-2)6dbc-5 4,224 299 (P)
(B-6-2)7bbc-6 4,251 848 (P)+.049
38
Unconfined ground water that is not considered part of the East Srore
aquifer system,as defined in this repJrt,is present locally in perched zones
on the bench areas near Hill Air Force Base,South Ogden,and Bountiful.
Water in these areas probably moves to the edge of the benches where it
discharges to the Weber River,to springs,seeps,and drains,or by
evapotranspiration.sane of the water moves into surface deposits in the
valley lowlands.Minor quantities of this perched water may rove dCMIlWard to
the East Srore aquifer system.
Water-Level Fluctuations
Water levels fluctuate in resp:>nse to changes in the quanti ty of ground
water in storage,which varies acoording to the am::>unt of water added to or
removed from the system.The fluctuations can be short term,diurnal,
seasonal,and long term.Water-level data have been collected in the East
Shore area intermittently since 1935 at a few wells,annually since 1963 in
about 35 wells,and continually at a few wells equipped with water-level
reoorders since 1936.Water levels in about 50 wells were measured twice
monthly during 1984-85.The location of wells for which water-level
hydrographs were oampiled for this study are shown in figure 10.
seasonal Fluctuations
The major factors controlling seasonal fluctuations of water levels in
wells are recharge by seepage from streams and discharge by withdrawal of
water fran wells.Other factors causing fluctuations include recharge by
infiltration of precipitation and irrigation water and discharge by
evapotranspiration.The magnitude of seasonal fluctuations varies fran year
to year,and the greatest fluctuations are near distinct areas of recharge or
discharge.'!be magnitude of seasonal fluctuations may also depend on the
depth of the well.The greatest fluctuations are in wells <::otpleted at the
same depth as wells from which large amounts of water are withdrawn.
Hydrographs showing seasonal fluctuations are shCMll in figures 11 to 26,and
the primary reasons for the fluctuations are sumrarized in table 9.
The magni tude of the seasonal wa ter-level fluctuation has increased
since the late 1950's in alloost all wells with long-term records (figs.11 to
18).In some of the wells,water levels do not recover at the end of the
sumner to the previous spring high,and thus,long-term water-level trends
reflect a general decline.An exception is well (B-3-1}25dab-l (fig.12)in
which the water level was higher in the fall than in the spring of 1985.
The water levels in wells (B-7-2}11baa-~,(B-4-1}13bbc-l,and
(B-6-1)9adb-2 (figs.18-20),whien are near the rountain front yet not near a
surface-water.source,show large seasonal changes in water levels.These
dlanges appear to be a resp:>nse to recharge fran spring snaNnelt as subsurface
inflow from consolidated rock.The high water levels in 1984 in well
(B-7-2)llbaa-3 (fig.20)are in response to greater than normal precipitation,
which resulted in larger am::>unts of subsurface inflow.
The effects of withdrawals for nunicipal use on seasonal water-level
fluctuations are shown in figures 11 and 22.The effects of proximity to a
pumping center are indicated by comparing well (B-2-1)27ddd-4 (fig.22),about
2 miles from the major pumping area in Bountiful,to well (B-2-1)26aad-1
39
T.5 N.
CJ)
»
--\
C"')
:t:.
~
»
T,6 N.
5 MILES43
~~,
4 5 KILOMETERS
Taylor can
1-'-....",,-;'
2
II
32
a
T,8 N.
CONTOUR INTERVAL,IN FEET,VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
-+-
a
/'
//
r
r--~
,HILL
,\iF BASE
112Cbo'
I
D
"'"
I South
,./tlogd.,~~
1 'I '~,,W ,~"./"!
;:'T ash'gton ,'.!~'I err~~,'---__,~~;5"--,~0"~\</f
__.Web ...-q I-t-.I-t-
I
___e""!Y "6,~"r~'00 ,Yc/'-~/ee"""~"';',J"Sprl
ng
C
r
~c '<'\Uint i'Sol '<::-...IN River ',.,,/
"'=-.....eber "Sout,,/"Weber -i-----------'.::;....._~~~~\iGate,wav Tunnel-
'-- -&~--'---'--+-
0<;'
:J'
3
---n---'::)=-\f-/I I -+--~-.---
Sunset
,;/,
Slou'l.Y\!
--_._--'/0'--
_Ta}ClOr ,/W.i}(o~\~
-'//--~----
//,/
/'/,',
.//'/l:;:'r1
J------L-/'c}'
//,
/~Q'"
.'~O
~o-'$;
'r:.;.;/
'to-~'0
...,,\'v'v
*
'3~<{
"'-./,
~--
,I.~
..11.
"...
v-;~••
,d",••
,,\\)~ARV
Ii '*
"~~,.'",~"'"\\,,;("<,L
"",_"-O~..O '-.'3::;-'/~_''--...~,f __'Ii '.,Q//
"I"
.,1"_,It,
"w,.'.
_,I"
"o-N<J.?,
'~\."-:::"~-:i>,~~,_Hooper --_Y~"":'-~'-:!f-.?----_--'o-WE~BEFt-co_-____'\,,'J;'(J ,/o-~DAV IS CO
"k,-'.I ,,so'=,"I ",..c-.-r-:f("/-~o ClInton I
"1,,"I
~I
""ie~,1,~0-
4-"',,:4 ''ZN..prih ~"!'
~.
?'.L'\.
,I••1.-=-,,1,_'"
,.,1,.",••....4:,.
•,1/.,I._,I"~
,.....~';i.'*,,1>,-_,l~.'--...",1",,1<,~f::"'-,.1"'.z..i ,,,
+
.,1.,',.k.,
,.::::~.
112~5'
____-----0-----_________-"P
"$,
"7,..;.,
--~~
/.,1,__,I,.'''4'-..,..../l/~''-~_
I BOX ELDER CO ,\;.-I,"
/-WE:BE-R-CO----------------1--+---------~
/')'~,,I,'"
I /',,,,'"1"/,II '''.
_.J..u",I,,hV,-~~~:,'""_:/~~;·."C-~n .'"~
,/,'.'",I.';'';~:\u ~;;..'..~iPlamCltYj----n~r_-__i\_--lI'-----l~
/"'"'?':_~a''tt\/'..'~7?J1 '',"':~.,,'.'--~\~~'~t:~~~_¥=-===F..ar_r~~iiloJ,+"'">;::t*--..-+_'\-t--=-=+
,,'"..I."..'j ~\,e~Watxen,:;"~,
,~,-_,,''-,,'"1,.9~~1/
Cl)--~-""',,~=~~!
.,=~~/I..J ~__:
o I \~I '~'41 15-""0 -l-tD!\Vest Warre',
ol:>-o
T.1 N.
T.3 N.
T.4 N.
C;'~ek-
'j;J
»
.'It S_er_ee}':
~\9·-
_~/~~~..955'''-'ft;>.'
\\~./d-
f~-,ra,!.i.sh
j --~¥-
,.,.t···.....'.6'.,e~te_rV;!J-e-'"-~,-;\\e/C{e
i..~--\-\~-'''"--center
I '-I I-'~\/./.T.2 N.
I,i-/-~._'--'It
.-'_.e,.__--/s fo "e 'cr ee
B0lJ"NTIFUL
f,J fR __,r-L/--_....
c"
.~>,)
,0
'~,:cre,e,!<'J,J-,'~:./-~.-,.~.---_.__.-
\F'zjuit Hghts ee'lt
:a~(L.c;~_J
s"el'/
.\(('--',
\,'///'Z.\,;/C')
,){"p-=fFa-;:;;i~-gt'on--<8',"'
(i'~r,",0-
,~
\;\9.0:1-oj-_SJeaq __'<:":,,,~
iD C1-ViS \-/---,_/~,g~~~1_r--
!'9r "f
(§-r3-,~~-
Snow I~c;;el'
fo~r,/~./
f'---,'It ~j
eft·""f-'y-,::~,~,/
I
/;
/
/
i~~~::
,_i'f:<,:~
, !Val'
).Verda '-,/v
""--£iJJ'!Yotj
_J'
-/'-----..r
DAVIS CO _-~'
SALTLAK'E:-C:O
R.1 E.
•
-"I"."
'"~':
---,.I~
"I..
_,I"
i
~~
~~-"-
:;,:.;'~;'~""
"
,~~"~\,,t!<;>-.,<'-:>"')~-
?l
--"'d-'
(
R.1 W.
~I,
~,
"I,.
,"
}(a)'~/
/"----
I.
~I,.,>
r"'-·~~~
L__,~
j,.."
~-:*-
~---~-:~:-"/
1''''"_~/-1 West
"t "'....B~!'"~~ountifukd.,.l;',~/",::;;~
)'''',.-
__BAjY
"l,.
~"
,
Clearfield
Syracuse
R.2 W.
,I,,""
l;V~/
"'.1._,.[f,",~/'-',
'_'~,--,'\
,.'"-"'-/."i,KaYSV11I~-Ii,
.""""'::"~~~~\--/,/I
/b ,.''-\''-~/
i ,""--;.."<,~v
-"1,,
~
?f-
<:$.
'~-
FAR/I-lINGTON
____._l-.....,"•.,".......~.....~__,...,..__•
"
if·
?....\;;..
R.3W.
\fl
\
"Zo
"Z
-\
I"
\o
"tl
I"
'L
EXPLANATION
OBSERVATION WELL--Number by well symbol indicates
number of wells represented
R.4 W.
41°00'+
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125,000 quadrangle.
Great Salt Lake and vicinity.Utah,1974
3-
~.....
Figure 10.--Location of wells for which hydrographs are shown in figures 11-26.
1able 9.-Primary reason for water-level fluctuations
in observation ~l1s
(Hydrographs for the wells are shown in figures 11-26)
Figure well number Depth Prinary reason for seasonal water-level
nunber (feet)fluctuations
11 (B-2-l)26aad-l 250 Wittrlrawal for p..1blic supply and irrigation
22 27ddd-4 500 Wittrlrawal for p..1blic supply and irrigation
12 (B-3-l)25dab-l 265 Wittrlrawal for public supply
13 (B-4-l)7baa-l 902 Wittrlrawal for {:Ublic supply
19 13bbc-l 127 Infiltration of snowmelt
14,23 30bba-l 525 Wittrlrawal for p..1blic supply
23 34cbc-3 350 Withdrawal for public supply and reduced
u};Mard leakage
15 (B-4-2)20ada-l 600 Wittrlrawal for p..1blic supply
24 (B-5-2)6bdd-2 83 Reduced u};Mard leakage due to withdrawals for
public suWly
24 6bdd-3 609 Wittrlrawal for p..1blic supply
24 6bdd-4 303 Withdrawal for public supply and reduced
u};Mard leakage
25 llaac-l 540 Wittrlrawal for p.1blic supply
25 l5ddd-2 278 Withdrawal for public supply and reduced
u};Mard leakage
16 (B-5-3)15dda-l 649 Wittrlrawal for p..1blic supply
20 (B-6-l)9adb-2 189 Recharge from infiltration of snowmelt
21 (B-6-2)llbcb-l 949 Wi ttrlrawal for p..1blic supply
17 26ada-l 600 WitWrawal for PJblic supply
26 (B-7-l)30dca-l 180 Withdrawal for irrigation and public suWly
and reduced u};Mard leakage
26 33dbd-2 636 Wittrlrawal for p..1blic supply
18 (B-7-2)llbaa-3 365 Recharge from infiltration of snowmelt
42
(fig.ll),less than 1 mile fran the pLUTIping center.'!he seasonal water-level
decline in well (B-2-1}26aad-l was about 14 feet in 1985,whereas in well
(B-2-1)27ddd-4 it was only about 5 feet.Seasonal water-level fluctuations
generally are larger in deep wells than in shallCM wells and are also larger
in wells in areas near deep production wells (figs.23-26).
Long-Term Fluctuations
Long-term fluctuations of water levels generally reflect either long-
term treoos in precipitation or changes in withdrawals fran wells,or both.A
comparison of the cumulative departure from average annual precipitation,
withdrawal fran mmicipal and industrial wells,and water levels in wells is
shown in figure 27.Long-term hydrographs for representative wells in the
East Shore area are shCMn in figure 28.
In the Weber Delta area,water-level trends in most wells for which
hydrogra];t1s are shCMn closely follow the trend of the cumulative departure
from normal precipitation until the late 1960's (fig.27).Water levels were
fairly stable fran 1936 to about 1952 (fig.28)when they began a decline that
lasted until 1982.Fran 1982 to 1985 water levels rose slightly in most wells
in response to much greater than normal precipitation.Precipitation was
approximately normal from 1937 to 1952 and less than normal fran 1952 until
the early 1960's.Precipitation,as indicated by the departure line,was
approximately normal from the mid-1960 I s until it began to increase in the
late 1970 I s.'!he rontinued decline in water levels in the mid 1960's,despite
the increase in precipitation,was due to the continued large-scale
withdrawals for municipal and industrial use.The largest water-level
declines are in wells near,and of the same depth as,wells that are punped
50 r---r--,----,r---r--r---,r--.,.---r........,-.,.-...,...........,-.,-...,...--,.-.,-""T""--,.-..-""T"".....,..~T'fIII'".,
UJ
~45
IJ..a::
::J
<f)
o
~40
-l
UJ
>o
al
<t:35
I-
UJ
UJ
IJ..
z
..J 30UJ
>
UJ
-l
a::
UJ
~25
~
Well (B-2-1)26aad-1
(250 feet deep)
•1936-37
o 1946-47
•1955-56
o 1984-85
J r M A M J J A SON D J r M A M J J A SON D
Figure 11.--Water levels in a well near Woods Cross,1936-37,
1946-47,1955-56.and 1984-85.
43
Wu
<l:u..a::
::J
Vl
o
Z
~30
W>oco
<l:
f-
W
Wu..
z
-i 20
W
>
W-l
a::
Wf-
<l:
~Well (B-3-1)25dab-1
(265 leet deep)
•1955-56
o 1958-59
o 198~-85
J r M A M J J A SON 0 J r M A M J J A SON 0
Figure 12.--Water levels in a well southwest of Farmington,
1955-56,1958-59,and 1984-85.
J r M A M J J A SON 0 J r M A M J J A 5
250
f-wWu
w<l:u..u..
za::
-::J
JVl
wO 300>zW<l:-l-l
a::~
Wof--l
<l:w~co
350
b.~.
Well (B-4-1)7baa-1
(902 teet deep)
......--..--.---..--.
•1964-65
o 1984-85
Figure 13.--Water levels in a well near Hill Air Force Base,
1964-65 and 1984-85.
44
+20 r---.---r---.-...-......--r-.,r-~_i ---,---,---,---,-",,-,,--,---,--,-"--,--,--,--,
~
W.II (B-4-1)30bba-l
(525 l ••t d••p,)-so '--..,I.;,.........__'_---'_.L.._;.a;;...-I-.-.I._'--~....L.__L__'I__.l__~.........__L_L..._~....L.__'___'I__.L.._....J
J r W A W J J A SON 0 J r MAW J J A SON 0
•j
~t3 0 r·r---••··~:[)o::-~-~·~_=.•:::=:.::_===.~~===••~:J===.=::un::.~.~.~
o ~~
co a::~«::J
f--lJl ~i'WoWz
LL«
Z....J -20 1
..J":-
~~1
1
'
Wa::•1936-37
~o ~o ,
~I',1946-47
•1955-56
o 1984-85
Figure 14.--Water levels in a well near Kaysville,
1936-37, 1946-47,1955-56,and 1984-85.
•1955-56
o 1958-59
•1963-64
o 1984-85
Well (B-4-2)20ada-l
(600 feet deep)
---'---'---'--'---'---'---'---'---'---'---'---'---'--'--'--'---'--'---'--'--'l
-·1
W 70
u«
LL
~60
lJl
oz«
....J
W
>
~..0
«
f--
t;j 30
LL
Z
..J 20
W
>
W
....J
a::10
W
f--«
~0 1...-~....i--.J..-.I._.l__~""""'--L__'L-..L--'--.J..---Ji.--.l.-....1--4---L--JL.-...L--.L.-..1.---Ji.--.L--J
J r M A M J J A SON 0 J r M A M J J A SON D
Figure 15.--Water levels in a well near Great Salt Lake,
1955-56,1958-59,1963-64,and 1984-85.
45
Well (B-5-3)15dda-1
(649 teet deep)
wu«u.
a:
::J
l/l
o
Z
~.0 .....-41,...-.-.
w
>o
CO«
I-w
Wu.
z
J 20
w>
W
...J
a:w
I-«:::
•1936-37
o 1953-54
•1958-59
o 1984-85
J r M A M J J A SON 0 J r M A M J J A SON 0
Figure 16.--Water levels in a well near Great Salt Lake,
1936-37.1953-54,1958-59.and 1984-85.
•1936-37
o 1955-56
•1959-60
o 1984-85
+
~w>u
0«
co u.+20«~
I-l/lWoWzu.«
z...J
...J.~
w:::
>0
W...J
...J W 0
a:co
wa:~o
:::
Well (B-6-2)26ada-1
(600 teet deep)
J r M A M J J A SON 0 J r M A M J J A SON 0
Figure 17.--Water levels in a well near Wilson,1936-37,
1955-56,1959-60,and 1984-85.
46
wu
<t:
i'°f
~20o
....I
Wco
f-
W
W
l1.
Z 30
•1953-5~
o 1958-59
•1959-60
o 198~-85
Well (B-7-2)l1baa-3
(365 feet de ep)50 L..-~~::.....L---L--'_~~"""'......L.--L--J"-J.-...L.."""'--L--L_~J.-...L-......L.--L--J"-J---J
J r M A M J J A SON D J r M A M J J A SON D
Figure 18.--Water levels in a well south of Willard.1953-54,
1958-59.1959-60.and 1984-85.
47
Well (8-6-1 )9adb-2
(189 feet deep)
W '0u«
lJ..
a:
~
(f)
0z«
...J .03:
0
...J
Wco
I-
W
W
lJ..
Z 100
.J
W>W
...J
a:Well (8-4-1)13bbc-l
W (127 feet deep)I-«
3:110 ..A-..J J A-S 0 N 0 J F'..A-..J J A-S
1984 1985
Figure 19.--Water levels in a well near East Layton.1984-85.
I-W 30 ...--__-.-......-r--__....,-.,......,..-.,......,r--....--.--.,.-r--....-__-_..,..__.....,r--....-...
wuW«
lJ..lJ..
zO:-~10
-(f)
jjjo
>zw«
...J...J 10a:ww>
1-0«co
3:«
IrK A K I J A SON D 1 ,k A K 1 1 A SON D
1984 1985
Figure 20.--Water levels in a well completed in consolidated
rock near Harrisville,1984-85.
48
Well (B-6-2)11bcb-1
(949 feet deep)
I-w40,...-r-""'T"....,r--.,...""'T"....,-.,...""'T"....,-.,..."'T"~-.,.....,.."""T-r-..,.."""T-r-..,.."""T-r-"T""...,
wu
w<r:
LLLL
za::
-_~30
do>zw<r:
...J...J 30a::ww>
1-0<r:ell
~<r:
J r K A K J J A SON D 1 r K A K 1 1 A SON D
1984 1985
Figure 21.--Water levels in a well north of Slaterville.1984-85.
40 ,..,...,..,...,...........,..,...,.........T""I'~I"""I""I"""I'~I"""I""I"""I'''''I'''''lr''''''t'''.,...,.''''I'''''lr''''''t''',..,...,....''''''I'''",..,...,...''''''I'''".......,.....''''''I'''".......,........
19851980197519701965196019551950
1\No record
I ' /I '
I "I ,,
~
1945
Well (B-2·1 )27ddd-4
(500 feet deep)
1940
10 ..........__.&..Io.........I.-I-......"..................a...II.oJo-.&..Io..&...L..L......__.Io...I..........I-Io............................__.a...&........L..L..................................~
1935
I-Wwu
W<r:
LLLL
~~30
-l/ldo>zw<r:
...J...J 20
a::ww>
1-0<r:ell
~<r:
Figure 22.--Water levels in a well west of Woods Cross.1936-85.
49
10 _"'P""-P"~_-__""'__"""~""""'-"""_"""_~"'-"'P""_-"_-_""-'"
wu«
LLa:
:::>
Vlo 20z«-I
?:o
-I
Wco
I-30w
W
LL
Z
Jw
>w 40
-I
a:~•Well (B-4-1)34ebe-3 (350 teet deep)
«
?:DWell (B-4-1)30bba-1 (525 teet deep)
M A M J J A SON D J r M A M J J A S
1984 1985
Figure 23.--Water levels in wells near Kaysville,1984-85.
30
wu«
LL
a:
:::>25
Vl
0z«
-I •We"(B-5-2)6bdd-2 (83 teet deep)w>20
0 D We"(B-5-2)6bdd-4 (303 feet deep)co«
l-•W.II (B-5-2)6bdd-3 (609 f.et deep)ww
LL 15z
-I"
W>W
-I 10a:w
I-«
3:~
5
M A M J J A S 0 N D J r M A M J J A S
1984 1985
Figure 24.--Water levels in wells near Great Salt Lake,1984-85.
50
W 100u
0::(
I.L
a::
;:)
Vl
0
Z
0::(
...I 150:::
0
...I
Wco
I-Well (B-5-2)15ddd-2 (278 feet deep)W 0W
11.
Z 200 •Well (B-5-2)11aae-1 (540 feet deep)
-i
W>
W
...I
a::
W
I-
0::(:::250
J J A S 0 N D J F'W A W J J A S
1984 1985
Figure 25.--Water levels in wells north of Roy,1984-85.
+20 -__._......,......_._......,...........---,...........---,...........---,-...-......-...-......-...-......---.
+
~w>u
00::(
col1.o::(~0
I-Vl
WQWz11.0::(
z..J
...1-..:..-w:::
>0
W..J -20..J w
a::co
Wa::~o
:::
o Well (B-7-1)30dea-l (180 feet deep)
•Well (B-7-1)33dbd-2 (636 feet deep)
M A M J J A SON D J r M A M J J A S
1984 1985
Figure 26.--Water levels in wells near Pleasant View,1984-85.
51
A W·0 25I-W a::wu ::>W<l:I-u.u.25 0 a::
Za::/<l:Ul-::>Q.wJUlCUMULATIVEDEPARTUREWI
wO 50 -25 °u>Z Wzw<l:>-
...J...J j::Z
a::3:75 -50 <l:-
wO ...J
I-...J ::><l:w ~3:m
100 ::>-75 u
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1984
B
WATER LEVELS /
WELL (B-2-1)26aad-1
60 r-r----.,---.,------,-----rr-n-.r1r1r....-".---,---.--rr-rr--rr--rr-rr".---rr-rrn-rT--,r--rr--rr""'lrlTor1",--"'r.:or 25 t.Ja::
::>
I-a::o <l:Ul
Q.WWI
°u-25 w>~
j::Z<l:--50 ...J
::>
~
20 L.L__----l -l...-__-L..-__-'-__---I.L--__-L.-__--L-__--'-__--'---l -75 3
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1984
I-Wwuw<l:
u.u.50Za::-::>-Uldo>z 40w<l:
...J...J
a::ww>30
1-0<l:m
3:<l:
Figure 27.--Comparison of cumulative departure from the average annual
precipitation at the Ogden Pioneer Powerhouse to:a)water levels in
well (B-5-2)33ddc-1 and withdrawal from wells for municipal and
industrial use in the Weber Delta area;and b)water levels in well
(B-2-1 )26aad-1 and withdrawal from wells for municipal and industrial
use in the Bountiful area.[Number inside withdrawal histogram is
discharge in thousands of acre-feet.]
52
60I-WwuW«
lJ..lJ..50zC::
-::J
JVIwO 40>zW«...J...J
c::W 30W>1-0«co
~«20
+261-'7'W......
~~w
Z...J u
-w«0-co lJ..~c::c::>O~
~+O -26c::~Zw>«I-...J Well (B-4-1)30bba-l«0~~
-50
GOI-WwuW«
lJ..lJ..
zC::-::J-VI~O 40>zW«...J...J
c::WW>1-0 Well (B-4·2)20ada·l«co
~«20
0f-wWuW«
lJ..u.25zc::-::J
JVIwO 50>zW«...J...J
c::~75Wof-...J Well (B-5-2)33ddc-l«w~co 100
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Figure 28.--Water levels in selected wells.1936-85.All
wells are in Weber Delta area except where indicated.
53
76I-WWUW«LLLL
zer 50-::J-(J)
ijjo
>zW«...J...J 25erwW>1-0 Well (B-5-3)15dda-1«en
~«0
+501-'7'w-
~~w
z...J u
+25-w«.en LL...J erwer::J>0(J)w-o...J ':sz 0erw«w>...J Well (B-6-2)1baa-31-0«en~«-25
50I-WwuW«LLLL 40zer-::J-(J)
ijjo 30>zW«...J...J
erw 20W>1-0«en
~«10
1985198019751970196519601955195019451940
Well (B-6-2)26ada-1
o
-1 0 L.J,..J...I-L..L-J.....I..JI-J.....L-J,~L..J..J...I-L..1-L...L..I...1..I.-.I-L..L-J.....I..JI-J....I-.1~L..J....J....J~...L-J,...L..L..J....J....J-'-...L-J,...L.......
1935
+10
Figure 28.--Water levels in selected wells.1936-85.All wells
are in Weber Delta area except where indicated--Continued.
54
0 ......
f-WwuW<t:
LL l.L 30zO::
-::J
-1Ildo>z 20
w<t:.J.J
f5 ~10
f-O<t:cc
3:<t:
Well (B-6-3)26bbb-1
No record.........1......
1985198019751970196519601955195019451940
50 L..I-..........,....l--oL.-J.............,.....L..IL.-J....L..L....L..II...L...L..L....L..II...L...L..L..&-I-J....L..L..&-I-J...L..L....L-l.........L..L....L-l.........L..I-..........,..........L..I-..........,.-1
1935
30f-WwuW<t:
LLLL
zO::20-::J
-1Il~o
>zw<t:.J.J 10o::w
W>f-O Well (B-7-1 )3Odca-1<t:cc
3:<t:
0
f-w 20
Wuw<t:
l.Ll.L
zo::30-::J
.J1Il
wO>zw<t:.J.J 400::3:Wof-.J<t:w3:cc
Figure 28.--Water levels in selected wells,1936-85.All wells
are in Weber Delta area except where indicated--Continued.
55
for municipal and industrial use.Since 1953,water levels have declined as
nuch as 50 feet in well (B-5-2}33ddc-l,which is near the principal pumping
center,defined as the general area near Hill Air Force Base,along the Weber
River fran Uintah to Riverdale,and fran Roy south to Clearfield.More than
five miles fran that p..urping center,water levels have declined as nuch as 35
feet in well (B-S-3)lS&3a-1.
In the Bountiful area,long-term water-level trerrls generally follCMed
the trend of the culnulative departure from normal precipitation (fig.27)
fran 1935 until about 1962 when water levels began to rise.This rise was due
to approximately normal precipitation with less than average withdrawal of
water fran wells from 1960 to 1962.'!he less than average withdrawals were
due to inportation of weber River water by the Davis Aqueduct.water levels
generally declined fran 1965 to 1970 in res~nse to an increase in withdrawal
of water fran wells.Fran 1970 to 1975 precipitation was slightly greater
than normal while withdrawals remained fairly stable;thus,water levels
remained fairly stable.In the late 1970's withdrawals again increased
causing water levels to decline.water levels generally have risen since 1979
in response to an increase in precipitation despite an increase in
wi thdrawals.The slight decline in water levels in 1984,hCMever,was due to
a large increase in withdrawals in 1983 and 1984.
Water-Level-ehange Map:;
water-level-change maps,which s1'¥)w the distribution and magnitude of
water-level changes in the East Shore aquifer system fran one };Oint in time to
another,were drawn for three tine periods:1946-47 to 1985,1953-55 to 1985,
and 1969 to 1985.'!he map:;are canp:>sites that include all aquifers or zones
within the East Shore aquifer system,as long-term water-level changes were
similar througoout the aquifer system.'!he d1ange map for the 1946-47 to 1985
peri.od is only for the Bountiful area.'!he three time periods are based on
years during which previous investigations were oorrlucted.
1946-47 to 1985
water levels in wells in the East Soore aquifer system in the Bountiful
area generally declined from 1946-47 to 1985 (fig.29).The water-level
changes ranged from a rise of 5.4 feet west of Val Verda to a decline of 9.1
feet northeast of Woods Cress.The largest declines generally were near the
m:mntains fran Centerville to south of Boontiful.These declines probably
were due to increased withdrawals for nunicipal use.
1953-55 to 1985
A water-level-change map for the entire East Shore aquifer system was
constructed using the earliest available water level in the spring during
1953-55 to determine the water-level change between 1953-55 and 1985 (fig.
30).The change map was drawn using spring 1953 water levels where available
and spring 1955 water levels in areas where there were no 1953 levels.Water
levels declined throughout the study area from 1953 to 1955 due to the
beginning of large ground-water withdrawals and less than oonnal precipitation
in 1954.Between 1953 arrl 1955,water levels in SCIlle wells declined fran as
nuch as 15 feet in the Bountiful area to less than 1 foot near North Ogden,
and the declines averaged about 7 feet.In general,the largest declines were
56
near pumping centers,whereas the smallest declines were some distance from
pumping centers.Given these circumstances,the contours shoon in figure 30
represent a maximum water-level change for 1953-55 to 1985 where they are
based on 1953 water levels,but probably do not represent rraxiIrum change where
based on 1955 water levels.
Between 1953-55 and 1985,water levels generally declined in the area
fran Plain City south to Bountiful (fig.30),with declines ranging fran less
than 1 foot in a well south of Farmington to about 57 feet in a well near
washington Terrace,and averaging about 27 feet in the Weber Delta area.The
largest declines were in wells between Riverdale and Clearfield,generally
west of the principal p.urping center,with the amJunt of decline decreasing
with increasing distance from the pumping center.water levels rase fram
N:>rth O;Jden to Willard and near Great salt Lake in the Bountiful area,ranging
fran about 1 to 11 feet and averaging 6 feet in the N:>rth O:]den-Wi11ard area.
1969 to 1985
Water levels in wells declined in mast of the East Shore aquifer systan
fran 1969 to 1985 (fig.31).'Ihe maxim..un decline was about 21 feet in a well
southeast of Taylor.The water-level declines were due to oontinued large-
scale withdrawals of water from wells for municipal and industrial use.The
largest declines were in areas where the most water is withdrawn.Water
levels generally rase in wells near the rountains between Willard and North
O:]den and fran Kaysville to r-brth salt Lake,primarily because of greater than
average precipitation fram 1983-85,with a maxbnum rise of about 12 feet.
Storage
'Ihe quantity of water contained in the East Shore aquifer system could
be determined if the total voll.lIre of the saturated unconsolidated sediments
and the p:>rosity of thase sedi.Irents were known.Hooever,with the available
data only an awroximation can be made.Altoough the maximum thickness of the
sediments has been estilnated to be 6,000 feet (Feth and others,1966,p.30),
data from the deepest well in the area,well (B-5-2)16ddc-l which is 3,008
feet deep,indicate rroderately saline water below a depth of about 1,500 feet.
'Iherefore,for the purp:>se of calculating the quantity of water in the system,
it was assumed that the average thickness of sediments in the East Shore
aquifer system that contain freshwater is 1,500 feet.'Ihe area for which the
total quantity is calculated depends sanewhat on the level of Great salt Lake.
During this project,the size of the study area was about 330 square miles,
oorresp:>nding to a lake level of about 4,209 feet.~en the lake was at 4,200
feet,the size of the project area was 430 square miles.For calculations of
water in storage,the area is considered to be 330 square miles with a
thickness of 1,500 feet;thus,the volume of saturated material is about 100
cubic miles.The smaller area was used because the western limit of the
freshwater aquifers under Great salt Lake is unkoown,and little of the area
inundated by the rising lake has had any ground-water development.In
addition,the ground water in this area is slightly saline and generally
ronpotable,and well yields are small.'Iherefore,the anount of freshwater in
the area inundated by the lake is rot considered to be significant,although
the follooing value for the total volume of ground water in the system is
considered to be a minimum.
57
'!he arocunt of water oontained in saturated sediments is only a small
percentage of the total volune of those sedi.nEnts,am the quantity of water
that can be removed from those sediments by wells is an even smaller
percentage.For example fine-grained sediments such as clay nay contain I'lOre
than 50 percent water,whereas a saturated gravel layer nay oontain only about
20 to 35 percent water.The clay will yield only about 5 percent of the
oontained water to wells,whereas the gravel may yield 25 percent.
An estimate of average water content (porosity)am specific yield of
the sedi.nEnts in the East Shore cqui.fer systan was made fran drillers I logs of
about 50 of the deepest wells in the area.The values of water content am
specific yield for alluvial sedimE!nts are assuned to be the sane as those used
in Northern Utah Valley (Clark am AWel,1985,p.69).Those values (largely
fran Jdmson,1967,p.049-057)are as follows:
Lithologic mater ial fran
dr HIers I logs
Cl.ay ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Clay aOO sand;sand and clay;samy clay ••••
sa.oo .
Gravel .
sam am gravel .
Hardpan;all other cenented material ••••••••
Estimated water Specific
content yield
(percent)(percent)
50 5
40 10
30 20
30 25
25 20
15 10
EXPLANATION FOR FIGURE 29
----5---LINE OF EQUAL WATER-LEVEL CHANGE,IN FEET--Dashed where approximately located.
Interval variable.+indicates rise in water level,-indicates decline in water level
•OBSERVATION WELL
58
FA RMINGTON BA}'
R.1 W.
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125,000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and vicinity,Utah,1974
T.
2
N.
UL
T.
1
N.
R.1 E.
2 MILES
I
o
Io I
1
1
I
I
2 KILOMETERS
CONTOUR INTERVAL,IN FEET,VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
Rgure 29.--Ghange in water levels in the East Shore aquifer system,Bountiful area,1946-47 to 1985.
59
T.S N.
en
»
-\
C")
:t:
~
»
SMILES43
'>.
lay,or.<::an-......./"------',
2
!!
I I !
'--...,
2 3 4 S KILOMETERS
o
o
/'
//
112'bo'+9'1~'~I,Cl.
<T>
:l
\
\\(lUard T.8 N.
'aJ CONTOUR INTERVAL,IN FEET,VARIABLE
~NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
).~.3
~~
,',
.,,~,~­
/
/
/
.~~-,
'Ic!<.
~~,:v
V
".:,\V
~f'.\
.I'~~·.,1"
~~'<,
I%tisouth
Ogden
JAtf~~I ~i ~~W hi "...ITeas .gton/~'$01i_44.flrra~,---.-~~l~S"_~~g~l</1
'¥.-_-.-Ili-~~/reb :",,/"'v.1
"",---~,"&~,,-.".
,•••••.'-!!'•,_'~_n_'-'o "c'-•,>4<c 1-'U~"..-.--!!">,','"''''c"
"1.',','-50,1 --<'<,,-'".:--,HILL <~~We _River •.j
A'F BA'-->,::~.~out~..L.SE''-.V.eber ~~~.~~..--_.~_.1>(,:t;\Gate,waY Tunnel --
._..~--+-~
,.II,
~RP\';\1,1,;
_,I",I,
.'1..
I,~*-
"I".:'1":'
-'.~,.'l
.,I~-"I"
.-:;
,I,,.1"
"i",'.
"I"
~"I"
"I',~
-,I,.,11,
~,":t_\
"c-;q;:>-l~
~,I,-",-
I"4,,1,,*
,I,-#-"I"
"I""I.,
_"_,t"---
~
:J
..---_..---c\--p
"$'..'",..;:..,
--+-
112"J.S'
---
BOXELPE8~Q_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~~~_~_~_~_.~/~WEBER CO ,
j'.'~
/"'"v
/1
/
4101S~
'"o
T.1 N.
T.3 N.
T.4 N.
cree.'".
V'C':'-
:xJ
»
,.-L.//;z,
,'1>Fa~rr"ingt;;n/...C"'l-fc.6;;I"T'I
1\'",.0-
,~
-i"";\c;...
I
I .-,"._.•~..t.ea(j c~,""t?p~;Davis ,¥I!......(},:e'!!?.
.".t L F i~l<~gl~ee5.
,"'-1 0'~crl'S''---"~<)rna.!".<1'"/\//""Q;l::-
\parrisll "•----../
3.~~entervilW -cree\'~-terl"lle
7 ee n
+3-,3-..:0
I
'/,\.~2 -:T.2N
i I BO-l'NT'Slone -creek .
_)IFUL..'/...,~.·H-;'lb,ool<Cree'"
__<J~
0 0 '--~.,I'><::~1
~~-
~
I"'"~.:~
"""""1 '-t--r",-.-;4:
..\.'.N..,'".•.s..al
ti
Lake"j+rG:"1.•,.,.,',r'"~'J",I .'.ai,o~.'I //r Verda ··'·i\l.
,?-,'I /!-··£'!.Dy
<'.;:,'\'"j 1 .0"~j .!_/~--_./
.-d___QAVISCO -~,-'
R.1 W.SALTLAKECOR.1 E.
,fl,"
~,
,d.,"I"
/,..•.,,'."
j ..""
'-'-1'(,:'c,b"I"-',f
''::_".:i;""-
.""-'-'<"
I
1__-------,
BAT
-t--
,""
"If,"I"'..:-
,I,,'"
.t.,,1,,--=
'"'''.
,'~,,,
'--'''---
R.2 W.
"II.
,.1.,
F<1 R.1-UNGTON
'"I,"I'
-t
....
7f-
~.
OBSERVATION WELL--Number by well symbol
indicates change in water level from 1955-85.
+indicates rise in water level,-indicates decline
in water level
LINE OF EQUAL WATER·LEVEL CHANGE,
IN FEET,APPROXIMATELY LOCATED--
(The earl iest spring measurement for 1953-
55 was used to determine the change.)
Interval variable.+indicates rise in water
level,.indicates decline in water level
R.3W.
<J)
r
1>
2-o
EXPLANATION
v·
7'....\;;.,
1>
2-
-\
1"'1ro
1J
1"'1
•-37.7
R.4 W.
41°00'
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125.000 quadrangle.
Great Salt Lake and vicinity.Utah.1974
----40--
O'l....
Figure 30.--ehange in water levels in the East Shore aquifer system,1953-55 to 1985.
T.5 N.
en
»
~
C"'1
':t:.
~
»
T.6 N.
5 MILES
--t--
\
43
4 5 KILOMETERS
'''-''
Taylor can
--............".~J~
2
----+-f-;.--.------
2 3
---..'1/
,et1~5-"-----8".~It-i~~_/\,I'o,:"/~~E>1"-_v,E>O''6E>r",V(',"'---_/cc"-__/-s pf\"g c(
',~,
( J ((I
c'Sout'':-_We~r Weber,'-'~'--.--"\:'~
,-,~--\£~~~:..
o
o
/"
/~
T.8 N.
CONTOUR INTERVAL,IN FEET,VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
j
!
112Cbo'
I
O~~-:S~'l­'l-~
v~'l-'Y
~\V
~p.'{
,I'i
".
\
'-'4C...
•Ill)
,,11,1,1"'
"I",1"
-.,k
'=,~l
."
,.1.-
';,~
"I.,_"
~
~
o
C-''0
~"I"
~\"I"~2\\
___----0
"'P'(t,
-~.,;..
"I.,,.1.,
112~5'
----
////
,/
,'/
>//,.,
j-"
,d,"'4..I'~Jl-~E~~~E~OCQ~_-----·~--=---=--=----=1-=---·--T-·\
///..1.:l~';).::''::';/''-'~''''-.-.../;:-'::"".Ie;::'":",,,:,It Ple~san'w~_.c,a;(\
/'-__.'I .".~./'",,--'"............0 tv ,·----t"~.ogden/
"":~,I ".•.....~.. .!:"",..../----.....----.-\/r ',-::'..."c>'\",','j\:.~j~PlainCity /•No~gden ""
/'"I.I \~Sd"t\---~~~!r:i ~_j ~J;-'----'~--,7~1-·',<?OIlt.·
..'..".'~jC:~-,t,t/)"~FarrWef';t .---.,lvQ ,~~~••I'~--~--';;~__,~I~,-,f;~=______~~-'~C~
,.1,••I~'---'.(J ~'--.."I
"',_'0',Watten.l.I..<
•.,"',l.·.~"-~~I ..1.
,-,,~
e~i?>,'.-i
.c:__-t'7 :
~t..10,,:,,'!OJ -t~:.8t Warreal!
'o,c..cq<-l<~."""0'-"'-'"'-~U1 ~
,I,-,~l#art h"--+-'.
'"4 ....4~1..e~.,
,I,"*-,_,"~,j~-,.1"~~.~
"I."..~I::,."I ,.1 I,,,\
_:;~",~_,I,
_,I"'I',~I!.,.~4.'\'J ,~
41015~
0'1
!'oJ
T.1 N.
T.3 N.
T.4 N.
../
~.
c~
"'~~~
·--"~·••Ci}"••
'-"'YOn
._Uee.'>-~
v'<..;Y-
\,0
O~.I Cr<:"-""'J,\~~~-_..._-
IFIiuit Hghts eel<
I (lfJ C~/f ::0
S"e.ll/.'l>
/"/'
-1-,\//~01\.)/C').>;;-ipa';:;;;Tngto ,i-"--8~.""
'-%I\~
·.C
"\,\("'l
I 4
1"
;:.s.teaq
~i.DqUis
,.-1 .-,..,<:'t"'''1-.
I ,
\\\fti71,~.,cr.ee-!'-..
··h\···--r--·····_f~l~./•---+.,>,nanL5;~/~fo.f•.--~'/
\\'/G~~"
\ .h -\\pa~tt".//~y.n-"c~.~te.rv;1Wr~,i\fe -Gf~.1 .•--ri:'cente
I'"/'
-I I~...'_.../T.2 N.').t.././gtone "Creek
BOVNTIFUL
',f--<_~//"----C~-r~ek~
";../HolbrOok
.-.....<?>.+10 .~~
-,-~~~~~
"f._,I••
_;;,:.).~;,..i.:....
-4'
i-.1_1__
'J',\N Sal1 Lake c
.....I (o..'~.'i /?-..•'
~~',,"--
_j-L __-1.~:~?l5R~TcO
R.1 W.R.1 E.
~/~)
,,I.,"I,.
I .."·r~*"~--,
.J.,~;::ft es~.1'1,.-=-,~Bount1f~~'1,"I"}.'~..',:;;'-
~'I'.
r-----------;
R.2W.
,\~,,,
.,._,I.,
,to "I",,1,-'::
_,I"
FAR/lIINGTON
-l
~
7'1-
<c.
i ./''':!'''6-~~~'(
I IS"ii,,·L~~,\''''q~C'~P .o,d-le J j~---------'-'-:'-"-'->=~~---\<11.'--~.P\~I:~~~_..~!;:./L."-S.f.~~.~~.~-
~ast Layto,Jl SnoiVr~c~eek
'1 I t"1<I /,,,(/f 0 7 ../~-.,!,/.--',
...."'---.'·-.;-W V I1._:.t1Ji*V _~
if·
"7....\;:..
R.3W.
tJ>
r
1>
2o
EXPLANATION
1>
2
-\
t'1
ro
"t'1
•OBSERVATION WELL
R.4 W.
41°00'+
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125,000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and vicinity,Utah,1974
-+10 --LINE OF EQUAL WATER-LEVEL CHANGE--
Dashed where approximately located.Interval
variable.+indicates rise in water level,
-indicates decline in water level
0\
W
Figure 31.--Ghange in water levels in the East Shore aquifer system,1969 to 1985.
Average values of specific yield aoo water content were estimated from
drillers'logs of wells for various types of lithologies in the study area,
ranging fran thick sequences of clay am sandy clay near Great Salt Lake to
the ooarse~rained material beneath the high benchlaoos and river floodplains.
The average estimated water content for the area is 40 percent,and the
average specific yield is 11 percent.An estimate of the total volume of
groom water recoverable from storage was made assuming that water levels
could be drawn down enough so that the oonfined part of the system would be
dewatered,am therefore,a specific yield representing water-table oorrlitions
would be valid.'!he total volum~of ground water in the systan was estimated
to be 135 million acre-feet.An estimate of the total recoverable water in
storage,based on the specific yields of the water-bearing zones,the area,
and the lithology of the zones,is estimated to be about 37 million acre-feet.
This amount is considered to be a maximum because it assumes all available
water oould be raooved fran the system.However,the extent of dewatering
that could occur without undesirable side effects such as water levels
declining to depths fran which water canoot be pt.mq;:ed econanically,potential
novenent of oonpotable water to wells,aoo land subsidence,is not krw:::>wn.
'!he quantity of water that can be renoved fran storage by lowering water
levels in an aquifer depends on whether the aquifer is under confined
or unconfined ooooitions.Water-table conditions exist in about 5 square
miles near the roouth of weber Canyon,about 3 square miles near the benches of
the Bountiful area,and about 10 additional square miles in a narrow band
along the mountain front.Groum water in the East Soore aquifer system in
the remainder of the study area is confined.Fran 1953 to 1985 water levels
declined as much as 57 feet in the study area (fig.30),with an average
decline estimated to be about 27 feet for approximately 200 square miles
underlain by oonfined aquifers.'!he storage ooeffigient of t~4confined part
of the Fast Shore ~ifer systan ranges fran 3 X 10 to 1 X 10 ;therefore,
about 350 to 1,700 acre-feet of water was raooved fran storage as a result of
these water-level declines,assuming the water was derived from elastic
compaction of the aquifer system.~clines in water levels in the unoonfined
part of the aquifer systan near the ItOuth of Weber canyon are assumed to have
been at least 40 feet during the sane time feriod.The sfecific yield of the
unoonfined part of the aquifer system is assumed to be aoout 0.1;thus,about
13,000 acre-feet of water was raooved fran storage in the 5-square-mile area.
Between 1969 and 1985 about 100 to 500 acre-feet of water was removed from
storage in the oonfined part of the East Shore ~ifer systan am about 3,000
acre-feet was renoved from storage in the unconfined part of that aquifer
systan.
Discharge
Discharge from the East Shore aquifer system is to wells and
drainageways (drains,ditches,and streams)and by springs,
evapotranspiration,and diffuse seepage to Great Salt Lake.The average
annual discharge for 1969-84 was estimated to be 182,000 acre-feet.
wells
Approximately 5,900 wells have been oonstructed in the Fast Shore area,
varying fran municipal wells with large diameter am large discharge to small-
diameter flowing wells used to supply stock water.'!he discharge from these
64
wells was estimated to average about 54,000 acre-feet per year during 1969-84.
'!he nunber of wells in the Fast Shore area was determined fran drillers'logs
of wells filed with the Utah Division of water Rights and published data fran
previous investigations oonducted in the area.Arnow and others (1964,p.16)
reported that 5,000 wells were in the area in 1962,B:>lke and waddell (1972,
p.7)reJ;X>rted that aboot 430 wells were drilled during 1962-69,and 444 wells
have been drilled since 1969.'!his makes a total of aboot 5,900 wells in the
East Shore area in 1985.
Most well disdlarge in the East Srore area is fran aboot 200 wells that
supply municipal and industrial users.The average annual discharge from
these wells duri~1955-84 for the Weber Delta and Bountiful areas is shCMJ1 in
figure 32.'!he annual disdlarge was about 16,000 acre-feet dur ing 1955-68,
but during 1969-84 it was aboot 28,000 acre-feet •.Ma;t of this increase was
in the Weber Delta area,whereas withdrawal in the Bountiful area remained
fairly constant (fig.32).The disdlarge fran Itllnicipal and industrial wells
was determined fran reoords provided by the nunicipalities,industrial users,
and by Weber Basin Water Conservancy District,which supplies large quantities
of water for municipal and industrial use.
[ZL/]WEBER DELTA AREA
~BOUNTIFUL AREA
40
l/l
0
Ze(
l/l
::>1-
OwIW
I-u.
ZW 20-0::-uwe(
0u.~O
Iu
~
0
0
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1984
Figure 32.--Withdrawal from wells for municipal and industrial use,1955-84.
65
The approximate area of flowing wells (area in which IOOiSt wells floo
under artesian pressure)in 1954 and 1985 is shown in figure 33.The flooing-
well area boundary fluctuates seasonally and over periods of several years,
and is only an approxinate balndary.The percentage of wells that are within
the area of flowing wells was determined from drillers'logs of wells,
previously published data,and data oollected at 249 wells during 1985.Most
of the 249 wells visited in 1985 are in five sections and had been inventoried
in 1969 by BoIke and Waddell (1972,p.7).According to Smith and Gates
(1963,pI.2),about 3,500 wells flooed in 1954.Available drillers'logs of
wells indicate arout 560 flowi~wells were drilled during 1955-69,giving a
total of abalt 4,160 flooing wells in 1969,which was arout 77 percent of the
total rn.u:rt>er of wells in 1969 (5,430).Since 1969 arout 444 wells have been
drilled,of which 340 were asswned to be flowi~,for an estimated total of
4,500 flooing wells in 1985.Of the 249 wells visited during the sumner of
1985,39 percent were valved or pumped,27 percent were flowing continuously,
16 percent no longer flowed,and 18 percent were plugged or unused but still
within the area of flowing wells.These percentages were applied to the
estinated total number of flooing wells (4,500)to determine the number of
wells in each category disa.lssed in the follooing paragraphs.
Using data fran the 249 wells visited in 1985,it was estinated that of
the approximate total of 4,500 flowing wells in 1985,about 1,800 wells in the
flooing-well area have their disdlarge controlled by a pump or a valve.AOOut
1,200 wells flow continuously,and about 800 wells have been plugged or are
unused.Since 1954,arout 700 wells within 30 square miles have ceased to
floo for at least part of the year and many of these wells have not flooed for
several years.Most of the non-flowing wells probably are in the area
representing the difference between the flooing-well areas of 1954 and 1985,
where wells have ceased to flow because of a decrease in artesian pressure.
The decrease in pressure in the aquifers is in res};X)nse to the large-scale
withdrawals of water from wells for nunicipal and industrial use.
The 1,800 wells controlled by a pump or valve within the flooing-well
area are assumed to each have the sane annual discharge.The annual discharge
from each of these wells is estimated to be fran 1 to 2 acre-feet.This rate
is based on a per-capita consunption of 250 gallons per day and a household
unit of 4 persons (Utah Division of Water Rights,1980;Wasatch Front Regional
Council,1986).Most of these wells are in rural areas and are used to
irrigate large lots;therefore,the discharge fran these 1,800 wells is
estinated to range fran 1,800 to 3,600 acre-feet per year.
Discharge fran continuously-flowing wells varies considerably,roth
annually and seasonally,depending primarily on the artesian pressure in the
oonfined aquifers;discharge generally decreases as pressure decreases.Since
1963,shut-in water levels in flCMing wells have generally decreased as has
discharge fran the same wells (figs.34-36).Discharge in sene wells can
decrease even when water levels are rising (fig.34),indicating the
possibility that the well perforations are being blocked by sediment or
mineral dep:>sits,causing discharge to decrease even though artesian pressure
increases.Seasonal water-level and discharge fluctuations are shown in
figures 37 to 39.Figures 37 and 38 are for the same wells for which long-
term fluctuations were illustrated in figures 34 and 35.The water levels and
discharge generally decline during the stmlter due to increased use of water
for irrigation.
66
'!he discharge fran 1,200 continuously fleMing wells was estimated to be
22,000 acre-feet in 1985.'!he estimate is based on measurenents of disd1arge
fran 133 flowing wells during sumner 1985.The average measured discharge
from all wells with the same casing diameter is considered to be
representative of the average fleM from all wells with that diameter.The
average discharge for all measured fleMing wells with the same diameter was
rrultiplied by the nunber of wells for eadl dianEter within the area of flowing
wells.The number of wells of eadl casing diameter was estimated by assuming
that the percentage of wells of eadl dianEter of the 133 wells visited could
be applied to the total nunber of oontinuously flowing wells.The number of
discharge rreasurenents for wells of eadl dianEter and the total discharge is
shCMI1 in the following table:
Estimated
nunrer of
Diameter of a.nnber of Average Staroard wells with 'Ibtal
well casing wells disd1arge deviation same diameter disd1arge
(inches)rreasured (gallons ~r (gallons per casing (acre-feet)
minute)minute}
2 101 6.5 7.1 910 10,000
3 18 25 24 160 6,000
4 9 39 28 80 5,000
6 4 13 12 40 800
10 1 35 10 600
'Ibtal 133 1,200 22,000
'!he discharge fran 27 wells througoout the flowing-well area has been
measured annually since 1963 in order to estimate long-term changes in the
total discharge of water from flowing wells.Since the early 1970's,a
general decrease has been observed in the total measured discharge fran these
wells (fig.40).
About 1,200 small-diameter wells are used for domestic,stock,and
irrigation purp:>ses outside of the flowing-well area.The annual discharge
from each of these wells is estimated to be fran 1 to 2 acre-feet,based on a
per-capita consumption of 250 gallons per day and a household unit of 4
persons (Utah Division of Water Rights,1980;Wasatdl Front Regional CoW1cil,
1986)•'!he discharge fran these wells is estimated to range fran 1,200 to
2,400 acre-feet per year.
67
T.5 N.
~
»
en
»
---\
C")
':t:
5 MILES
.Ci4-r
RIVer '--.j
43
4 5 KILOMETERS
!Gate,way,,.'unr'e"..
Taylor can
-----'-----'./~----.---.....,
\
2
2 3
I !
j I j
''o!c~~T'."l'I Ogden /~~o~~~ct;n'<
F1....~()!a'"
.:,!!:.g.{~~_'2!
o
T.8 N.
CONTOUR INTERVAL.IN FEET.VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
I..lHILL
,
-(-i-
__L-
o
/'
I /.r
I;'
~---"T.7 N.
\h j
o1.$yrings
!-.......,~--'''''
'-~
It-.'~',.'_"""112'tlO'1 .0 -!I
'I,I-j'.:~
'.,...1 ."~\~~,;ard
~\I.to:J"..
\.3
WestPoin
~~'Y
",,\VV
~~'\
-./-"
..1'-4.'
.ci
_,I.,
..I..,
'>"v;~••
dtV~llY'
~
"I.,,I,
"I"
..::.~-\
.,1 ••
"I,.,,I,,
"I...
"w,,\,
*-"I••
,---"-';..t:_--,,~"-y ..1,r-'•.--..
--~/'"\-:/(f
.---t'~I ..l......J-:!'~"~;"
'-,,h !
J
)
jc
'v';'1.?I~
",I,.4-,,1,,-*
,I,4-"I••
o
C'o
~
~i\
"J_\,
\
,2
I ~
...---,...---(')'
"1'
~.
'7,.;.,
,.I.,,,1..
T
112"I5'
----
BOX ELDER CO '!g.!,,
/--------------'---------~~'-'-----'WEBER CO ._'!
/~",~:"I'~j .'';:"::~1
/_.J~0 1j ~,I..,1\:/~,,~,~~~\..i'!.fl!.--,,"~.~
/1 ',:%.,.",..C~_.,;~<),·;~;f]PIainCitY ~~/..""":~'~~~(J~'>t;t)',,----!,
.
'""I...,--.~.21 ~',"-""-,.~'0
'-.,Wat:ten,;"'(
\.,.~'L.__,':c\i >,~..9~~'-I/..J.
".0/I,\-/<:_-~}!UI I~'C +1J...!\Vest WarrenIll,!
I 'I
41"I5~
0\
00
T.1 N.
T.3 N.
T.4 N.
--".-
c;ijf/YOf/
q~£k_J;Dauis.-'---',,-/-
Iti~lt~_·c:r_ee~-
_/!~)-'---c\t
l "(nard C~l"'-·/~o.-.'--/\./,-~~~
, \parrish ~~.
-it'~§e~~~i~'--c'~"",'[enterl'lne
1...,-.
I I'~\/
j'
___.~T.2 N
"(B"'"--.''stone'"."v OUNTIFUL cr"
/~~:_'Hoibrook C;l'eek
,<~
I /'"....q.2--~'-'~"'"
,'Val'---·"'4
/Verda --',../V
,d.,
_,I.,
R.1 W.
~.,.,
i,~..
\0.k\~I c r~~,_~"J--~,\',~t'~--_.____
-'"'S"Kaysvillr'{i \=::r--;:\-\F'riuit Hghts cc~<':J:l
---;--f'-.c"......_13_(l~.i:':!(l~(Lc;'./
'•\•Sl\~ll//»
\{";'//~
I'\/+F<-;:;;;i~gto'l~(o;.~,/\1'a -r
L~
J t'~~Farmingto~I\[\"0..0-
1-'..'+-__Jiteq~__--"~~~
R.2 W.
d.,Il'."I',''''''::-
,I,,"-.f.,.1,,-:::
FARJI//VC7'ON
~
7'f-
<1'
-<~i'l'
,.."1,,,/l"9 rk [
"'11<-'t~~·,.1 I'lt r"'~~"r ~J .1./''c,/
,.I--c:!t,,?~~.-:t:'!~;1:-§'f~-~~'
if·\,'V It/East Layt0,.u iSnowr-c;;';k'
7'\-fr.,t\\'~I /'
<',A r:v/[~J~F":f"':~'/'--/
I ~I c1y~J----""'I'r=~--/J,/-'-v-f?--
R.3W.
<fl
r
""2o
""2
-\
f'1
ro
-0
f'1
APPROXIMATE AREA IN WHICH WELLS WERE NOT
FLOWING DURING SUMMER OF 1985 BUT WERE
REPORTED TO HAVE FLOWED DURING 1954
SECTION USED TO ESTIMATE DISCHARGE FROM
FLOWING WELLS
EASTERN BOUNDARY OF AREA OF FLOWING WELLS
IN 1954
EASTERN BOUNDARY OF AREA OF FLOWING WELLS
IN 1985
/
EXPLANATION
R.4 W.
4f'OO'+-
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125.000 quadrangle.
Great Salt Lake and vicinity.Utah.1974
III
$
Figure 33.--Approximate boundary of flowing-well area,1954 and 1985.and location of
sections used to estimate discharge from flowing wells.
12 20
W>
<IJ0coZ
c:(10 15 0
-l~l1J -lWUc:(wI.LJ e:{•0~LLLL ::JzO::10 ~~-::J
-<IJ w~~O I 00::>z o::w
we:{e:{Q.
-l-l •WQERLEW..5 I
0::.-U
LLJ •[B)WIE <IJ
~0e:{
3i:2 0
1963 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1985
Figure 34.--Water level in and discharge from well
(8-1-1)10aac-1,1963-85.
20 20W>
0 <IJ
co Z
e:{01515-l~w -lWUe:{wWe:{0~LLLL ::JzO::
10 10 ~~-::J
w~.J"<IJ
wO 00::
>z o::w
we:{
•M1ER L£.\tL
e:{Q.
-l-l 5 5 I
0::U
W .D!:OWU:~
f-0e:{
~0 0
19631964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1985
Figure 35.--Water level in and discharge from well
(8-7-1 )30dca-1,1963-85.
W 12 10
><IJ0Zco•0c:(-lf-W -lWUc:(WWe:{e (9f-LLLL ::JzO::
10 ~~-::J w-~.J"<IJ
wO 7 00::
>z o::w
we:{c:(Q.
-l-l WQERLEW..I
0::•I u
<IJW
0f-•D5CHAIU:e:{
~e 5
19631964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1985
Figure 36.--Water level in and discharge from well
(B-7-2)32bbb-1,1963-85.
70
w 12 3
u
<l:
LL Wa::I-:::>:::>
Vl z
0 11 ~z
<l:a::
-l w
W 0-
>Vl
0 Z
III 0
<l:-l
10 2 -l
I-<l:w CJW
LL Z
Z W
.J CJ
w ,a::
><l:
w •I
...J WlQERLna u
a::Vl
w •[&)ME 0
I-
<l::s:a 1
F'..A ..J J A S 0 N 0 J F'..A ..J J A S 0
1984 1985
Figure 37.--Water level in and discharge from well
(B-1-1)10aac-1,1984-85.
I.J.I 15 15
u«
I.J.wa::I-:::>:::>Vl z
0 -
z ~
<l:a::
-l 10 10 w
W 0-
>Vl
0 Z
co 0
<l:-l
-lI-<l:w CJW
LL Z
Z -
5 5 W
.J CJ
W 0::
><l:
w I
-l •WQERLna u
a::~
w •[I'l')ME 0
I-
<l::s:0 0
F'..A ..J J A S 0 N 0 J F'..A ..J J A S 0
1984 1985
Figure 38.--Water level in and discharge from well
(8-7-1 )30dca -1,1984-85.
71
20 ,......-r--,....-""T"-..--r-.,....~-.,---r-'T""'--r--r---r--r---r--r---,r--..,..-r-..,10
W
>o
OJ
<:I:
f-Wwu
W<:I:
LLLL
zO:::
-::l 15
-<11L;jo
>zw<:I:
...J...J
0:::
W
f-
<:I:
~•WATER lEVEL.
•r&::HAR:£
e
<11
Z
0
...J
...J•<:I:W
(jf-
::l~~w2
(jO:::..o:::w<to..
ru
<11
0
2
F'MAM J J AS
1985
I0 L-~_L-...._.L-...I.._.........I._"'--......_..L...--I._-'-......_..r-.--L_-L----I_...L..--:I..;;..-'0
r M A M J J A SON D J
1984
Figure 39.--Water level in and discharge from well
(B-5-3)15dda-1,1984-85.
The total estimated annual discharge from all wells is shown in the
follCMing table.
Type of well
Estimated almual discharge,
in acre-feet
(1969-85)
Municipal and industrial
Controlled flowing wells
Snall-diameter pwnped wells
Continuously flowing wells
Total average discharge
72
28,000
1,800-3,600
1,200-2,400
22,000
54,000
800 ....,..--~------r------.,...-----....,.------.,......o TOTAL DISCHARGE,MEASURED AND ESTIMATED
•AMOUNT OF DISCHARGE ESTIMATEDW
f-
:J
Z
~600
0::
W
Il.
(/)
Zo
j 400«
(!)
z
w
(!)
0::200«
I
U
(/)
o
a
1963 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Figure 40.--Total discharge from 27 selected flowing wells.1963-85.
waterways and Springs
Discharge from the East Shore aquifer system to drainageways (drains,
ditches,and strearrs)and by seep:;and springs is estimated to r.ave ranged
from 61,000 to 84,000 acre-feet per year during 1969-84,or an average of
about 70,000 acre-feet per year.This estimate of discharge is based
primarily on 175 measurements or estimates made during spring 1985.The
rreasuranents were made on all knoon drains and are assLnned to represent total
drain discharge within the study area.The measurerrents were made before the
irrigation season and after the previous season's irrigation water had drained
off,and were,therefore,assumed to be representative of base-flow
oonditions,which includes mainly ground water derived from upward leakage
from the East Shore aquifer system.Precipitation and surface runoff were
greater than average during 1984-85;thus,drain discharge during the spring
of 1985 may also have been greater than the 1969-84 average.All knoon p::>ints
of discharge to drainageways and by springs were located and the discharge
measured where possible.The proportion of water in the drains,ditches,
seeps,and springs that is discharge from the East Shore aquifer system was
estimated in the field where possible,or by using water quality to
differentiate surface water from ground water by comparing specific
conductance and chemical Characteristics to those of water from nearby
surface-water sites and wells.Some of the drainageways are used to
distribute irrigation water in addition to being used as drains;thus,
estimating the amount of water discharged by upward leakage from the East
Shore aquifer system is difficult.On drainageways used as a part of
irrigation systems,rreasurenents were made up:;tream and downstream from p::>ints
of suspected ground-water discharge to determine the amount of ground-water
inflav.
73
The discharge from the East Sl"ore aquifer system to drainageways and by
springs originates prbnarily as upward leakage;it varies seasonally and
annually depending on changes in the artesian pressure within the aquifer
system,similar to discharge from flowing wells.Many of the springs and
seeps,which are generally the headwaters of drainageways,are located where
the altitude of the potentiometric surface is slightly higher than the land-
surface altitude;thus,many spring locations correspond to the boundary of
the area of flowing wells (fig.33).The discharge by upward leakage
typically is largest in the spring when grourrl-water levels are highest,and
smallest in the fall when water levels are lowest.Discharge by upward
leakage to drainageways arrl by springs generally is assl.JTled to be greatest in
areas \'tlere the confining layer overlying the upper artesian aquifer is more
penneable or thinner than eles\'tlere.
Discharge to drainageways and by springs was determined as a total for
specific drainage areas.Yeasurements were made throughout the drainage areas
from the mouths of drains to the headwaters (spring and seep areas)to
determine the discharge for each specific drainage area.Some of the
di.scharge in the drainageways is from surface water,awlied irrigation water,
and other sources.This discharge was rreasured and subtracted fran the total
discharge for that drainage area.Total discharge for a specific drainage
area was calculated.The discharge rates were determined by dividing the
estimated total discharge by the area of the drainage basin.The individual
drain rates were then combined into larger areas,arrl ranges of rates for
those larger areas were determined.
'll1e Bountiful-Farmington area includes 55 sites at which drain disdlarge
ranged from 0.5 to 1.1 cubic feet per second per square mile,the largest
average discharge in the East Sl"ore area (fig.41).'ll1e annual average drain
discharge is estimated to range fran 12,500 to 19,400 acre-feet in this area,
\'tlich includes minor anounts of discharge to the Jordan River.
'll1e area from Willard to Hooper includes 90 sites at which the drain
discharge ranged from 0.5 to 0.9 cubic foot per second per square mile,and
the average annual discharge in this area is estimated to range fran 44,000 to
58,000 acre-feet.This includes an estimated annual discharge from the East
Shore aquifer system of 12,000 acre-feet to Hooper and Howard Sloughs.The
amount of discharge from the aquifer system to the sloughs was estimated by
assuming the snaller discharge rate of 0.5 cubic foot per second per square
mile for their 13.0 arrl 20.6 square-mile drainage areas.The contours of the
potentiometric surface of the aquifer system near the headwaters of Walker,
Hooper,and Howard Sloughs indicate potential ground-water discharge to the
sloughs (pl.1).
In the area west of Syracuse arrl Kaysville,\'tlich includes 24 sites,the
discharge ranged from 0.3 to 0.4 cubic foot per secom per square mile.The
average annual discharge is estimated to range from 3,100 to 4,200 acre-feet
per year.
Between Warren and Little Mountain,six sites were measured am the
discharge ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 cubic foot per second per square mile,and
the annual average discharge is estimated to range from 1,400 to 2,400 acre-
feet.In part of this area,head differences in the confined parts of the
74
aquifer system indicate a vertical gradient downward;thus,little discharge
to drains in the area ~uld be expected.
Some spr ings along the rrountain front are thought to be associated with
fault systems.The flow from these springs is not included in the water
budget for the East Shore aquifer system because they discharge from
oonsolidated rock.~springs discharge water having temperatures as high
as 46 degrees Celsius along the shore of Great Salt Lake.The water fram
these springs probably has followed a much deeper flow path than the water
fran the East Shore aquifer system.
Evapotranspiration
The East Shore area includes approximately 90,000 acres of lam where
upward leakage fran the Fast Shore aquifer system is a source of water for
evapotranspiration.This area is defined as the area where artesian pressure
in the confined parts of the aquifer system is great eoough to cause wells to
flow.About 40,000 acres of this land is non-cropped,non-irrigated,
vegetated areas and the remaining 50,000 acres is irrigated croplands.water
levels in the shallow water-table zone umer the 40,000 acres of non-irrigated
lam are usually less than 10 feet below land surface and within reach of the
roots of phreatophytes.SaTe of this shallow ground water,which originates
as u:fMard leakage fran the East Shore aquifer system,is taken up by plants,
evaporated to the atm)sphere,or discharged to drains.The remaining water
oonsumed by evapotranspiration is supplied by local precipitation,applied
irrigation water from adjacent irrigated land,or fran water in drainageways
and streams.
The weighted annual average evapotranspiration rate of the phreatoP1ytes
in non-irrigated areas is estimated to be 2.5 feet per year.The estimate is
based on the percentage of vegetation types in the area (Haws,1970)am
densities and rates of evapotranspiration of those vegetation types (Feth and
others,1966,p.66-70).The annual evapotranspiration rates ranged fram 1.4
feet for drylam vegetation to 5.1 feet for cattails (Typha spp.),rushes
(Juncus spp.),and reeds.other types of vegetation include saltgrass
(Distichlis spicata sp.),grea~(.5a.rcobatus vermiculatus),willow (Salix
spp.),am cottonwoods (Populus spp.).
Of the total annual 2.5 feet of evapotranspiration,about 0.64 foot per
year is fran the effective precipitation,which was calculated fran the April
to October precipitation at the stations at Bear River Refuge and Ogden Sugar
Factory for 1951-80.The annual evapotranspiration fran sources other than
precipitation fran the 40,000 acres of non-irrigated land is about 1.9 feet or
76,000 acre-feet.The source of most of this water is excess applied
irrigation water on the upgradient cropland,water in drainageways,and
surface water in the sloughs am forks of the weber River.The excess aQ;>lied
irrigation water was estimated to be about 65,000 acre-feet,based on a rate
of 1.3 feet throughout the 50,000 upgradient acres.The 1.3-feet rate was
calculated fran an average consunptive use of 1.7 feet am an average applied
irrigation rate of 3.0 feet for farms with less than 1,000 acres (U.S.
Dep:lrt:nent of Ccmnerce,1982,p.266).The average consumptive-use rate of
1.7 feet for croplands was calculated fran a rate of 2.3 feet,based on
percentage of crop types in the area (Haws,1970)and the oonsumptive-use rate
of the individual crops (Huber and others,1982),minus the effective
75
T.5 N.
~
»
V)
»
-\
C")
:r.
84"-../'
SMILES
Gateway'Tunnel
4
I River
3
i"---0~~~j-1
I,--1 ---~-/'e~
sprIng Cfe
4 S KILOMETERS
Taylor can
--"',,---'''''-,
2
1
1
2 3
~;:::,~_Webe'Sout---'~---.;V'twTeber \
"--'cf:''b.
~',,;~--
a
a
T.7 N.
T.8 N.
CONTOUR INTERVAL.IN FEET.VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
'-.-",
,HILL
A'F BASE
:Q
"'"
t___~!2'bO'
,0 I
I ,'"Ii .g-
il "\\\(iIlard
I aJ
I :.,'"\:0
\'"-f-~3-
-=---::::I~------="V I +----1-----"+-;;--
ca;"
-~-"''''~,2~~_e_~\/
North~gden \"
j-'-----/Lj-,'~O'cilo
'./'-·-.51.t e,.cr-J+J=l=~-->Jh--t-:\---li.:s.__~"'-.'--t -,\,
....
/
'I.~\>
.\VV',,,,
"£>r.~
.l'~~.,1"
j\RV
\\11,1,
"I ••
,.1"....,
___----c)'
"P
--:'="
';yo,,;.,
'"
112o.tS'
---'
BOX ELDER CO
/-WEBE-RCO----~---------l~
/1 ,""'~';:.
1
/
;'
4101S~
-..I
0'
T.1 N.
T.3 N.
T.2 N.
T.4 N.
'rye\t
(:reek
Creel-?
Ca"yO"
"~.-....'i
~(-"'F.>?
/Iv
J::I
'l>
.C!:.
/
\,~-i-~----~---'-,----L C")
"J>Farmington".m__*0,.:
1(13
I ~
Z._.'it?ad _c:-~~--,",~--?
,D_avis '
-"(:':f?~1',-
\~'S..cr<:<:k
•\of'--.L _
-:::-..-(\e rr Fl'IUit Hghts eek~.•'!'(\~d_Cf./
s"~l'
R.1 W.
·,d'_l-
I 10'
J'.c*",,;~
1",1",::.//"
B~~
,
Clearfield
~..-0
.,.
-"I"
"","I"
R.2 W.
"I"~
"J...
FAR.t1INcrON
'"I,"I-
...
'7
~.
7 Cont.
--'~'~-"'~"I
I Fqrk
1-~1,\~~6.~I~J
··f,~Y--~~~"'c--~!Syracuse ~+-._.C'q <·M,e~-..............',\0'I-~?~,.::·.-~\::>...
',A
R.3 W.
GENERALIZED BOUNDARY OF DISCHARGE BY UPWARD
LEAKAGE TO WATERWAYS AND BY SPRINGS
LINE OF SECTION FOR COMPUTATION OF DIFFUSE
SEEPAGE TO GREAT SALT LAKE AND LINE SEGMENT
NUMBE R--Arrows show direction of ground-water flow
0.5 -1.1 cubic feet per second per square mile
0.2 -0.5 cubic foot per second per square mile
0-0.2 cubic foot per second per square mile
l .
R.4 W.
):>
Z
-\
~,
41°00'-'-~10
1'1
<I>
r;"
Z
o
~"""-.JLn..uH
EXPLANATION
AREA WHERE DISCHARGE TO DRAINS RANGES FROM:
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1:125000 quadrangle.
Great Salt Lake and vicinity.Utah.1974
m
[II[[]
E--~---J
r4---i
...,J
...,J
Figure 41.--Areas of different rates of drain discharge and computation lines used
for estimating diffuse seepage to Great Salt Lake.
precipitation rate of 0.64 foot per year.Only a small part of the 76,000
acre-feet of evapotranspiration is suWlied directly by uP'lard leakage fran
the East Sl'x>re aquifer system.Part of the evapotranspiration fran the non-
irrigated area is fram the 65,000 acre-feet of excess irrigation water.If
all of this excess water moves to the non-irrigated area,the calculated
evapotranspiration derived fran excess irrigation water would be 65,000 acre-
feet,and the remainder,or 11,000 acre-feet (76,000 -65,000),would be
supplied by uP'lard leakage fran the East Shore aquifer systan.This estimate
of 11,000 acre-feet is a maximum if sate of the evapotranspiration is derived
fran other sources.
The areas of non-irrigated vegetation generally have little drain
discharge,such as the area between Warren and Little Mountain (fig.41).
Feth and others (1966,table 15)reported a range of the annual rate of upward
leakage in an area similar to the non-irrigated areas frem 0.04 to 0.2 foot
with an average rate of 0.1 foot,based on five experiments in 1954-55 on
salt-crust barren lands near Great Salt Lake.If this average rate of
evapotranspiration fram ~rd leakage is assuned to represent a minimum rate
for the 40,000 acres of non-irrigated vegetation,4,000 acre-feet per year
~uld represent the minirrum evapotranspiration by ~rd leakage fram the East
Shore aquifer systan.
Evapotranspiration of water from upward leakage in the irrigated
croplands is assumed to be negligible because the water table in these areas
generally is deeper than in the non-irrigated areas.':the deeper water table
is caused by the generally higher altitude and steeper land-surface gradient,
and by the drains constructed to maintain the water table at a distance below
the land surface such that plant roots are not in saturated soils.'Iherefore,
it is assuned that the minimum annual evapotranspiration from upward leakage
is about 4,000 acre-feet,the maximum amount is unknown but asst.nned to be
about 11,000 acre-feet and the estimated average is 8,000 acre-feet.
Diffuse Seepage to Great Sal t Lake
Ground water discharges by diffuse seepage fram sed.irrents under the east
side of Great Salt Lake.The total annual ground-water discharge to the lake
was estimated as the flow through a series of vertical cross-sectional areas-
the locations of the sections are shown by the lines of section in figure 41.
'Ihe necessary ccnponents of the Darcy equation (p.32)to determine ground-
water discharge into the lake are listed in table 10.Transmissivity was
estimated with average aquifer hydraulic conductivity and thickness.The
average hydraulic conductivity (K)was determined fran litl'x>logies described
in drillers'logs of wells near the computation lines and hydraulic
conductivity values used by ~r (1978,p.16).'!he hydraulic gradient (I)
was detennined frem water levels in wells near the lake.Where wells and
water levels were not available very near the lake,it was assurred that the
gradients nearest the lake were representative of gradients across the
computation lines.Using the steeper gradients sane distance fram the lake
probably overestimates discharge across SOlIE section lines.For the purpose
of carq;:uting discharge,the saturated thickness of the aquifer system near the
lake shore was assumed to be 1,000 feet.
78
Table 10.--Estimated discharge by diffuse seepage to Great salt Lake
Section
line
(see fig.41)
Hydraulic
conductivity
(K)
(feet per day)
Hydraulic
gradient
(I)
(dimensionless)
Length
of section
line (L)
(feet)
Discharge (Q)1
Cubic feet Acre-feet
per day per year
(rounded)
1 40 0.0007 14,600 409,000 3,400
2 11 .0014 21,900 337,000 2,800
3 22 .0059 14,600 1,895,000 15,900
4 20 .0040 14,600 117,000 980
5 8 .0013 18,800 196,000 1,600
6 12 .00088 16,700 176,000 1,500
7 18 .0015 42,700 1,153,000 9,700
8 18 .00089 57,300 918,000 7,700
9 12 .0032 17,700 680,000 5,700
10 17 .0016 35,400 963,000 8,100
Total (rounded)57,000
Less discharge across section line 5 (see fig.41)where flow is
to the east •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••1,fiOO
Less discharge to drains,seeps,and streams (see page 80)•••••••3,000-5,000
Total discharge to Great salt Lake at a
lake altitude of about 4,200 feet (rounded)••.•••50,000
lsased on an assumed saturated thickness of 1,000 feet for the aquifer system.
79
The total discharge calculated for 48 miles of lake shore is estimated
to be 57,000 acre-feet per year.Discharge by drains near the lake and west
of line segment line 3 (fig.41)is estimated to range from 3,000 to 5,000
acre-feet per year and was subtracted from the total discharge by diffuse
seepage to Great Salt Lake.Excluding the drain discharge (3,000-5,000 acre-
feet)and ground-water flow to the east across line segment line 5 (1,600
acre-feet),the discharge fram the East Shore aquifer system by diffuse
seepage to the lake is estimated to be about 50,000 acre-feet per year (table
10).
Sumnary of the Hydrologic 8..ldget for the East Shore h;Iuifer System
The hydrologic budget of the East Soore aquifer system is sUlllIlarized in
table 11.The budget cxxrponents for recharge and discharge were calculated
independently,and the totals are not equal.The difference between the
totals for recharge and discharge primarily is due to lack of reliable data
for calculating some of the individual budget components,particularly
red1arge from subsurface inflow,disdlarge to drainageways and spr ings,and
diffuse seepage to Great salt lake,\\ihich are major parts of the total budget.
~ver,it is likely that the disdlarge fran the East Shore aquifer system
was slightly larger than recharge during 1969-84 because a small part of the
discharge from wells was derived from loss of aquifer storage rather than
being entirely derived from recharge.1ID:)ther soorce of discrepancy was the
time periods during which data to calculate individual parts of the budget
were collected.The value for each eatp:>nent of the budget is asst.med to be
an average value during 1969-84.However,data were not available for all
components for the same time period,and the average values represent
different periods of time and may represent hydrologic extremes.For
instance,discharge to drainageways and springs was calculated based on data
collected during 1984-85,a period following greater than normal
precipitation;the calculated value may be larger than actual average value
for 1969-84.A reasonable estimate of the long-term average for beth recharge
to and discharge from the East SOOre aquifer system is about 160,000 acre-feet
per year.
Chemical ~ality and Tel!perature
'!he quality of ground water in the East Shore area has changed little
since previous studies even though wittXirawals have increased substantially.
O1emical analyses of water from wells collected during this study and selected
analyses from other studies are rep)rted in Plantz and ot.'ers (1986,table 5).
Snith and Gates (1963)and BoIke and Waddell (1972)discussed the chemical
quality of ground water in the entire area,whereas Feth and others (1966)
discussed the quality of water in only the Weber Delta area.Additional
infonnation on the prevalent chemical types of ground water in the area can be
found in those reports.Chemical analyses of ground water in the area
indicates that in most of the area the water is p)table;ha.lever,SaTE areas
are rot extensively developed because the quality of the water is rot suitable
for SaTE uses.
80
Table 11.-Approximate hydrologic budget for the
~tSOOrea~li&s~t~,l%~~
Recharge
Budget carJIX)nent
Acre-feet per year
(roumed)
Seepage fran rivers,streams,am irrigation canals 60,000
Infiltration fran irrigated fields,lawns,gardens,18,000
and direct precipitation
Subsurface inflow fran oonsolidated rocks 75,000
Tbtal ......•••.••153,000
Discharge
Wells 54,000
Waterways am springs 70,000
Evapotranspiration 8,000
Diffuse seepage to Great Salt Lake 50,000
Total.••••. . •••.••182,000
Relation to Hydrology and Geology
The chemical quality of the ground water in the East Shore area is
directly related to the quality of its recharge water and the a::xrposition of
the rocks and soil through which the water flows from points of recharge to
points of discharge.The specific conductance of potential redlarge water
fran streaIl5 is given in table 12.M::>re than on~third of the recharge to the
East Shore aquifer system is by seepage fran surface water.The differences
in quality between the streams primarily reflects the rock types in the
drainage area and the rate of flow when the sanple was taken.Most of the
redlarge by seepage occurs when the streams are at high flow arrl the specific
comuctance is relatively small.Specific conductance of water in the Gateway
Tunnel,which was drilled through netarrorphic rocks,am of freshwater springs
near the mouths of Weber am Ogden canyons is oonsiderably smaller than that
of IOOSt other surface water during low-flow periods.'!he water in the tunnel
and the springs is assumed to be representative of the quality of water
recharged from the same rock types along the Wasatch Front by subsurface
inflow to the basin fill.
'!he East Shore area is boumed on the east by the Wasatch Fault zone and
on the west by an inferred fault trerrling southeast fran the Little M::>untain
area (fig.3).The fault systems have a direct effect on the quality of
81
Table 12.--Specific conductarre of water from streams at high and
low flew,selected springs,and Gate~y Tunnel
Name
Average specific conductance
(microoierrens per centi.neter at 25 degrees celsius)
<:gden River
furch Creek
weber River
Kays Creek
H:>1mes Creek
Baer Creek
Fannington Creek
Gateway funnel
Spri~s at the nnlth
of Ogden Canyon
Springs at the nnlth
of Weber canyon
High flow
180
100
310
560
350
230
120
LoN flow
280
550
900
630
500
200
150
120
ground water near than.This effect is indicated by high temperatures and
large concentrations of dissolved minerals in the water of Hxper Hot Springs
on the west and Utah Hot Springs on the east.These waters are assumed to
result from upward flow along the fault zones and are presumed to have
circulated either deep in the alluvium or in the underlying oonsolidated rock
where the water has been heated.Such circulation has been fX)stulated based
on data fram analyses for stable isotopes (Cole,1982).The increase in
teaperature increases the solubility and dissolution rate of rock minerals am
causes an increase in the total ooncentrations of dissolved minerals (Hem,
1970,p.42).
An exanple of l'x:>w the water chanistry dlanges along flow paths between
recharge and discharge areas is shown in figure 42.'!he specific conductance
of water at selected sites along the flow plth fran the IIOuth of Weber Canyon
northwest to near Little Mountain suggests recharge sources and imicates
changes in water quality.Recharge water fran the Weber River has a specific
conductance ranging from about 310 to 550 microsienens per centimeter at 25
degrees celsius,whereas specific oonductance of water fran the Gateway Tunnel
and springs in consolidated rock ranges from 120 to 200.Water from deep
wells near Hill Air Force Base and the Weber River has values of specific
conductance that are larger than the values of the weber River at high floo
and similar to values at lCM flow.This difference indicates that water that
moves to these wells originated as seepage from the river,assuming some
dissolution of rock minerals along the ground-water flCM path.Farther along
the flow path,the values of specific conductance are smaller than the values
at the upgradient wells and for river water,imicating that at least some of
the water that m::>ves to these wells probably is fran consolidated-rock sources
that has circulated beneath the upgradient wells.The large values at the
82
--- - -APPROXIMATE POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
EXPLANATION
....,....'"'cD 'f
-lD
AI
a;r
c:c:
::lr-
>-
'"~
~
'"I-
"...
I0
0
N
......:;
Il::...
'".c........=:
'"
'"0 '"~~.~j~~~
....
U
D
D
"'N
....uu
U....
N
GENERALIZED DIRECTION OF GROUND-WATER MOVEMENT
WELL NUMBER
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE,IN MICROSIEMENS PER
CENTIMETER AT 25 DEGREES CELSIUS
PERFORATED INTERVAL OF WELL--¢indicates
open-ended well (no perforations)
(B-7-3)31aac-2
........
FEET A
5,400 -
__1-
(Xl
LV ~~II :;~..~/~
~
~
~,/
o
'd"
It)
o
"'It)
:::-'C
_• I U ~,it§
~~!I ~~~",.--1
.------'J /
~~11----'"
~~
~'"....
"'0'"'"
o....
'd"
~~
~
~
'd".n
'"
"'co
~o
'"co
~\
........
3,400 -
3,800 -
3000 I II I
•~MILE VERTICAL SCALE GREATLY EXAGGERATED
o 1 KILOMETER
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
Figure 42.··Section from Weber Canyon to Great Salt Lake showing flow path of ground water and values for
specific conductance.Trace of section is shown on figure 44.
western (dCMIl gradient)end of the section are related to vertical novenent of
wann saline waters along the steeply dipping faults.
Chemical carpooition
'!he dlenical makeup of the ground water in the East Shore area var ies
areally and with depth.The princiPal ions in the ground water are calcium,
magnesium,sodium plus potassium,bicarbonate plus carbonate,sulfate,and
chloride.The large variability in the dlenical canposi tion of groond water
is sb:>wn by Stiff diagrans in figure 43.'!he Stiff diagram shows individual
ion concentrations in milliequivalents per liter in a polygon shape that
indicates water-composition differences and similarities.The chemical
composition of ground water in the East Shore area is dominated by three
principal tyPes.calcium magnesium bicarbonate type waters generally have the
smallest dissolved-solids concentrations and occur in an area along the Weber
River,along the recharge area sooth of the weber River to Bountiful,and in
the North Ogden area.Sodium bicarbonate waters generally occur in the
discharge areas,and sodium chloride type waters are found associated with
fault-related thermal waters and in an area fran O;den northwest toward Plain
City (fig.43).
In the East Shore area,the chloride concentration in water is an
approximate indication of the quality of the water.Areas where the chlor ide
concentration in ground water exceeds 25 and 250 milligrams per liter are
shown in figure 44.The larger chloride concentration near Great Salt Lake
probably is related to thermal water.'Ibis,h:>wever,is not believed to be
the case with the larger chloride o:mcentrations in the area bet~en Ogden and
Plain City.The reason for the larger chloride concentrations in the 03den-
Plain City area is not completely understood;however,there appears to be
greater resistance to ground-water flow through the area.Feth and others
(1966,p.62)suggested that when sediments were being deposited in Lake
Bonneville and preceding lakes,there may have been an errbayrrent .in the area
which p:>nded water and restricted flow,and consequently,caused a larger
proportion of fine-grained ~nts to be dep:>sited in this area.They also
suggested that increased evaporation may have caused evaporite beds to be
deposited.The combination of fine-grained sediments,which impede ground-
water flow,and buried salt deposits may result in the large chloride
concentrations in this nonthermal ground water.These suggestions are
supported by drillers'logs of wells in the area,which indicate large
sequences of fine-grained material and the presence of saline water in S<::'fre
areas.
Water in the deeper parts of the East Shore aquifer system generally
contains smaller dissolved-solids concentrations than the water in the
shallower parts of the aquifer system,especially i.n the tq:xJgra];tlically looer
part of the basin.'!he primary reason for this difference is upward leakage
from the deeper to the shallower parts of the aquifer system in which the
water flows through fine-grained sediments and accumulates additional
dissolved solids.The fine-grained ~nts in the looer part of the basin
contain soluble salts partly left by precipitation fran past saline lakes and
concentration of salts by evaporation as a part of past ground-water
discharge.Another reason is deeper circulation of less mineralized recharge
water fran subsurface inflow fran consolidated rock,as illustrated in figure
42.Water-quality data fran a well drilled to more than 3,000 feet indicate
84
that at depths greater than 1,200 feet,the trend reverses,that is,
dissolved-solids concentration in the water increases with depth (fig.43).
Stiff diagrams for water fran well (B-S-2)16ddc-l at varioos depths (fig.43)
shav that the water ranges frem relatively small chemical concentrations of
calcium magnesium bicarbonate water at 7S0 feet and sodilln bicarbonate water
at 1,160 feet to a non-thermal,sodilln chloride water with a large dissolved-
solids concentration below 1,600 feet.These data and data from a well
drilled an Hill Air FOrce Base (Glenn and others,1980)indicate that the
average thickness of sediments containing water with relatively small
ooncentrations of dissolved solids in the study area probably does not exceed
about 1,SOO feet.Below 1,500 feet in well (B-5-2)16ddc-l,most of the
sediments are fine grained,and the water probably moves through these
sediments at a slow rate and becemes more mineralized.Therefore,this
mineralized,IOOderately saline,water is probably not directly related to
water in the East Shore aquifer systen above it.
'!he water fran well (B-S-2)2acc-l (fig.43),a shallav flowing well east
of roost flaving wells,is a magnesium bicarbonate type whid1 is different fran
the water sanples fran other wells.The well probably obtains water from an
aquifer that is locally recharged by infiltration of irrigation water on
nearby bend1larrls,whid1 may be the cause of the unique type of water.
Suitability for Use
'!he standards for suitability of water vary with the potential use of
the water.The suitability of water for irrigation deperrls on the soil type
and application procedures,as well as the dissolved-solids ooncentration and
chemical type of the water.'!he recxxnnended standards for inorganic chanical
oonstituents for drinking water are based on maximum concentration limits for
those constituents.The suitability of Wdter for datestic arrl municipal use
may also depend on the hardness of the water.
In general,the more suitable tyPes of water for irrigation are the
calcium,magnesium bicarbonate types,and water with small concentrations of
dissolved solids.Sodium-tyPe water and all water with dissolved-solids
concentrations greater than SOO milligrams per liter are generally less
suitable for irrigation and could lower the yields of some types of crops,
deperoing on soil and drainage conditions.
Water that has a dissolved-solids roncentration greater than atout 500
milligrams per liter,or chloride concentration greater than about 250
milligrams per liter,generally exceeds the recommended ltmits for public
sU};ply (utah Department of Health,1984,p.3-6).About 2S percent of the
wells sampled in the East Shore area prcduced water with a dissolved-solids
roncentration that exceeded SOO milligrams per liter.Most of the ground
water in areas where the chloride concentration exceeds 2S0 milligrams per
liter generally is unused,used for stock water,or used for irrigation as a
suwlerrent to surface water.
85
T.5 N.
Tunnel
5 MILES4
cr
3
~
'l>
V)
i t-+---l
2
'l>fi~4 ~cree /'.
v/'i C"')
I :r.
I •e"i"i ere
spr\.84
I River ....
2o
I (II I,
o 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS
T.7 N.
T.8 N.
CONTOUR INTERVAL,IN FEET,VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
I ,-~
112lbo'
I
/
/
/
y,t-'i
•\tV
Vllt,lP
...-,__r_
~~~<:1::'~:'~~.:
;'-'~.r.~.\'~~~~f~~-:.?\.'...>:,'j,'..--"t I':':"\_~~,'":::~.,.,.",~l .
·,100.·.,
~..':~":,;,.'"".~.;:
--,--
::)J ~::~:.
::~:.
rF-:-~-~~~\
-:
,••1...
112~5'
,..,.
.--or
41~5~
ex>
0'\
T.1 N.
T.2 N.
T,3 N.
T.4 N.
beel<
Creek
\"TI
:xl
'l>
.~
C)
"0;:
c·~~~~+
Cl"pe/e
creek
'c~Holbrook
01)
+,~~
-.~...
-:"'+
Val
/Verda ,·-,/Y.
c~ee~.
F"
S F"
for~.-
Fork
~Snon"creek
DAVIS CO-~'
SALi:LAKECOR.1 E.
o
\.,creeh:
0---_-_\---,J -
j}(lef 'FllUit Hghts
.(lrd
Slle!'.
'=~s Creek~.:'Bi~~
,.,",""',~-cr~)t/
~(I]'Lrd..-....-C~ILIL~:
i-~(lr~Sh /..'ri<f'
..
·-...'.c"nt"r.Ville',ill
e
C4_~+ce'lten
I I~\
_'stort'"
BOUNTIFUL
4::-;*''<0
I,,'"•
R,1 W.
--~~
C ~~(
iiI)iii ,,\\~le
~~ast L:::tO)l
"'~,(t"~~~,,""
J((l~s /
-l'-
rio,_
~~c
)<-l.
<:0.,
'*-
BAn'
-,!-?"
,
CI"arfi"ld
S}racuse
R.2 W.
d.,,1,_"I,.
FA I?ttlN(;TON
"I,.•,.
•
~.~/~"~Y-jl)',-"",,:~!
.+-"'''-''"':,,..
-------F=
~:~-~,:-.~:
750
(B-5-2)l6ddc-1
2'3t
1,160
R.3W.
TOTAL DEPTH 3,008
1.600 -1.700
EXPLANATION
AREA WHERE TEMPERATURE OF WATER IN
WELLS EXCEEDS 20 DEGREES CELSIUS
MILLIEQUIVALENTS PER LITER
•OBSERVATION WELL
STIFF DIAGRAM SHOWING CHEMICAL
COMPOSITION OF WATER FROM WELL
Base from U.S,Geological Survey 1:125,000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and vicinity,Utah,1974
F3~
Sodium (Na)+Polassium (K?~f"'$"'";I Chloride (CL)
Magnesium (Mg ====--==Sulfate (S04)
Calcmm (Ca Bicarbonate (HC0i'
606
.,y ""'ww
~
~
..i»..::>z
~-~--1
w[Tl
""'r z0--u CI[Tl '"...l
Cl..4~OO'-+-Vi :;,
..:r rJJ»~z 0
0 :r:
""'Cl..
'"CI
<Xl
-....I
R.4 W.
Figure 43.-·Chemical composition of water from wells,and areas where temperature
of water from wells exceeds 20 degrees Celsius.
T.5 N.
~
»
V)
»
-\
C'")
"::J::
5 MILES432
2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS
I I II )
o
o
l~W c1>,{\'-'¥-i~---:-_-=:-Ogden /
'r,\N,_.---/No~t~gd~;';-\,.__
,1--:'-T'·2",-~to
C9..,'l4-,,-//'-~~~er C~.-A-'•.__~fi:h-+-\It1 ~
'-+A-----
,...~.•.."v TJnnel
t....o-~2~O'
_____"i,C
1 '.Q.!it'D0,,_;,:0
)
~llard T.8 N.
,lD CONTOUR INTERVAL,IN FEET,VARIABLE
\•~NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
J J~l +
v~~\)
",,\V
~!,>'i
,Ill)
"ltY'
.~.
."
><..ELDER CO "",""4.,..~,.-----/
BErro-CO:~~~~~:.;.~~':-:-,-~~~~.=-~-­
··:;...:T:
:~~.~~:.
"J~~3~?~t
"j"',.1.,_~_._'~-~_..---..r---
..::I,,'
~.\'...J',1.':1'-
+7,.;.,.~(:~,:;::,.:::,
'~.',.:.::~~I~:-:
112~5'
---...-
CD
CD
[:::::::J AREA WHERE CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS
",',250 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
T.1 N.
T.3 N.
T.4 N.
:JJ
l>
o
R.1 w.
,\ts ,~r_".eJL
ft,5--e~'!..,cr~"'~/
--'-'~;_'l!!!!L-~e~'
'I (C
J '>:~'::\~.h 9~'~7'~':-.,~:::,./.ff\'p,,-~}~_/,_.--C~ee,..,.•l.•••~.•_I /C~~~,:••:,,J..c<'ntervlUe-;."i\le1---~~5:jl{bj<••'')1 \~c,."/~~-.,T.'N
I ';._.',: ::'i:West·',\.:-"Sfolle ere
I ..1~~;~:,(6i,U?~aulo:.Bo1J~;;FUL _.'__""~:"''''~rl~i ~V!~~;:~C~,'
r ~"A~,.),V,....,.C\.:.0t-:-:-~'"/!-........_~QYOf)
'I ~~\I j<;>-c ',_
0-\/'_..-'I "t,I _~,F'
'"~DAVI~CQ..__jo~-i'-____SALT LAKE C R.1 E.
R.2 W.
~I ~.,...~----"'--'~,---'----'r---I---'~'--'--'--
FAR,1UNcrON
-i-
....
'7-f-
<$>
.,'....."';.
'-~\~ll:~
""-,
if'
7
<",A
~/j<9t "-f
\'(./,"f"r
'2-:;)/\/'~//,'~et c '~Mlle /~,\,.!Syracuse 1\\.-'<~I)<11 /~"?--,:--",§~~~,\:'~:"*"\,~~",:,L::J~-'2:~/";,__,_
-~/East Layt';)L'snocv'l-c~eek ./'~G!I \"\t '/'
j I tl0f./"f~'/,\/~/
I %,~I \'t_J--,,--~,//\,,Cree7 /
/tJ
-,r~----
,\",e s ~!~_.:----
(\\
R.3W.
,,,
i I
WELLS PROJECTED TO LINE OF SECTION AND USED TO
OBTAIN SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE ALONG SECTION--
Shown in figure 42
EXPLANATION
AREA WHERE CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION IS BETWEEN
25 AND 250 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
-,<f>
I ,
\'P
Zo
?I ,'L",_'_....~,.L~__~
SPRING USED FOR CONTROL POINT FOR CHLORIDE
CONCENTRATION
o WELL USED FOR CONTROL POINT FOR CHLORIDE
CONCENTRATION
!
R.4 W.
~~
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125,000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and vicinity.Utah,1974
\,
A-AI TRACE OF SECTION SHOWN IN FIGURE 42r-
00
\0
Figure 44.--Chloride concentration of water from wells and selected springs.
Changes in water Olality
During previous studies in the East Shore area,a network of wells was
established for water-quality sarrpling in order to determine if any changes in
water quality occurred with time.The network was established because of the
variety of water types in the area and because of the potential for
unsuitable,mineralized water migrating toward areas of potable,less
mineralized water with increasing ground-water developnent and resulting
water-level changes.Smith and Gates.(1963)and Bolke and waddell (1972)
described changes that had occurred at the time of those reports and
identified areas of potential changes in ground-water quality due to increased
developnent.
'Ihirty-three wells that ~re sampled prior to 1970 were resanpled during
this study to docunent any water-quality changes that may have occurred (table
13).Of the thirty-three wells resampled,water fran only five had a greater
than lO-percent increase in dissolved solids.Water from one well,
(B-7-2)10dbd-l,had a large decrease in dissolved solids;water fran another,
(B-4-3)19cca-l,had large fluctuations in dissolved solids;and water from
another,(B-7-3)31aac-2,had little or no change in dissolved-solids
concentration,but did reflect a change in the chemical type.Because
vertical stratification of water with different chemical types exists in the
East Soore area,changes in chemistry of water produced by a given well may be
a result of fluctuating proportions of water of different chemical types
entering the well as a result of changes in the discharge rate.or an increase
in recharge.Change in chemical type of water probably does not reflect a
widespread regional change in water chemistry.
The water fran well (B-4-1)6adc-l,on Hill Air Force Base about 1 mile
east of Clearfield,is a calciun bicarbonate type that has shown a greater
than 10-percent increase in dissolved-solids concentration since 1967 (table
13).Bolke and waddell (1972,p.20)suggested that similiar changes in a
nearby well were apparently due to different proportions of water being
oontributed by two zones within the deeper parts of the aquifer system.In
those two zones,dissolved solids generally increase with depth;therefore,
during periods of large withdrawals,a relatively larger amount of water is
apparently contributed by the deeper zone.Even though sane changes have
occurred in the area near Hill Air Force Base,a degradation of the regional
water quality due to increased withdrawals probably has rot occurred.
The dissolved-solids concentration in water from well (B-6-l)29cbb-l
(table 13),which is a sodium chloride type (fig.44),has increased more than
35 percent since 1960.In addition,the water tanperature has decreased from
24 to 15.5 degrees Celsius.Even with the large increase in dissolved solids,
the calcium ooncentration actually decreased,whereas the sodium,potassium,
and chloride concentrations increased by more than 45 percent.A map by BoIke
and waddell (1972,pI.3)indicates that the well is near a boundary between
mixed and sodium chloride type water.Since the well was a:xrpleted,it is
possible that the lower terrperature,sodium chloride water has migrated toward
the well.
90
Table 13.--chemical analyses of kater fran selected wells
sampled before 1970 and after 1980
wcation:See text for explanation of nlJ1tJering systan for wells.
Units:Il:G C,degrees Celsius;liS/on,microsianens per centimeter at 25°celsius;mg/L,milligrams per liter;Sodium:T,value is
total of sodium plus potassium;A"lkalinity:*,value converted fran bicarbonate;Solids:R,value as dissolved solids
residue at 180 °C.
Analyses for additional SClIl1Jles for sane of these wells are in Plantz and others (1986),table 5.
Sands,
Spe-Magne-Potas-Alka-Chlo-sum of
ciflC calcium,si!JIl,Sodium,shIR,linity,Sulfate,ride,amsti-Hard-
Date cnnduct-dis-dis- dis-dis-lab dis-dis-tuents,ness
of ance Tenper-501voo solved solved solved (ng/L solved solved dis-(ng/L
s~le (;;S/an ature (ng/L (ng/L (ng/L (ng/L as (ng/L (~/L solved as
Location (ll:G C)as ca)as Mg)as Na)as K)Ca~)as 50 4)as Cl)(ng/L)CaC0 3)
(A-2-1)7aba-4 09-Q8-47 37£17.0 30 7.9 23T 114 16 18 100
12-12-58 271 17.0 17 7.3 32T 107 11 ]4 1fB
10-15-64 264 18.0 16 7.9 31 T 105 12 14 162 R
08"'{)5-82 265 16.0 20 8.3 31 1.6 103 18 15 Hll 84
(B-1-1)10aac-1 12-20-65 3,00 15.5 51 17 577 T 351 *1.2 780 1,700 200
11-13-68 2,920 16.0 45 20 570 T 355 *6.2 760 1,700 190
07-31-84 2,8f{)16.0 48 16 5])28 372 7.3 750 1,700 190
(B-2-1)13aab-1 05-00-47 3lll 12 3.5 ooT 168 *15 30 200 44
10-10-58 395 15.5 9.6 2.9 ooT 157 *9.5 30 250 36
05"'{)5-fB 395 15.0 9.6 1.9 ooT 158 *8.2 28 240 32
08-31-84 400 16.0 9.7 2.5 76 .70 160 6.0 26 240 35
24bad-3 08-12-74 470 16.0 28 6.5 64 1.0 21 200 97
08-17-84 490 16.5 35 7.6 63 .90 169 26 30 200 120
(B-3-1)Sdda-1 11-14-68 300 24.0 25 7.3 32T 131 *3.2 18 200 92
08-31-84 305 18.0 28 5.5 ])2.6 139 2.5 14 200 93
15OOc-1 09-OO-fB 395 24.0 30 3.4 ooT 190 *4.1 20 250 89
08"'{)4-81 320 20.5 29 3.6 !:ll 2.2 180 1.0 17 250 87
25dab-1 08-20-68 1,320 18.0 65 17 100 2.3 176 *1.0 320 700 230
08-31-84 1,300 16.0 60 15 100 2.2 190 3.5 310 710 210
(B-4-1)6adc-1 0l...{)4-56 470 11.0 43 15 33 6.7 1.5 21 200 170
05-10-00 475 12.5 45 14 36 6.0 2.1 20 200 170
07-10-67 450 17.5 48 11 40T 2.0 22 270 170
09-19-84 565 12.5 50 17 44 7.1 264 1.0 24 320 190
&jcd-1 09...{)6-61 385 47 12 17 1.6 162 *21 15 225 R 170
08-22-84 370 14.0 49 11 15 1.3 158 16 13 220 170
(B-4-2)27aba-1 05"'{)5-tll 6])15.0 14 4.4 1])5.4 324*1.5 48 39J 53
08"'{)2-77 600 13.5 15 4.5 1])5.8 6.8 48 410 56
08-15-84 650 14.0 13 4.4 1])5.7 276 5.6 45 400 51
(B-4-3)19cca-1 08...{)4-tll 1,100 24.0 46 25 100 4.4 156 *8.8 290 600 R 220
08"'{)5-70 1,800 24.0 68 21 300 24 620 1,200 260
08"'{)2-77 1,150 23.5 48 11 170 5.0 11 290 600 170
08...{)4-oo 1,240 22.0 47 12 100 6.0 8.2 310 710 170
(B-5-1)17ddd-1 12-19-62 475 54 17 19 2.7 197 *20 24 27£R 200
09-12-84 515 21.0 56 17 20 2.9 218 22 21 290 210
2ilidd-2 01"'{)3-62 485 15.0 80 16 17 1.2 245 *27 18 274 R 270
08-22-84 520 14.5 64 16 17 2.0 213 24 20 200 230
91
Table 13.--<:h:mJical analyses of hater fran selected rElls
sampled before 1970 and after 1980-c0ntinued
Solids,
Spe-Magne-Potas-Alka-Chlo-sum of
cific Ca lcilJll,silJll,SodilJll,S;lJII,linity,Sulfate,ride.oonsti-Hard-
Date oonduct-dis-dis-dis- dis-lab dis-dis-tuents,ness
of ance TE!lq)er-solved solved solved solved (mg/L solved solved dis-(ng/L
s~le (pS/on ature (mg/L (mg/L (ng/L (ng/L as (mg/L (ng/L solved as
Location (OCG C)as Ca)as Mg)as Na)as K)CaCO:l)as 504)as el)(mg/L)CaC0:3)
(B-5-1)29Jdb-3 04-00-43 520 70 19 21 2.1 236 *28 21 320 250
04-14-52 560 11.5 73 19 20 1.7 242 *30 18 320 260
05-00-00 530 12.0 74 16 19 1.8 230 *37 16 320 250
07-24-W 540 16.0 71 27 234 *31 20 300 290
09-19-84 575 11.0 70 18 17 1.9 231 28 20 310 250
29Jdc-1 04-14-52 roo 11.5 76 20 24 2.6 262 *36 20 350 270
05-00-60 550 12.0 15 18 20 2.5 242 *36 17 320 260
07-25-W 580 18.0 77 21 18 T 363*34 12 3:Jl 2BO
09-19-84 roo 11.0 71 19 21 2.2 252 26 20 320 260
(B-5-2)3Oada-1 06-19-50 580 12.0 75 19 23 1.3 260 *33 20 340 270
05-10-60 580 12.0 78 18 23 2.1 257 *36 18 340 270
07-18-68 540 14.0 65 22 22T 235 *32 18 320 250
09-19-84 570 11.5 70 18 19 2.1 234 27 18 310 250
(B-5-2)fbdd-3 08-29-68 360 19.0 36 9.7 23 3.1 156 *8.2 18 210 130
08"'()2-77 360 17.0 36 11 20 2.3 13 16 210 140
08-15-84 380 17.5 42 11 22 2.5 156 15 12 220 150
lixld-4 09-OO-W 445 16.0 215 *18
08"'()2-77 450 14.5 36 15 37 7.8 5.2 18 28J 150
08-15-84 470 18.0 38 14 36 7.7 221 1.5 15 260 150
21ddd-1 11-18-68 1,090 12.0 46 49 1:Jl T 429 *1.8 110 Ml 320
08-15-84 1,000 14.5 47 44 110 20 451 2.1 85 610 llO
(8-5-3)15dda-1 05-14-W 380 24.0 134 *29 84
08-15-84 l}5 23.5 21 6.5 55 3.5 166 .9 22 220 140
25dcd-1 05-14-W 365 15.0 103 *22 140
08-15-84 l}O 16.0 36 11 29 1.6 180 .8 14 220 140
(8-6-1)4bbd-5 11-22-67 245 28 8.0 14 1.2 117*5.3 7.8 140 R 100
08-29-84 255 18.5 27 9.0 14 1.2 119 7.7 6.2 150 100
6caa-l 04-14-43 260 32 10 14 T 130 *4.0 6.0 120
02-24-56 275 32 10 11 2.3 128 *5.8 9.6 100 120
11-17-59 270 15.5 32 8.8 14 T 131 *6.0 5.5 160 120
10-16-64 265 15.0 31 9.1 15 T 131 *5.4 6.6 170 110
09"'()5-84 2BO 14.5 33 9.3 11 2.5 134 5.1 5.0 170 120
29cbb-1 12-27-60 3,150 24.0 96 31 400 41 127 *8.2 900 1,760 R 370
09"'()5-84 4,l}O 15.5 74 29 740 60 119 3.0 1,400 2,400 llO
(B-6-2)5acb-2 03"'()4-54 510 17 5.2 ~2.3 222 *1.4 30 300 64
11...()4-59 495 15.5 19 5.8 OOT 223 *2.3 28 300 71
10-19-64 475 19.5 17 6.1 94T 226 *3.1 30 310 68
09"'()5-84 495 16.5 19 4.8 ffi 3.0 226 1.8 27 300 67
(8-6-3)4dab-l 10-00-68 820 21.0 4.0 3.4 200 4.8 411 *4.2 28 520 24
08-16-84 000 21.0 3.9 1.7 200 4.9 401 <.2 27 17
92
Table 13.--chemical analyses of hater fran selected wells
sampled before 1970 and after 19S0-c0ntinued
Solids.
Spe-Ma!,11e-Potas-Alka-Chlo-sum of
cific CalcilJll.SllJII.Sodium.sium.linity.Sulfate.ride.consti-Hard-
Date conduct-dis-dis-dis- dis-lab dis-dis-tuents.ness
of ance Tenper-solve:!solved solved solved (rng/L solved solved dis-(ng/L
s~le (j.JS/an ature (rng/L (rng/L (ng/L (ng/L as (ng/L (ng/L solved as
Location (lI:G C)as Ca)as Mg)as Na)as K)Ca~)as 5(4)as Cl)(ng/L)Ca~)
(B-7-2)2cba-5 09~-00 234 14.0 17 3.9 32T 116*0.5 7.2 140 59
08~-77 3«)13.0 50 6.6 11 1.1 12 14 200 150
08-{)5-00 4fil 15.5 52 11 16 2.8 16 14 2l:l 180
08-14-84 420 13.5 58 9.2 11 1.4 159 17 18 220 180
Hklbd-1 11-20-68 1.48)24.0 75 10 216 T 138 *8.5 390 800 230
08-21-84 3fil 23.5 10 1.0 65 3.2 109 8.0 41 210 29
1&lcd-2 05-{)7-oo 335 25.0 21 4.4 49 6.8 158 *4.5 10 220 71
08-10-79 340 26.5 20 3.7 51 7.1 7.4 7.9 220 65
08-14-84 355 27.0 21 4.0 49 7.1 165 3.9 8.0 220 69
2lliaa-l 03-{)4-54 1,290 13.5 12 9.6 2«)34 342*1.2 210 7l:l 69
10-19-64 1,2«)13.5 10 9.7 200 T 340*1.6 220 740 65
08-14-84 1.3fil 15.0 10 7.9 250 36 336 4.8 220 760 58
32bbb-l 11-20-68 2.3fil 18.0 66 45 335 T 105*1.5 680 1.200 350
08-{)3-77 2.350 19.0 76 41 310 23 1.7 690 1,300 360
08-14-84 2,450 19.0 73 41 3l:l 22 140 1.1 690 1,300 350
(B-7 -3)31aac-2 09-10-00 1,400 38.0 27 5.4 320 468 *.5 230 9l:l 90
08-06-00 1,7l:l 39.5 57 9.3 290 23 260 2.9 420 1,000 170
(B-8-2)26bcd-l 09~-f.9 420 13.0 59 14 13 T 190 *33 7.7 2!i)200
08-14-84 400 13.0 62 18 7.8 2.1 197 36 9.6 270 230
93
Well (B-7-2)2cba-S (table 13)is near a boundary between sodium
bicarbonate and calcium bicarbonate waters (Bolke and waddell,1972,pI.3).
water fran the well has gradually increased in dissolved-solids ooncentration
since 1969 and has changed from a sodium bicarbonate to a calcium bicarbonate
type.The calcium bicarbonate waters extend into the recharge area.
Increased recharge in the 1980's probably has caused these waters to extem
farther west,into areas that prior to 1970 contained sodium bicarbonate
waters.
The water fran well (B-4-3)19cca-l (table 13),near the causeway to
Antelope Island,is a sodium chloride water.The water had a large increase
in rocst major ions fran 1969 to 1970;the ooncentrations in 1977 and 1980 were
similar to trose in 1969.The increase was prOOably a result of mixing of the
varioos chanical tyPes of water from the different perforated zones of the
well.
The dissolved-solids concentration in the water fran well {B-7-2)lOdbd-l
(table 13),which is on the boundary between sodium chloride and sodium
bicarbonate type water (BoIke and Waddell,1972,pl.3),decreased
substantially between 1969 to 1984.In addition,the water type changed fran
sodh.Jn chloride to sodium bicarbonate.'!he prOOable explanation is that with
rising water levels in the area since 1969 (fig.31),a larger proIX>rtion of
the water came from the upgradient,sodium bicarbonate water that has a
smaller dissolved-solids concentration.
Between 1969 am 1980,the dissolved-solids cxmcentration in water from
well (B-7-3)31aac-2 (table 13)increased less than 10 percent,but the
chanical type changed from sodium bicarbonate to sodium chloride.The most
probable explanation is a gradual increase in the proportion of sodium
chloride water entering the well fran deeper zones.Sodium chloride water was
reIX>rted to be at depth in this area by Bolke and waddell (1972,pI.3).
In general,the water-quality changes that have occurred in the East
Shore area seem to be related primarily to areal and vertical variations of
water quality within the East Shore aquifer system and to the effects of
increased withdrawal fran,or recharge to,the system.The changes in quality
of water from some wells has been substantial,but widespread changes in
quality have not occurred.
Tanperature
The temperature of water fran wells in the East Shore area varies fran
aboot 10 to 40 degrees Celsius.Water fran rot springs associated with faults
have temperatures approaching 60 degrees Celsius.Generalized areas where the
temperature of ground water exceeds 20 degrees Celsius are shown in figure 43.
The warmest water is assumed to be associated with hot water in the spring am
fault areas,including water near Ibcper aoo Utah Hot Springs,Little f.t:>untain
(f ig.3)and near the ITOuth of Ogden Canyon.N:>iooication of thermal water
at depth in the alluvium exists in areas distant from the hot spring and
faul t-zone areas.
94
SIMULATION OF THE EAS'I'SHffiE llCUIFER sysrEM
IN 'IRE WEBER DELTA AREA
A major effort of this study was to sirrulate part of the aquifer system
of the East Shore area using a digital-canp.1ter nodel.'Ihe part of the East
Shore aquifer system that was simulated is from about 1 mile north of
Centerville to the section line north of Willard (fig.45),previously
described as the Weber Delta area (p.3),and the aquifer system in this area
is referred to in this part of the report as lithe East Shore aquifer system in
the ~ber Delta area".'Ihe shallow water-table zone in the topographically
lowest part of the area,not included in the East Shore aquifer system as
defined in this re{X)rt,was included in the rrodel as a layer because upward
discharge of water into the water-table zone from the East Shore aquifer
system was simulated by the rrodel.Ibwever,recharge to the water-table zone
by local precipitation and large amounts of seepage from irrigation and
subsequent discharge of this water was not included in the model because few
data on these processes ~re available.
'Ihe model was constructed and calibrated using available data on aquifer
properties,historic water-level changes,and components of the hydrologic
budget to learn rrore about the system and how it functions,and to inprove the
estimates of its hydrologic carponents.The calibrated nodel was then used to
simulate changes in ground-water levels,discharge,and storage caused by
projected increases in ground-water withdrawals by pumpage,and possible
changes in recharge.
Design and Construction of the Digital=Carp.1ter M:ldel
rata used to construct and calibrate the rrodel were collected during
hydrologic studies in the East Shore area that sp:ln about 50 years.Data fran
Feth and others (1966),Smith (1961),and from Smith and Gates (1963)were
used for steady-state and transient-state calibration;data fran BoIke and
Waddell (1972)and Plantz and others (1986)were used for transient-state
calibration;and data from previous sections of this report were used for
various aspects of the mcdel calibration.
General Description of the Model
'Ihe north and south boundaries of the rrodel of the East Shore aquifer
system in the Weber Delta area,from about 1 mile north of Centerville to the
section line north of Willard,were based on the potentiometric surface as
shown in plate 1 and on narrowing of the basin-fill area between the rrountain
front and Great Salt Lake.'Ihe {X)tenti~tric contours are closely spaced at
both boundaries,and the configuration indicates rrost of the floo is directly
fran the mountains to the lake,so that little if any flow is across the
boundaries.The boundaries were placed along flow lines which could be
affected by p:>tential p..unping fran wells near these boundaries.
The three-dimensional,finite-difference numerical rrodel developed by
McDonald and Harbaugh (1984)was used to simulate the weber Delta part of the
aquifer system.Most of the data used for the simulations represent average
conditions,or were estimated where there was a lack of measurements.
Therefore,the simulations are considered to be a simplification of the
natural system,and the results should be applied with discretion.
95
112°15 1
I
\0
~
-i
t
~-I
11+t
I
112°00 1
I
:.____. 5 KILOMETERS
···TtF~
i1---1
+
'+.j
!+-~
~.~·~,f·~+:>.·..:1''11_+i -
-----r---
-~
»
tn
»
~
C'")
::r:.
T.5 N.
41°00/_1 I ~
:I:l
»
"2
c;)
ITI T.3 N.
\0
-...l
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125,000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and vicinity,Utah,1974
j .....
T.l N.
(:~'eek-
~<~
'o,/<?0
-.,.~~~+
"c Ho ib 1'00 Ii"
West
Bountiful .
4
R.1 W.
('''.I
\\todS cross,,.;:/
(~--j--~~;~tv
.·-t .'\N Saltl Lake·/Verda .'•..i;,'!oYoo
OJ"'.i ./''(;~.'JI ~J'_/?--'~..~~E.-----
I.
.~/':0::"';"
.,..""'=I''!:/'":i7~
"""
r"-,'(~t
EXPLANATION
~GENERAL·HEAD BOUNDARY··Layer 1
I::::::1 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION--Layer 1
t::(::::\]INACTIVE CELLS--Layer 1
INACTIVE CELLS--Layers 1 and 2oINACTIVECELLS--Layers 1,2,and 3
BOUNDARY OF MODEL AREA
Figure 45.--location of evapotranspiration.general-head boundary,and inactive cells in the
model of the East Shore aquifer system.
'!he finite-difference nodel uses a series of rectangular blocks in which
hydraulic prcperties are assumed to be uniform.The model calculates the
hydraulic head at the point,or node,whien is at the center of each block.
With the calculated head values,the rate and direction of ground-water flow
through the system can be determined.Input data used in the calculations
include boundary conditions,initial heads,hydraulic properties of the
aquifers and confining beds,and rates and distribution of recharge and
discharge.The algorithm used as the matrix solver for the differential
equations of ground-water fl(X1.l in the nodel is SIP,or the strongly implicit
procedure (McDonald and Harbaugh,1984,p.370).
Subdivision of the weber Delta p:lrt of the Fast Shore Aquifer System
'!he aquifer system consists of complex,interconnected multiple aquifers
in the basin-fill deposits.The system includes confined parts previously
called the Sunset and Delta aquifers (Feth am others,1966)am their lateral
extensions,including the area along the nountain front where the system is
unconfined.Further discussion of the aquifer system is in the previous
section on "Geology and hydraulic properties of the East Shore aquifer
system".'!he confined parts of the system vary in thickness,oontinui ty,and
lithology and in places it is oot p:>ssible to delineate sep:lrate aquifers.
'!he nodel consists of three layers that represent the shallow water-
table zone am t\tlO separate confined or unconfined intervals of the East Shore
aquifer system in the weber Delta area.The layers have different lateral
extents as shown in figure 45.Layer 1,which is used to sinulate disdtarge
to the shallow water-table zone from the underlying aquifer system,is
sim.llated only where the potentianetric surface is near or above land surface,
roughly correspJming to the area of evap:>transpiration in figure 45.Layer 1
is simulated only as it relates to the uooerlying layers,thus there is 00
recharge to,or discharge fran layer 1 except the water that has moved upward
from layer 2.Layer 2 represents the upper oonfined interval of the aquifer
system where it is less than 400 feet deep,including the Sunset aquifer where
it has been delineated.Layer 2 was not simulated in the area near Hill Air
Fbrce Base because the potentianetric surface there is greater than 400 feet
deep.Layer 3 represents the oonfined parts of the aquifer system where it is
deeper than 400 feet,including the Delta aquifer where it has been
delineated.Layer 3 also represents the unconfined parts of the aquifer
system near the nountain front.Layer 3 is sinulated over the entire area of
active cells shown in figure 45.
'lhe confining layers between the aquifers were not simulated as separate
layers,primarily because of a lack of data.It was asstnned that the d'1ange
in storage am horizontal flow in the confining layers was insignificant.
Therefore,it was not essential to simulate the oonfining layers separately;
however,vertical fl(X1.l through the confining layers was simulated.
M:>del Grid
A block-centered grid with variable spacing was used to simulate the
East Shore aquifer system in the weber Delta area.A block-centered grid was
formulated by dividing the model area with two sets of parallel lines
perpendicular to each other.In the block-centered formulation the blocks
fonned by the sets of parallel lines are the cells,and the nodes are at the
98
center of the cells.A node represents a prism of porous material within
which the hydrologic properties are constant,so any value associated wi th a
node is distributed over the VOlUIre of the cell (~I:X>nald and Harbaugh,1984,
p.10).
The grid consists of 36 columns and 67 rows.The largest active cells,
0.5 square mile,generally were used where data ~re sparse,primarily areas
covered by Great Salt Lake.The snallest and JOOSt nUIrerous cells were 0.25
square mile.'!hese cells ~re used where required information,particular ily
ground-water discharge,historic water levels,recharge areas,or numerous
~ll records warranted the smaller grid size.A total of 7,236 cells were
used,4,880 of which were active cells.layer 3 contains 1,962 active cells,
layer 2 has 1,644 active cells,and layer 1 has 1,274 active cells.Areas of
inactive cells within the sinulated area are stx>wn in figure 45.
Bcundary Conditions
The inactive cells,illustrated in figure 45,are simulated with
transmissivities of zero,and therefore act as no-flow boundaries that
surroond the area of active cells.On the east,the roodel balndary represents
the lower altitudes of the consolidated rock in the Wasatch Range,
approximately one mile east of the contact bet~en the basin-fill deposits and
the consolidated rock.'!his bo..1ndary was chosen in order to simulate recharge
from the consolidated rocks.On the west,a oo-flow boundary was placed on
the eastern sides of Antelq;>e and Fraoont Islands,and west of Great Salt lake
shoreline near Little M:>untain.This was assUIred to be the ~sterrnost extent
of ground-water flCM fran the study area.In actuality,there may be sane
ground-water flow across this boundary tCMard the ~st;~ver,any flow is
assUIred to be negligible.A no-flow bo..1ndary was placed under layer 3,on the
asswnpt ion that there is 00 significant vertical intercha~e of water between
layer 3 and deeper strata.
During steady-state calibration about 30 constant-head nodes were used
to simulate recharge fran sources for which 00 estimates of recharge rates had
been made.The cons tant-head oodes were placed in areas where recharge fran
other sources could oot easily be calculated,generally along streams wi thin
the wasatch Range.'!he initial heads for these oodes ~re assumed to be the
sane or slightly higher than head values for toose areas measured during this
study.After steady-state calibration,flow rates fran the constant-head
oodes ~re used as constant-flux recharge rates duri~transient simulations,
and the constant-head oodes were eliminated.
A general-head ba.mdary was used to sinulate inflow fran the weber Delta
part of the East Shore aquifer systan into Great salt Lake.Constant heads
were specified at boundary cells in layer 1 throughout the area covered by
water when the lake was at an altitude of 4,200 feet.Layer 1 in this area is
assumed to represent the lake bottan,and specified heads were set at 4,200
feet for steady-state calibration.
N:>-flow boundaries were placed at the oorthern and southern boundaries
of the model area.The no-flow boundaries were placed along flow lines,
perpendicular to the potentianetric surface in both areas.
99
Model Parameters
Initial Conditions
Ground-water withdrawal from wells in the East Shore aquifer system
began about 1900 when ~rous small-dianEter wells were driven or jetted into
the aquifers in the flCMing-well areas.By 1954 total annual discharge fran
wells was estimated to be about 25,000 acre-feet (Feth and others,1966,p.
49),which was considered to be a small part of the total ground-water
discharge.Groond-water withdrawal prior to 1954,primarily from flowing
wells,was asstmled to rot significantly affect water levels;thus water levels
from 1955 or earlier were used as initial water levels for steady-state
calibration in the areas where data were available (Feth and others,1966,pI.
9).Many of the initial data used for simulations were from Feth and others
(1966);hmo/ever,in areas where data on historic water levels,recharge,
discharge,or hydraulic prcperties were rot available,calculations and data
fran this study were used to awroximate initial conditions.
Recharge
The Fast Shore aquifer system is simulated by the IOOdel only in the
weber Delta area (p.3),whereas recharge was calculated in the preceding
parts of the report for the entire East Shore area.Recharge values specified
in the simulations for individual parts of the Weber Delta area,therefore,Cb
not necessarily correspond to values for the entire study area.lbwever,
values used as initial estimates for recharge were virtually the same as toose
calculated in preceding sections,when adjusted to represent the part of the
aquifer system simulated by the model.The annual recharge at the end of
steady-state calibration was simulated at about 109,000 acre-feet,or about
44,000 acre-feet less than estimated for the entire study area.
Recharge from the land surface was specified in the model using
oonstant-flux recharge nodes as close as possible to the actual locations.
'!he oonstant-flux recharge includes:seepage fran the Weber and Ogden Rivers,
the Davis and weber canal,ungaged perennial,ephemeral,and intermittent
streams,irrigated areas,and infiltration directly from precipitation wit..,in
the recharge area.The constant-flux recharge nodes were located in the
uppenoost active model layer.
Recharge by subsurface inflow from consolidated rock of the Wasatch
Range to the basin-fill deposits of the aquifer system was sinulated during
steady-state calibration by oonstant-head nodes,primarily in layer 3.All
calculated and estimated rates of recharge from other sources were
independently measured or estimated for the model;therefore,the flow
calculated by the model from the oonstant-head oodes 'HaS assurred to be fran
subsurface inflow.Initially,oonstant-head nodes were placed in most cells
along the eastern boundary.However,when the independently-calculated
recharge rates were added,the initial flow fran many of these boundary cells
became negligible,and the constant-head boundary at such cells was
eliminated.Further discussion on how recharge was estimated is in the
groooo-water recharge section on pages 26-32.
100
Hydraulic Properties
The transmissivities of the East Shore aquifer system were estimated in
part from data derived from aquifer tests (table 5);however,not enough
aquifer-test data were available to adequately estimate transmissivities over
the study area.Therefore,transmissivity was also estimated from specific-
capacity values and average hydraulic conductivity and aquifer system
thickness.
Specif ic-capaci ty values were obtained fran records of about 100 wells.
These values,and information about the well depth,diameter,and openings,
were used to calculate transmissivity for the aquifer system.
Transmissivity was also estimated by multiplying the thickness of
sedinents described in drillers'logs by the hydraulic conductivity for that
sediment type.Values of hydraulic conductivity were fran values given by
Clark (1984,p.14),Mower (1978,p.16),and from the calculated values of
transmissivity in table 5.Information about lithologies and thickness of
sediments (from logs of about 500 wells)was used to estimate the
transmissivity of layers 2 and 3.The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of
layer 1 was estimated from information in drillers'logs based on the
lithologies of the uJ::Per 50 feet of sedi.Irents.
The transmissivity information was used to prepare contour maps for
layers 2 and 3.The map for layer 2 (fig.46),shows the largest values of
transmissivity are in the area nearest the Weber Delta,where sediments are
thick and relatively more permeable.Values in layer 2 range fran less than
1,500 to greater than 6,000 feet squared per day.The map of layer 3 (fig.
47)shows the largest values,exceeding 100,000 feet squared per day,are in
the area near Hill Air Force Base where there are extensive s~~ences of
coarse-grained sediments deposited by the ancestral Weber River.The
hydraulic oonductivi ty used for layer 1 ranged from less than 20 feet per day
near Great salt Lake to greater than 150 feet per day near the eastern
ooundary of layer 1.The sirtulated thickness of layer 1 ranges from 30 to 59
feet arrl averages about 35 feet.
Vertical conductance between the aquifer layers was initially estimated
from equations in the model documentation (McDonald and Harbaugh,1984,p.
138-147),and fran calculations and estimates based on aquifer tests during
this study and studies in nearby areas.An initial average vertical hydraulic
oorrluctivity of approximately 1 x 10-3 feet per day was determined from these
methods.The initial value was then altered during calibration to
approximately reflect the areal pattern of vertical head gradients determined
from Feth and others (1966,p1.9).In the recharge areas near the nountain
front,conductance values were asstnned to be larger,in order to reflect the
absence of confining layers in the area.
Initial values of storage coefficients required for transient-state
calibration for the confined parts of the aquifer system were from table 5.
Specific-storage values generally ranged from about 1 x 10-4 to 1 X 10-6 and
the thickness of the individual parts of the aquifer system ranged from tens
to hundreds of feet.SPecific yield values for layer 1 were estimated to be
1 x 10-1 and values for unconfined parts of layer 3 were estimated to be
1 X 10-2 •
101
'y,.;;..
.•."I"•
T.5 N.
'»
-\
C"'l
:r.
TIl;N.
Gate.waYI funr-,-ei
4 MILES
--,
'.
~"
,e::p
32o
I II
o 1 2 3 4KILOMETERS
i
.8 N.
CONTOUR INTERVAL,IN FEET,VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
t o __112
."10.0-
(1)
,...__.'.::J
\\Xi~ard
/~­I 1 &:
I ~
~'?-\)
V.:f.\V
~!'>
,.1'.~
.,lr.-,I•
.,1--,I.
,I,~
--=-.,1.,-
I D
\1
(.);1{
\~"
~c ~~o A
~~~~
~..
~2,
\
____~----cf____--'"P
~.
~o
'"
T.3 N.
T.1 N .
T.4 N.
m
./
c~'~~1"
<=',.e"".'
ree\~
d.
:J:l
»
/2
//C')
ngtoll~--"-..
0;'
I "t•••
'-J~,
o
%'
~
-4'
~;*
I.·,,'.}.~~
~~,.."..:;:;;+
B1¥-"--FARMINGTON
-\
~
'7'1-~t
if'
7 ..-
''';''
BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE CELLS
LINE OF EQUAL TRANSMISSIVITY--In feet
squared per day.Interval variable
BOUNDARY OF MODEL AREA
EXPLANATION
\f\
\"
"2o
R.1 W.
,I"
"2
-\
I"
\"o
'tl
I"
41°00'-+.
---5,000---
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125,000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and Vicinity,Utah,1974
CI·ee~.~';i5\t~_'-c't/~:v L
•-r----r C!,~----~/"
-.1,\_--\/nard Q.,'~I ',.'-G~Q;II R
2 W =,',.1 -ofrish ,/"~". .-,.·C~'...W.R.,W.-••'."t j-c.enterv'lle-'r"'\\C..+--+,""'-C entc
.'.L.··T.2 N.
]!-,/~..\t
'(I BO-1-TN;IFtttccre~
-----,-I.lt=c~I ct'...j/It (';'eel<-;7 ../HO.lbroo
i /1->-....4r//',-~~
...;~.C
C "'~~e,,~
'Val •
/Verda'-Af
·•.c.anYo n
.....ow
Figure 46.--Transmissivity of layer 2.
T.S N.
N.
unnel
'l>
-\
C"")
"X.
4 MILES
-'i-~
'I Rh'er \,
-lGateway
1;(\
~._c_~
32
I I Ii
o
I
, 0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS
/'i
/"
.8 N.
CONTOUR INTERVAL,IN FEET,VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929.o~~
"''0'0''(-
,,(-'!I
,i~
V
"",\V
~p..'i
,t,.1,
_.1".1,_,I"
I ({D
\.;1 19'
-\,.
Yr,--"
---'i-.-0-----~...,~-"P '=,..'
'(':,
OJ"
,.;.,
\~;;>~;~
~',
7',.J_\,....
,,I,••1.,
112Cl:tS'
...--
B_Q2<_ELPEIJ~Q ,_
/WEBER CO •',_///::~::~
/
,/
lOlS~
I iT
.....o
~
T.1 N .
T,3 N.
T.4 N.
C;'e(£
C;'
-,:~~
{-'te,e.'!.
reek
:0
»
/2.
//'C)
ngt;)ri---<---·(;'-.m
ilk>,OOO r
-/.../''~,l/HoilJro;;1i
1/'"~.J
/.~.:;.
L.;/.-'--'~"'~
.~~*.."."'+,Val""~
Verda '~J'V'-~,J;!!nIi
,yO"
.../
.F./-~
DAVIS CO -~'
SA LTLAKE cOR.1 E,
W
/"West
.'Bountifuk
l,--
"J;:';'\~,Sal~Lake'
0-'
~'\>P~\"-.',-:>..1._,
';e'
--._.
_.Jl,:"
R.1 W.
.>
L,l'(-'
---t
I ..",
~*
I,
.~~!b~~_~
"...,,,=1',I
'!:-j'":i:"-
;
".-l.
~I..
!--I>,
f ¥~
,---------,,
"I",.1"
R,2 W,
FARMI/VGTON
-;<--/5 •000 )I \?":;--;;i'("........l t("~~/.
//----
-L>"~~:'"~~>'('
.-:7'..,.
<$.
If'
~7....
'.,A
BOUNDARY OF MODEL AREA
BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE CELLS
LINE OF EQUAL TRANSMISSIVITY--In feet
squared per day,Interval variable
R.3W.
EXPLANATION
<f>
\
"2o
"2
-\
11'1
\o
'1J
11'1
R.4 W.
---'2,500--
Base from U,S.Geological Survey 1 :125,000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and vicinity.Utah,1974
i~\t~,gr_ee}-
--~~~_95:~~;;-'.-rm'''''"~...,.'',"'\r/~,'/'ifI',':''',~",."fE,,'C.entervi!J.e"~.itW '
//:-."';'--1;,.--'--'-ce'r~ter '
/'I ...\J/~
'I ''''-'.',T.2 N,
\'~.'
J i '~,.,Sfolte ~creett
!BO"VNT IF UL
~o
U1
Figure 47.--Transmissivity of layer 3.
Discharge
Drain discharge was sinulated in the model with the use of the "Drain"
subroutine (McDonald and Harbaugh,1984,p.288),which requires information
for the altitude of the water level in the drain,and a term for the
conductance between the aquifer and the drain.'!he altitudes used for the
water level in the drains were based on the altitudes of land surface and
water levels,where available,in the Sam:!area.Drain cells were used in
nodel layer 1.In this application,the conductance is defined as the product
of the hydraulic conductivity and the area of the drain d1annel divided by the
thickness of the material sepa.ratingO the drain from the aquifer.The area
where drain discharge was simulated (fig.48)i~similar to the area of
flCMing wells and evapotranspiration (fig.45).
Ini tially a constant tenn for conductance was used for all drain cells;
~ver,it was evident fran the early simulations that large changes were
necessary.Conductance terms were varied to reproduce the observed water
levels (heads),and vertical head gradients between the aquifers.Some areas
were known to have relatively large discharge to drains (fig.41),and in
these areas the conductance tenn was generally made larger.Simulation of
dischar.ge to drains was based on water levels and associated vertical head.
gradients.'lhe sirrulated discharge was not based on measured drain discharge
in order that measured and sinulated total drain discharge might be canpared.
At the errl of steady-state calibration,the amount of discharge to drains,as
simulated by the nodel,was close to the discharge rreasured during this study
in the same area,and totaled about 58,000 acre-feet per year.
Initial values for discharge from wells were derived from previously
plblished rep:>rts on the study area.Fstinates of flowing-and pumped-well
discharges for steady-state conditions were from Feth and others (1966,
p.50),and locations of the flowing wells were taken from Smith and Gates
(1963,pl.2).Discharge from flowing wells was apportioned based on the
number of wells in a particular cell,the estimated discharge from wells per
township (Feth and others,1966,table 7),and the percentage of wells
finished in either layer 2 or 3.The total annual discharge from flowing
wells in each township was divided by the total number of flowing wells
drilled before 1955 in that township to obtain discharge per well,based on
the assumption that all wells in a given area discharged the sane arrount of
water.It was determined fran well records that awroximately 60 percent of
flowing wells drilled before 1955 were finished in layer 3 and the ranaining
40 percent were finished in layer 2.FICMing-well discharge was apportioned
to the layers according to those percentages.'lhe initial value of discharge
fran wells was about 25,000 acre-feet per year.
A portion of the upward leakage fran layer 2 to layer 1 discharges by
evapotranspiration.Evapotranspiration from layer 1 was simulated in the
model by a head-dependent option,which assumes a linear change between a
~imum evapotranspiration rate,when the water level is at or above land
surface,to no evapotranspiration when the water level is at or below a
specified extinction depth of 15 feet (McDonald and Harbaugh,1984,p.316).
Q11y a small part of the total evap::>transpiration in the study area originates
fran the East Shore aquifer systan,and at the end of steady-state calibration
this amount was calculated by the model to be about 7,000 acre-feet per year.
'!he cells where evapotranspiration was simulated are srown in figure 45.
106
Subsurface inflow to Great salt Lake,as diffuse seepage,was simulated
in the m:.:xiel with a general-head boundary by assuming that discharge was
pr imar ily by upward leakage fran the underlying East Shore aquifer system.It
was assumed that all ground-water flow past the shoreline eventually
discharges into the lake,as diffuse seepage through the lake-bottom
sediments,am possibly by springs umer the lake.'!he general-head boundary
was used so discharge to the entire area inundated by the lake could be
sinulated,am the specified heads (representing lake stage)could be cnanged,
if necessary,as part of the transient-calibration process.The conductance
terms between the external specified head (lake altitude)and the IOOdel cells
were approximated based on vertical conductance terms used in simulated areas
east of the lake.
Model calibration
The model was first calibrated to steady-state conditions which were
assumed to exist in 1952-55.The final water levels from steady-state
calibration were then used as initial heads for the transient-state
calibration.Wi thdrawals fran,and recharge to,the Weber Delta part of the
East Shore aquifer system were varied during the transient-calibration period
fran 1955 to 1984.
Steady-State calibration
Calibration of the model to steady-state conditions involved the
cxxrparison of neasured water levels for layers 2 am 3 with cxxrputer-generated
water levels.'!he neasured water levels were generally from the pericx:1 1952-
55,depeming on available data.If possible,water levels fran 1954 or 1955
were used instead of those from the 1952-53 pericx:1,because 1952 am 1953
were years of well-above-normal precipitation,am water levels were generally
higher than the average steady-state water levels.Groum-water wittrlrawals
prior to 1955 were almost entirely from flowing wells.Since 1955,
withdrawals for mmicipal and industrial use have steadily increased,and have
been alnost exclusively fran large pumped wells east of the flowing-well area.
Water levels in IOOst wells with long-term records sh:)w that fran 1935
through the mid-1950's,water levels remained fairly constant with the
exception of 1952-53 when there were large water-level rises (fig.28).It
was assumed that steady-state conditions existed until 1955 with minor
fluctuations in water levels due to short-term changes in recharge,and that
groum-water withdrawals prior to 1955 had little or no effect on water-level
fluctuations.
To test the assurrption that discharge fran flowing wells pr ior to 1955
was part of the equilibrium state of the aquifer system,the estimated 17,700
acre-feet per year of discharge by flowiBJ wells was decreased to about 10,000
acre-feet per year.This resulted in rises fran the calibrated steady-state
water levels of up to abalt seven feet,with an average of about 3 feet.lfIlen
flowing-well discharge was decreased,discharge to drains,evaIX'transpiration,
and Great salt Lake increased by a nearly equal aroount.
D.1riBJ the calibration to steady-state conditions,sane values of system
parameters were adjusted.Values that were most commonly adjusted were
vertical comuctance,drain conductance,and starting heads for constant-head
107
112°15 1
I 112°001
I
CONTOUR INTERVAL,IN FEET,VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
T.5 N.
5 MILES4
-+
5 KILOMETERS
1
32
r -I - 1
o
><1·)I '-S;:1 II ~~~r'I :1 j 1 j::::.::::<:~.-+-I~;~;I .'-.-1..1 "''bn::-~-~
#i4~·1~....//+:0»'~1J+1=fFf4=11/1 U~-+·-.I',.'.-.
"/!'.......1 _"--+4-i~+~---t---+--,»
~t-+-~~
L _L .....
~
C'")
':r.
..9 -~~~--n
4=r=r =1=t=R=H ~.=mt~I ~........•...••!",'Jl!0 '_/~.r 'n [10 I
+----+----..t+-----+1/1 I I rll1 rWlIWdj12 -we ~..._-.1_..1-__1 J
12
-+
I-+-
+
41°15 1-._
.....oen
--BOUNDARY OF MODEL AREA
T.1 N.
J;)
»/
0-""':~~
'.
's -Q("~"'.r-
j//-'2
./C')
,~.ington '6,;;-m -T.3 N.
+xf,--J--=-J--/
.\
aI""
I
il",
L~.
Sytaclllse
.iyl<o~'_c:!-ee.!L
"\o"il-+~~.Jc~='----.--c""I~/
I ,(Jlard__»/----
........_......I._:......i._:....J._.:....l_l..+_L.l_L..l_L..l_LJ~J.:.l_~!_LL ..'~j ~~.i-------l ~to"";:-/~\(;::~!:,.-£<,.¥
,4;:.!*'~'..'"...,//~.~"'-cettter
I
I -----".",/\(,...._"'_/J \,/~
/'...,.:'-,F(West :1 "L.//T.2 N.
,-!:t'":::(/Bountifuk !I :.:_/Sfo';;e~cre;1t
"""'''I':;;-~/BO"'~TNT~FUL
r;)':"'~/·;t'iiOibroC;\i--C--"-;'ek-
'-""")~/0-~
!;i l \~~>
'),//~/)(//'-~....
------+---t---.-+-;7f(,--_....'..~+
l,\N 7a!Lakec .1.IVai'--
'-....I;::':\..."/1 /r~Verda '-----..l).;
0'/~C...,\I ',...~ny
\"\,,,,-_/,-,ot}:;;I --,,,__,J
,F
____DAVIS CO -~
R 1 W SAL'i'i:::AKECO. .R.1~
EXPLANATION
,--------1---~~-i--
,'
if>
s
CONST ANT FLUX NODE--Number indicates constant recharge,
in hundreds of acre-feet per year
NODES WITH DRAINS
R.41 w.
"
7
/
~~~-.'.
"
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125,000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and vicinity,Utah,1974
~
[2:]
41°00/-1 I 1+/11 '~I I
t-'o
\0
Figure 48.--Rate and location of constant recharge values and drain areas used for steady-state simulations
in the model of the East Shore aquifer system.
nodes.Transmissivity values were changed only slightly as they were
considered to be sane of the JOOSt reliable data.
The vertical conductance terms for the general-head boundaries under
Great Salt Lake were adjusted for various reasons:to calibrate to a koown
water level near the Antelc:pe Island causeway,to calibrate to 1952-55 water
levels near the shoreline,and to maintain known vertical-head gradients
between the artesian aquifers.It was assumed that all discharge from the
East Shore aquifer system in the ~ber Delta area to the lake occurs to the
east of Antelope and Frenont Islands.Total annual discharge to Great Salt
Lake by diffuse seepage,as calculated by the nodel at the end of steady-state
calibration,was about 19,000 acre-feet.
As part of the calibration process,a::nputed water levels at specified
rmes were canpared with measured 1952-55 water levels.Of the 175 nodes at
which the comparisons were made,100 nodes were in layer 3 and 75 rmes were
in layer 2.The location of the cells associated with these nodes are shown
in figure 49,which illustrates that the data points were fairly evenly
distriooted across the area.A particular node or area was considered to be
in calibration if the computed water level was within a preset range of the
zreasured water level.The criteria for this range were determined from the
location of the actual water level in the model cell and the contoured
gradient across the cell.Therefore,near the nomtains,where the gradient
is steep,the acceptable range was large,up to 50 feet or greater.
Near Great salt Lake a CCIl1p.lted water level needed to be within 10 feet
or less of the measured water level to be considered calibrated.'!he criteria
set for calibration was not zret at the end of the steady-state calibration at
13 of the 175 nodes.'!hese 13 nodes (fig.49)are generally either near the
recharge areas where the gradient of the water surface is steep,or in the
discharge areas near the lake where cartp.lted water levels were lower than the
actual levels.
At the conclusion of the steady-state calibration,the flON rates for
the constant-head nodes along the nountain front,as calculated by the model,
were entered as recharge rates at specified-flux nodes,and the constant-head
nodes were eliminated.'!hese rates,whidl approximate at least part of the
ground-water recharge by subsurface inflON,total about 45,000 acre-feet per
year.The constant recharge rates for all sources of recharge applied to
individual nodes at the end of steady-state calibration are shown in figure
48.The total recharge to these nodes is 109,000 acre-feet per year.
COmparison of water-level contours drawn using water levels measured in
1955 (Feth and others,1966,pI.1),and contours drawn using computed water
levels for layers 2 and 3,at the end of steady-state calibration,are shown
in figures 50 and 51.The contour patterns match fairly well in areas with
sufficient historic data,and the computed water levels in those areas are
generally within 10 feet of the measured levels.Differences between the
shape of the contours generated from camputed and measured data are a result
of simplification and problem:;in defining the exact characteristics of the
physical system.In general,~ver,the configuration of the contours and
the resulting gradient of earn set of contours are similar,indicating that
the cx:mputed values are a geed awroximation of the steady-state conditions.
110
During the steady-state calibration process,it was difficult to match
measured water levels in the North O:'jden area,using the initial values for
transmissivity,while staying within the estimated range of recharge and
discharge for that area.It was necessary to significantly reduce the
transmissivity in the area in order to match the actual steep hydraulic
gradient in the area,and maintain reasonable rates of recharge and discharge.
calibration to measured water levels in the North Ogden area was diff icul t
throughout the calibration process,primarily because of steep water-level
gradients,and because simulated water levels were sensitive to small changes
in recharge.
As a test of the sensitivity of the calibrated model,values of some
hydraulic-property arrays were varied to determine the effects on the
calibrated roodel.Values of transmissivity were assumed to be fairly accurate
in most areas;therefore,changes that oould be made in transmissivity values
and still be within a realistic range of measured or estimated
transmissivities were relatively small.Changes from the measured or
estimated values of transmissivity for layer 3 ranged fran about a 25 percent
increase in the Sunset-Roy area to about a 25 percent decrease in the Ogden
and Willard areas.O1anges within these ranges of transmissivity resulted in
relatively small water-level changes,except in areas with steep head
gradients.
The values of vertical hydraulic oooouctivity are not well defined,and
the range of realistic values oould span at least two orders of magnitude.
Changes in the vertical hydraulic oonductivity within this range resulted in
large water-level changes fran the calibrated results,especially in areas
with large vertical head gradients between layers.The final distribution of
vertical hydraulic conductivity values ranged fran about 1 x 10-3 foot per day
in the recharge areas near the mountain front to about 3 x 10-6 foot per day
in areas with the greatest vertical head differences.The average value was
abcut 1 x 10-4 foot per day.
O1anges in the conductance terms used in the "General-head boundary"
subroutine (McDonald am Harbaugh,1984)did not significantly affect either
water levels or discharge fran toose cells unless the calibrated conductance
term was changed by at least an order of magnitude.In areas of large
discharge by drains,however,only minor changes in the drain conductance term
resulted in significant changes in the drain discharge or water levels or
both.
Transient-State calibration
Calibration to transient-state conditions oonsisted of establishing data
bases for the years 1955 to 1985.rata included (1)1955-84 withdrawals fran
rrunicipal,industrial,and flowing wells,and (2)1956-85 water-level data.
Transient-state calibration was initiated by simulating withdrawals from
wells for 1955-84 and a:xrparing the resultant ex:xtpUted water levels wi th water
levels measured during 1956-85.water-level changes were C<lIp.lted at the end
of each of the 30 one-year pumping periods during the 3D-year transient
calibration.
III
112°15 1 112°001
T.5 N.
t.n
»
--\
C'")
::I:
Tunnel
5 MILES432I
I I !I1I i
o
k 'Urn'""'(JHll~d II .~--L_-,---"---;--'---'--..L-.L_
CONTOUR INTERV AL,IN FEET,VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
'I
t
,~.:,~~"~.~!I.....l ,
-+-+
f ~~EaFo~'-;tT"
:/
t 1/vi
Ii I
1
/
............
l'V
T.3 N.
T,l N,
"--'--I
rIo,....:
f-'
!
ilJ,o
c.._..JRl3W.
-~--
EXPLANATION
CELLS USED IN CALIBRATION
---+----
R.41 W.
Uncalibrated cell,layer 2,does not meet calibration criteria
Calibration cell,layer 2,meets calibration criteria
Calibration cell,layer 3,meets calibration criteria
Uncalibrated cell,layer 3,does not meet calibration criteria
"._--
--.-+----1"<'-~""""'d:"J i .i.\\.".i'+t VJ I'i I
····1-it'1.-4 ._i.-l1ll1 ",r,\.1 i 1 ~':f~l ~~i~!
.t 'Z-~j ~\\.•~~).rt:~~;(L.~/~4 ..
__.~I'l I.4II1l Syb.il se i I".i\·~1 S~~)::-/;j:l~~l;,:'=:1~-=.r~.
/-if·.j.....:'"'4 '..011I1 ~r-..j.j'---r¥:T L,-J-t,J_'~~~\,\~..I __!~'\I "~;;ast L,yt<1Jl S "ofi-;~;tk .
'l"frll'-./----jf-----+---t"-.--t--..-!\~~~~/1"141",!1oll"'~~l:l~lf~"'tt~':·I J~'r-----r-".f\:1--".l?t'-';I~I(i J..oIIIIl (,\;I jail ~//tL:..-~--+--
J'-1 !I'''--,._\",,-."w ,1 i"~.J /)~~J:,llI "')\~h \za'Qr.'!J~J
f 'j r-~y ,-",,,.,""~1 Lj>~-1IIlIl t'-a.sv4J.j~i'If;.i
--BOUNDARY OF MODEL AREA
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125,000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and vicinity.Utah,1974
~
~
~
[;;d
If--r '1,1 I."'"J II ."~),1 /..,~'\I I..I ~;a~r '.f ~it Hgtts ,eel'---t±+---+--+--+-L-L..""',,--~,...i-,'"I ~"..I 'fllo c r J ':JJ
,!I i I '--.1 "1",,"--".'""'''~....../---'_++-1_..,.;;;~\-#£¥--.'»
-\I 1'.<•.'~._I JI ~",.~,('
l'1 /-~--1--1-\-~'z I ~(~l ,I /'"02:.
(~_,"~",I"\'1-;- -\-t:rt=----//C1
41°00/-1-+:/1----11'----1,-----___:=___1\:1-+:.,~'4 ~f\LL~~~;;'gtO'l-'-i'>;;tTl
fr--\\.".'7:+~~.H,/_---I-+----~\I'I~~\,----t---'~~1---',-n,~'I~FrrJ1'flltOl il r-~
f ------I---_+__+_-+-----f!"'---'-"- -f-------t-'",1lllP"~~c.,\'..Clh'J>-..-i j ~l _~Ir--'~~eqd~"'LI--I·-.~/I 1 ~','"
---4---t+-----t-~------\.'Ab.I]""r.~i I-~('""·'
1<=rf -l -r !I ,-1'"iV r.IV f1AJ}"I 1 1'.[Z:~I"I\t·\,;~i~~_<2r_.,~:-~I =tc~="1 J;",-,.,.-"lIIr,'tmY ,<~~nq!.!L0¢';j j
!If"2 W.Jc,;,,'"IV 1Jf"d'
.\<,~~"[J'~'2"}.s~j-,~c:eeeY-
-:.',--;,:-","""""'''';'I 'GentervjlW-,iiv'-j ."'.[",__,.,/'.-+~·ceI1tert.
:....:~,,I,/'~\
I·j ..I ~\/
I,.../1 't /~,T.2 N.~.f".:;.=-/~-(West I U I I /::,._--,{e----"'--'-'--e';lt
-='t'..::'c ",Bo'¥'tifuk I ",_,,_,/,stO Cf
""""."/.'",,:'./BO ~NTIFUL
;'.,"./,:------.,_.'--).~r-I-;-<?>"HoiiJro;;ii--Creek'",,U'"j-...'~;'c'W!oods Cros~iF ~'~~
t',!//,,--~....~
)(I L-...A'~P1>-t'~,"N'-··7,alhak~VT,•••'..;~-,.-..\'-'~\':,//+/V erda"---."~_
0'--'•/..I ,..C qlly?-<....\.I -...:..:"Of)f
Co,,>\'__/:_.-/
''',I -/'-----';'l"...F
DAVIS 'co -~,
----SALTLAKECO
R.1 W.R.1 E.
I-'
I-'
W
Figure 49.-·Location of cells used in the calibration of the model of the East Shore aquifer system.
.8 N.
CONTOUR INTERVAL,IN FEET,VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
T.5 N.
N.
un nel
1>
--\
CO)
:J:.
4 MILES
'lGatew3V
"I-+-
',:g
32
,,
j 1<:1,'I ;:~Yj:.~~"-.
"-.'-",
o
o
/'
/'
,HILL
~FBASE
7"1'/I/)p \I -----I +---+-'jf-~..4v~-~1
'·_~-t.~
I.
r~ltJ1
t~~2
o ','",0-
I '""l\X~rd
\
1::0-
I,,"
2_i-I
/
/
/
//
V~~'0
-t.\V
1/I SOUihl I,--,
Ogdetl//'11 I ~
1\lel:aafJ '"""
Wash'gton '~rC""'.ITerrae '-._~j •
r~:I.
1/.I nuy /:L-..-.-..l ,-<.j ..v~
-,, ,"'....9~~~
I linei!t·j 'J I"~~,_Webe,.,.<:z~:,~_1 __---or -'"'-,<<.
I -=-,,0 ~""_,,,(Jy/
~
'<::-...Web ,-Sout-"':~'''--er Weber\;,-"'----.--~"\:,.:3-'i
-'c,'b
"-_\:=----..-
.,l'4'
d;-
.'\4
'--~,I"'~,I.=:".-";!/(:~~dtt ,o(~,I,_____
<pP-'\
f""'--->,-
\,,",.I~
",I.,
~"I.,
.'.
I "'~VV,\\}'
,l'~,.1"
.,1""I'.':~:,.''~
.,11,.,1/,-,I,
_\.-_,I","
L~,,"*,~.
"I",1oC:-.
'0
~
~"I
7.,..t~'"
...J
/<5
,~
/~
.'~Ij
_,I"~L..
Cj-.~
112~5'
......c\......
............-......"P
'<S.
-7.;..
1"l5~
J j---J-
........
~
T.3 N.
T.4 N.
ree~
0 ...
,d _""'~\~
----'.<:',:,,<:,1'.
:D
l>
/C!!:
//C'l
ngtori-L·'6~.m
y-v,~~~
\0
I \\";;.,eh
""q('1 I'\.:..'."''.',..~.Cl'~.-..·-.-~'",,::r----:-t:e-"\-----.'-.-~(l5-r \-:\Frjuit Hghts
r-\,"-\i <to.l'~---
s"ey.,.xl .
/1
I
·,\./~ct"'__
,''J;>Far'i\..e:-,,,
,0:
"e:-.:\("'1p:~
,t~,I""],'~\.'_',-/'
RAi}'-------_-+--
FAR/I-lINCTON
"-:':
if'
7 .....
''';-'
j
I
\
,-~''':7-t;
............~.
~<40
'~
'"
41"00'+
Creek,",<;l<~.'---.->--
':rd c,;s~''-<-j
II R.4 W.R.3 W.I R.2 W."',"j 1\1f/-~--ciJJ~,========================================================::r;::t'~,"lil'==::::~ar(lSh />\------~_.......,-
..........
V1
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125,000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and vicinity,Utah,1974
EXPLANATION
---4,240---
---4,240 ----
POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR--Shows approximate altitude,in feet.
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
CONTOUR FROM MEASURED DATA,1955--Data from Feth and others (1966,plate 9)
COMPUTER~ENERATEDCONTOUR
BOUNDARY OF MODEL AREA
BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE CELLS
LIKE SYMBOLS INDICATE EQUAL VALUES
....
4,240
4,260
4,280
4,300
4,320
Figure 50.--Comparison of potentiometric contours based on measured water levels for
1955 and contours of computed water levels.model layer 2.
T.5 N.
N.
unnel
'>
-I
C")
::I:.
~"
,er e1:
':'SoutlI\I,>,.,W...e.ber \"eher 'r'.'''~-,.-'---',I''3-,
'"-..G~",..'_.\,~_-~.._.l __
v'~
V."",""c
I ~D\\\\,L....
'7
~.
~_':l'.
'C
'Ci
-:P
7,~L',
-1
.!!
,,\,,,.1"
r---]1 r'II
.,'/.,0"\;:T~g~l~'i,~g'.i:T~6 t\;:.1~,mTDX;.'.\'.:t.\'~~'"~S\'c c J 0 ,,,•M'LE'~tV tVw I I
",,"'"""~"""'I~'Y "r 0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERSv?>'/../-::"------......
,\V /.'~/
~"',/;/'l ~
/~%E~~~E~OCQ-~·,'_'~~_,'~L~.~:'"f't.'.,~./,;:I-~--:,I,
I ":::.':~/IG/'t'.~~'':'''"~fr\)1:<~j"O-.,~c;:/~;;.ti
'~,~~d),"~'M.f
112"l5'
-------'
l015~
............
0\
T.3 N.
T.4 N .
C;"
,PC-'L;."
.c;t:P€k
d
:0
):>
2.
C'}
nj.{tol1·c~-rn
reek
),
S Fif.
-"I
FAR.tlfNGTON
...-
7 f--:.
'-
v·
7 ....
'-~.
<1'
\
'j)
Zo
'j)
Z
-\
m
\'o
'0
m·
41°00'_c
"\
·cltS _c r_ee"l,_
---fCC-'>"
'la/:'!C c\'-/II R.4W.R.3W.I R.2W.,"J 1C6t,..~~c~,======================================================2·===,~ar_tl_~h~_.--
............
-...J
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125,000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and vicinity,Utah,1974
EXPLANATION
POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR--Shows approximate altitude,in feet.
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
---4,230 CONTOUR FROM MEASURED DATA,1955--Data from Feth and others (l966,plate 9)
---4,220---COMPUTER-GENERATED CONTOUR
BOUNDARY OF MODEL AREA
BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE CELLS
LIKE SYMBOLS INDICATE EQUAL VALUES
No symbol
~....,..
4,220
4,230
4,250
4,270 /'.
"V
4,300
4,350
4,450
Figure 51.--Comparison of potentiometric contours based on measured water levels for
1955 and contours of computed water levels,model layer 3.
Records of withdrawals for municipal and industrial use are fairly
complete from 1955-84.Most withdrawal records are given as a total for a
user,and therefore,it was necessary to assume that total pumpage was divided
equally among all wells owned by the user,unless information was available
for individual wells.In the case of wells drilled during a year in which
pumpage was estimated,it was assURed that the well went into production the
following year.
Discharge fran flowing wells am changes in this discharge through the
30-year calibration period were more difficult to estimate.Previous
estimates of discharge fran flowing wells,in acre-feet per year,varied fran
17,700 in 1954 (Feth and others,1966,p.50),to 40,000 (i.ncluding the
Bountiful area)in 1955 (Smith and Gates,1963,p.16),to 12,000 in 1969
(BoIke and Waddell,1972,p.9),and to an average of 23,000 for 1969-84
(including the Ebuntiful area)during this study.Flowing-well discharge was
increased fran the steady-state rate of 17,700 acre-feet per year to 24,000
acre-feet per year in 1955,to more than 30,000 acre-feet per year in 1985.
It was necessary to increase the flowing~ll discharge in some areas to get
computed water-level changes to awroximate measured changes.'!he apparent
increase in flowing-well discharge during the transient-state calibration
period could be attributed to several factors,including discharge fran new
wells drilled in the flowing~ll area between 1954 and 1985,inaccuracies in
the discharge estimates made in 1954 or 1984,or that the discharge rate
necessary to obtain transient-state calibration was greater than the actual
flowing-well discharge.However,the increase in the total discharge fran
flowing wells used in the transient-state calibration was considered to be
wi thin a reasonable range of actual discharge fran flowing wells.IAlring the
sane period discharge fran pumped wells increased fran 7,700 to 26,500 acre-
feet per year.
water-level declines have caused the static water level in sane areas to
decline below land surface,thereby causing sane wells to cease flowing.The
discharge fran wells in these areas was gradually decreased and eventually
eliminated during transient-state calibration.Flowing-well discharge was
considered to increase during the last few years of the calibration due to
higher heads resulting fran increased recharge.
The cells where discharge by flowing,irrigation,municipal,and
industrial wells was simulated during transient-state calibration are shown in
figure 52.All wells were simulated in at least one pllllping period,but not
in all pumping periods.'!he flowing-well area is essentially the same as was
simulated during steady-state calibration,with the addition of areas in which
new wells \'lere drilled since 1955.'!he flowing-well area shown in figure 52
includes toose areas where flowing wells ceased to flow during the transient
simulation period due to water-level declines.
As part of the calibration,total recharge to the aquifer system was
assumed to vary from periods of less-than-oonnal precipitation to periods of
greater-than-norrnal precipitation.IAlring the late 1950's and early 1960's,
precipi tat ion was much less than oormal (fig.27),and water levels in many
areas declined due to a decrease in recharge am an increase in withdrawals.
When normal or greater-than-normal precipitation returned during the late
1960's through 1984,water levels continued to decline,primarily due to
additional increases in wittrlrawals.Tt.~se declines,however,appear to have
118
been at a slower rate than they w:)uld have been otherwise,in most areas,due
to the relative increase in recharge.When a constant recharge rate was used
during transient calibration,it resulted in water-level changes that eatpared
poorly with measured changes in the area of large water-level declines.
'Iherefore,it was necessary to simulate yearly changes in the total amount of
recharge.
'Ihe changes in yearly recharge rates were der i ved from changes in the
annual flow in the Weber River,by assuming that when annual surface-water
flow was below average,ground-water recharge was also below average.
Initially changes in recharge for a particular year were assumed equal to one-
half of the departure of surface-water flow for that year fran average annual
flow.For example,if flow of the weber River for a particular year was 10
percent greater than the average flow,then recharge was increased 5 percent
over the recharge rate used during the steady-state calibration.This
assunption was reasonable for years in which flow was near the annual average,
but was not valid during years of extrenely low or high flow such as 1961 am
1984.The recharge rates were adjusted during calibration to determine the
best ratio.The result was that recharge was decreased by about one-fourth of
the departure when the flow was less than average,and increased about one-
eighth of the flow departure when the flow was greater than average.Changes
in total recharge seem to be affected more by a less-than-normal flow year
than by a greater-than-normal flow year.Additionally,there seems to be a
maximum amount of recharge that can be accepted by the aquifer system.
Therefore,during the high-flow years of 1983-84,less than one-eighth of the
departure above normal was used.'Ihe sinulated total annual recharge rates
varied from 94,400 acre-feet in 1961 to 114,000 acre-feet in 1984.
Storage-coefficient and specific-yield values were required for the
transient-state calibration.Actual values of storage coefficient from
aquifer tests of the confined cquifers ranged fran about 1 x 10-4 to 3 X 10-6
(table 5).'!his range of values was initially used in the storage-coefficient
array for layer 3.IAlring transient-st.ate calibration,however,changes to
this array had little or no effect on the model.Therefore,an average
storage coefficient of 5 x 10-4 was used for the confined parts of the Weber
Delta aquifer system in layer 2 and most of layer 3.Where parts of the
system represented by layer 3 are oonfined near the nountain front,a larger
value of 5 x 10-3 was used;also,a value of 1 x 10-2 was used where the layer
represents the unconfined part of the aquifer system near the mouth of Weber
canyon.At the end of transient-state calibration,the change in the total
amcunt of water in storage was eatplted for the years 1955-85.'!he simulated
decrease in storage was due to greater amounts of discharge than recharge,am
was 74,000 acre-feet or about 2 percent of the total discharge during 1955-85.
The components of the total ground-water budget,resulting fran the
steady-state aoo transient-state calibrations,are srown in figure 53,which
also shows the changes in total recharge and the various types of discharge
for 1954-84.Discharge to drains and to the general-head boundary cells,
representing leakage to Great Salt Lake,gradually decreased while pumped
discharge fran wells increased.
119
112°001
~i
112°15 1
I -,,
~
~
t)~I
r~~,,t'ft t CONTOUR INTERVAL,IN FEET,VARIABLE
V r-'__I -NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
__i-___1~---W"''1''l''l>T"L*i;''''''._-t,~,,/,L_+--:,,-:J~+-_1 0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES
~.'i-l-I ~I I I I
._~_~+J,',,'~,_0 ~2 ~4 ~KILOMETERS¥'E'-'<t __~->-,r -t -/'1
(i ........L~"--'--~:--.._.•,,-,....t .~.
F=t ~+~
_.I':-J"~,;'!
,•.",t ,.t.,,-.-:.;J '--+----+I-f--+-f I I 1--1
J-Q...><"dLP_E;,8L£9=}=~=_~~_=~j ~-T~+oL,..+-H~(ijlirntrm~I:--1H--+---+-+-r
I ~----etJ-,..1,i
/T j
./;t -',;:;......r--#:i+.t jy~I ~
Ii
1/
~.'"
......
41°15 /_1 .,t+c=J ~6 N.-
.1,.
"-.....
'\",""">II,
\...-__',.~,.1,.~"
"__".1.."l••....~_
(--'t ~.::~,:I.,..I
-.~,.~4:-.-+_-+~
9.,(.•...-""'.-<.,i »~,"F+"":I..~~
,'7,.?d"-_."",__~__en
~'t ,"":..~,,»
~\~...-\,n
~~%
~;
...--•..-----.p "--~.~·r 7~,\r,~.i.
''i..-~-.._
T.5 N.
T.1 N .
T.3 N.
:0
»/'
//~
:'/C')'_.j
ington 6,;:.m
/-
/./T.2 N .
.+.,~.~jsro"-'e~C,ree'lt
BOtJl1/TIFUL
!····fL .._-/ji·--C,:;ek-
,I '''f-;:''Holb roO
i/>~-r'..
. /'Z<>+-+-.~--".
J .IVaI'.......
.Verda 'f¥.;',""""cI,....~QyOf)
.../'
I F"r·--
DAVIS'CO -~,
SALTLAKECOR.l E.
w
~
J,J
R.1 W.
-t~.N,",SIal....iakec,'--l.\~,_.",!
"'-'c,..t\...\
0'\'i
Q.\l
o~\'_
-~J _
~."
~Io..,
...L.
I
I""~~~
\,
-''',"---',I._
t,....
\·....·'--';:i't ,,*-jo:.~.""~'''''~....t ..:t<..'1'•.l ..,,<+\....(.,,_,"•:-:-:••:-•••••'"•~1')(l---::;:::r
....\.1 I -I I .....
~+t T",+++'"I ""0''''~f.r-'.'t \'k"".,;t t'~'"~,--~.T'~-++_..f-\.,".,1'!,II,
t .I .+.+t".'-':t +
t".J.+~t I <$-!I j oN,I ,":..1'"f 1
+j ,,#.,,+~,+t ++++t t"t +•.'t."'..~"r--t+)L r +j t ;\i i :.I~l ·+·t •i k.t
i)j';to :;::):\;11
(I.r~'.!I'i I 't "
I !.1 0 ..j :I :1 :r t '
tJ'+':..i,A:1·-J1VH::I.~~...---.tc---+J--,.-,(,\o'T.WI--1'-.creek
R.4 W.,'"I .•\lt~.-···--..--
:R,3 W.!''..-It-~.~~.'':~.2 W./Cr¢C/.JI...-----.:...~~_.:.....r_l..--~--.l-""..J.~2:l..1ij]\·jf,!!Q!!L~*7\~rz,rz,p
.....<;;7'
_____'~/~""-'parr}.s!'/".:.0-
j;;".(,;"".~'."'./I .~r:;erv~l1e':~e.rz,
<IJ...':.!::.''i.:.:"",,10,.../,*,··,...._·~C~/f,.terll\
-=1 •.'.,,/'\e
I(~/."",...-~.I ~~/i \
,.l ....'".,;,'"°F(/west nit
._:/,..~./Bount'f 10 I,"
,I.,~l~,,I"1 U
•.!:••1.:1."'_/
(....."/1
+.I +
f .j ;r:~'.+..~<'~
!-
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1:125,000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and vicinity,Utah,1974
EXPLANATIONoCELLWITHAFLOWINGWELL OR WELLS
~CELL WITH A PUMPED WELL OR WELLS
BOUNDARY OF MODEL AREA
41 0 00/_~
....
~....
Figure 52.--locationof cells containing flowing and pumped wells.
As part of the transient-state calibration process,measured and
conputed water-level changes from 1955 to 1985 were compared for the entire
model area (fig.54).Measured changes in water levels were compared to
contours of water-level change from steady state to the end of the transient-
state calibration period.In most areas,the con~uted water-level-change
contours are a reasonable approximation of the measured water-level changes.
In the recharge areas,hCMever,the CXIIputed changes generally did not match
the neasured water-level rises.In areas of large water-level declines caused
primarily by increased withdrawals fran wells,<XIlputed arrl measured water-
level changes are similar.
The measured and carputed water levels in the three roodel layers for 21
observation wells with data for all or sane of the 3D-year simulation period
are shoon in figures 55 to 63.10bst of the hydrograP1s shCM that the oorrputed
water levels are close aI;Proximations of the measured levels,especially in
the areas of large water-level declines caused by increased grourrl~ater
withdrawals.It was not possible to match measured and conputed water levels
in some wells near the recharge areas because actual water levels in these
areas change rapidly with changes in recharge,and it was not feasible to
simulate those water levels without major changes in the model design and
entered data.
At the completion of the transient-state calibration,contour maps of
J;X'tentianetric surfaces for layers 2 arrl 3 were constructed and c".'ompared to
the potentiometr ic surfaces constructed from neasured water levels for 1985
(fig.7 and pI.1),(see figures 64 and 65).In IOClSt places the measured and
CXXIpUted contours are reasonably similar,except that the configuration of the
neasured contours are IIOre irregular than the computed contours,which are
generally smooth.In figure 65 the cnrputed heads are generally higher than
the neasured heads in the area near Hill Air Force Base,perhaps because the
computed heads at the errl of the steady-state calibration are too high due to
a lack of water-level data in this area for steady-state calibration.
At the canpletion of transient-state calibration,the 1955-85 period was
sinulated again,using a change in the level of Great Salt Lake to test the
effect of changing lake levels on water levels arrl budget a:xrponents.The
actual level of the lake fluctuated about one and one-half feet annually
during 1955-82 and then rose about 8 feet during 1983-84.During the
sinulation,the water-level altitude in the general-head boundary cells that
represented Great Salt Lake was raised from 4,200 feet in 1982 to 4,208 feet
during 1984.'Ibis simulated change in the lake level resulted in water-level
rises of five feet or less in layers 2 and 3 near the lake.In the rest of
the study area,water-level changes were negligible.Simulated annual
discharge to the lake in 1985,through the general-head boundary nodes,
decreased fran about 15,000 acre-feet to about 6,000 acre-feet with the higher
lake level.'Ibe remaining 9,000 acre-feet of ground water went into storage.
Although it was rot sinulated,the lake level receded to an altitude of 4,191
feet in 1963,which probably resulted in a larger percentage of the total
grourrl~ater discharge moving by upward leakage into the lake.
122
/"
---~...............
.....-
•RECHARGE
o DISCHARGE TO DRAINS
• - - - - - - -DISCHARGE FROM FLOWING WELLS
o -DISCHARGE FROM PUMPED WELLS
6,- - -- -DISCHARGE TO GREAT SALT LAKE
X - - - - - - - - - - - - -DISCHARGE BY EVAPOTRANSPIRATIOI'4
---~,...----
"'-~-------
--/-----\--____'7\~-
"""=---~:/-~__~-=-~....-::--(V~\"~"-------------------------~~~---_:::-
120,000
110,000
100,000
a::
c:(
lLJ 90,000>
a::
lLJa.
t-80,000lLJ
lLJ
l.L
Wa::70,000u
c:(
z
u.i 60,000~a::~c:(I'.J IWu 50,000wa::
a::w
t-40,000c:(
3:
0
Z
::::l 30,000
0a::
~
20.000
10,000
o
19541955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1984
Figure 53.--Ground-water budget resulting from steady-state and transient-state calibrations.
Values for 1954 are steady-state.
T.5 N.
N.
unnel
'»
~
C'")
::r:.
4 MILES
j River"
//_./J €~I
"sprrg ere
32o
•2 3 4 KILOMETERS
•
,8 N.
CONTOUR INTERVAL,IN FEET,VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
.'I~±
,:j~-
.,..,?-\!
.\VV'
~
~p.'i
?i~
v..,'anen~::"'~
~1.~,~;,
've,('</,:"----~y
.".,l"
.c _
,<-'
.".~-
,.1,.
.'!..
'''=,~I
,,1~_"II,
"~M-
,I,"1,,,I,
,.w.,I,
",I,.
"c~'1.?./s
~.,1 ••
I V\~llJ}'\'.
~,',",-
~,.",-*~
,1,4 _,I"
').1.
,.1,_,,1_,~
,.1/,-,I,
.,1.,,I.
-"'l',,I,.tk:....
/,,,•.-=-"t••-
-I
!'
___/c
~
-::.c
'0;.
~
"7...>
\,
"I".,~,
--~--()
"'f'
~,
"7.;.,
112'1.5'
---
B_Q2<_ELPE8..hQ ''"-_~---,.'- - _W..;;.....;
/WEBER CO"_
/+-,<::'".+0.7
//'.:..J~'l",
/
/
1"l5~
~
I\,)or::.
\Jl
\
"Y
Zo
R.2 W.
T.3 N.
T.4 N.
0",',,~e~
'\,
.~P-,:e~~~,
,.ee,~
':t:I
»
/';;Z
//C)
..---.·-'-----_.1_
gton 'G:.m
,-"'\
.,'."
",..-",-,/,"'-<
,-"1,,
,.
,,\~-
'~
\
".2;:\"
d.,\1',
'~--'-,
""'.
FAR,1UNCTON
+
~
7f-
<t'
\
R.3W.
if>
7
<',.-.,
R.4 W.
......
IV
l.11
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125,000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and vicinity,Utah,1974
---10---CONTOUR OF COMPUTED WATER-LEVEL CHANGE
1955-85,IN FEET--lnterval variable
I--------~
T.l N.
,/'i //.T.2 N.
~~.,:".__/Sr6';e~C~ee"1<
BOVNTIFUL
w
,.1.,
,
1'''''~'I '*I,..-.J .'"~,::'..
R.1 W.
)"~,
,'".,,:~l'-::c"'";'"//(-'west,y,:o.~..Bountifulc
~"".,'
~~'}joibro;k'--6~ek­
,//~~'~//'~~)~.~~,1/'-.{:"".
..'oN Sal Lake o .~?:;;,,,,..._-'\..":e~)~~.....! .Val'-
So...I )V erda ~-'I\I
0-"'I "'--,0",,,·,Soln"-;._-,,,on
..._.';'1 .~_.r---_./'
_.__QAV-,S ·co -~/
SALTLAKECO
R.1 E.
."."
r"'-
f"
..
.J..
r
EXPLANATION
BOUNDARY OF MODEL AREA
OBSERVATION WELL--Number indicates measured
water-level change,1955-85,in feet.+indicates
rise in water level,-indicates decline in water
level
BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE CELLS
+9.8.
Figure 54.--Comparison of measured and computed changes in water levels in layer 3,1955-85.
w·+2.0
0 Well (B·5·2)6bdd-2z
~
J:0Uf-
...JW
wW>lJ..
wz-;1--2.5c:w
f-
~
~-5
1956 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Figure 55.--Measured and computed water levels during 1956-85 for
an observation well in layer 1.
'!be cx::lrputed water levels and total budget were assuneCI to be reasonable
approximations of the East Soore aquifer system in the Weber Delta area at the
end of the steady-state calibration.During the transient-state calibration,
computed water-level changes approximated the measured changes in most
observation wells.Therefore,the nodel was used with discretion to ·sinulate
changes that could occur with potential increases in pumpage or changes in
recharge.Although actual altitudes of the grouoo-water levels may not be
sinulated accurately,the water-level changes fran the final transient-state
levels should be reasonable.
126
LLf +10
0
Zex:
I 0UI-
.JW
WW>lJ..
Wz...J--10c::
W
I-Well (B-3-1 )25dab-1ex:
3:-20
u.i +10
0
Zex:0I MeasuredUI-
...JW
"'"
WW -10>lJ..
Wz...J-
cr.-20W
I-Well (B-4-1 )34cbc-3ex:
3:-30
+GO
W
0
z
ex:
I +aGUI-
...JW
WW>lJ..
Wz...J-0cr.
W
I-""-ex:Computed
3:-aG
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Figure 56.--Measured and computed water levels during 1956-85 for
observation wells in layer 2.
127
+10W
Cl
Z«0J:
Uf-
...JWWW -10>Ll.
Wz...J-
a::-:10W
f-Well (B-6-2)26ada-l«
~-SO
W-+10
Cl
Z«0J:
uf-
...JW
WW -10>Ll.
Wz...J-
Q:-20W
f-Well (B-6-2)34dbb-l«
~-30
W·+10
Cl
Z«0J:
uf-
...JW
WW -10>Ll.
Wz...J-
0::-20W
f-Well (B-6-3)26bbb-l«
~-30
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Figure 57.-·Measured and computed water levels during 1955-85 for
observation wells in layer 3.
128
w +a~
Gz
e(0I
UI-Computed....J W
WW ~>lL -as
wz /....J-
0:-so Measured
w
I-Well (B-4-1 )30bba-1e(
~
-'75
+aow·
G
Z
e(
I 0UI-
....J w
ww>lL
WZ....J--aocI::
w ---7-------I-Well(B·4-2)8dcc-1e(No record ----------__../
~-----
-"0
+a5w·
t!Jz
e(
I 0UI-
....JwWw>lL
WZ....J--a~cI::w
l-
e(
~-SO
+aow-
t!J
Z
e(
I 0Uf-
....JWIJJIJJ>lL
IJJz....J--a5a::IJJ
I-Well (B-4-2)20ada-le(
~-50
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Figure 57.--Measured and computed water levels during 1955-85 for
observation wells in layer 3--Continued.
129
~omputed
---~-------------
No recordWell(B-4-2)26aaa-2
o Measured~~~J"Io'~
-a~
Wo
Z
<t:
I
UI-
...J W
wW>l.L.
WZ...J-
c::
W
I-
<t:
3:
W·
+a~
0z
<t:0
I
UI-
...J W
WW -a~>l.L.wz...J-
c::-~oW
I-
<t:
3:-.,~
--------..-\------------..--No record ----------------
W +20
0z
<t:
I 0UI-
...JW ComputedWW>l.L./
WZ...J--aoc::
W
I-Well (B-5-3)15dda-l<t:
3:-40
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Figure 57.--Measured and computed water levels during 1955-85 for
observation wells in layer 3--Continued.
130
u.i +10
(!)
z
e:(0I
UI-
...J W
WW -10>LL.
wz...J-
Q:-20W
I-Well (B-5-2)9baa-2e:(
3:-30
1956 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Figure 58.--Measured and computed water levels during 1956-85 for
an observation well in layer 3.
198519801975
\Computed
1970
W +25
(!)
z
e:(0I
UI-
...J W
wW -25>LL.
wz...J-
0::-50W
I-Well (B-4-1)8aed-le:(
3:-75
1958 1960 1965
Figure 59.--Measured and computed water levels during 1958-85 for
an observation well in layer 3.
1985198019751970
Measured
\
Well (B-5-2)l6ded-l
1965
o
+25
-25
-50
w
(!)z
e:(
I
UI-
...JWWW>LL.
wz-;l-
0::
W
l-
e:(
3:
Figure 60.--Measured and computed water levels during 1965-85 for
an observation well in layer 3.
131
w-+~
(jz
<{0I
UI-
...J w
WW -6>lJ..
wz
...J-
0::/-10w ComputedI-«
~-15
+25W
(j
z«
I 0UI-
...J w
WW>lJ..
WZ...J--25
0::
W
I-«
~-50
1968 1970 1975 1980 1985
Figure 61.--Measured and computed water levels during 1968-85 for
observation wells in layer 3.
132
W +10
0z«0I
Ufo-
-lWWW -10>lJ..wz /-l-Computed0:-20W
fo-Well (B-5-3)12dda-4«
~-30
1970 1975 1980 1985
Figure 62.--Measured and computed water levels during 1970-85 for
an observation well in layer 3.
woz«
I
Ufo-
-lW
wW>lJ..
WZ-l-
0:
W
fo-«
~
+20 ,.........,..---,.---,r---,.....--r---..,....-...,--...,---,...-.....,..--r---,.---,r---,.......,
o
-20
Well (B-5-1 )l8abb·l
-40 _-""_--'__""'"-_"'--_~--'---'--........-----I.--""-.......-----_...
1971 1975 1980 1985
Figure 63.--Measured and computed water levels during 1971-85 for
an observation well in layer 3.
133
T.5 N.
N.
-unnel
'l>
-\
~
::r:.
4 MILES
+--------iGate<way
"".-~_-e"sprt g ere
I River
~~--l
1)';:'
',san
-'-"'\,
'~-~t
I
r~~Ji'
I
""-~
e,.C~"'-...J
32o
I I II
, 0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS
i
.8 N.
CONTOUR INTERVAL.IN FEET,VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
+
,HILL
,V'F BASE
51....•...........11.2.0 --.I
,'",•0-
j,'"
,.\·~l.~ard
':~
'0>
.3
I
'i Sunset
l-IIWe~t Poin 'i
~~\)
.;i.\VV
/
/'
,I
~f'.'t
_J'-
~'4
_,I"
.,I f,,I.
II ~
~-_,I"
~.-(
'"
.d~,~'::'
".1"_,,1,.
>"
,.1,.
,.1"
~,I,
"I.,
~"I••
d,11,4
",,-
",';<12./02
_,1,_,r,
,"",~.
I ,,,D
"1t.L,l1
"I"
---,---,.-?'\-=--":,,.;>".('.---,
~I',
':::.,1
,,".~­
,,1,,-,I.
,1,4 ,,1,_
'"
~
j
/c:'-~
~e--.
'C
o::"'i
~,
~."'".',
'\L
---0,~-p
~.
'Y..-.
,.:::....:::~',
.,1",,~,
112~5'
---
,-,-
/;>"'''''-"
J .,1,•.1'4'1 __j>/'"",
BOX ELDER CO ,',''5;.----I('
/-WEBE-R-CO----------------j---;----------CA
/4
/1 .,~.::~
;',-,.;>,"~'
//".,"'"",..~~-~67i~(
~~""'"-'.""-~-'~~-T+=''IIIIIf'.'~I I ~'",I.,.1...- ,--;I <t +.._-
1015~
I-'
W
~
T.3 N.
T.4 N.
0'"--(.{.-/--"~~~
C'':,,~~,
J:l
l>
/~
,__/C)
nllton G m
...
Clearfield
R.2W.
~I
~
-+
,....1••
<'
'7-f-
<$.
"<''--,,I,
\
\
R.3W.
~
\
J>
"Zo
R.4 W.
41°00'
/fo rll :(/J-/·/-----r--
~\'(-,
~J/.
Syracuse ---~..'1<i //'1;\#.1",::'S iF
if',<,L-~./:--t-'7 ,../.',_
<"..\"4 East Layto)l--rSnoriiT'-~.\';V/:/7/1 ~;tJ-:fo~k "".":1,"-.I /I c'lt,,-"7 -/..erC ;/\....'"~f /f---'-'y-cr---~~e5.~---( I ''is /~.!...,:.~.'...."""z..~(l,:,/(..
\,"::..,!::.,,","'-"'----,-.1/Kaysviil ~:£'S~.
\',,I.,\1,."iI~.-~~1~1----/--~,:t,..itHght~ll,.ee~
----.......-."••••,If"J,/f#-,'"\1//( \•1 ,,.r
'-'-,,,1....'!"I"~::--~
......I.,-"_
\'1 -'E-"C..
"""..."I,."""\,
"'j ,I,.\."":."...1-;-0
1•.""\\:,....t""
..I --~---'"crt!\,__~~"c ,r-,.{Farmington
I·I "::I
\~---/~---\
I
\~,/l15;~",/,./
\'-;.r-)
I
\~~
FARlIUNGTO'.,-~,':::'lU'~"s_cr.!'eJ<-
.,!W BA Y '.:'\,\'5--..L_.____.-_--•.--_-----+-------.-----.--~--..---'..\....----cr¢~.j
nard·/~/E--~-'---",~~,-v
,!.,.-4 b \1J ",I';:zoo .,u~,(ristt /'\_--~!-'~--.,_._/
~w
V1
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125,000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and vicinity,Utah.1974
EXPLANATION
POTENTIOMETR IC CONTOUR--Shows approximate altitude,in feet.
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
---4,230 CONTOUR FROM MEASURED DATA,1985--Data from figure 16
---4,220--COMPUTER-GENERATED CONTOUR
BOUNDARY OF MODEL AREA
BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE CELLS
.....'V
'J
LIKE SYMBOLS INDICATE EQUAL VALUES
4,220
4,230
4,240
4,250
4,260
Figure 64.--Comparison of potentiometric contours based on measured water levels for
1985 and contours of computed water levels,model layer 2.
T.5 N.
N.
unnel
»
~
C'")
~
4 MILES
~-1
'-~t
T,~~
r can
----~.--.....,
\
32o
.8 N.
CONTOUR INTERV AL.IN FEET.VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
fT.6~,21
(..-".I'~.!~I••.·\::3 I
~-,'~llard i
;OJ I/~.I"(1.0
\;i
.lLJ
\1+I ~I I I.L.'~(),.0 1 ~~4 KILOMETERS
Ii:/'•
/)Drr"..,...,...../'tl r\.r-J
i h~I'T.7 N.
rings
~Pl:~~!,(\I ~c !."•..-:.'.Ogden /tV IT.,!'l/--......_"
No~gden ....._.--.--;7"t-9..'?~"'Q..~.//~,,.cr
.,.::..-'i .._~='1 r~~\\I •i----r-'---
--+-
('
~~'i
I itO\~lLL/t
..J
,
//.5
,~
('.!!
/r:-~:-'::,-\c.__._-~-----
112~5'
.,..
1~5~:
;..~
'i0
~~S~~&
J -~<y /~rr:<~.v~A,\\1_.~\\VI ,;<'1
"••••~.~i,~//.
/~WE~~~EgoCQ~--.:--~·":_~~-14.2~--?~
/-",-,;"'1
,"~~!,'"/.".<.(",.;/'11~~,,~:,!>;!~~-~
/1 ',('"",cf5 C
,;;~\(
.'?:sa7t"~i!'1 i-//"7":"'·'''·-~i5~7 r I~\i~'"",,",'"
"'---------'-...........'-:f/'~
T,
~_-.tI'7
~I
ttl'Q
~West
!g
,v·,;q.;>./h!rv
,.-"'-".~.~i ...J't'-
-".-,,'Nor '-l~.'~i/~~~i~"~~~~~..
~~.:"~-f''t"
~\ '...k.,I.,1,.,,1.;
~.....\..I.•,.I..{
'\....~-i'l..,,";/~-f..~..,.-~~/
I jif--~··"t-trt-
_ -"I.-~....\/1 /)
--,~I...-",()0-"=."..,./1:,/'-....".
___-----p ;.~'f :r v )~~/..----------.\,~'\;'V".,,.+.;..~,I J',;,.."_....,,:~'-:~."I ';:-c-."I "!~
......
W
0'1
T.3 N •
J:)
»
2-
C')
..'-.c;:m
1"ee,~
0 ...
A."",-"'.+
\.,
~.F~£t~~~t _
\!Cree)Y1/'~y'K--_'I ,-
I
R.2 W.
-+
R.3 W.
<JI
\
'):>
7-o
'):>
7-
-I
I"
\o
"tl
I"
(
,IL_\:'"....
\I '•(J__..__.__....__l..__...
R.4 W.
41'00'+/
"{-
/
,p
7.....I ..I f.J{n I I \~~,,'t r ,~/~'fJ'..U·,,~~-~~l~-·.I T.4 N.
'"A
creefL~~1<~."-"-'~
..".~~----Cr¢>j
:p.!!!!!-Y it!
I'I ,"rl t •"t'f ,..-b \!).Q~~'Z-Ii,.\arr~sh /--
-----------'""",---
I-'
W
-...J
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125,000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and vicinity.Utah,1974
EXPLANATION
POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR--Shows approximate altitude,in feet.
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
---4,230 CONTOUR FROM MEASURED DATA,1985--Data from plate 1
---4,240 ---COMPUTER-GENERATED CONTOUR
BOUNDARY OF MODEL AREA
BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE CELLS
LIKE SYMBOLS INDICATE EQUAL VALUES
No symbol 4,220 •4,260
"3--4,2~e 4,270
...-4,240 •4,280e---4,250 0 4,300
Figure 65.--Comparison of potentiometric contours based on measured water levels for
1985 and contours of computed water levels,model layer 3.
Sensitivity Analysis
A detailed sensitivity analysis was rot done as part of the calibration
process.Sensitivity analysis was an ongoing part of the simulation
tedmique,and it was rot oonducted separately.A large amount of data was
available for the simulation of the system,and therefore,the ranges of
estimates for ItOst parameters were not large.For the hydraulic parameters
for which ranges were large,primarily vertical hydraulic oonductivity and
storage ooefficient,sensitivity analyses were done as part of the simulation
process.
'!he values for storage coefficient for layer 3 were varied considerably
in the transient-state calibration process.The array for storage coefficient
was decreased and increased by at least an order of magnitude from the
calibrated array,and there was virtually no d:1ange in water levels or in the
budget terms.The simulations are probably not sensitive to changes in
storage coefficients because most of the nodeled area is sinulated as being
under oonfined conditions,and water-level and storage changes are relatively
small.
Predictive Simulations
Predicti ve sinulations were made for a 20-year perioo beginni~in 1985
to estimate the additional water-level declines due to continued or increased
ground-water withdrawals from wells.The simulations were made to estimate
];X)ssible changes in water levels,ground water in storage,and distribution of
discharge,using changes from transient-state rates for both ground-water
recharge and discharge from wells.Simulations of the effects of current
withdrawals were made using an average annual rate of pumpage,about 23,400
acre-feet,from municipal and industrial wells for 1980-84,the last five
years of the transient calibration.'!he first predictive simulation used the
average annual recharge rate for 1970-84,about 107,000 acre-feet,to sinulate
normal recharge,and the second simulation used the average annual recharge
rate for 1959-68 of about 100,000 acre-feet to simulate less-than-normal
recharge.The simulation using the norw~l recharge rate and the 1980-84
annual pumpage rate of 23,400 acre-feet resulted in small water-level rises in
the principal pumping center and satE declines in the recharge area.Using
less-than-rorrnal recharge and an annual pumpage rate of 23,000 acre-feet
resulted in simulated water-level declines of 5 to 10 feet in the pumping
center and larger declines in the recharge areas.
Further predictive simulations were conducted by increasing the pumpage
fran the municipal and industrial wells over a period of 20 years.'!he actual
annual pumpage from these wells has gradually doubled in the last 20 years
fram about 10,000 acre-feet in the early 1960's to more than 20,000 acre-feet
in the early 1980's (fig.32).It was assuned that a large increase in the
pumpage rate would cause further water-level declines,in turn gradually
causing some flowing wells to cease flowing,which w::>uld result in a decrease
in the total discharge from flowing wells.'Ihe well discharge rates used in
the predictive simulations are given in the follooing table:
138
Projected discharge frem wells (acre-feet per year)
Discharge
Period Flowing wells Municipal am Total
industrial wells
1980-84 average 30,000 23,400 53,400
(base per iod)
1985-89 29,900 29,400 59,300
1990-94 27,600 34,600 62,200
1995-99 24,700 40,800 65,500
2000-04 19,300 48,100 67,740
'!he decrease in flCMing-well disdlarge was estimated from simulations
made for five-year periods with normal recharge,and the increasing rate of
discharge fran pumping wells.At the end of each five-year sinulation period,
water-level altitudes were canpared to land-surface altitudes.In areas where
sinulated water levels declined below lam surface,the discharge fran flowing
wells was deleted.Simulations were then rerun for 10, 15,am 20 years with
the sane process being repeated.This method resulted in about a one-third
decline in witl'Xlrawals frem flCMing wells during the 20-year simulation.
A 20-year sinulation was made using the average long-term recharge rate
of 107,000 acre-feet per year and the increased rates of discharge fran wells
indicated earlier.Predicted water levels in layer 3 declined throughout the
area,and declines exceeded 30 feet in the principal pumping center (fig.66).
Declines of greater than 30 feet were simulated in the recharge area near
1'l)rth ~den,probably because the rate of recharge specified was slightly less
than the recharge rate used in the final transient-state stress period.
Computed water-level declines in layer 2 imicated a pattern similar to that
shCMn in figure 66;lx>wever,simulated declines in layer 2 were about 3 to 5
feet less than in layer 3.A total sinulated decrease in storage fran 1985-
2005 associated with these water.-level declines was calculated to be 80,000
acre-feet,or about 4 percent of the total discharge during that period.At
the end of the 20-year predictive simulation,the increase in pumpage had
caused a decrease of about 10,000 acre-feet per year in discharge to drains
and a decrease of about 2,000 acre-feet per year in discharge to the general-
head ba.1rXiary cells representing Great Salt lake.
An additional 20-year sinulation was made using the less-than-normal
recharge rate of 100,000 acre-feet per year,while rates of discharge fran
wells renained the same as in the previous simulation.Sinulated water-level
declines at the end of the 20-year period are shCMn in figure 67.The water
levels declined througoout IOCldel layer 3,and declines exceeded 50 feet in the
pr incipal pumping center near Hill Air Force Base.Declines in the recharge
139
T.S N.
N.
unnel
'l>
-\
C"')
:r.
River \.
4 MILES
'1Gate,way
?/'
/
\'.'---~
32
I
I
o
, 0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS,
.8 N.
CONTOUR INTERVAL,IN FEET,VARIABLE
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
(
+
~fI.'i
"~l
~.,
_.r-"~
,I.J
"
",,""~..
'-,
''-
.',
!(y :::
:,J."'"l-
'.~\.1/1
",,-.\~7~. .",~,,,'"-<~,.';p.I •'.J :PlamQ.I!Ij'_--+,~r---r\-_~~,",<~,.....,c/.,,,)_"~,-----'*'
,i,.••,..,."~:'~a~t)-'.~~c·~~S!~i FarrW it V '-....:1.g
/'~-,-~~.'I'~--....-:.:;t;.;_"';I~:~~-I _-
~.1.,.I~~~he~4 ~~~\
.,/,',c'!~al/.J'-----c....._:::/->....Y~.-
~<:-/[',~/-tlY~i W~t warr~W00
1
.l.!.!:"1,,
."
~-"-",-
"".1t,4~
I ~Vv,'l LLt\
,I'~"I.,'"
."
"I"
';.1..
,,;.
~~\"
.,1.,......~-
,__~~.::::,~,.'l'
~~..'*,~.
,.I.,"I,.
.!!
:J
-:.c·"':""~L.
\.--',
r:...:::32
.,1.,,.1.,
112'1.S'
---
"...
:\)/;:'
~~</\/''/
'i;\'v iF
_'I 'I'
••i".""."-••,:'i /;/••••"".
iE!.Q...><.-ELPJ;.R co .","------/~
,/WEBER CO.---J~..,,--::-------~I~.---.---.
/~~V'",,-."
/1
/
l~S~';
___----c>--p
I ~,,+'7,.,;...
.....
~o
T.1 N.
T.3 N.
T.4 N .
':J:l
'l>
re~~
/
/~
/C")",j
ngton 0:.,m
c~
3l '---~'''~~'f
,~{;,:e~k/,
/:L~··r
-~..r5t-·------
t,..,
~--l-.
r'''-'f··
r
.,1"
\
•8 i I '~-,--.r-'---------,~._-,------
\".1"
'-:.:,I,
u·
"7..--
'A
LINE OF EQUAL WATER-LEVEL
DECLINE IN MODEL LAYER 3
BOUNDARY OF MODEL AREA
BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE CELLS
EXPLANATION
J>
"Z
--\
I"
\o
"1)
I"
I \
'\,~
I '-.-:..z~,'--\---';-I.~\I .FARAlING'TON BAil'.....__
-.~- I
_L ....----1-__'L __.__
I\~lt~_~r-"e-,,~
R.4 W.R.3W.C~¢~--jR.2 W.,':!'!!'(L-~q:<-/"
e/Y
rish ~f---------~~~-<l.!-.-~.j /Illl¥-
J
'."..."//~entervi.!J.e'"-·;;lXe·..(,~
,.10./'-:--;~'--~-"'---.-'f\teft
i(.~>.";,:~,.,/\CIl /
).->;.;.....~('w .--\F/T.2 N.
I ....-~/est t'--'-.,t.,-_-'
-:I'"'~//Bountifulc ''.'·js-f6ile ~-C'reelt
,I,,.1.,•I ..+---.....----
",;""':..BOVNTIFUL
~;~~:,/~t?~o~:roC;1i --6eek-
~!)I //~~e..,
---f --L .____;_..£<::~40
'.\N2al Lakec 1.'Val'-\J;;"./)-Verda"-----,!Ij%,.,'\/I '-~£!.'!YO
Q\L n
":>'..
I.........'----""."I ...r-.r---
_________DAVIS CO -~,
R 1 W SALTLAKECO. .Rl~
41°00'+
Base from U.S.Geological Survey 1 :125:000 quadrangle,
Great Salt Lake and vicinity.Utah.1974
----10---
.......
~
.......
Figure 66.-·Simulated changes in water levels during 1985-2005,in model layer 3,
using a recharge rate of 107,000 acre-feet per year.
T.5 N.
N.
-linnel
»
-\
CO)
':J:.
4 MILES
---1~-~'t
r can
~--_.-"
\
32
I J J JII I
o
1
\\,-~Sout "'-::---,,-Weber Weber \'--'~"---~(\a",,,~,c.a"-._~.~~
, 0 I 2 3 4 KILOMETERS
/r '
.8 N.
NA Tqg~l~~REg'iiEET~~t~'J~I~~tTDX~~lnlg929
V~'t-\)
...,\V
i-
/
y,t>'i
'~
,"
.,1"~'4
~
~-
'\
v-;~.
"~
,,I,,
,-,.k..'.
.----.-----------,_--.r-~/
-../--
.---WILLftl'-V
r/?~'"
~,
~1\
\\,,",,
\l.,
WEBER
.1.'-'-<:1'-.;--!~J.?~i
L_''''-..-,~j
-"'-'"rth ,-_+-",-""-"~'N.P_IP;'"".1,"I"__*
'"=""-",..,.
\--'\..'-"~:'~"~~~~"".'",~:'~",":--::;
,-~~.~,,'.:~~'fe--.,~,,1.,...If,~F->.!!."I..'-i I''''
",Iio
_____------cl..p
~,
-y
,;:..
-l
/cCi
/~
-L'-:r,'--,-
/·""'I'~~":\",
.---
/
,I'
I ,
]I
/i
/
1"J.5~
,i
I-'
~
r-.J
T.1 N.
T.3 N.
T.4 N.
/'
/
/
':t)
»
/~
J.'.1/Cl
~gton~'c>;;IT1
0 ...A._.-,-..~~
'.._.Q~~~-
,.)
-~,
I"..·'~·i..~>....,.//
.,..,..~l-:::-"-;"'/~~(~est,,'=/.:;;'::/ountifulo
)"".,.')
~.(_I
..I._.'
~----l-~t
f''':--.-
\-+
<'
7"1-
<$'
'-..,.'"
if·
7
<'......
BOUNDARY OF MODEL AREA
BOUNDARY OF ACTIVE CELLS
LINE OF EQUAL WATER-LEVEL
DECLINE IN MODEL LAYER 3
<f>
\»zo
EXPLANATION
'-.,,.1.
»z
-\
(l'
\o
1)
(l'
I
I .••.",,,,.,,I ~__,,&.Y')----i2-:~~r::1-C;f1t:~~cr7 /"FAR.1-
UNGT
ON ...BAil'..._---....---.nart!/-a,qjl:J---"'--r-G~/...---------,'sh ,,'a,¥-
-----.L -_...--I.,-_~J!}-:j -<_-t~
'L-'.-.R.'w.,~C.n..,."....•,".
R.'W.,','".,-tt'''"C,n<"'.
...w.\./T.,N.
---..,\//
1-.-../ric'-creelt.\-+~jsto
BOVNTIFUL ...__._
"/r-"-Creek-j--:.i>':'iioibr ook
I/--'~~~
".~
'---~~f?:.//""-~~')h --'t=~_....--t...---\.N-s-al~Lak~o I J V~:~a '-----J)/..,CiJn
..-.•I /"--.Yo
n~'i'~,\/ /I j
%\',.."_r-~_..";1..__'J'
41"00'
----10---
Base from u.s.Geological Survey 1:125.000 quadrangle.
Great Salt Lake and vicinity.Utah,1974
I-'
~w
R.1 W.
Figure 67.-·Simulated changes in water levels during 1985-2005,in model layer 3.
using a recharge rate of 100,000 acre-feet per year.
areas near North Ogden also exceeded 50 feet,but were caused primarily by
decreases in recharge.'Ihe carputed water-level decline pattern in layer 2 is
similar to the pattern in figure 67 for layer 3;however,the declines in
layer 2 were about 10 feet less in the flowing-well area,and 2 to 5 feet less
in the princiPal pumping center.'Ihe total sinulated decrease in storage for
the 20-year per iod was 115,000 acre-feet,or about 5 percent of the total
discharge during that period.At the end of the 20-year period,simulated
discharge to drains had decreased about 15,000 acre-feet per year,and
discharge to Great Salt Lake,through general-head boundary cells,decreased
about 4,000 acre-feet per year.
I:Uring the predictive sinulations,when water levels in the confined
areas west of the mouth of Weber Canyon declined to the extent that they
dropped below the bottan of the OIlerlying oonfining layer,the model simulated
these areas as unconfined,using specific-yield values instead of storage
coefficients typical of oonfined conditions.'!he dlanges in storage indicated
during the predictive sinulations include the effects of this oonver-sion.
The results of the predictive simulations indicate that continued
increases in withdra\els for municipal and industrial use will cause further
declines in water levels in areas of large wittrlrawals.These declines would
be larger if recharge decreased to less-than-oormal rates,sudl as occurred
during 1959-68,when precipitation and streamflow were less than normal.
Water-level declines of this magnitude ~uld cause the static water levels to
fall below land surface in a wide area,causing additional flowing wells to
cease flowing,and also causing water levels in sane wells to decline below
present p..utp settings.'!he declines also ~uld cause a decrease in the rates
of natural ground-water discharge to drains,by evapotranspiration,and to
Great Salt Lake,thereby salvaging or intercepting water.
Results of predictive simulations based on changes in withdrawals or
redlarge are probably valid Oller a large area;however,they may not be valid
at a specific location because of generalizations made in hydraulic parameters
such as the vertical hydraulic conductivity.Simulated water levels in
recharge areas may not be accurate because changes in recharge from the
transient-state rates apparently have more effect than increases in
wi thdrawals.
The Fast Shore aquifer system in the basin-fill deposits of an elongate
troogh (graben)between the wasatch Range and Great Salt Lake is primarily a
conf ined sys tern wi th unconfined parts along the rrountain front.The aquifer
system contains about 100 cubic miles of saturated sediments and has
approximately 135 million acre-feet of water in storage,of which an estimated
maxinum of 37 million acre-feet is theoretically recoverable.It is not
known,however,how much dewatering of the system could occur without
undesirable side effects on the ground-water system,such as water levels
declining to depths fran which it is uneconanical to p..urp,rroverrent of saline
water to wells,and land subsidence.An estimated 13,000 acre-feet of water
has been removed from storage fran the unconfined part of the aquifer system
near the roouth of weber canyon due to water-level declines since 1953.
144
Annual recharge to the East Srore aquifer system averaged aoout 153,000
acre-feet during 1969-84.The primary sources of recharge are seepage from
natural channels am irrigation canals,about 60,000 acre-feet,and suhsurface
inflow fran cxmsolidated rock,about 75,000 acre-feet.Total recharge may
vary considerably fran one year to the next with changes in annual surface-
water inflow am precipitation.Total annual surface-water inflow to the
study area was estimated to average about 860,000 acre-feet for 1969-84,but
averaged a~t 1,500,000 acre-feet for 1983-84 when precipitation was much
greater than normal.
Estimates of the hydraulic properties of the aquifers were made from
aquifer tests,lithologic and specific-capacity data,am with the use of a
numerical model.Values of transmissivity determined using these methods
range fran less than 1,000 feet squared per day in oonsolidated rock and in
basin fill near Great Salt Lake to greater than 100,000 feet squared per day
in basin f ill near the rrouth of weber canyon.
Groom water generally moves from recharge areas near the mountain
front,where there is a dowm'lard vertical gradient,to discharge areas near
Great Salt Lake,where artesian pressures create an upi'lard gradient.Locally,
the hydraulic gradient may be reversed seasonally or over the long term by
large-scale withdrawals of water fran wells.
Long-term trends of water levels indicate a steady decline at most
ooservation wells since the early 1950's.The declines generally follow the
trend of less-than-normal precipitation until the late 1960's,when water
levels continued to decline,despite normal or greater than normal
precipitation.The continuing declines are due to large-scale increases in
groom-water wittrlrawals.Water levels have declined as much as 50 feet in
the principal pumping center {centered near Hill Air Force Base)and as num
as 35 feet in areas farther from the pumping center.The increase in
withdrawals and the subsequent water-level declines have caused awroximately
700 wells wi thin about 30 square miles to cease flowing since 1954.
The average annual disdlarge fran the East Srore aquifer system during
1969-84 was estimated to be 182,000 acre-feet,including 54,000 acre-feet by
wells,70,000 acre-feet to drainageways and springs,aOO 50,000 acre-feet as
diffuse seepage to Great salt lake.The annual withdrawal of gramd water for
municipal arrl iooustrial use increased fran about 10,000 acre-feet in 1960 to
more than 30,000 acre-feet in 1980 to supply the 66 percent increase in
population,which grew fran 175,000 people in 1960 to 290,000 in 1980.
water in the East Shore cquifer systen is generally [X'table and suitable
for most uses;however,local areas may contain water with chloride
ooncentrations in excess of 250 milligrams per liter.In addition,local
areas contain warm water,with temperatures of 20 to 40 degrees celsius,
associated with a series of fault zones.Little or no evidence exists of
dlanges in the chemical quality of water fran nost wells sampled prior to 1970
and again after 1980.The changes that nave occurred are assumed to be a
result of local conditions,such as different proportions of water of
different chemical characteristics entering a well,related to vertical
variations of water quality and effects of local withdrawals,and not a
widespread change in water quali ty .
145
A three-dimensional finite-difference numerical model was used in the
study of the East Shore aquifer systen.The model was used to refine concepts
of the aquifer system in the Weber Delta area and to project effects of
increases in ground-water withdrawals.It was constructed as a three-layer
systan,with tv.o layers representing the aquifer system including its confined
and unconfined parts,and the uppermost layer used mostly to simulate
discharge to the shallow water-table zone fran the underlying aquifer system.
'!he area simulated was the part of the East Shore aquifer system extending
from north of Willard southward to abalt one mile north of centerville,am
was defined as the Weber Delta aquifer system.The roodel was calibrated to
steady-state conditions using data for the period 1953-55,am to transient-
state comitions using data for the period 1955-85.
Various hydrologic properties am processes were evaluated as part of
the calibration process,including (1)construction of transmissivity maps;
(2)developing ranges of vertical hydraulic-conductivity values;am (3)
determining subsurface recharge from consolidated rock,variation of total
recharge with time,and changes in discharge to drains,flCMing wells,am
Great Salt Lake with changes in ground-water withdrawals and recharge.
Changes in recharge during transient-state calibration were est~ted using
annual changes in streamflCM in the weber River.large rises in the level of
Great Salt Lake in 1983-84 were simulated,with the results imicating only
small rises in water levels near the lake and decreased discharge by diffuse
seepage to the lake.
A principal test of the sirrulations and the IlEthod of nodel calibration
was to reproduce a IlEasured 50-foot water-level decline during 1955-85,which
was primarily a result of increased groom-water withdrawals for municipal am
industrial use.The calibrated roodel was used to project the effects of
increased withdrawals in the future.Predictive simulations were made based
on doobling withdrawals for nunicipal and industrial use over a 20-year period
while using (1)the average recharge rate of 107,000 acre-feet per year,and
(2)a less-than-average rate of 100,000 acre-feet per year.'!he results were
additional water-level declines of 35 to 50 feet in the principal pumping
center,and simulated decreases in ground-water storage of 80,000 to 115,000
acre-feet after 20 years.Increased groom-water withdrawals and water-level
declines of this magnitude woold likely cause flCMing wells in a large area to
cease flCMing,aM woold decrease the amount of natural discharge as seepage
to drains,eva];X)transpiration,am diffuse seepage to Great Salt Lake.
'lbe predictive simulations are based on a calibrated model.They are
assumed to be a reasonable representation of possible changes to the East
Shore aquifer system in the Weber Delta area given assumed increases in
wi thdrawals and ];X)ssible changes in recharge:h::>wever,the model results are
general and shoold not be used to evaluate site-specific problans.
146
REFERENCES CITED
Arrcw,Ted,and others,1964,Ground-water conditions in Utah,spring of 1964:
Utah water and Power lbard COq;:lerative Investigations Report 2.
Barnett,J.F.,1969-77,Rep:lrt of distribution of water suWly enter ing Ogden
River for the water year 1969,1970,1971,1972,1973,1974,1975,1976,
1977:Rep:lrts on file with Utah Divisioo of water Rights.
Berghout,L.N.,1978-81,Report of distribution of water supply entering Ogden
River for the water year 1978,1979,1980,1981:Reports on file with
Utah Division of water Rights.
Bolke,E.L.,and Waddell,K.M.,1972,Ground-water conditions in the Eas t
Shore area,Box Elder,Davis,and weber COunties,Utah:Utah Departnent
of Natural Resources Technical Publication 35.
Clark,D.W.,1984,The ground-water system and sirrulated effects of ground-
water wittrlrawals in oorthern Utah Valley,Utah:U.S.Geological Survey
Water-Resoorces Investigations Rep:lrt 85-4007.
Clark,D.W.,am Afpel,C.L.,1985,Groom-water resources of northern Utah
Valley,Utah:Utah Department of Natural Resoorces Technical Publication
80.
COle,D.R.,1982,Tracing fluid sources in the East Shore area,Utah:Ground
Water,v.20,00.5,p.586-593.
Coq;>er,B.B.,Jr.,Bredehoeft,J.D.,and Papaoop..l1os,1.5.,1967,Resp:lnse of
a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water:Water
Resoorces Research,v.3,no.1,p.263-269.
Davis,F.D.,1983,Geologic map of the central Wasatch Front,Utah:Utah
Geological and Mineral SUrvey Map 54-A.
Davis,F.D.,1985,Geology of the oorthern Wasatdl Front:Utah Geological and
Mineral Survey Map 53-A.
Feth,J.B.,Barker,D.A.,M::lore,L.G.,Brown,R.J.,and Veirs,C.E.,1966,
Lake Bonneville:Geology and hydrology of the Weber Delta district,
including Ogden,Utah:U.S.Geological Survey Professional Paper 518.
Gilbert,G.K.,1890,Lake Bonneville:U.S.Geological Survey M::loograph 1.
Glenn,W.E.,Chapnan,0.5.,Foley,D.,capuano,R.M.,COle,D.,Sibbett,B.,
and Ward,S.H.,1980,Geothermal exploration program,Hill Air Force
Base,Davis and Weber Counties,utah:Earth Science Laboratory,
University of Utah Research Institute,salt Lake City,utah.
Hantush,M.S.,1969,Modification of the theory of leaky aquifers:Journal of
GeoIilysical Research,v.65,00.11,p.3713-3725.
147
Haws,F.W.,1970,water related land use in the Weber River drainage area:
Utah water Researdl Laboratory RefX)rt PR-~40-4.
Hem,J.D.,1970,Study arrl interpretation of the chemical characteristics of
natural water (2d ed.):U.S.Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1473.
Herbert,L.R.,Cruff,R.W.,Clark,D.W.,and Avery,Charles,1986,Seepage
studies of the weber River and r:avis-weber and Ogden Valley canals,Davis
am Weber Coonties,Utah,1985:Utah Department of Natural Resources
Tectmical Publication 90.
Huber,A.L.,Haws,F.W.,Hughes,T.C.,Bagley,J.M.,Hubbard,K.G.,and
Richardson,E.A.,1982,Consumptive use and water requiranents for Utah:
Utah DepartIrent of Natural Resources Technical Publication 75.
Jacob,C.E.,and Lohman,S.W.,1952,Nonsteady flow to a well of a:mstant
drawdown in an extensive aquifer:American Geophysical Union
Transactions,v.33,p.559-569.
Jotmson,A.I.,1967,Specific yield--Compilation of specific yields for
various materials:U.S.Geological Survey water-SUwly Paper 1662-D.
Jotmson,E.B.,1969-84,Report of distribution of water sUQ?ly enter ing Weber
River for the water year 1969; 1970;1971; 1972; 1973;1974;1975;1976;
1977;1978;1979;1980;1981;1982;1983; 1984:Reports on file with
Utah Division of water Rights.
Lohman,S.W.,1979,Ground-water hydraulics:U.S.Geological Survey
Professional Paper 708.
McIbnald,M.G.,and Harbaugh,A.W.,1984,A nodular three--dinensional fini te-
difference ground-water flow model:U.S.Geological SUrvey Open-File
Report 83-875.,
M:>wer,R.W.,1978,Hydrology of the Beaver Valley area,Beaver Coonty,Utah,
with emphasis on ground water:Utah Department of Natural Resources
Tectmical Publication 63.
National oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration,Environmental Data Service,
1983,Climatography of the United States 1981--Monthly normals of
temperature,precipitation,arrl heatiD;;j and cooling degree days,1951-80,
Utah:Asheville,N.C.
-----1984,Climatological Data Annual Summary Utah 1983:v.85,no.13,
Asheville,N.C.
Plantz,G.G.,Appel,C.L.,Clark,D.W.,Lambert,P.M.,and Puryear,R.L.,
1986,Selected hydrologic data fran wells in the East Soore area of Great
salt Lake,Utah,1985:U.S.Geological Survey ~-File Report 86-139,
duplicated as Utah Hydrologic-Data Rep:>rt No.45.
Price,Don,and Jensen,L.J.,1982a,Surface-water resources of the northern
Wasatch Front area,Utah:Utah Geological and Mineral SUrvey Wasatdl
Front Envirorment and Resource Map 53-B.
148
---1982b,Surface-water resources of the central Wasatch Front area,Utah:
Utah Geological am Mineral Survey wasatch Front Envirorrnent and Resource
Map 54-B.
Price,Don am LaPray,Barbara,(in press),Ground-water resources of the
northern Wasatch Front area,Utah:Utah Geological and Mineral SUrvey
Wasatd1 Front Environment am Resoorce Map 53-D.
9nith,R.E.,1961,Records of water-level neasuranents of selected wells am
chemical analyses of groum water,East Soore area,Davis,Ibx Elder,am
Weber Ccunties,Utah:utah Basic-Data Rep:>rt No.1.
9nith,R.E.,am Gates,J .S.,1963,Groum-water conditions in the southern
am central parts of the East Soore area,Utah,1953-61:Utah Geological
am Mineral Survey water-Resources 9.llletin 2.
'!hanas,H.E.,and Nelson,W.B.,1948,Ground water in the East Soore area,
Utah;part 1,Bountiful district,Davis County:Utah State Engineer
Technical Publication 5,in Utah State Engineer 26th Biennial Report,p.
52-206.
Theis,C.V.,Brown,R.H.,and Meyer,R.R.,1963,Estimating the
transmissibility of aquifers fram the specific capacity of wells:U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1536-1,p.331-341.
U.S.Bureau of Reclarration,1967 am 1968,Use of water on federal irrigation
projects,1966 am 1967 detailed reports,Vol.I,E11en Project,Wyaning:
Strawberry Valley,Utah:salt Lake City,Utah.
---1969,Use of water on federal irrigation projects,1968 detailed report,
Vol.II,Strawberry Valley Project,Utah,West M:>untain Study area:salt
Lake City,Utah.
U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of Census,1971,1970 census of
population,nunber of inhabitants,Utah:washington,D.C.,Final Report
PC(1)A46.
---1980,1980 census of p::>p.1lation am ho.lsing,preliminary :fOp.1lation am
hoosing unit oounts,utah:Washington,D.C.,Preliminary Report PHC 80-
P-46.
---1982,1978 census of agriculture,irrigation:washington,D.C.,Volume
4,N:.78-IR.
utah Department of Health,Division of Environmental Health,1984,State of
Utah Public drinking water regulations:salt Lake City,Utah.
utah Department of Natural Resources,Division of Water Rights,1980,Water
use data,plblic water supplies 1960-1978:Utah Water Use Report No.1,
250 p.
149
waddell,R.M.,and Barton,J.D.,1980,Fstinated inflCM am evaporation for
Great salt Lake,Utah,1931-76,with revised model for evaluating the
effects of dikes on the water and salt balance of the lake:Utah
Division of Water Resources Cooperative Investigation Report 20.
wasatch Front Regional Council,1986,Surveillance of land use and socio-
ecornnic characteristics,1985 sUfPlenent:Surveillance re];X)rt -Vol.3,
No.5.
150