STATE OF UTAHDEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Technical Publication No. 53

CHARACTERISTICS OF AQUIFERS IN THE NORTHERNUINTA BASIN AREA, UTAH AND COLORADO

by

James W. Hood, HydrologistU.S. Geological Survey

Prepared bythe United States Geological Survey

in cooperation withthe Utah Department of Natural Resources

Division of Water Rights

1976

. . . . . .

CONTENTS

English-to-metric conversion factors.Abs trac t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . .Well-, spring-, and miscellaneous-site numbering systems.Geologic setting. • • ••••Aquifer characteristics • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • •

Terms. • • • • • • • • • . .Aquifer tests by discharging wells •Hydraulic properties of aquifer samples.Hydraulic properties estimated from specific capacity.Hydraulic properties reported in miscellaneous sources

Evaluation of important aquifers. • • • • • • • • • • •Glacial outwash and alluvium of Pleistocene age.Duchesne River and Uinta Formations.Currant Creek Formation. • • • •Glen Canyon Sandstone•..•.Weber Quartzite (or Sandstone). •••••Rocks of Mississippian age ••••••••••••••

Conclusions . • • • • • • •References cited•.•Appendix•••••••

Aquifer tests in unconsolidated Quaternary deposits.Test in glacial outwash in Neola areaTest in glacial deposits in Dry Fork Canyon •Miscellaneous short tests • • • • • • • • • •

Aquifer test in the Duchesne River Formation • • •Aquifer tests in the Weber Quartzite (or Sandstone).

Big Brush Creek area.Echo Park • • •Kamas area •••

Publications of the Utah Department of Natural Resources,Division of Water Rights•••••••••••••••••

ILLUSTRATIONS

[Plates are in pocket]

Page

VI1234

20202121222323233435353636373943434344454653535454

64

Plate 1. Map showing geology and the location of selected wells,springs, and rock-sampling sites in the northern UintaBasin area, Utah and Colorado.

2. Map showing transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity ofglacial outwash and alluvium of Pleistocene age at se­lected sites in the northern Uinta Basin area, Utah.

3. Map showing transmissivity and hydraulic conductivityof the Duchesne River and Uinta Formations at selectedwells and rock-sampling sites in the northern UintaBasin area, Utah.

III

ILLUSTRATIONS - Continued

PageFigure 1. Diagram showing we11- and spring-numbering systems

used in Utah and Colorado • • • . • • • • • • • . 5

2. Diagrammatic sketch across the western part of theUinta Basin area showing relations among forma­tions of Paleocene to 01igocene(?) age••••

3. Map of Ashley Valley oil field showing location ofwells, inferred faulting, and contours on top ofthe Weber Quartzite • • • • • • • • • •

6

7

4.

5.

Photograph showing coarse-grained terrace depositoverlying eroded Duchesne River Formation incanal cut above west side of Hancock Cove • • •

Photographic view of terrace surface southeast ofAl tamant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

. .

12

13

6. Photographic view, looking north-northeastwardabout 2 miles west of site of figure 5. 13

7. Photograph showing glacial canyon fill in WhiterocksRiver canyon. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 14

8. Photograph showing channel conglomerate included inprominent sandstone bed near base of DuchesneRiver Formation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 14

9. Graphs showing selected parts of borehole geophysicallogs at well U(C-2-2)2ccc-1 ••••••••• 15

10. Photograph showing Duchesne River Formation in roadcut on State Road 121 • • . . • • 16

11. Photograph showing discharge of water from the UintaFormation through spring area at head of perennialflow on Trout qreek north of Strawberry Reservoir. 16

12. Photograph showing Currant Creek Formation in roadcut in Currant Creek canyon • • • • • • • • 17

13. Photographic view of Ashley Creek bottom land andadjacent badlands cut in the Mancos Shale • 17

14. Photograph showing detail of flexure in the WeberSandstone in Cliff Ridge. • • • • • • 18

IV

16. Photograph showing Mosby Sink •

ILLUSTRATIONS - Continued

PageFigure 15. Photograph showing Little Brush Creek cave near State

Road 44 • . • • • • • • • • . • • • • •• 18

19

17. Photographic view of glacially-cut valley west ofUinta River • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 19

18. Maps showing median diameter, sorting, and porosityof sandstones in the Duchesne River Formation • •• 24

19. Location of wells in test array in Dry Fork Canyonand representative data analyses. • • • • 26

20. Sketch of cross section through test-well array inDry Fork Canyon • • • • • • • 27

21. Calculation of aquifer coefficients at wellU(B-1-1)27ada-1 ••••••••••••• 28

22. Location of wells in Roosevelt test-well array andrepresentative data analyses. • • • • • • • • • 29

23. Graph showing analysis of recovery during test atwell (D-2-22) 29dcd-1. • • • • . • • • • • • • • 30

TABLES

Table 1. Description of major lithologic units that cropout in the northern Uinta basin area •• 8

2. Summary of results of aquifer tests • • 25

3. Laboratory determinations of hydraulic propertiesof point samples from consolidated-rock aquifers.. 31

4. Average values for porosity and lithologicparameters of the Duchesne River Formation. 32

5. Hydraulic properties reported from miscellaneoussources . . . . . . . . . . . 33

6. Records of selected wells in the northern UintaBasin area for which specific capacity was cal­culated and values for transmissivity and hydraulicconductivity were estimated . • • • • • • • • • •• 57

v

Mostby metricsignificantshown onlyaccuracy of

ENGLISH-TO-METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

numbers are given in this report in English units followedunits. The conversion factors used are shown to fourfigures. In the text, however, the metric equivalents areto the number of significant figures consistent with thethe number in English units.

English MetricUnits Abbreviation Units Abbreviation

(Multiply) (by) (to obtain)

Acres 0.4047 Square hectometres km2

Acre-feet acre-ft .001233 Cubic hectometres hm3

Cubic feet Cubic metresper second ft 3 /s .02832 per second m3 /s

Feet ft .3048 Metres mGallons perminute gal/min .06309 Litres per second lis

Gallons perminute per Litres per secondfoot (ga1/min)/ft .2070 per metre (l/s)/m

Inches in 2.540 Centimetres cmMiles mi 1.609 Kilometres kmSquare feet ft 2 .09290 Square metres m2

Square miles mi2 2.590 Square kilometres km2

Chemical concentration and water temperature are given only inmetric units. Chemical concentration is given in milligrams per litre(mg/l). For concentrations less than 7,000 mg/l, the numerical value isabout the same as for concentrations in the English unit, parts permillion.

Water temperature is given in degrees Celsius (OC), which can beconverted to degrees Fahrenheit by the following equation: of = 1.8(OC)+ 32.

VI

CHARACTERISTICS OF AQUIFERS IN THE NORTHERN UINTA BASIN AREA,

UTAH AND COLORADO

by

James W. Hood, HydrologistU.S. Geological Survey

ABSTRACT

The northern Uinta Basin area consists of about 5,200 squaremiles (13,500 square kilometres) in northeastern Utah and northwesternColorado. During the period July 1971 through June 1974, a generalstudy was made of about 1,500 square miles (3,800 square kilometres),and a reconnaissance was made of about 3,700 square miles (9,580 squarekilometres). A part of the studies included evaluation of the geologicformations as aquifers.

Geologic formations that crop out in the area comprise a com­posite section with a maximum thickness of about 58,000 feet (17,680metres), but nowhere in the area does the actual section reach thatthickness. Only about 200 feet (60 metres) of the section is unconsoli­dated, but these deposits include the most permeable aquifer in thearea. The remaining section consists of consolidated rocks, some ofwhich are important as aquifers that derive their permeability both fromintergranular porosity and from fracturing due to faulting, folding, andbasin subsidence. The following table summarizes the comparative hydro­geologic characteristics of the seven water-bearing formations consider­ed most important in the area with respect to either recharge to theground-water system or potential well yields.

Formation

Glacial outwash, alluviumof Pleistocene age, andrelated coarse-graineddeposits

Duchesne River Formation

Hydraulicconductivity

(ft/d)

2-1,800

0.000033-600

Totalporosity(percent)

7.0-41

Water availablefrom s torage

(acre- ft/IOO acre- ftof saturated formation)

1/ 10

Remarks

Areas of occurrence generally discontinuous. Saturatedthickness averages 50 ft or less; locally about 200 ft.Water generally is under unconfined condi tions.

Combined intergranular and fracture permeability; interRgranular values of hydraulic conductivity are less than5 ft/d. Water generally is under confined conditions.

Uinta Formation 0.02->400 12.7-23.1 Estimated values for upper sandy section only. Most ofsandstone has hydraulic conductivity of less than 1ft/d. Water generally is under confined conditions.

Currant Creek Formation

Glen Canyon Sandstone

Weber Quartzite

Limestone of Mississippianage

1. 44- >200

0.002-5

0.000021-20

1/23.6

20-30

11-19

0.1-1

0.5-1

Based on few data points. Maximum permeability fromfracturing. Water mainly is under unconfined condi­tions.

Fracturing enhances permeability locally; water-bearingsection is thicker than most others listed here. Watergenerally is under confined conditions.

Fracturing t'Ohances permeability locally. Water gener­ally under confined conditions.

Cavernous zones, in size related to outcrop exposure andstructural distortion, take in water in highlands andconvey it downdip. Water is conveyed to overlying for­mations through fractures in many places throughout the

basin. No hydraulic data available.

1/ Probable minimum value.J) Single value.

1

Eight other formations are of less general importance, butlocally they may be the sole source of water supply to wells andsprings. They are the Browns Park Formation, sandstone in the MesaverdeGroup, the Frontier Sandstone Member of the Mancos Shale, CurtisFormation, Entrada Sandstone, Gartra Grit Member of the ChinleFormation, sandstone in the Morgan Formation, and rocks of Cambrian age.

The remaining formations all contain water, but in general theyare low in permeability. Some of these formations not only inhibitrecharge or ground-water movement, but they also contain beds ofevaporites, the solution of which degrades the chemical quality ofground water both in themselves and in the area as a whole.

INTRODUCTION

This report presents a part of the results of an investigation ofthe hydrology of the northern Uinta Basin area by the U.S. GeologicalSurvey in cooperation with the Division of Water Rights, Utah Departmentof Natural Resources. The purpose of the report is to summarize thehydraulic and geohydro1ogic characteristics of the aquifers in the area.

The Uinta Basin includes about 10,000 mi 2 (25,900 krn 2) in

northeastern Utah and northwestern Colorado. The area considered inthis report covers about 5,200 mi 2 (13,500 krn 2 ) and includes thenorthern part of the drainage basin of the Strawberry, Duchesne, andWhite Rivers and that part of the drainage basin of the Green Riverwithin the Uinta Basin north of the confluence of the Green and WhiteRivers. (See cover illustration.)

The investigation included fieldwork during the period July 1971through June 1974 that involved the analysis of ground-water conditionsand the relation of the ground-water resources to geology,precipitation, and streamflow. About 1,500 mi 2 (3,880 krn2

) were studiedby general methods and about 3,700 mi 2 (9,580 krn 2

) were studied byreconnaissance methods.

The northern Uinta Basin area reaches from arid lowlands about4,700 ft (1,430 m) above mean sea level to soaring, glaciated mountainpeaks more than 13,000 ft (3,960 m) above mean sea level. Somehydrologic characteristics of the aquifers in the area, such as cavernsin limestone, are readily visible from outcrops. Other characteristicscan be determined only through the evaluation of data, such as obtainedfrom well drilling, aquifer testing at wells, chemical analysis of waterfrom wells and springs, and laboratory testing of rock samples fromoutcrops of formations that are known to be aquifers.

Records of data used in this report are listed in Hood, Mundorff,and Price (1976). The locations of all data sites mentioned in thisreport are shown on plate 1.

The writer extends thanks to the well owners, city officials, andcompanies who provided well data and information. Special thanks are

2

due Mr. W. H. Van Tassell, who cooperated in the testing of hisirrigation well near Neola, and to officials of the City of Roosevelt,Mr. D. L. Campbell, and Horrocks and Associates for cooperating in anextended aquifer test northwest of Roosevelt.

Published information on the geology of the northern Uinta Basinarea is relatively abundant. Published information on ground water inthe northern Uinta Basin area is less abundant. Several of thereferences cited in this report apply to specific parts of the area orinclude it as a part of larger regional studies. They are Feltis(1966), Goode and Feltis (1962), Maxwell, Bridges, Barker, and Moore(1971), Sumsion (1971), and Thomas and Wilson (1952).

The term permeability is used in this report to denote therelative ease with which a water-bearing formation can transmit water.The specific measure of permeability is hydraulic conductivity (K). Thefollowing ranges of measured or estimated hydraulic conductivity areused in this report:

Range

Very lowLowModerateHighVery high

K, in feet per day

Less than 0.50.5 to 5

5 to 5050 to 500

More than 500

The terms used in this report to classify water according to theconcentration of dissolved solids, in milligrams per litre, are asfollows:

Fresh

Saline

Briny

Slightly salineModerately salineVery saline

Less than 1,0001,000-3,000

3,000-10,00010,000-35,000

More than 35,000

WELL-, SPRING-, AND MISCELLANEOUS-SITE NUMBERING SYSTEMS

The system of numbering wells and springs in Utah is based on thecadastral land-survey system of the U.S. Government. The number, inaddition to designating the well or spring, describes its position inthe land net. By the land-survey system, the State is divided into fourquadrants by the Salt Lake base line and meridian, and these quadrantsare designated by the uppercase letters A, B, C, and D, indicating thenortheast, northwest, southwest, and southeast quadrants, respectively.Numbers designating the township and range (in that order) follow thequadrant letter, and all three are enclosed in parentheses. The numberafter the parentheses indicates the section, and is followed by threeletters indicating the quarter section, the quarter-quarter section, and

3

the quarter-quarter-quarter section--generally 10 acres (4 hm2);1 theletters a, b, c, and d indicate respectively, the northeast, northwest,southwest, and southeast quarters of each subdivision. The number afterthe letters is the serial number of the well or spring within the 10­acre (4-hm2

) tract; the letter "s" preceding the serial number denotes aspring. If a well or spring cannot be located within a 10-acre (4-hm2

)

tract, one or two location letters are used and the serial number isomitted. Thus well (n-4-2l)2bad-l designates the first well constructedor visited in the SE~E~~ sec. 2, T. 4 S., R. 21 E., and (n-5-23)30bc­S designates a spring known only to be in the SW~~ of the section.Other sites where hydrologic data were collected are numbered in thesame manner, but three letters are used after the section number and noserial number is used. In table 3, the location within the section isfurther refined by a fourth letter designating the 2~-acre (1-hm2

)

tract. The numbering system is illustrated in figure 1.

Much of the central and western Uinta Basin is subdivided by aseparate cadastral survey. The area covered by this survey is alsodivided into four quadrants, as in the statewide survey, and wells andsprings in the special survey are numbered in the same manner as for therest of Utah, except that the well and spring numbers contain the letterU preceding the parentheses that contain the quadrant, township, andrange designations. Thus, U(C-1-2)9add-l is a well in the SE\SE\NE\sec. 9, T. 1 S., R. 2 W., Uintah meridian.

In Colorado, the well- and spring-numbering system also is basedon the cadastral land-survey system; and in the Uinta Basin the systemis referenced to the base line and the Sixth principal meridian, whichis identified by the prefix letter S in the well number. Thus,S(B-4-104)36ddd-l is a well in the SE~SE~SE~ sec. 36, T. 4 N., R. 104W., Sixth principal meridian (fig. 1).

GEOLOGIC SETTING

Rocks that crop out in the northern Uinta Basin area range in agefrom the upper Precambrian to the Holocene (pl. 1 and table 1). Most ofthe formations exhibit substantial variations in lithology, due mainlyto different depositional conditions, and in thickness, due partly todepositional conditions and partly to the events that followeddeposition and consolidation. The composite geologic section exposed inthe western part of the area is about 58,000 ft (17,680 m) thick and inthe eastern part about 53,000 ft (16,150 m). Nowhere in the area doesthe residual section reach total thickness.

UintaThe descriptions in table 1 of theFormations have been simplified

Wasatch, Green River,for several reasons.

andThe

lAlthough the basic land unit, the section, is theoretically 1 mi 2

(2.6 krn 2 ), many sections are irregular. Such sections are subdividedinto 10-acre (4-hm 2

) tracts, generally beginning at the southeastcorner, and the surplus or shortage is taken up in the tracts along thenorth and west sides of the section.

4

R. 21 E. Sec. 2

I Ib I a

I--a--

Ie/I d----b -'-~ We I I

I

1 8 1 7T.4S.

201 9

30 29 28 27

31 32 33 34

(0-4-21 )2bad-l

..%

~ D

---d

I b

I--dI e II d

L -l --'-_-'-_e---" Wei I

_~__ ___ --J- COLORADO

....

........

I Area of Uinlah

'"hii:: ·~~~~i:·f':~~ ':'" -~ '-S-E-BL ~ N~ -- -

'~" ~: ~~I'7"L_-+-~~-c~e~D;';E:-;N;-;V;-;:E-;;R---

~ T. 4 N. . ',_----,1--_-,__, NEW ME X I CO

:;R.l04W. PRINCIPAL

MERIDIAN

I

L __ -= __UTAH

~R. 104 W.

6 5 43/V? 1

V1 27 8 7/ 1 0 11

/

.~JY-~-~ 1 6 1 5 1 4 1 3

---

I 9 20 21 22 23 24

30 29 28 27 26 25

31 32 33 34 35 36/

e We I I

T4N

Figure I.-Well- and spring-numbering systems used in Utah and Colorado.

5

Paleocene to Oligocene(?) fluvio-lacustrine complex in the northernUinta Basin area has been assigned several formation names that are, inpart, time equivalents but of different lithologies (fig. 2). Moreover,the recent large accumulation of data from petroleum exploration in thearea has revealed the complexity of the formation relations, and theanalysis of these complexities is beyond the scope of this report.

SOUTH FLANKUINTA BASIN

NORTH FLANKUINTA BASIN

UINTA~MOUNTAIN

~UPLI FT

UPPER WASATCHlRANSll10N

CRETACE- WASAlCH FORMAl I ONOuS -- _

FORI..IA110NS

U I Nl:::::A",--F_O=:RM=A=l=I=O=N==_--:;=====;~~~~~R~' V~EjR. U , N1A ERE N11 AH °)_____________==___=_________ _ °UCHESNE ( UNO IFF /

//

/ "c::,Ie, ....~

Ic::,'" "/~'" "'~

/ ........~/' "," ~

./ ~~ <I.~'"

~

------ ------------ ---- - NORTH HORNFORMATION - ____

Modif ied after Ri Izrna (1974, p. 53)

Figure 2.-Diagrammatic sketch across the western part of the Uinta Basinarea showing relations among formations of Paleocene to 01 igocene(?) age.

The northern Uinta Basin area has a complex geologic structure(Hansen, 1969, fig. 57, and 1957, map facing p. 36, and Ritzma, 1957,map facing p. 24), and the fracturing of the underlying rocks hasresulted from faulting, basin subsidence, and folding. The faultsystems shown on plate 1 represent only the major surficial faults inthe area, and the map does not show many faults and fractures that areconcealed but are important factors in water yields of wells andsprings, and in the interformationa1 movement of water. For example,figure 3 shows the inferred multiple faulting of the rocks in the AshleyValley oil field, which are a source of water used for irrigation. Thatmovements along older or deep-seated structural zones have affected allbut the youngest overlying rocks is implicit from Hansen's discussion(1969, p. 123) of the faulting of Pleistocene deposits in Towanta Flat.

6

21t

\

\

\

\\

\

-t (i Get'I

----_______- t'; Ii 1

-l b '1 r; --+--L~'

R. 22 E.,,

I\

I\ \I I

,

~~,,

\\

\\ \

est

T.5 +_~~~......_~-+~~~,_..L..._ ......"._£~_~_~__=-:_~_...._...._...._...._~_~-- ..............--,f-'-+----S . \~ ----.il l; I .+79~" 0• \ + I I 8 ------- \ U',

\ \ ''1-60 0 I .---'-r-- - tl l1D U'D

---27 26

----\25

Allel JOIIiISOI1 (1904, fig. I)

FEE T

I DOD METRES

EXPLANATION---+600---

COlltOlJI 011 top of Wellf:1 Qll'II\!.ltc

CO!l t 0 lJ r i n t e r v (l I 5 ate e t (1 ~J 'II f-~ tiC ~, )

D(]tllill IS me;lll ~;e:: If~Vf)1

U-0----t I' ! I P I.: l;j il i \

.+767o I I wei I

~+526o I I I eo> t H I I

Figure 3.-Ashley Valley oil field showing location of wells,inferred faulting, and contours on top of the Weber Quartzite.

7

Table l.--Description of major lithologic units that crop out in the northern Uinta Basin area

fLocation of data sites cited are shown on plate 1. Interpretations of chemical Quality of water are based on analyses givenin Hood, Mundorff, and Price (197.6).)

Geologic unitCharacter of material Hydrologic characteristics

Western part of basin Eastern part of basin

Younger alluvium, grav!l surfaces, landslideand talus deposits I and dune sand and wind­blown deposits

Surficial deposits of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and largeangular blocks. Along stream valleys, younger alluviumis often well sorted I but rarely is more than about 15ft (4.6 m) thick. Gravel surfaces are the upper partsof terrace deposits and appear in many places to be sep­arated from deeper older gravels by a layer of clay ormaterial of low permeability and are generally less than10-20 ft (3.0-6.1 m) thick. Landslide and talus depositsfound only in higher mountain areas; largest landslidesare associated with outcrop areas of the Manning Canyon(?)Formation and consist of a chaotic mixture of soils I shaleflowage, blocks of rocks I and other materials of indeter·minate thickness. Talu8 deposits are accumulations ofangular blocks at the base of cliffs and steep slopes.Dune sand generally is a well-sorted thin veneer that ac­cumulates near sandstone outcrops.

Low to very high permeability. In many areas these de­posits are above the water table; but in stream valleysand on some terraces, the younger alluvium is part ofthe deposits that yield water to shallow wells (dugwells in particular) and are less permeable than theunderlying glacial outwash. Landslide deposits, be~

cause of poor Borting, have low permeability but locallyyield water to springs. Talus deposits generally areabove the water table but are good recharge areas forother formations. Dune sand also is a good rechargemedium but only locally storps ground water. ChemicaLQuality of water in most of thes(~ deposits is variable,depending on the sources of debris making up the de­posit. In most areas, the water is fresh, but wherethe water table is shallow the water may be saline.

LII

Terrace deposits Alluvial deposits ranging in grain size from sUt toboulders 1 ft (D.3 m) or more in diameter. Generally arepart of caps of upland areas (fig. 4), locally calledbenches. Locally cemented; lie part ly upon and also gradelaterally from deposits of glacial origin. For purposesof hydrologic discussion in this report these deposits arelumped with glacial deposits and other coarse-grained un~

consolidated deposits.

Low to very high permeability. Sources at much of thewater yielded by shallow wells on bt,nches around Roose­velt~Myton-Duchesnepart of basin. The water generallyis fresh.

Glacial deposits and alluvium Glacial outwash, moraines I and undifferentiated deposits ofglacial origin (include glaciated ground). Outwash isgenerally coarse grained (fig. 5) I and consists of sand,gravel, cobbles, and boulders that underlie and grade intoterrace deposits in upland areas. Thickness ranges from afew feet on edges of terraces to about 200 ft (60 m) nearthe mouths of major river canyons. Ulese deposits and ter­race deposits are discontinuous with those on adjacentbenches and stream valleys (fig. 6). Beneath stream val­leys, outwash forms the basal section of the unconsolidatedvalley fill; thicknesses there rarely exceed 50 ft (15 m).Other glacial deposits are found mainly in canyons (fig.7), or on the mountains, where they are generally poorlysorted veneers on glaciated rock surfaces.

Low to very high permeability. Glacial outwash and re~

lated coarse-grained deposits comprise the most pro­lific aquifer in the northern Uinta Basi.n area in lo­calities where the outwash is sufficiently thick tostore and transmit water. Water is generally underunconfined conditions but locally may be confined orpartly confined. Tt comprises the main aquifer inAshley ValleYI on upland slopes and outwash plains(as around Neola and Altamont), beneath the floodplains of the streams (such as the Duchesne and UintaRivers), and beneath the floors of the mountain can­yons (near their mouths). Values for 1<. are estimatedto be in the range of 2 to 1 , 800 ft/d (0.61 to 550mid) (table 6). WelLs near Neola yield as much as3 ft'/s (0.0085 m3 /s). The water in the outwash isfresh except where the outwash receives inflow fromolder rocks, as in the Duchesne River valley belowBridgeland. 'l11e other glacial deposits have lowerpermeability, but locally their permeability mayapproach that of the outwash. 'l11ese less-permeabledeposits generally act as a recharge medium, butlocally they yield some water to springs and act asa transfer medium for water from underlying olderrocks. 'nle water in these other glacial depositsgenerally is fresh.

uij::l" =tJ .

~

~..~~

Older terrace deposi ts

Browns Park Formation

Similar to overlying terrace deposits and lumped for hydro­logic discussion with the other coarse-grained deposits.Position in section here based on old gravel surfacesgiven in Stokes (1964)

Includes both rocks of the type present in far northeasternUtah and those sometimes referred to the Bishop Conglomer­ate (Kinney, 1951). Extremely variable deposits of sand­stone, tuffaceous rocks , and conglomerate; present in ir·regular areas along south flank of Uinta Mountains.Thi.ckness is less than 1 to about 800 ft (0.3 to 240 m).

Very low to moderate permeability. Not thoroughly ex­plored by water-well dri l11ng. Yields small Quantitiesof freshwater to springs and stock wells in Brush Creek-Diamond Mountain area north and northeast of Vernal.Probable source of some springs ir, slopes of centralUinta Mountains.

Extrusive igneous rock Chiefly andesitic pyroclastics. May be the Keetley Volcan­ics, or equivalent. Erosional remnants on hi.ghest hillsnear Wolf Creek Pass. Thickness unknown, but estimatedto be generally less than 100 ft (3D m) in study area.

Yields water to some small springs. Raker (1970, table1) estimated transmissivity to be 270 ft 2 /d (25 m2:/d)for area to west, where formation is thicker; there,also, he states most springs were observed along frac­tures or contacts.

Very low to very high permeability. The horizontal hy­draulic conductivity of 19 sandstone samples rangedfrom 0.000033 to 3.28 ft/d (D.DOOOI Lo 1.0 mid) (table3). Total porosity ranged from 7 to 32 percent. How~

ever aquifer permeability is enhanced by fracturing,and yields to wplls and springs range trom less than Ito more than ]00 gal/min (0.06-1\1 l/s), generally withlarge drawdown (table 6). llighL'st pl'rmeabilities gen­erally are near l,dges of outcrops west of Roosevelt inthe Ct~ntral basin, and lowest are in areas north andeast of Fort Duchcsnl'. Wall'r movement may be impl-'dcdlocally by gilsonitt' dikes. Nl~ilr recharge oreas, andwhere the fornwtion is lractuH·d or moderately perme­able, the water generalLy is £ru,h. At greater depthswhere the formation is at v('ry low permeability, thewater is slightly saLine to briny. Confined condi­tions are cormnon; in the lower parts of the basinsuch as near Roosevelt) artesian heads may exceed 100ft (30 m) above Lll1d surface, but in higher areas ofthe basin, wat('r levels are below land surface.

Shale, mainly red, but including green and other palecolors, siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate, uncon~

formably underlying younger rocks from near the ColoradoState line to near Strawberry Reservoir. (See Warner,1966, and Andersen and Picard, 1972, for most recent des­criptions). Coarsest grain sizes (fig. 8) found nearbasin margins where the formation interfingers with otherformations. In centraL part of basin, formation gradesup from underlying Uinta Formation and consists of inter­bedded sandstone and shale (fig. 9). Sandstone most abun­dant in lower part and, with conglomerate, in upper part.Sandstones are of two basic types--a 1 ight-colored (gen­erally yellow) channel deposit (fig. LO) and a darker,more compact, better cemented interchannel C!) lenticulardeposit. A few thin beds of sandstone are loose to fri­able. Formation in most areas is slightly to stronglyfractured. Fractures locally contain secondary depositsof calcium sulfate, as near the Roosevelt-Bluebell roadeast of Dry Gulch. Maximum thickness i.s more than 3,000ft (910 m).

Duchesne River Formation~I------+-------+-----------------II-----------------

~~o

Uinta Formation Calcareous shale, some limestone , claystone, siltstone, andsandstone. Fluvial facies in eastern and western ends ofbasin interfinger with rocks similar in appearance toDuchesne River Formation and with other formations. Gradeslaterally into thinner bedded calcareous lake deposits incenter of basin (Jones, 1957 , p. 32). Maximum thickness isnearly 4,000 ft (1,220 m) near center of basin axis.

8

Very low to very high permeability. Highest pri.marypermeabi Li ty of the simdstone seems to approximatethat of th(' median for sandstone in the Duchesne RiverFormation (table 3). Bulk of formation, however, isfiner grained than the Duchesnt.· River Formation. Per­meability is enhanced by fracturing (fig. 11), whichis evident in many arpas; for example, Stinking Springarea along Strawberry River in secs. 14 and IS, T. 4S., R. 7 W., Uintah meridian, where the Uinta Forma­tion discharges water from the underlying Green RiverFormation. [n most of the area, the formation yieldsonly a few gallons per minute of salinl.' water to wells

Table l.--Description of major lithologic units that crop out in the northern Uinta Basin area--Continued

Geologic unit

Western part of basin Eastern part of basinCharacter of material Hydrologic characteristics

Uinta FormatioL--continued and springs. In places (as near Arcadia) the waterhas high fluoride and boron concentrations. Locally(as near Arcadia and the Myton Water Association wellfield at U(C-2-2)24ccc), flowing wells yield fresh toslightly saline water. In the fluvial facies, part i.­cularly where fracturl'd (as at well U(C-3-9)6cbc-I),yields are higher (table 6) and the water is fresh.

Mainly lacustrine shale with some limestone, siltstone, andsandstone. Includes beds of oil shale and carbonate evapo­rites. Interfingers with both the overlying Uinta Formationand the underlying Wasatch Formation and laterally withother formations near the edges of the basin. Maximumthickness is about 5.000 ft (1.520 m); thickness dependslocation in the Eocene flUVial-lacustrine complex.

Green River Formation Very low to low permeahility. Weir (1970, table 2)reports approximate trallsmi !'lsi vi t ie~ of 0.08-0. '22 m2 I d(equivalent to 0.9-'2.t. ft 2 /d) [or sandstones near theoil-shale horizon. Perm{;abi littes are enhanced byfracturing (Peterson, 1973<1, b). ill Joost of the baSin,the formation yields only s;..I1ine--in many cases briny-­water to petroleum wells. Price ilnd Miller (1975, pl.3) report fresh to slightly saline water in and ncarthe outcrop area in the southern Uinta fI.'win. In thefar western end of the basin, in the oULt"rop area nearStrawberry Reservoir, the water is fresh where theformation is fractured (as at spring U(C-4-11)33bda-Sl).

~1---------+---------1f--------------------------+----------------------0' Wasatch Formation Crops out only in far eastern end of northern Uinta Basin Very low to low permeability. Peterson (1973a) reports~ area; in most of basin consists mainly of lacustrine shale, that in the Bluebell oil field the "Wasatch sands" have

: sandstone, and conglomerate. Interfingers with overlying m4a~nOl5y PferromcenfrtaPcOtruOr~nigtY., Mbuut'hthoaft tfP,eermweaatber' ly!,~Yelrd'e'dsuflrt'omand underlying formations and laterally with the North Horn >- . .. .

and Colton Formations and the Flagstaff Member of the Green petroleum wells is moderately saline to very saline,River Formation (not exposed in northern Uinta Basin area). but, on the whole, wate.r in the formation appears to be'I1le combined Wasatch-Green River sectipn in the western less mineralized than that in the overlying Green Riverpart of the basin is reported by Fouch and Ryder (1973) to Formation.approach 10,000 ft 0,050 m) in thickness.

Currant CreekFormation

Very coarse conglomerate (fig. 12) and crossbedded conglom­eratic sandstone, tightly cemented. May interfinger withunderlying Mesaverde Group. Thins southeastward from north­west corner of basin. Some writers have regarded the for­mation as a fluvial facies of the rocks of Eocene age, butWal ton (1964, p. 139-143) indicates that coarse-grainedrocks of Eocene age lie unconformably on the Currant CreekFormation. Maximum thickness is approximately 5,000 ft(1,520 m).

Low to very high permeability. Primary, or matrix per­meability, of a sample from the outcrop in the DuchesneRiver valley was indicated in a K of 1.44 ftld (0.44mid) and a total porosity of 23.6 percent. 'I11ese co­efficients are probably maximum primary values for theformation. Fracturing, the principal cause of second­ary permeability, is reflected in a j{ of more than 200£lId (61 mid) at well U(C-2-10)20aac-l (table 6). Anopen fracture, about I ft (0.3 m) wide, was reported inthe Currant Creek-Layout Canyon tunnel by J. R. Wagnerof S. A. Healy Co. (oral commun., November 1973). Thisopening had an updraft of air toward the surface farabove the tunnel and also took all water flowing inthat section of tunnel until the tunnel was lined.Water probably is unconfined in most areas. Wat.er inand near the outcrop area is fresh.

Mesaverde Group Shale, sandstone. and coal beds. Interfingers with uppershale of Mancos Shale. Thickness is 550-4,000 ft (168-1,220 m) in western part of basin (Huddle and McCann, 1947)and 400-1,160 ft (122-354 m) north of Vernal (Kinney, 1951).

Very low to high permeability. Little is known aboutaquifer properties. Well {l(C-1-8)13dcc-l has n highestimated .1, but the well also may derive watt'r fromoverlying glacial outwash. Covington (1957, p. 174)gives a porosity of 34 percent and says that the for­mation in the oi I-bearing beds of Asphal t Ridge has awater-wetted matrix. Data in Feltis (1966) indicatethat in outcrop areas water is fresh to slightly saline,but 5smpl from petroll'um tests, in thl' ,'astern part ofthe lasin were very sal ine to briny.

Mancos Shale

;u g ·~ :it 6~~ ·!l!/j

~~ll:"."~

~,.,Dakota Sandstone and Cedar Mountain Formation,undivided

Gray soft shale. Contains an unnamed upper shale member, amiddle member, the Frontier Sandstone Member, and a lowermember, the Mowry Shale Member. Total thickness is 2,900­3,700 ft (884-1,130 m) in the western part of the basinand up to 4,900 ft (1.490 m) in the vicini ty of Vernal.

In the western Uinta Basin. the Frontier Sandstone Memberconsists of crossbedded, lenticular thick sandstone bedswith a local middle shale unit and some coal in the upperpart. It thickens westward from 450 to 600 ft (137 to 183 m)(Huddle and McCann, 1947) and interfingers with the uppershale member of the Mancos. In the eastern part of thebasin (Kinney. 1951), the Frontier consists of 210-250 ft64-76 m) of fine-grained sandstone with thin beds of coalin the upper part and some shale interbeds. I t thins andbecomes more shaly southeastward.

In western Uinta Basin, the section consists of a basalsandstone, which· is fine to coarse grained, locally con~

glomeratic, and friable; a thick, variegated soft shale;and an upper unit of interbedded fine-grained sandstoneand siltstone, which is locally conglomeratic and cross­bedded. nte total thickness is about 200 ft (60 m). Inthe eastern basin, the section is somewhat similar. but itis only 50-90 ft (15-27 m) thick. May be well-fracturedLocally.

'I1le shall' members have very low !ll'rmeabi lity. Inhibitsinfiltration of pn'cipitation, and where that i.s theonly source of water, the outcrop uf thl' Mancos isalmost devoid of vegetation. (See fig. 13.) Such wateras issues from the formation and that from younger rockscontaining ('rosional derivntives from the Mancos issa line.

Very low to moderate permeability. Not thoroughly ex­plored by water-well drilling. Well {lCC-1-8)12cdb-1indicated (I moderate transmissivi ty (table 6). Well(D-5-23)10aaa-l flows from 733 ft (223 m) and providesslightly sal int' water together wi th natural gas. WellU(A-2-2)32aca-1 near the intakl' area also flows fromonly 19 ft (5.8 m) and it yields freshwater.

Very low to modcr a te permeab iIi ty. Not thorough I y ex­plored by water welL dri.lling. Table 6 shows varia­tion in i\ from 0.08 to 80 [tid (0.024 to 24 mid).Specimen from outcrop at east side of Steinaker Reser­voir had a K of only 0.00018 ftld (0.000055 mid) andporosity of only 8.2 percent (table 3). Well (0-5-23)21caa-l yielded slightly saline water from a depth of352 ft (107 m). Chemical quali ty of water unknownelsewhere but would he expected to be fresh near out­crop areas and saline when' deeply buried.

Morrison Formation In western Uinta Basin consists of 1,450-1,550 ft (442­472 m) of multicolored shale, siltstone, sandstone. con­glomerate, and a few thin beds of freshwater limestone.Formation thins eastward to 830-890 ft (253-271 m) ofvariegated shale and siltstone, red and gray fine-grainedsilty sandstone, medium- to coarse-grained pebbly sand­stone, and thin beds of gypsum. Formation is variablE' incharacter and individual beds are highly lenticular.Probably fractured in most areas.

Very luw to modl>rate permt'ubi 1 Not thorough Ly ex-plored by wilter-wel dri lling. Is known to befinished in formation mainly are in eastt>rn cnd ofbasin. nil..' [cw water samples taken from this aquiferwere from areas nl'ar outcrops and were fresh. Waterprobably is silline dnd mainly a sulfate type wherethe [ormation is dr'f'ply buried.

;:l Curtis Formation~ (S tump Sands tonef.!) of Stokes, 1964)

·'"

Curtis Formation In western basin includes a lower fine-grained friablesandstone of variable thi,-,kness and an upp"r section of

shale and thin~bedded limestone; aggregate thickness is140-200 ft (43-61 m). In the eastern part of the basin,section is about the same, but sandstone is medium tocoarse grained, general color is darker; section is asmuch as 270 ft (82 m) thick.

Very low to mOder<ltf' pl'rmeability. I:stimatl' based nngen<'-'r;l\ lith"lo/!;y. Yi"lds frcs!lW<ltl·r to springs in

outcrop area.

9

Table l.--Description of major lithologic units that crop out in the northern Uinta Basin area--Continued

Geologic unit

Western part of basin Eastern part of basinCharacter of material Hydrologic characteristics

Entrada Sandstoneu (Preuss Sandstone of-; Stokes. 1964)

E~

g~ J~• $

~ .I-~ ~ Twin Creek Limestone

~:

~l

Entrada Sandstone

Carmel Formation

In the west. 700-800 ft (213-244 m) of silty and sandyshale, thin-bedded, nonresistant siltstone. and fine- tomedium-grained sandstone. with lenticular beds of whitesandstone in upper part. Mostly red-colored. Redbedsappear to grade eastward into white sandstone. Sectionthins eastward. and in eastern part of basin consists of100-160 it (30-49 m) of massive crossbedded. fine- tomedium-grained friable sandstone. Probably stronglyfractured in areas of faulting and sharp folding.

In western part of Uinta Basin, section consists of 700­800 it (213-244 m) of limestone, shale, and sandy shalewith a few redbeds near top; section thins eastward incenter of basin and includes gypsum and more redbeds.Near Vernal. section is 125-170 ft (38-52 m) of limyshale. siltstone. and fine-grained silty sandstone. Theformation thins eastward.

Low to moderate permeability. Yields water to wells andsprings in eastern end of basin. Yields freshwater ofcalcium bicarbonate type to wells and springs near Dino­saur National Monument bone quarry in eastern part ofbasin. Two samples from oi 1 tests show the formationcontains fresh to slightly saline calcium bicarbonatewater 2,000-2,300 ft (610-701 m) below the Ashley Valleyoil-field area. Chemical quality of water elsewhere inthe northern Uinta Basin area unknown, but it could beexpected to be good in and near outcrop areas.

Very low to moderate permeability. Limestone should havevery low permeability where undisturbed and moderate tohigh permeability where fractured. The water should besaline where deeply buried and where gypsum is present.

Nugget Sandstone !clen Canyon sand-~ stone (formerly

.~: called Navajo: = Sandstone in this.~.; area)

~ "d&1

In the west, formation is about 1,100 it (335 m) of light­orange fine- to medium-grained sandstone; massive withlarge-scale crossbedding, and generally is friable in theoutcrop. Thickens eastward slightly and an increasingpart of section becomes white. In eastern part of basin,section thins to 700 to about 900 it (213-274 m) of whiteto gray, massive, crossbedded sandstone, generally fri­able at the outcrop. Some cliff outcrops have near­surface "case-hardening" and a desert varnish on surface.Strongly jointed at places, fractured where flexed and.on basis of a well in Dry Fork canyon, probably stronglyfractured.

Very low to moderate permeability. Samples give K valuesranging from 0.002 to 1.44 ftld (0.00061 to 0.44 mId)with total porosity above 20 percent. Yields water towells and springs in eastern part of basin north ofLapoint, near Vernal, and eastward into northwesternColorado. Water probably is confined in most areas.At and near outcrop, water is a fresh calcium bicarbon­ate type. Deeper within basin, water at a depth of about6,000 ft (1,830 m) in well (D-4-2l)16ccc-1 was a slightlysaline sodium sulfate type; and in well (D-9-20)22cbb-l,near Ouray. a drill-stem sample was a briny sodium chlor­ide type at 17,350 ft (5,290 m).

Low permeability. Littte known about aquifer properties,but the formation probably will yield small quantitiesof saline water to wells .

Do.

Low to moderate permeability. Largest yields to wellsprobably would be where it is thickest and fractured.Wells have modest yields of calcium bicarbonate andsodium bicarbonate sulfate-type waters

Very low to low permeability. Probably yields only smallquantities of saline water.

The Mahogany Formation consists of red to purple thin­bedded shale and siltstone. Thickness is about 700 ft(213 m). Partly equivalent to the Moenkopi Formation.

In west, consists of a few feet to about 40 ft (12 m) ofmassive, crossbedded, coarse-grained arkosic sandstoneand conglomerate. Thickens slightly toward middle ofbasin and then thins toward the east, where it consistsof from less than 1 in to 60 ft (2.5 cm to 18 m) ofcrossbedded. medium- to coarse-grained sandstone withstreaks of quartzite pebbles. Locally, occupies channelscut 20-25 ft (6.1-7.6 m) into the underlying MoenkopiFormation.

Upper member of the Thaynes Formation is 350-400 ft (107­122 m) of partly variegated shale and siltstone. Lowermember is 75-200 ft (23-60 m) of fine-grained silty sand­stone interbedded with thin-bedded limestone. Cypsumveins and salt casts are present locally. Lower memberthickens westward. Partly equivalent to the MoenkopiFormation.

In the west, 300-380 ft (91-116 m) of variegated mudstoneand siltstone, mainly thin-bedded. Appears to thickentoward center of basin and to thin toward east nearVernal, where it consists of about 260 ft (79 m) ofvariegated shale with the upper one-third red ripple­marked sandstone and thin beds of red shale. Contains abasal conglomerate member (see below).

Gartra Grit Member of Chinle Formation(formerly called Shinarump Conglomerate)

Chinle Formation

Mahogany Formation(Ankareh Formationof Stokes, 1964)

u...···~~&

~.~..~ .3i!~

.~. ----• f-:lll-ay-ne-.-Fo-r".-t-lo-n---j~ (or Group)

u....:~

j

Woodside Formation(Woodside Shale ofStokes. 1964)

Moenkopi Formation

The Woodside Formation consists of thin-bedded red-brownsiltstone and shale. Thickness is 700-1,000 ft (213-305m) and thins westward across upper Duchesne River area.Partly equivalent to the Moenkopi Formation.

nte Moenkopi Formation is the eastern facies of the threeformations listed above. Near Vernal, section consistsof about 175 ft (53 m) of thin-bedded siltstone and veryfine grained sandstone, overlain by 570 ft (174 m) ofthin-bedded red shale, red siltstone, and fine-grainedsandstone. A few thin beds of gypsum in a narrow stra­tigraphic zone near the middle of the section appear tobe the local fac~es equivalent of the Thaynes Formation.The lower light-colored part of the Moenkopi is grada­tional with the underlying Park City Formation and ap­pears to thicken eastward. Total thickness is about700 to about 1,100 ft (213-335 m).

Low permeability. Little known about aquifer, but yieldsmay be enhanced by fracturing. Spring U(B-l-S)27cda-Slyields freshwater of the calcium bicarbonate type.

Very low to low permeability. Most water from the for­mation probably would be saline.

Park City Formation (or Group)--partly(?)equivalent to Phosphoria Formation

In western part of the Uinta Basin, consists of threemembers. Lower member is about 270 ft (82 m) of brecCi­ated, very fine grained, friable. porous sandstone anddolomitic. locally brecciated, silty to sandy thin-beddedsandstone. The middle member is about 40 ft (12 m) ofblack phosphatic shale interbedded with gray shale andthin bedded limestone. The upper member is 100-150 ft(30-46 m) of thin-bedded to massive, silty and sandy,cherty, dolomitic limestone. Total thickness is 400-425ft (122-130 m). In eastern part of basin, the formationis 24-28 ft (7.3-8.5 m) of phosphatic shale and phosphaterock overlain by about 100 ft (30 m) of thin-bedded chertyand sandy dolomitic limestone interbedded with shale andfine-grained sandstone (Brush Creek section), Format ionin general area is about 120-340 ft (37-104 m) thick, andit thins eastward.

Very low to high permeability. The undisturbed limestoneshave a very low permeability, but where they contain frac­tures that have been enlarged by solution, yields can berelatively large. Samples from the Ashley Valley oilfield and from well U(B-2-3)22dcc-l sl10w that the zone ad­jacent to the Weber Sandstone contains fresh to slightlysaline water.

10

Table l.--Description of major lithologic units that crop out in the northern Uinta Basin area--Continued

Geologic unit

Weber Quartzite (or Sandstoneor Formation)

Western part of basin Eastern part of basinCharacter of material

In western part of basin. 1,400-1,600 ft (427-488 m) ofvery fine grained, medium-bedded. partly crossbeddedsandstone. with chert and, locally, thin-bedded. chertylimestone, mainly near top. Also reported as locallymassive and friable. Strongly fractured, especially nearfaults and folds (fig. 14). In eastern part of basin,about I, 200 ft (366 m) of massive. fine- to coarse-grainedsandstone with well-developed crossbedding locally. espec­ially in upper part. In vicinity of Dinosaur NationalMonument, Untermann and Untermann (1954, p. 46) describethe formation as poorly cemented, friable, and jointed;Some cores show deep ly buried formation as dense, veryfine grained sandstone. (See discussion by Bissell,

1964. p. 67-91.)

Hydrologic characteristics

Very low to very high permeability. Primary permeabilityis very low to moderate, depending on location in thebasin and the section. Samples had K of 0.000021 to0.28 £tId (0.0000064 to 0.085 mid). with total porosityin the range of 11 to 19 percent (table 3). Moderate tovery high K is inferred from the existence of large­yield springs that discharge from the formation in areasthat are strongly faulted and fractured. Water is underconfined conditions in most areas. Most wells andsprings that discharge water from this formati.on yieldfreshwater. Yields fresh to slightly saline water atdepths of 4,000~S,OOO fl (1,220-1,520 m) in thl' AshleyValley oil fie 1d and lll'iH we lt tJ (B- 2- 2) 22dcc-l, wherewater circulates through faults and fractures. Yieldsvery saline to briny water at depths of 7,500 It (2,286m) at well S(B-2-l02)32bcd-l and at 18,500 ft (5,640 m)at well (D-7-24)21dda-1.

Little known about aquifer properties. Locally a sourceof springs in adjacent drainage basin.

North of Strawberry Reservoir, the easternmost tip of athrust plate includes several thousand feet of rocks as­signed by Bissell (1952, p. 581-589) to the Oquirrh For­mation through the Diamond Creek Sandstone. The sectionis not included in the composite section for the basinbecause Sad lick (1959, p. 82-89) equates the Oquirrh­Diamond Creek section with the locally derived thinnerMadison-Weber section in the Uinta Mountains.

]

)ill---------1----------l------------------------f------------------------... Morgan Formation In west. consists of a lower member of about 240 ft (73 m) Very low to very high permeability. Primary or inter-.~ of cherty limestone with some interbedded shale and an granular permeability is judged to be very low to low.o upper member of about 200 it (60 m) mainly of red very fracturing and possibly cavernous zones in limestone

fine grained sandstone interbedded with some nttldstone locally cause high permeability. Acts mainly as aand siltstone. In east, it also consists of two members transfer medium for water from underlying rocks. The--a lower member of thick~bedded cherty limestone and an formation s involved in the movement of water to largeupper member of red sandy shale, crossbedded sandstone, springs such as Big Brush Creek Spring, (D-2-21)and a few thin beds of limestone. Total thickness is 24cbb-Sl, and it is the source of about 30 ft 3 /s (0.85about 1,100-1,400 ft (335-427 m). This formation, like m'/s) of water from fractures associated with faultingall the Paleozoic section, is locally strongly faulted at the Jones Hole Spring area, (D-3-25)lb. Water fromand fractured. sources in edge of the outcrop area is fresh ,md gen­

erally contains less than 200 mg/l of dissolved solids.

Manning Canyon(?) Formation (of Stokes,1964)

This, the 'lblack shale unit" of previous investigators,consists of black shale interbedded with a few thin bedsof limestone, siltstone, and sandstone. Thickness rangesfrom 350 to 400 ft (107 to 122 m) in the western UintaBasin and is about 300 ft (91 m) in Whiterocks Canyon.The formation thins eastward from about 100 ft (30 m)north of Vernal to 25 ft (7.6 m) or less in the far east­ern part of the basin.

Very lowe?) to low permeability. Little is known aboutaquifer properties, but it is estimated to act mainlyas a deterrent to ground-water movement. Based on lith­ology, water from the formation would be saline.

Mississippian rocks.undivided

Lower MissiSSippianrocks, undivided

In the western basin, Huddle and McCann (1947) dividedthese rocks (in descending order) into the Humbug Forma­tion (Upper Mississippian), Deseret Limestone (Upper? andLower Mississippian). and the Madison Limestone (LowerMississippian). Stokes (1964) lumped the rocks only byage. The Humbug consists of 350-400 ft (107-122 m) oflimestone breccia, sandstone breccia, and limestone. TheDeseret is 600-650 ft (183-198 m) of thin-bedded to mas­sive limestone and dolomitic lime3tone. The Madison isabout 250 ft (76 m) of thin-bedded limestone with locallyabundant chert and shaly partings. The sequence appearsto be about 1,200 ft (366 m) thick in the center of theUinta Mountains, but it thins toward the east, whereKinney (1951) describes a 960-ft (293-m) section of lime~

stone, partly cherty and dolomitic, that has interbeddedfine- to medium-grained sandstone in the upper part.

Very low to very high permf'abi 1i ty. The predominant lylimestone section in its undisturbed state has a verylow permeability. lhe extensively fractured sections,however, have been dissolved locally to provide extremelypermeable zones, which in some cases contain large activecaves (figs. 15 and 16). Section is extensively faulted.fractured, and riddled locally with cavernous zones.Much of the uplands outcrop areas, from thl' SoapstoneBasin west of the upper Duchesne River to the heightsabove Rock Creek, have a karst topography that is de­veloped mostly in the lower part of the Humbug F'ormationand the Deseret Limestone. Intake of water in theseareas provides the water discharged from springs such asBig Spring, U(B-1-8)17cbb-Sl, on the upper Duchesne Riverand U(B-2-7)25cab-Sl and 36-S1 on Rock Creek. Less i.Bknown about the outcrop area between Rock Creek and theUinta River, but karst development is certain, and thelarge spring, U(B-2-2)5dbb-Sl, is associated with anoutcrop of Mississippian rocks on the Uinta River. Tnthe Po Ie Creek- Dry Fork- Brush Creek area, kar s t deve 1op­ment and movement of water into the cave system has beendescribed by Maxwell, BridKes, Barker, ami Moore (1971).In general, almost all water associated with these rocksin the south slope of the Uinta Mountains is fresh andof the calcium bicarbonate type. However, where therocks are deeply buried, they seem to be tiKht becausetht~ water is briny. For example, in welL (D-9-20)22cbb-lnear Ouray, a drill-stem sample of bdne was obtainedfrom the Madison Limestone at a depth of about 20,000 ft(7.000 m) (Hood and others, 1976, table 9).

Tintic Quartzite Lodore Formation Tn the western Uinta Basin, the Tintic Quartzite (Lowerand Middle Cambrian) is about 400-500 ft (122-152 m) ofquartzitic sandstone of wide range in grain size with someshale partings (Lockman-Balk, 1959, p. 42-43). Thins anddisappears eastward. Tn the east, the Lodore Formation(Upper Cambrian) near Diamond Mountain area is 155 ft (47m) of thick-bedded coarse-grained sandstone that thinswestward.

Very low to high permeabi Ii ty. Little is known aboutaquifer properties, but it can be inferred that inter­granular permeability is low and fracturing locallyproduces high permeabi Ii ty. In the recharge area, watershould be fresh.

Red Pine Shale In the western end of the basin, about 1,700-3,000 ft Very lowe?) to low permeability. Probably impeds ground-(518-914 m) of dark sericitic shale interbedded with thin water movement in most areas but transmit water inbeds of dark arkosic sandstone. Probably fractured ncar fractures. Erosional d('rivatiV~~H this formationmajor fault zones. Thins eastward. and only a few hun- appear to be mixed with stream-valley fill in the

g dred feet. may be present in eastern part of basin. ~;;:~:~i:~v~~ ~~(I,I~~e:~~~~' ~:;:~·i ~~r:f_ ::~::~t~~gt~: a

~ valley fill.

~ t-un-n-am-ed-:-q-Ua-r-t-z-it-e-un-i-1t f---(M-u-t-ua-l-Fo-r-m-a-,,-·o-n--+-C-h-i-e-fl-y-a-p-U-rp-l-e--to-d-ar-k-r-ed-d-i-'h---h-r-ow-n-qu-a-r-t-zi-t-e-.-h-u-t-j-n---+-v-e-r-y-1-o-w-'-o-m-u-d-e-c.-·.lt-e-,"-T-m-ea-'-JL-'-it-y-.-M-U-'-t-o-r-r'->r-m-a'-i-"-"--+.l of Stokes, 1964) cludes white to red quartzitic sandstone. Some of forma- when' dceply buried prob,1bly has very low ptTml'ability,~ tion retains original('?) bedding(?) and at a distance but near-surface effects of weathering and jointing... looks very much like an unaltered sedimentary formation. prohably cause modl'rate permeability. A specimen from~ (See fig. 17.) Strongly faulted and has numerous shat- a road cut near til(' drainage divide on State Road 4h.~ tered zones associated with the faulting. Thickness in north of Vernal had visible port'S, apparently due to::J western end of basin is about 4,000 ft (1,220 m) (Cohenour, leaching. Wells and springs in this zone have water

1959. p. 36). with a low conCl'ntriltion of dissolved solids--19 to88 mg/l. Well (U-I-20)12dca-1 yielded an acidic waterwith a high iron c()llcentration. Where the formationis fractured, local high yields are possiblf', as at

11

laille 1.--IlP:-iCl·iptiot:! ,J1 major lithologil' units t.hat crop (luI ill 111(, n<>rtlllTIl li[ll:1 hasin dl-"d--(<llltinucd

Llvdro I ()V,i l' dUll-acl vr i sl' i cs~1~w '"m "/;;' ~

.~ ~::i

~"

:>! '5~ ~ "~ "

~0 .0-,g- ,~

"'

r;cologil unit

Western part of basin

Unna.med quartzite unit (Mutual Formationof Stokes, 1964)--Continued

Lower part of theUinta MounldinCroup, undivided

I:h,lrac t l'r nj 1Tl<l11'I" i ,'11

qUilrtzitl' Cllilr,wter pr()hilhly simi];lr to tlw

Furmation of Stokt·;; (lY6 /1). 1'.Xjlnsl>d (July in

highest parts of Ull' w.'st-ccntral L1inl;l Mountains.Aggrl'gat.- thickness \)1 thl' Uinta Mountain I'St i-maled hy (;oIH~nour (195Y, 16) to ]H' abuut I

15,000 ft (3,660-4,570 in tlll wcslt'rn mounlilins ilndabout 21,nOO [t (6,40() m) in the l'<lsLerll part.

tile Smol<v ~;prings ;I,,'a, 1'(I',-]-JllYchd,"I lh., l:inL1 Hivcr wiJ('rl' till1- r1 ft II!. Oi)-O. ILl nj W<ltl'r

th;lll IU() 1111',/1 of diss'llv,·d snl ids.

in tl'll' east wallngs di

nmlilins

Figure 4-.-Co~rse-grained terrace deposits (possiblyglacial outwash) overlying eroded Duchesne RiverFormation in canal cut above west side of Hancock

Cove at U(C-I-2)6bad.

12

Figure 5.-View, looking westward, of terrace surfacesoutheast of Altamont at U{C-2-3)6ccd. Unl ined canal

cut through glacial outwash. Note the severalterrace levels on the skyl ine.

Figure 6.-View, looking north-northeastward, about 2miles (3.2 kilometres) west of site of figure 5 (above).

East wall of Lake Fork Canyon immediately north ofState Road 87 is cut through glaci~l deposits (1 ight

band at top) and into Duchesne River Formation.Contact is marked by drainage from the gravels ofground water which is frozen into a bank of large

icicles.

13

1>/

Figure 7.-Glacial canyon fill in Whiterocks Rivercanyon in east, side of road cut, 2.7 miles (4-.3 kilo­

metres) north of Ashley National Forest boundary.Deposits are now being eroded from canyon, andthis remnant stands well above river level.

Figure B.-Channel conglomerate (arrow) included inprominent sandstone bed near base of Duchesne RiverFormation in east wall of Currant Creek Canyon, nearcollection site of sample 75UTI at U(C-2-IO)36caab.

14

~

o~

~

'"

I...."-

oz

""~

'"~'"....~

~

21 0

1 80

J

..j

by J. W. Hood, 1974

GAMMA RAY

-= --=

Hydrologic illterpretat ion

-=-----= -===------

<~-----====-

~~~

~

~---==~~ ­----

RESISTIVITY

~~ ~.njJs(onB

Lit t I e-------­or noin f low

70

\

\ \ J ~, ..l.Inflow , .cal Survey.' US Geologl' Logs by ..

I I756

200

TEMPERATURE FLUID SPONTANEOU3Degrees CONDUCTIVITY POTENTIALCelsIus Micromhos 400 millivolts 50 ohms

,";h~ m(" m, '''~:'§f! ~~'~2'"- r

·60

\ ~===~~ ~ ;""" \ ~= ~ %~ \ A~ : ~; 12 13 1,4 450 500 550 ~ \ 150 ~

;;: 500l· \ <==:::: ~-::=- '"~ \ t-Llttle 0... ' . s= ----------=--.J no Inflow ~

~ ~l ~':.•.~'.'':-''-.'> '~~'. ~ ---=-=====--

§ )I'~'~~;~ \ii3l:·'h1' 'ic;~_. ~~~ oo>~-f---=-- ~ ~II c- ~

~600- \ ~ ~I ~ ~\q~:\~;y ====: ~~~ ~

FP,oves ~ ~_===_-----~---==

.....\Jl

Figure 9.- Selected parts of borehole geophysical logs at well U(C-2-2)2ccc-l.Shows inflow of ground water to well bore and probable zones of fracturing.

Figure IO.-Duchesne River Formation in road cut at(D~~-20)3~bdba on State Road 121. Site of samplet3UT2. Shows lenticular channel fi 11 ing, cross­

bedding of sandstone, and thin-bedded shale.

Figure I I.-Discharge of water from the Uinta Formationthrough the spring area U(C-3-1 1)3dad-SI at the head ofperennial flow on Trout Creek north of Strawberry Reser­voir. Arrow shows open fracture discharging part of anestimated 1.5 cubic feet per second (O.O~2 cubic metresper second) that flows from zone adjacent to major fault.

16

Figure 12.-Currant Creek Formation in road cut in CurrantCreek canyon at about U(C-2-IO)lb. Quartzite and

1imestone boulders and the matrix are tightly cemented.Pencil in center of picture gives scale.

Figure 13.-View, looking northward, of Ashley Creek bottomland and adjacent badlands cut in the Mancos Shale.

Junction of creek and tributary is at (D-5-22)I~dbc. Shalehas low permeabil ity and absorbs 1ittle of the available

precipitation. Note the small alluvial fan built by tribu­tary discharge onto creek flood plain. The fan is nowbeing attacked by a renewed downcutting by both Ashley

Creek and the tributary.

17

Figure I~.- Detail of flexure in the Weber Quartzite inCl iff Ridge near the southwestern corner of T. 5 S.,

R. 25 E. Arrow shows fracturing of beds due to folding.

Figure 15.-Little Brush Creek cave near State Road ~~.

Under natural conditions, almost all flow of LittleBrush Creek enters cave. During irrigation season,water for use downstream is carried past the cave

entrance in a pipel ine. (Photograph by J. D. Maxwellof U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1965.)

18

Figure 16.-Mosby Sink, in limestone of Mississippian age,at location {D-2-18J26a in Uinta Mountains near main

channel of Dry Fork. Water that enters th is cave reappearsin a spring to the south. (Photograph by J. D. Maxwell of

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1965.)

Figure 17.-View, looking westward, of glacially-cut valleywest of the Uinta River in about the northwest part of

U(B-3-3). Beds of the Mutual Formation of late Precambrianage dip southward (to left). Scree (talus) masks lower

part of s lope.

19

AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS

Water-bearing formations, or aquifers, have several hydraulicproperties, or coefficients, that describe the capability of the aquiferto receive, store, and transmit water. The hydraulic coefficients mustbe measured or estimated before the ground-water system can beevaluated. For example, the hydraulic conductivity is the basic unitmeasure of a formation's ability to transmit water. The coefficientscan be used not only for comparisons among different formations, butalso for comparing sections of the same formation that are of differentthicknesses or lithologies.

The aquifer characteristics of the formations in the study areawere determined by one or more of three methods. Hydraulic coefficientsare best determined by controlled tests at discharging wells. Whereaquifer tests cannot be performed, the transmissivity (T) and hydraulicconductivity (K) can be estimated by analyzing the productioncharacteristics of existing wells. Estimates from productioncharacteristics, when made for a large number of wells, set the order ofmagnitude or ranges for the two coefficients. Where aquifer testscannot be run and production characteristics of wells are not known, thecoefficients can be determined by laboratory analysis of rock specimens.These three procedures were used and are described in the followingpages, together with information on aquifer characteristics published byother writers.

Terms

The following terms for aquifer characteristics, which are usedin this report, are given precise definitions by Lohman and others(1972):

Term

Hydraulic conductivityPorosity

Specific capacitySpecific yield

Storage coefficient

Transmissivity

Abbreviation

Kn

s

T

Units

ft/d [(ft 3 /d)/ft 2]

dimensionless decimalfraction (or percentage)

(ga1/min)/ftdimensionless decimal

fraction (or percentage)dimensionless decimal

fractionft 2 /d [(ft 3 /d)/ft]

The relations among English and metric units and for obsoleteterms for (x) and (T) are given in the following table, adapted fromLohman and others (1972, p. 18).

20

Relation of units

[Equivalent values shown in same horizontal lines. t indicates abandonedterm]

A. Hydraulic conductivity

Hydraulic conductivity(K)

t Field coefficientof permeability

(Pi)

Feet per day(ft/d)

One3.2808

.1337

Square feet per day(ft 2 /d)

One10.7639

.1337

Metres per day(m/d)

0.3048One

.0407

B. Transmissivity (T)

Square metres perday (m 2 /d)

0.092903One

.012421

Gallons per dayper square foot

[(ga1/d)/ft 2 ]

7.4824.54One

Gallons per dayper foot

[(ga1/d)/ft]

7.4880.514

One

Aquifer tests by discharging wells

The determination of aquifer coefficients is best accomplished bypumping wells finished in the aquifer and observing the change in waterlevel in the pumped well or in nearby wells also finished in thataquifer. The transmissivity and related aquifer coefficients of some ofthe water-bearing materials in the northern Uinta Basin area weredetermined from both specifically designed aquifer tests andwell-production tests for which explicit details were available. Theresults are summarized in table 2, and detailed descriptions of thetests are given in the appendix. The tests were evaluated by a varietyof methods, for example, Ferris and others (1962, p. 91-103), Benta11(1963a), Brown (1953), Lohman (1972, p. 11-21), and Moulder (in Bentall,1963b, p. 110-112).

Hydraulic properties of aquifer samples

Forty samples of rock from the northern Uinta Basin area in Utahand Colorado were submitted to the Hydrologic Laboratory of theGeological Survey for analysis of hydraulic properties and physicalcharacteristics. Most of the samples were from the Duchesne River

21

Formation, which is the bedrock-aquifer system most widely used forwater supply in the basin. In addition, in support of the analysis ofdata from test well U(C-2-2)2ccc-l, a suite of 12 selected bags of drillcuttings of sandstone units in the Duchesne River Formation weresubmitted for grain-size analysis. A complete listing of all resultsfrom the laboratory analyses are given in Hood, Mundorff, and Price(1976, tables 7, 8, and 9). A summary of pertinent hydraulic propertiesare given in table 3, and locations of sampling sites are shown on plate1. The information given in these tables can be compared profitablywith the results of analyses of similar rocks from other areas. Forexample, see Morris and Johnson (1967, p. D15-D39).

The hydraulic conductivities and porosities given in table 3 wereobtained from samples collected for the most part from natural outcropsor from beds that have been subjected to near-surface leaching, and theyrepresent the maximum values that might be expected for the undisturbedformation. The two samples of cores from oil tests are exceptions,which represent deep unweathered conditions in the small interval fromwhich they were cut. The hydraulic properties given in table 3,however, represent intergranular conditions and do not reflect theeffects that solution and fracturing might have on formationcharacteristics.

Hydraulic properties estimated from specific capacity

Table 6 gives the results of estimating the transmissivity (T)and the hydraulic conductivity (K) from the specific capacities ofwells. T was estimated using the method of Theis, Brown, and Meyer (inBentall, 1963a, p. 331-341). The hydraulic values in table 6 wereobtained on the basis of the following conditions and procedures:

1. Wells were not used if they tap more than one aquifer.

2. No value for T was estimated where the specific capacity was cal­culated from a known pumping period of less than 1 hour, exceptwhere it was the only value available for the formation.

3. For each formation listed, an estimated average formation-widestorage coefficient S was used in estimating T.

4. Values for T and K we~e not calculated for any well having onlyan open-ended casing installed to the bottom of the drilled hole.

5. The effective radius of each well was taken to be the casing dia­meter or the open-hole diameter in consolidated rock.

6. In calculating K from the estimated T for wells in unconsolidateddeposits, the figure for the length of well open to the formationwas used. For wells finished with open hole in consolidatedrock, the entire thickness of the open interval was used.

22

The values for T and K in table 6 should be considered asapproximations because of the manner in which many of the values forspecific capacity were determined. Specific capacity can vary withtime. Specific capacity values calculated after 24 hours of continuouspumping are used as a standard for comparison. Most of the values intable 6 were calculated with data reported by drillers after 3 hours orless of pumping or bailing. Consequently, the transmissivitiesestimated from short-term specific capacity could be higher than thetrue value. However, transmissivities estimated from specific capacitytend to be lower than the true value because of well losses, even inuncased well bores. R. W. Mower (oral commun., 1974) has observed thatvalues of T derived by analysis of specific capacities vary from 30 to80 percent from the T derived from direct aquifer testing ofunconsolidated valley fill. Thus values for T derived from short-termvalues of specific capacity would appear to approximate the results thatmight be obtained from more precise aquifer testing.

Hydraulic properties reported in miscellaneous sources

Warner (1966) made a sedimentational analysis of the DuchesneRiver Formation; data from his study are given in figure 18 and table 4.As a whole, his data tend to agree with the data collected for thisreport. A few additional values for hydraulic properties for the UintaBasin area were obtained by a search of the literature; these fragmentalrecords are listed in table 5.

EVALUATION OF IMPORTANT AQUIFERS

Of the lithologic units listed in table 1, seven are consideredto be most important to the development of additional or supplementarywater supplies in the northern Uinta Basin area because of their largeareal extent or thickness, their large yields to wells or springs, ortneir function as recharge media. Each of the seven units is discussedin the following pages.

Glacial outwash and alluvium of Pleistocene age

Glacial outwash, alluvium of Pleistocene age, and related coarse­grained deposits comprise the most prolific aquifer in the northernUinta Basin. These unconsolidated deposits form a continuous sheet ofmaterial, in such areas as the plain east of Neola where the outwashextends southward beneath the younger alluvium shown on plate 1. Inother areas, however, they form relatively narrow continuous aquifers inthe bottoms of mountain canyons and stream valleys or discontinuous capson terraces.

Values of T and K (from tables 2 and 6) for these deposits areplotted on plate 2 to show the areal distribution. For the areastudied, values of K range from 2 to 1,800 ftld (0.6 to 550 mid). Thedeposits in mountain canyons range in K values from 10 to 400 ftld (3.0to 120 mid) but are mainly in the range from 20 to 80 ftld (6 to 24mid). Because it is generally thin, most of the canyon fill has a T of

23

-0.20-

IEXP LANAT ION

Contour line representing median diameter,in mi 11 imetres

--1.60-- Contour line representing sorting (see table lJ.)

iii Iii i i Outcrop 1 imit of the Duchesne River Formation

Median diameter and sorting of paleochannel sandstonesin the Duchesne River Formation

EXPLANATION--25-- Percentage poros i ty

I i I Iii I i Outcrop limit of the Duchesne River Formation

Areas 1-lJ. (see table lJ.)

Porosity of sandstones in the Duchesne River Formation

After Warner (1966,figs. 4 and 5)

o 30 MILES\-1_-.--'-~_I--~-L!~I_---L-_~I

o 30 KILOMETRES

Figure 18.-Median diameter, sorting, and porosity ofsandstones in the Duchesne River Formation.

24

Table 2. --Stmmary of results of aquifer tests(See also the Appendix)

PtBped vell and Observation well: See text for description of nwBberlng syste...Water-bearing material: See table LPart of teat analyzed: Early, water-level trend that occurred soon after beginning of drawdown or recovery; late, water-level trend that occurred well after beginning of drawdown or recovery (for projection of long-term pumping effects use late drawdown orearly recovery values); pumping. perfortrl8nce test to determine yield and drawdown.

Transaiasivity and Hydraulic conductivity: e, est!!II4ted coefficient based on specific capacity.Estimated trannrluivity of full saturated thickness: Based on estimate for saturated thickness of formation at or near test site. Assumes uniform hydraulic conductivity throughout the full thickness.Esti_ted specific yield: Based mainly on judgment of known lithology and inferences drawn from aquifer samples (table 3). Value probably is a minimwn.

Pumped well Observation well DateWa ter-beari ng

materialNature of Part of test

analyzedPumpingperiod(min)

Averagedischarge(gal/min)

Maxinaunobserveddrawdown

(ft)

Trans­missivity

T(ft2 /d)

Saturatedsectionopen to

well(ft)

Hydraulicconduc­tivity

K(ft/d)

Estimatedtrans­

missivityfor fullsaturatedthickness(ftz/d)

Storagecoeffi-cient

~

Estilllatedspecific

yield

~

Ratingof

test

Source oftest data Remarks

Dry Fork CanyonUnconsolidated Ouaternary deoosits

(D-3-20) 25abc- 2

25abc-l

Ashley Valley

(D-3- 20) 25abc-3

25abc-4

25abc-5

25abc-6

3/29 to Outwash and3/30/65 other glacial

deposits

4/1 to do4/2/65

Semiconfined Early recovery

do DrawdownRecovery

do Drawdown

Unconfined(?) Early drawdown

do Early recoveryLate recovery

Drawdovn

B3S

1,065

IS

IS

9.7

.B7

.37

3.B

L2

530

780930

1,500

590

1,180660

1,000

27

2S

20

26

30

20

3i37

75

23

39

600

900 0.056

2,100 .051

600 .024

1,000

.012

0.10

.10

Fair

'0poor

Poor

U.S. SoilConserva­tionService

do

Tests at this general location variouslyaffected by change from confined to un­confined conditions during p1Dllping, verti­cal lealtqe, leakage from nearby Dry Forkand probably by adjacent canyon wall, thesandstone of wich has D1ch lower hydraulicconductivity than the glacial deposits.Coefficients cited based on partial re­analysis of original data (B. L. Bridges,written c~n., 1974). See figs. 19 and20 for representative data analysis.

(D-4-2l) l2bcc-3 None 7/30/48 Alluvium Unconfined Late recovery 90 8.95 2.2 200 6.7 30 500 .10 Poor U.S. Geo­logicalSurvey

Test on dug well. Analysis made of late re­covery data because of the effect of diameteron early recovery.

(D-5-21)2dcb-l

Green River flood plain

None 7/30/48 Glacial out­wash

Semiconfined Early recovery 90 5.9 B.O 70 12 100 .10 Poor do Late recovery data erratic.

"->lJ1

(0-4- 23)35bbb-l

(D-4-24)30ddc-l

Neola area

None

None

4/27/57 do

7/28/58 Alluvium

Unconfined PuDlping

do Recovery

300

360

60 12.5

LS

e900

600

e200

200

900

1,200

.10 Poor U.S. Na­tionalParkService

.10 Poor do

Data from pump company performance test. Norecovery measurelllents made.

Data from PUIIlp company performance teat.

Duchesne River Forma.tion~/

U(B-l~1)27ada-1

Roosevelt area

None 9/29 to Glacial out­10/2/73 wash

Semiconfined Early recovery

Late rej::overyPumping

1,440 1,410 48.7 !.I5.700

lJlO,OOOe5,600

Bi 70

70

5,500 10 Good u.s. Geo­logicalSurvey

Both water-level changes and data for watertemperature and specific conductance showthat vertical leakage increases with 4raw­down. Late values for both drawdown andrecovery indicate possible boundary effect.See fig. 21 for representative data analysis.

U(C-2-2)2ccc-l

U(C-2-2)2ccd-l

2/4 to Fractured(?)2/8/74 sandstone

interbeddedwith shale

Confined Recovery

Early drawdownLate drawdownRecovery

4,560 330 lB3

32.7

330t.:!./660

B702/310

B90

65<

712

0.5

1.2.4

1.3

400

1,lOO 0.00018400 .00074

.00017

0.01 Good

Good

do Test shows possible boundary at 800 it (244m) or less west of pU1l1ped well. Effectprobably is result of stratigraphic changesand probably is composite of a multiplicityof small changes in hydraulic conductiVity.See fig. 22 for representative data analysis.

2cdc-l Early drawdownLate drawdown 18.7

B20:!..I300

BlS .9.3

900300

.00021

.00055Fair

Kamas are.§../ Weber Quartzite (or Sandstone or Formation)

(D-2~6)16cda-l None 4/30 to5/2/737/19/73

Fractured Unconfinedsandstoneand quartzite

Pumping

Pumping

2,230

1.020

1,370

1.410

64

" e6.000

214

271 ,20 30,000

Fair

0.01

Utah Div.~atural

Resources

Formation strongly fractured and locallyleached (S. B. Montgomery, wri t ten coumun.,Dec. 6, 1974). ~ estimated from nature ofundisturbed rock.

Big Brush Creek area

(0- 2- 22) 29dcd-l

32bcb-3

~1<.Q/

None.Y

None

Surmner1974.Y

12/3 to12/4/73

do

do.!Q/

Confined

do

Early recoveryLate recovery

2,040

1,290

628 84

488 l.1:.l750+

-"1,400

'i/2,700

e200

46'

1,462 ,.l

3,600

200

.005 Fair StaufferChemicalCo.

.001 Poor do

Re.analysis of test of Dames and Moore (StaufferChemical Co., written commm •• Jan. 13. 1975).See fig. 23 for representative data analysis.

Data from pump company performance test. Norecovery data available.

S(B-7-103)32adb-l None 7/7/70 Fracturedsandstone

do Recovery.!1l .Jl/l,040 35.3 .4l 4,000 ~/230 17 17,000 .01 Fair l'.S. Geo- Data from SU1l1sion 0971, p. 32-42'­logicalSurvey

1/ Leakage of semiconfining bed caused slight curvature of straight-line plot; value shown may be slightly high.2/ Value based on change in trend of water-level recovery, indicates aquifer is more permeable at unknown distance and direction.3/ May include some sandstone in uppermost Uinta Formation.4/ Probable value for formation at veIL; lower calculated value (fig. 22) given above results from nearby boundary effect.5/ Value derived from analysis of departures from type curve that are due to boundary effects.6/ Test site about 17 mi (27 lao) beyond west end of Uinta Basin area.7../ Observation well approximately 800 ft (240 m) away reportedly did not respond to pumping.

8/ l..xact date of test not reported.9/ \-alue indicates that formation is more permeable at unknown distance and direction.

10/ Includes some sandstone in underlying Madison Limestone.II Pumping level at end of test ...-as at pump bowls, slightly below depth given.i2/ Test site less than 1 mi (1.6 km\ east of east end of l'inta Basin area.13/ Test equivalent to pumpi~:<; Well shut in after continuous flOl.· at amount given under "Average discharge.".G :hickness of formation in well below cemented casing.

abc-~o

N

I

All wells in sec. 25, 1. 3 S., R.20 E.

z~

oo~...De

o

.03

. 3

.....e.J!!•.-!--

/~..~

0'

cur veType

Q '" 15 gal/min (0.95 1/s)== 2,890 ft'/d (81.8 m'ljdJ

[' '" Q·W(u)!47fs

'" :.~~~ ;t;~~4r~5~ ~~~~~ +Match points=4.'j'.u.t!r2 W(u), u=l

:= 4 x 590 x 1 x to·~ = O,OZ{.K '" 590!26 == 23 [tid (7.0 mid)

O. 1~---------+,.v---_-----___j

10.6 10. 5 10. 41 . 0 ·r---,--,-"r-T-,-,rn------,----,----,-,-rTiIi

--L I n e 0 f s k etc h s how n i n fig u I e 2 0

200 FEETI

I

50 METRES

100! I

50I,

oabc-6oI'abc-I

. 0030.01 L ~-----L--------_~-'

1 O. 0r-------------,----------,---,-,--,-,-,,-T

z

Q == 15 gal/min (0.95 lis)'" 2,890 ft3/d (8\.8 m'/d)

r " Q·W(u)/4ns'" 2,890 x 1/4'/1 x 0.23

'" 1,000 ft 2 /d (93 m2 /d)S '" 4.'[.u.t!r 2

== 4 x L,ODO x 1 x 2.9 X lO·r,

'" 0.012

....,.1 •ol-----------+-----------I--:.~.;~--"---------l.. O. 3

..­o! ••

Type curve

Match pointW( u), u=1

+

o. 11------+----1-----------+--------- O. 03

Well (D-3-20)25abc-6April 1-2, 1965

O. 01 ~

3 0 . 0031 0. 6 1 0. 5 1 0 - 4 1 O·

t/12, IN DAYS PER SQUARE F0 0 T

I I I I1 0. 5 1 0 - 4 1 0 - 3 1 0 - 2

tim 2, IN DAYS PER SQUARE METRE

Figure 19.- Location of wells in test array in Dry Fork Canyon and representativedata analyses.

26

I ~Q)

U E ~.au<IIIC

I.1"lI.1"lO

SW ~:;o <IIN..c.>'U~

C") C Q)1'- (/)

Q l.a--- "'-""<0 0

Si Ity sand

C I a y

S i I t yg r avel

uQ) Bouldery

g r a vel

'"l1.

------ ----------

------------

GLACIAL OEPOSITS

N~

IEuu.a I<110­1.1"lC")~

N ....... Q)~ ~

OJ:::.C'lU-oICQ)

(V)'- a.I I E

------- - --__ e~ ~-------

Silty sand

---Clay

u

'"

I.1"lI~Q)

UE~.au<II I C

I.1"lI.1"lOC'l- .-~ ....o <IIC'lJ:::.>IU~

C")CQ)1'- (/)Q'.a ORY....... cD 0

----T ---J Wes t

_ c/nnel

u

'"Silty sand

FORK

Floodp)a i n

Silty, poorlygraded gravel '"l1.

Silty, poorlygraded gravel

'"l1.

Boulderygravel

IIIIII

_________ I

---------------{Sandst one

Bottom of casing

Sandstone

GLEN CANYON SANOSTONE

Bottom of cas ing Sands tone

Bottom of casing

U>

'"'"E

]Canyon wal I

350 feet (107 m)50 100 FEET

f----.L--l-i' ,.-,--'--_'L--.L,.-,-'----"--'--,-"11

10 20 30 METRES

Figure 20.-Sketch of cross section through test-well array in Dry Fork Canyon.

27

3 a

..........

.... 34:z

>­

'"...;; 38'-'...'"

42

,. 1,410 gal/min (89.0 lis)= 271)670 ft3/d (7,694 m3 /d)

[' '" 2,303Q/4n6s= 2.303 x 271,670/4TI (41.0 - 32.2)

= 5,700 ft'/d (530 m'/d)K = 5,700/81 = 70 ft/d (21 mid)

s ;= 41 . O----""~

- 8

l/)

1O~.......2'

:z

>­

'"...>­<>'-'

1 2 ...'"

46

5 O~1------1..__--1.._--1.._+---1..-'--'---1..-0'1::-O------'----'-----'---;5:'-;O:--'-l-L-l:-1±O""O-----'---..L--'--""S'"'O!c:O,,--l---l---l'-+I-;:'O0 0

TIME, IN MINUTES

Figure 2/.-Calculation of aquifer coefficients at well U(B-I-I)27ada-l.

28

5or--------~--,---~--------r----------,------------

60

10

aos = 90

90

:;; 1 00w"-

I' "" 2.303Q/4n t'ls'" 2.303 x 63,600/4 TT (125 - 90)

"" 330' ft?jd (30.7 m2 /d)

1 1 0z

01 20>­IX

~ 130cou

~ 140

>­IXW

>­couw

'"150

160- .... 50

110 '"

1 a0 Well U(C-2-2)2eee-1 Q '" 330 gal/min (20.8 lIs)? 63,600 ft'/d (1,801 m'/d)

1901l------------..,Jl-=-0------------:-I-!:O-:OO------------:-1O~O::-O::--------------,I---,O,--J,000

t. MINUTES SINCE PUMPING STOPPEO

" z

z,.,oco,.,'"IXco

30

- 0 . 3

0,I

l' • (Q/4n.)W(u)"'" (63,600/4n x 5.8) x l.0

.870 ft'/d (80,~ m'/d)S '" 4Tu·t/r z

"'" 4 x 870 x 1.0 x 5.2 X lW A

'" 0.00018

"

.,./ ---Match point

~..+

W(u), u '" 1t/r2. ::I 5.2 x lO-r

""'" /Well U(C-2-2 )2ecd-1

1I

10

'" 1 0soC>c....IXco

30

z"

Type CUf~e

0'

T '" (63.600/4n x 6. L) x 1.0'" 820 ft 2 /d (76.2 m2 /d)

S = 4 x 820 x 1.0 x 6.3 x lO·~"" (] .00021

Malch point+W(u), u '" 1t/r2 "" 6.3 x 10-8

S '" 6.2

z

5 1Of_-------+----,~,,--O-,..L=-~f_-__I

"-

z,.,C>co,.,'";; 1,Of-------+--+-------+--c--i

>­IXW

>­ouWIX

. 3

30

1 O·

10. 6 10. 5t/m 2 , IN DAYS PER SQUARE METRE

10. 1 10- 6t/r 2 , IN DAYS PER SQUARE FOOT

0 IL' • (63,600/4 x 5.7) x 1.0

.. 890 ft<:jd (82.7 rnl/d)S ;: 4 x 890 x 1.0 x 4.9 X IO·s

... 0.00017 ,,'

"

.',y0

....

Mat c h point

~'"+

W(u), u :=; 1

:(':;~~;Well U(C-2-2)2eed-1

1 _---L1 O· B

1 0 - 1

1 0

z

>­IXw>­ouw

'"

o. 03

x 1 0. 6

2cdc-1a

All wells in sec, 2,T.2S.,R.2E.,Uintah meridian

2ecd-1o

500 1000 FEETf-'L.L'-L'---,--,,1L...l1-L1---,--I_'L--,'

150 300 METRES

Pumped we II2eee-l e

°it·a 10. 1 10.6l/r 2 , IN DAYS PER SQUARE FOGT

10. 1 10. 6 10'·5

t/m 2 , IN DAYS PER SQUARE METRE

Figure 22.-Location of wells in Roosevelt test-welldata analyses.

array and representative

29

s = 14.5

6

1

8

t10

12 -

14-

z 18-

~ 20

'"'"~~ 22-

...J

~ 24-

'"

28

30 s=30.2

r) '" 628 gal/min (39.6 lis)== t21,OOO ft 1 /<.l (3,426 m"\/d)

I '" 2 .303Q/4r/"s'" 2.303 x l21,OnO/4 r (30.2 - 14.5)

= 1,400 ft 2/d (UO m?jd)K'" t,400/(630 ~ t67) '" 3 Hid (0.9 m/d\

4

'"~'">-~

"zz~

'"'"~...'"'"...J...:::>

'"'"~'"

32

34- J3 61------'---L-----"-----..L---;:----"--l-l---"-:'l~O------.L----.L---.L--.:

5""'0:-"L--L-LJ,.-1to~O-----'------'----'-----;5'C

0':-:0,---1----.JL-L 1 0 0 0

TIME. IN MINUTES SINCE PUMPING STOPPED

Figure 23.-Analysis of recovery during test at well (D-2-22)29dcd-l.

30

Table 3.--Laboratory determinations of hydraulic properties of point samples from epnsoUdated"'rock aquifers

Location: See text for descript:ion of numbering systemLab. No.: Number assigned by U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Laboratory.Ratio HN: Ratio of horizont~l to vertical hydraulic condlJctivity.Type of sample: C, deep-well core; N, hand specimen from natural outcrop, or old road cut; R, hand specimen from relatively new road cut; S.

hand lipecimen from large block of scree near base of high outcrop in cliff.

Location Lab. No.

Hydraulic conductivityK

(£tId)Horizontal Vertical

RatioH/V

Porosityn

(percent)

Typeof

sampleLithology

Duchesne River Formation

0.00024 0.67 24.79.8

.0046 .007 13.,.17

14.8

10.8.00012 2.1 7.0

14.3.011 3.0 8.9

30.3

.85 3.8 24.99.8

32.029.3

.28 1.0 41.1

25.026.310.727.726.3

ILli21.8

.062 .79 1'2.9

.0000046 12.1 17.121.8

Fractured hard cross bedded sandstoneSandstoneSandstoneFractured hard sandstone

Harder and finer sample at 73UT8Lenticular crossbedded sandstoneMSBsive sandstoneCompact dark san<;istoncSandstone

Friable channel(?) sandstone

]JUT11

Dense massive coarse sandstoneDark sandstoneSandstoneMassive to crossbedded sandstoneFriable channel sandstone

Channe 1 sands toneSandstone, 2 feet below 73UT2Massive soft sandstone

Compact sandstoneChannel sandstoneDenser and harder 5 amp Ie atSoft jointed sandstoneSoft lenticular sandstone

R Soft quasi-channel sandstoneR . Thin-bedded hard sandstoneR Massive soft sandstoneN Lenticular sandstoneN Soft sandstone

RRRNN

16.023.122.312.7

Uinta Formation

11.3.70

0.032.46

(0-4-20) 34bdb. 73UT2 0.0016

(D-6-20)8bccc73UT3

73~;17.000033.00079

(D-7-25) lBaabb 73UTl4 .13

U(A-I-l)26ddbc 74uT2U(B-l-l)4cbdd 7SUT4 .00025U(B-l-S)29bcab 7SUT2 .00024U(B-2-3)27dddd 74UT14 .032U(C-l-S)36aaaa 74uT4

368aab 74UT6 3.2B36aaba 74UT5

U(C-2-2)7baaa 74uT13 .3911bada 74UTl2 .3926cbcb ]JUTS .29

U(C-2-3)2Ibcdc 74UTJ 1.02U(C-2-4)7ccdd ]JUT11 .75

73UTl230cdba ]JUTlO .75

U(C-2-7)3ccac 73UT8 .36

]JUT9U(C-2-10)36caab 75UTl .049U(C-l-l)36cbda 74UTl .049U(D-2-1)6ccba 73UT16 .000056

3Sbcda 73UT4 .11

U(C-3-3)10cbbc 75UTJ 0.36U(C-3-7)34aaac 74UT7 .32U(C-3-S)22ccbd 74UT8 .16U(C-3-10)33cdbh 74uTll .021

Currant Creek Formation

U(C-I-B) 13cbdb 73lJT6 1.44 1.21

(O-]-21)J5adbc 75uT7 O.OOOI8

(D-3-22)5dcbb 73lJTl 0.059 0.0046(D-6-24) 5cdbd 13un5 1.44U(C-I-B)4dacd 73UT7 .0020

1.19

Dakota Sandl>tone

Glen Canyon Sandstone

12.9

23.6

8.2

21.430.. 022.1

Crossbedded sandstone

Soft sandstone

Crossbedded soft sandstoneCro$sbedded soft sandstoneCrossbedded to massive sandstone

Weber Quartzite (or Sandstone or Formation)

(D-3-20)Sccbc 73UT17 • 0.2373UTl7.£! .1773UT17b

Sdabd 75UT8 .285 (8-3-101) 3acd-l 75UT9 .000021

S (B-4-l04) 36ddd-l 74UTlO .014U (A-2-}) l8abab 75UT'J .072

lI(A-2-1)7adbh 7JUTb 0.000011

12.8

16. ,

10.9

13.718.8

Rocks of Mississippian age

9.7

Hard sandstone

Leached(?) zone in 73UT17aCrossbedded sands toneflard sandstone

liard .sandstoneCrossbedded moderately hard sandstone

Sanu!'; tone

1/ See Hood, Mundorff, snd Price (1976, tables 7 and 8) for more detail.II Repeat determination.

... _------- -------

31

1,000 ft 2 /d (90 m2 /d), or less, and most wells finished in it shouldhave yields of less than 1 ft 3 /s (0.03 m3 /s).

The glacial outwash in stream valleys has a maximum K of 300 ft/d(90 mid) in the Green River flood plain, about 1,000 ft/d (300 mid) inAshley Valley, and 800 ft/d (240 mid) in the Duchesne River flood plain.The maximum values are reached where sorting is at a maximum, and down­stream the permeability decreases, both because the grain size of theglacial material diminishes and because fine-grained debris fromadjacent formations is mixed with the glacial material.

Table 4.--Average values for porosity and lithologic parametersof the Duchesne River Formation (after Warner, 1966, table 1)

Areas: See figure 18.

Area 4West Eastside side

Area 3North South

side side

Area 1North South

side side

Area 2

Porosity(percent)

Cement­ation(percent)

Mediandiameter

(tmn)

Sorting 1

Skew­ness 2

Kur­tosis 3

28.7

9

20.8

14.5

.21

1.55

1.129

.23

26.2

16

34

8.2

14.2

17.7

.325

1.71

.88

.244

16.3

15

.266

1. 29

1.01

.219

17.3

18

.214

1. 79

.904

.267

cumulative25 percent

lGeometric quartile deviation, to} Q3/Q" taken fromcurves representing frequency data of sediments. Q

3quartile, Q1 = 75 percent quartile.

2 Ql Q3/Md2 taken from cumulative curves. Md = median grain size.

3(Qa - Ql)/2(P go - PlO ) taken from cumulative curves. PgO = 90percentile, ~o = 10 percentile.

32

Table 5.--Hydraulic properties reported from miscellaneous sources

Location: See text for description of numbering system.Porosity: a, average value.

LocationOepth(s)

(ft)

HydraulicTransmissivity conductivity

:!. ~

Specificyield

~

Porosi tyn

(percent) Da ta source

Ashley Valley

Quaternary deposits

0.15-0.20Est. 0.10

Duchesne River Fonnation

Th.omas and Wilson (1952, p; 11), based on relation ofstream discharge to water-level change.

Area of outcrop a 14-34 Warner (1966. table 1).

Green River Formation

(D-7-21) 18

(0-9-20) 36ddc-l

(D-14-18) Ibbd-I(D-14-19) 3edb-1(D-15-20) 12ee.-l

Bluebell area

Cedar Rim area

6,568-6,5786,768-6,7806,856-6,8646,892-6,900

1.900-3,234

ISO96

120

0.8 to 1.3

101010

0.000017 or less.000014 or less.000017 or less.000034 or less

.07

.3

. 09

.000034

aID Osmond (1957, p. 187) for limestone (top sample,as limestone and sandstone (second sample), and sand-as stone (bottom two samples) in Gulf No.2 Brennanas Bottom petroleum test in the delta facies.

Weir (1970, table 2) for sandstone and siltstone nearoil-shale beds.

Hood, Mundorff, and Price (1976, table 2) for wells inoutcrop area in sJuthern Uinta Basin; estimated fromspecific capacity .

a7.7 Peterson (1973a) for oil-producing zones ill Bluebelloil field near Altamont

3.5-6.2 Peterson (l973b) for oil-producing zones in Cedar Rimoil field west of Duchesne.

Hl11ebe 11 ilrea

Aspha It Ridge(west uf Vernal)

Wasatch Fonnation

4-5 Peterson (1973a).

Mesaverde Group

34 Covington (1957, p. 174) for oil-impregnated "RimrockSands tone."

Glen Canyon Sandstone

Whiterocks Canyllt1 O('!) 0.00034 to .0043 14-32 Covington (1964, p. 227-242) for oil-impregnated"Navajo Sandstone."

Ashley Valley "il 4,200""!:field

Weber Quartzite (or Sandstone or Formation)

8-20 Johnson (1964, p. 187-189).a13

stream­sectionfor T,

Except in Ashley Valley, the maximum thickness of thevalley deposits is about 50 ft (15 m), and the saturatedgenerally is no more than about 30 ft (9 m). Maximum valuestherefore, should be no higher than 9,000 to 24,000 ft 2 /d (240 to 2,200m2 /d). Yields of carefully constructed, thoroughly developedlarge-diameter wells should be in the range of 1 to 3 ft 3 /s (0.03 to0.08 m3 /s). In Ashley Valley, the maximum T for a very localized areais about 50,000 ft 2 /d (4,600 m2 /d). Sustained maximum well yields formost of the valley, however, should be less than 2 ft 3 /s (0.06 m3 /s).

On terraces and near Neola, maximum values for K are near thefoot of the mountains--600 ft/d (180 mid) north of lfuiterocks, 800 ft/d(240 mid) north of Neola and 1,100 ft/d (340 mid) north of Altamont--andK generally decreases southward with distance from the mountains.Although locally, the deposits are about 200 ft (60 m) thick, much ofthe saturated section is 50 ft (15 m) thick, or less. Thus, thetheoretical calculated maximum values for T lie in the range of 30,000to 60,000 ft 2 /d (2,800 to 5,600 m2 /d). The actual calculated highervalues, mainly for partially penetrating, small-diameter wells, lie inthe general range of 2,000 to 12,000 ft 2 /d (186 to 1,100 m2 /d).

33

An estimate of the potential yield of wells is not reliablebecause each formation has a widely disparate lithology and the effectof fracturing is unpredictable; therefore, a reliable maximum value forT cannot be calculated. Based on an aquifer test at Roosevelt, however,where a maximum T of 890 ft 2 /d (270 m2 /d) was observed, it is estimatedthat a deep large-diameter well could produce about 1 ft 3 /s (0.03 m3 /s).Considering that artesian conditions prevail in most of both formations,prolonged pumping of large-yield wells would cause drawdown over a dis­tance measurable in miles.

Currant Creek Formation

The Currant Creek Formation is considered a potentially importantaquifer in the northern Uinta Basin area only because of its greatthickness, which averages about 2,000 ft (610 m). The tightly cementedconglomerate and sandstone, in the unweathered and undisturbed state,probably has a maximum T of about 2,500 ft 2 /d (760 m2 /d). Wherefractured near well U(C-2-10)20aac-1, however, it had an estimated T ofmore than 12,000 ft/d (3,660 mid). Similar high values probably wouldbe obtained elsewhere because the formation is susceptible to fracturingand to leaching near fractures and outcrop areas. Water in theformation is mainly under unconfined conditions. Considering thegeneral grain size and cementation, the minimum By for the Currant CreekFormation is estimated to be in the range of 0.001 to 0.01, or 0.1acre-ft (0.00012 hm 3

) to 1 acre-ft (0.0012 hm 3) per 100 acre-ft (0.12

hm 3) of saturated formation.

Glen Canyon Sandstone

The Glen Canyon Sandstone (including the Nugget Sandstone equiv­alent in the western part of the basin) crops out across almost theentire length of the northern Uinta Basin area and ranges from about 700to about 1,100 ft (210 to 340 m) in thickness. Measured and estimated Kwas in the range 0.002 ft/d (0.00061 mid) to 5 ft/d (1.5 mid). Thus,the T is in the range of 1.4 to 5,500 ft 2 /d (0.13 to 510 m2 /d). Thehighest T estimated from well data was 2,000 ft 2 /d (190 m2 /d). Whereundisturbed, the sandstone probably does not have a T high enough towarrant development of large-diameter wells. Everywhere near itsoutcrop, however, the sandstone is deformed by faulting and folding insome degree, and the resulting fracturing enhances well yields. Deeplarge-diameter wells near the outcrop area probably would have a maximumyield of about 1 ft 3 /s (0.03 m3 /s) of fresh to slightly saline water.

In much of the area, the Glen Canyon Sandstone contains waterunder confined conditions, and B, therefore, is small. Although valuesfor n range from 20 to 30 percent, the sandstone is fine grained, andthe cementation is variable. By, therefore, is estimated to rangebetween 0.005 and 0.05. For purposes of computation, the minimum By isestimated to be 0.01, or 1 acre-ft (0.0012 hm 3

) per 100 acre-ft (0.12hm 3

) of saturated formation.

35

Weber Quartzite (or Sandstone)

The Weber Quartzite (or Sandstone) near the outcrop area is animportant aquifer throughout the northern.Uinta Basin area. Values of Kranged from 0.01 to 20 ft/d (0.003 to 6 mid). Thus, for the 1,200 to1,600 ft (370 to 490 m) of total thickness, the range in T is 12 to32,000 ft 2 /d (1.1 to 2,970 m2 /d). The Weber is usually highlyfractured, and near Vernal the K estimated on the basis of well tests is10 times or more higher than those for undisturbed but weathered rocksamples (table 3). Well tests east and west of the basin indicatevalues for T ranging from 4,000 to 6,000 ft 2 /d (370 to 560 m2 /d) (table2). Deep within the basin, however, the formation is tightly cemented,has a very low permeability, and T for the total thickness ofundisturbed tightly cemented sandstone probably is near the minimumvalue cited above.

The well tests, together with the yields of large springs such asBig Brush Creek Spring, (D-2-21)24cbb-S1, and Warm Spring,U(B-1-S)30ddb-S1, show that locally the formation could yield 4 ft 3 js(0.1 m3 /s) or more to wells. Petroleum tests in Ashley Valley oil fieldand elsewhere along the south flank of the Uinta Mountains have yieldedfresh to slightly saline water under artesian pressure at depths of4,000 ft (1,220 m) or more, from a zone that includes the upper part ofthe Weber Quartzite and the lower part of the Park City Formation.

In most places the Weber Quartzite contains water under confinedconditions; S, therefore, is small. The sandstone is fine grained andgenerally is tightly cemented; the exception is the upper part of thesection in the east end of the study area, where n can be as high as 20percent. Considering grain size and opportunity to drain throughfractures, Sy for the latter section is estimated to be 0.01, and forthe tightly cemented section, 0.005 or 1 acre-ft (0.0012 hm 3 ) and 0.5acre-ft (0.0006 hm 3 ) per 100 acre-ft (0.12 hm 3

) of saturated formation,respectively.

Rocks of Mississippian age

Rocks of Mississippian age are not considered to be a reliablesource of water to wells, but they are an important part of the rechargesystem for ground water in the northern Uinta Basin area. Bothsandstone and limestone in the formations have very low permeability andstore little water, but cavernous zones in the limestone take in a largevolume of water and transmit it rapidly either downdip or to nearbydischarge points---such as Big Spring, U(B-1-8)17cbb-Sl. Cavernouszones reach maximum development where maximum structural distortion andrelatively large outcrop area coincide, as in the area described byMaxwell, Bridges, Barker, and Moore (1971) and near the Soapstone Basinin the west end of the Uinta Mountains.

Minimum intake of recharge occurs wherewell developed because (1) the formations dip

36

cavernous zones are lesssteeply and thus have a

narrow outcrop area, (2) the outcrop is covered with rocks of low perme­ability such as the Duchesne River Formation, and (3) large-scalefaulting is at a minimum. The principal such area is the central partof the south flank of the Uinta Mountains.

CONCLUSIONS

Ground water in the northern Uinta Basinconsolidated rocks which have very low to moderatesome of the rocks have high permeability whereOverlying the consolidated rocks is a relativelysection of unconsolidated deposits.

occurs mainly inpermeability; but

they are fractured.thin but important

Seven of the lithologic units in the basin are considered themost important, either because they are sources or potential sources ofwater to wells or because they are important to the recharge system.The youngest of these seven units is the unconsolidated glacial outwashand related coarse-grained deposits of Quaternary age. In most of thebasin, the unconsolidated deposits are discontinuous terrace coveringsand the saturated sections are thin. In parts of the basin, however,they form relatively narrow continuous aquifers in the bottoms ofmountain canyons or stream valleys. Hydraulic conductivities in thecoarse-grained deposits range from less than 10 to more than 1,000 ftld(3 to 305 mid), and the minimum specific yield is estimated to averageabout 10 percent. Thus, the deposits comprise the most prolific aquifersystem in the basin. Carefully drilled, screened, and developed wellsin the deposits could be expected to have yields of more than 1 ft 3 /s(0.028 m3 /s).

The Duchesne River Formation, which covers about 1,000 mi 2 (2,590km 2

), and the Uinta Formation are important because they yield much ofthe water used for domestic and stock purposes in the central part ofthe basin. Sandstones in these two formations mostly contain waterunder artesian pressure, and they basically have low permeabilities.Their ability to yield water, like that of all consolidated rocks in thebasin, is enhanced by fracturing due to faulting, folding, andsubsidence. Where dewatered by pumping, the sandstones would have anestimated specific yield of about 1 percent. Despite the enhancement ofyield by fracturing, the permeability of the two formations is such thatuncontrolled flow from them creates large declines in the potentiometricsurfaces near the wells. Well completions in the formations, therefore,should be such that the wells always can be shut in when not in use; andleaky wells should be repaired in order to sustain pressure.

The Currant Creek Formation, found only in the western part ofthe basin, is a potential source of water to wells. Despite its tightcementation and conglomeratic nature, the formation locally is verythick, heavily fractured, and possibly leached in the vicinity of somefractured zones.

The Glen Canyon Sandstone (Nugget Sandstone in western part ofthe basin) is a source of freshwater to wells in the eastern part of the

37

basin in Utah and northwestern Colorado. Because of its thickness,locally high porosity, and relatively uniform grain size, the· sandstoneshould be a good aquifer throughout the basin, especially wherefractured.

In similar manner, the Weber Quartzite (or Sandstone) is animportant aquifer and has a high potential as a source of water to wellsdrilled in the area of outcrop and in the structural zone near the baseof the Uinta Mountains. Yields of several cubic feet per secondprobably could be obtained in most of the basin, but particularly inheavily fractured zones.

Rocks of Mississippian age are not considered to be reliablesources of water to wells. These rocks, however, are important asrecharge media because they crop out in areas of high precipitation andcontain very permeable cavernous zones which rapidly transmit groundwater into the basin. There, the water is transferred through fracturesto overlying formations. Although the largest quantities of watermoving in these rocks seem to be in the mountain area north of Vernal,the rocks are fractured and cavernous throughout the basin. Maximumpermeability is where the outcrop is relatively large and fracturing isat a minimum, and minimum permeability is where the outcrop is narrow orcovered and the rocks relatively undisturbed, as in the central part ofthe south slope of the Uinta Mountains.

Of the remaining lithologic units, eight are considered importantbut restricted in potential development owing to their thinness, distri­bution, or chemical quality of water. They include the Browns ParkFormation, Frontier Sandstone Member of the Mancos Shale, sandstone inthe Mesaverde Group, Curtis Formation, Entrada Sandstone, Gartra GritMember of the Chinle Formation, sandstone in the Morgan Formation, androcks of Cambrian age. Most of these units have low primarypermeability, and maximum yields to water wells would be where the rocksare fractured.

The remaining formations contain water, but most have low to verylow permeability and inhibit ground-water movement. Locally, the forma­tions are sources of water to wells or springs, but for the most partthey are not reliable sources. The Green River, Morrison, and MoenkopiFormations contain evaporites. Movement of ground water through theseformations and solution of evaporites contributes to the overall degra­dation of water quality in the northern Uinta Basin area.

38

REFERENCES CITED

Andersen, D. W., and Picard, M. D., 1972, Stratigraphy of the Duchesne RiverFormation (Eocene-Oligocene?), northern Uinta Basin, northeastern Utah:Utah Geol. and Mineralog. Survey Bull. 97, 29 p.

Baker, C. R., Jr., 1970,north-central Utah:

Water resources of the Reber-Kamas-Park City area,Utah Dept. Nat. Resources Tech. Pub. 27, 79 p.

Bentall, Ray (compiler), 1963a. Methods of determining permeability, trans­missibility, and drawdown: U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper1536-1, 341 p.

1963b, Short cuts and special problems in aquifer tests: U.S. Geol.---Survey Water-Supply Paper l545-C, 117 p.

Bissell, R. J.,quadrangle,575-634.

1952, Stratigraphy and structure of northeastUtah: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull.,

Strawberryv. 36, p.

1964, Lithology and petrography of the Weber Formation in Utah and---Colorado, in Geology and mineral resources of the Uinta Basin--Utah's

hydrocarbon storehouse: Intermountain Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Guide­book, Thirteenth Annual Field Conf., p. 67-91.

Brown, R. R., 1953, Selected procedures for analyzing aquifer test data: Am.Water Works Assoc. Jour., v. 45, no. 8, p. 844-866.

Cohenour, R. E., 1959, Precambrian rocks of the Uinta-Wasatch Mountainjunction and parts of central Utah, in Geology of the Wasatch and UintaMountains transition area: Intermountain Assoc. Petroleum GeologistsGuidebook, Tenth Annual Field Conf., p. 34-39.

Covington, R. E., 1957, The bituminous sandstones of the Asphalt Ridge area,northeastern Utah, in Geology of the Uinta Basin: Intermountain Assoc.Petroleum Geologists GUidebook, Eighth Annual Field Conf., p. 172-175.

1964, Bituminous sandstones of the Uinta Basin, in Geology and mineral---resources of the Uinta Basin--Utah's hydrocarbon storehouse: In-termountain Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Guidebook, Thirteenth AnnualField Conf., p. 227-242.

Feltis, R. D., 1966, Water from bedrock in the Colorado Plateau of Utah: UtahState Engineer Tech. Pub. 15, 82 p.

Ferris, J. G., Knowles, D. B., Brown, R. R., and Stallman, R. W., 1962, Theoryof aquifer tests: U.S. Geo1. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1536-E, 174 p.

39

Fouch, T. D., and Ryder, R. T., 1973, Upper Cretaceous-lower Tertiary dep­ositional environments of the western Uinta Basin, Utah [abs.]: Geol.Soc. America, Rocky Mountain Sec., 26th Annual Meeting, May 1973,Boulder, Colo.

Goode, H. D., and Feltis, R. D., 1962, Water production from oil wells of theUinta Basin, Uintah and Duchesne Counties, Utah: Utah Geol. andMineralog. Survey Water-Resources Bull. 1, 31 p.

Hansen, W. R., 1957, Structural features of the Uinta Arch, in Geology of theUinta Basin: Intermountain Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Guidebook,Eighth Annual Field Conf., p. 35-39.

1969, The geologic story of the Uinta Mountains: U.S. Geol. Survey---Bull. 1291, 144 p.

Hood, J. W., Mundorff, J. C., and Price, Don, 1976, Selected hydrologic data,Uinta Basin area, Utah and Colorado: U.S. Geol. Survey open-file report(duplicated as Utah Basic-Data Release 26) (in press).

Huddle, J. W., and McCann, F. T., 1947, Pre-Tertiary geology of the DuchesneRiver area, Wasatch and Duchesne Counties, Utah: U.S. Geol. Survey Oiland Gas Inv. Prelim. Map OM 75.

Johnson, C. E., 1964, Ashley Valley oil field, Uintah County, Utah, inGeology and mineral resources of the Uinta Basin--Utah's hydrocarbonstorehouse: Intermountain Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Guidebook,Thirteenth Annual Field Conf., p. 187-189.

Jones, D. F., 1957, Geosynclinal nature of the Uinta Basin, in Geology of theUinta Basin: Intermountain Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Guidebook,Eighth Annual Field Conf., p. 30-34.

Kinney, D. M., 1951, Geology of the Uinta RiverMountain areas, Duchesne and Uintah Counties,Oil and Gas Inv. Prelim. Map OM 123.

and Brush Creek-DiamondUtah: U.S. Geol. Survey

Lochman-Balk, Christina, 1959, The Cambrian section in the central andsouthern Wasatch Mountains, in Geology of the Wasatch and UintaMountains transition area: Intermountain Assoc. Petroleum GeologistsGuidebook, Tenth Annual Field Conf., p. 40-45.

Lohman, S. W., 1972, Ground-water hydraulics: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper708, 70 p.

Lohman, S. W., and others, 1972, Definitions of selected ground-water terms-­revisions and conceptual refinements: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-SupplyPaper 1988, 21 p.

Maxwell, J. D., Bridges, B. L., Barker, D. A., and Moore, L. G., 1971, Hydro­geology of the eastern portion of the south slopes of the Uinta Moun­tains, Utah: Utah Dept. Nat. Resources Inf. Bull. 21, 54 p.

40

Morris, D. A., and Johnson, A. I., 1967, Summary of hydrologic and physicalproperties of rock and soil materials, as analyzed by the HydrologicLaboratory of the U.S. Geological Survey, 1948-60: U.S. Geol. SurveyWater-Supply Paper 1839-D, 42 p.

Osmond, J. C., 1957, Brennan Bottom oil field, Uintah County, Utah, inGeology of the Uinta Basin: Intermountain Assoc. Petroleum GeologistsGuidebook, Eighth Annual Field Conf., p. 185-187.

Peterson, P. R., 1973a, Bluebell Field: Utah Geo1. and Minera10g. SurveyOil and Gas Field Studies 12.

1973b, Cedar Rim area: Utah Geol. and Mineralog. Survey Oil and Gas---Field Studies 10.

Price, Don, and Miller, L. L., 1975, Hydrologic reconnaissance of thesouthern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado: Utah Dept. Nat. ResourcesTech. Pub. 49.

Ritzma, H. R.,adjoiningGeology ofGuidebook,

1957, Tectonic map (of) Uinta Basin, northeast Utah andportions of northwest Colorado and southwest Wyoming, inthe Uinta Basin: Intermountain Assoc. Petroleum GeologistsEighth Annual Field Conf., map facing p. 24.

1974, Generalized north to south section across western Uinta Basin---(accompanies Reference 5), in Energy Resources of the Uinta Basin, 1974road logs, reference data, and bibliography: Utah Geo1. Assoc. Pub. 4,p. 53.

Sad1ick, Walter, 1959, Fusu1ine correlations: Oquirrh Formation and DurstGroup, in Geology of the Wasatch and Uinta Mountains transition area:Intermountain Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Guidebook, Tenth Annual FieldConf., p. 82-89.

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

Stose, G. W. ed., 1935, Geologic map ofcooperation with Colorado State Geo1.Mining Fund.

Colorado: ,U.S. Geo1. Survey inSurvey Board and Colorado Metal

Sumsion C. T., 1971, Water-resources investigations inMonument, Utah-Colorado, fiscal year 1970: U.S. Geo1.rept., 52 p.

Dinosaur National·'Survey open-file

Thomas, H. E., and Wilson, M. T., 1952, Determination of total evapo­transpiration in Ashley Valley, Utah, by the inflow-outflow method: U.S.Geol. Survey open-file rept., 15 p.

Untermann, G. E., and Untermann, B. R., 1954, GeologyMonument and vicinity, Utah-Colorado: Utah Geo1.Bull. 42, 228 p.

41

of Dinosaur Nationaland Minera10g. Survey

Untermann, G. E., and Untermann, B. R., 1965, Geologic map of the DinosaurNational Monument, Colorado-Utah: Dinosaur Nature Assoc. in coop. withUtah Geol. and Mineralog. Survey and Utah Field House Nat. History.

Walton, P. T., 1964, Late Cretaceous and Early Paleocene conglomerates alongthe margin of the Uinta Basin, in Geology and mineral resources of theUinta Basin--Utah's hydrocarbon storehouse: Intermountain Assoc. Petro­leum Geologists Guidebook, Thirteenth Annual Field Conf., p. 139-143.

Warner, M. M., 1966, Sedimentationa1 analysis of the Duchesne River Formation,Uinta Basin, Utah: Geo1. Soc. America Bull., v. 77, no. 9, p. 945-957.

Weir, J. E., Jr., 1970, Geohydrology of the area near wasco exploratory holenumber 1, Uintah County, Utah: U.S. Geo1. Survey open-file rept., 27 p.

42

APPENDIX

The appendix provides additional details forlisted in table 2. This additional material shouldthe relative reliability of the tests.

thehelp

aquifer testsin evaluating

Aquifer tests in unconsolidated Quaternary deposits

Test in glacial outwash in Neola area

Well U(B-l-l) 27ada-l, which is approximately 4.5 mi (7.2 krn)east-northeast of Neola (pl. 1), was pumped for 24 hours in September1973. No observation well was available. The driller's log andconstruction details are given in the following table: (See also table6. )

Log and construction data for well U(B-1-1)27ada-1

Log by J. G. Lee. Owner, W. H. Van Tassell. Alt. 6,065 ft.

Material

Sand and boulders ..Sand and some gravelBoulders . . . . . .Boulders and gravel .•Boulders, sand, and gravelGravel . • . . . . . . . .Boulders, sand, and gravelBoulders, gravel, and some sand streaks.Sand . . . . . • . • . . .Boulders, sand, and gravel .Sand and some gravel . . . .

Thickness(ft)

3110

37

12174148

73

11

Depth(ft)

314144516380

121169176179190

Casing: 16 in from 0 to 89 ft; 12 in from 0 to 190 ft, perforated from60 to 170 ft. Effective perforation estimated to be 89-170 ft.

Gravel-packed from 0 to 80 ft; gravel I-in diameter.

The well seems to be fairly well developed, but it produced somefine red sand when first pumped, and although nearly clear after 13minutes of pumping, the water was slightly cloudy for about 4 hours.

43

The well is equipped with a deep-well turbine pump with an 8-in(20 cm) discharge pipe and a 50-hp electric motor. Discharge wasmeasured with a Hoff current meter, and water levels throughout the testwere measured with a steel tape. The pump has no control valve, and asa result the discharge decreased with time. The analysis of the testdata is shown in figure 21. Supplemental observations of temperatureand specific conductance of water were made throughout the pumpingperiod.

Water-level measurements were made sporadically during the 24hours prior to pumping. These measurements showed that the prepumpingwater level of 14.3 ft (4.36 m) properly could be projected through thetest. Recovery measurements were made for 15 hours after pumpingstopped, and a final measurement was made at 26.5 hours.

A plot of recovery (fig. 21) shows irregularities in trend duringthe first 10 minutes, and a normal diminishing of the rate of recoveryto about 150 minutes. At 150 minutes, the slope of the curve began todiminish fairly abruptly and assumed a second uniform trend.Transmissivity calculated from the part of the curve prior to 150minutes was about one-half that calculated from the latter part, thusindicating a boundary, at an unknown distance and direction, beyondwhich the formation is more permeable than near the well. Curvature ofthe trend of plotted points is obvious in both legs of the recoveryplot, and the straight line is fitted approximately.

The curvature in the two legs of the recovery plot indicates thatthe aquifer is leaky. Supplemental data on temperature and specificconductance bear out this conclusion. Data from wells in the generalarea of Neola show that the shallowest wells yield water that issomewhat cooler and more mineralized than that from the deeper, morepermeable outwash. As pumping time increased, the temperature of waterfrom well U(B-l-l)27ada-l decreased by about 2.0°C, and the specificconductance nearly doubled. These data indicate that as the cone ofdepression developed in the potentiometric surface around the well, theshallower beds released water downward into those directly tapped by thewell. Because of the leakage from the overlying beds, the calculatedvalue for transmissivity may be higher than the true value.

Based on considerations of grain size and general sorting, S isestimated to be in the range of 0.05 to 0.10 and Sy is near 0.10. Thehydraulic conductivity can be approximated as the T divided by thelength of perforated casing, or 5,700/81 = 70 ft/d (21 mid).

Test in glacial deposits in Dry Fork Canyon

During 1964-68, an interagency group investigating the ground­and surface-water relations in the southeastern Uinta Mountains (Maxwelland others, 1971) determined the underflow in Dry Fork Canyon. The U.S.Soil Conservation Service drilled an array of observation wells (Maxwelland others, 1971, p. 23-24) around a test well, (D-3-20)25abc-2 (figs.

44

19 and 20), and in March and April 1965 ran a series of short tests.The results of these tests were not published directly; the writerobtained the measurements later (B. L. Bridges, written commun., 1974)and reviewed the computations. The results of recomputation show thatreliably uniform figures cannot be derived for the aquifer coefficientsfor the following reasons:

1. The test-well array lies between the wall of Dry Fork Canyon (aboundary of very low permeability) and the channel of Dry Fork (aboundary of no drawdown).

2. The section of fill is nonhomogeneous and contains a layer ofclay at the water level (fig. 20). As a result, change from ar­tesian to water-table conditions occurred during pumping, andvertical leakage took place.

3. Discharge rates were low--lO and 15 gal/min (0.63 and 0.95 l/s)-­and the aquifer was not stressed by pumping enough to producelarge drawdowns at the observation wells.

Based on the several recomputations, the average T for the non­homogeneous glacial deposits at the Dry Fork test site is estimated tobe in the range of 700 to 900 ft 2 /d (65 to 84 m2 /d). Based on a satur­ated section of about 30 ft (9.1 m), K therefore is in the range of 20to 30 ft/d (6.1 to 9.1 mid). The range of S is estimated to be about0.01 to 0.05 for the short-term tests, but the true value of S is morethan 0.05 and is estimated to be about 0.1.

Miscellaneous short tests

In 1948, personnel of the Geological Survey conducted tests ontwo domestic wells in Ashley Valley. In both tests, discharge was smalland pumping time was short, yet the values obtained for T and K fit thegeneral pattern of values shown in table 6 for wells in Ashley Valley.

Well (D-4-2l)12bcc-3 was a shallow well dug in alluvium of Holo­cene age near the center of the valley, but it did not penetrate highlypermeable glacial outwash. A plot of water-level recovery measurementsindicated a T of approximately 200 ft 2 /d (18.6 m2 /d). Well (D-5-2l)2dcb-l was near the south edge of the valley where the valley fill isrelatively thin and low transmissivities could be expected. Astraight-line plot of water-level recovery measurements indicates anapproximate value for T of 70 ft 2 /d (6.5 m2 /d), and the calculated K isabout 6 ft/d (1.8 mid).

Two wells were tested in the Green River flood plain at DinosaurNational Monument. The "River Well", (D-4-23) 35bbb-l, near the monumentbone quarry, was tested April 27, 1957. The well was pumped at 60gal/min (3.8 lis) for 5 hours, but no measurements of the recoveringwater level were reported. Inspection of the drawdown measurements,

45

however, shows that a hydraulic boundary probably is present; andconsidering the well location, the boundary probably represents the edgeof the valley fill. The probable mlnlmum T is about 600 ft 2 /d (56m2 /d). The T estimated from the specific capacity is about 900 ft 2 /d(84 m2 /d), and K is calculated as approximately 200 ft/d (61 mid). (Seetable 6.)

Shallow well (D-4-24)30ddc-l (pl. 1) was tested for the NationalPark Service, which provided the data evaluated. The shallow valleyfill of the Green River at that site has an approximate T of 600 ft 2 /d(56 m2 /d) for the sectio~ of fill tested and a calculated K ofapproximately 200 ft/d (60 mid).

Aquifer test in the Duchesne River Formation

One reasonably well-controlled test of the Duchesne RiverFormation was made in the Roosevelt area in February 1974. Drilling ofwell U(C-2-2)2ccc-l (pl. 1 and fig. 22) commenced on or about November1, 1973, and the well was drilled to about 97 ft (30 m), where 100 ft(30 m) of l6-in (4l-cm) surface casing was cemented in place. Sub­sequently, a 6-in (15-cm) pilot hole was drilled by the air-rotarymethod to 865 ft (264 m); this operation was completed and the well waslogged with geophysical equipment on November 28, 1973. Subsequently,the well was reamed to an 8-in (20-cm) diameter to total depth and to al4-in (36-cm) diameter to a depth of 450 ft (137 m), and additionalwell-completion work was performed. The following table gives acompilation from all available data on beds penetrated, constructiondetails, water quality in various zones, and other pertinent comments:

Log and construction data for well U(C-2-2)2ccc-l

Log compiled by J. W. Hood from borehole geophysical logs, laboratoryanalysis of drill cuttings, and driller's log (see notes at end of log).Alt. 5,458 ft.

Material Thickness Depth(ft) (ft)

Shale, intercalated with sandstone. Beds 1 to 5 ftthick. · · . . . . . . . · · · 97 97

Bottom of cemented l6-in casing.Sandstone. · · · . . 2 99Shale. . · 2 101Sandstone. 4 105Shale. . · · 5 110Sandstone. 2 112Shale. 3 115Sandstone. . · · · 3 118Compact layer (either tightly cemented sandstone or

dense shale) . . . . . . . . · · · . . . . . . 2 120

46

Log and construction data for well U(C-2-2)2ccc-I--Continued

Material Thickness(ft)

Depth(ft)

140

251253256262

248

204209212218

158163167180182

282284286288292301306

194of

8

3236

1854

132

12slightly to flowwas 11.6°C.

10536

Shale. • . . . 4 124Sandstone. . • 3 127Compact layer. . 1 128Shale. . . . . . 4 132

Zone 97-132 ft estimated to contribute little water to flowof well based on temperature (T) and conductivity (C) logs.At 132 ft, specific conductance (K) was 520 micromhos (~mho)

per cm at 25°C, (T) was 11.4°C.Sandstone, very fine to fine-grained, with either com­

pact layer or fracture at 138 ft. Sample 74UT15.(T) and (C) logs show relatively large inflow at 134-410 ft. Zone is either fractured or loosely consoli-dated .

Minimum (K) was 450 ~mho at 133 ft.Shale, with four intercalated beds of sandstone 0.5 to

2 ft thick • . • • •Sandstone.Shale. . . .Sandstone.Shale...Sandstone, fine- to medium-grained, with thin bed of

shale at 185 ft. Sample 74UT16. . ...Zone 140-194 ft estimated to contributewell. At 192 ft, (K) was 520 ~mho, (T)

Shale, with thin sandstone (200-202 ft).Sandstone. Sample 74UT17.Shale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sandstone. . . . . . . • . . • • .Shale, with five intercalated beds of sandstone 0.5 to

1 ft thick . • • • . . . • • . . . • • . • . . . .. 30Zone 194-224 ft estimated to contribute to flow of well.At 224 ft, (K) was 530 ~mho, (T) was 12.2°C.

Sandstone ..Shale. . .Sandstone.Shale. • . .Shale, intercalated with sandstone in ledge approxi-

mately 2-ft thick. 20Compac t layer. . . • • 2Sandstone. • . 2Compac t layer. . • . • • . 2Sandstone. . . . 4Shale, with two thin layers of sandstone 9Sandstone, fine- to medium-grained. Sample 74UT18 5

Zone 224-306 ft estimated to contribute only slightly toflow of well. At 302 ft, (K) was 530 ~mho, (T) was 12.2°C.

Shale, with very thin interbeds of sandstone • . . .. 30 336Zone 306-317 ft estimated to contribute to flow of well.At 317 ft, (K) was 540 ~mho, (T) was 12.5°C.

47

Log and construction data for well U(C-2-2)2ccc-l--Continued

Material Thickness(ft)

Depth(ft)

12 374of well.

9 3833 3869 3956 4016 4075 412

8 4201 4215 426

21 4476 453

at 450 ft.5 4583 4615 4666 4723 4752 4778 4855 4903 4931 494

14 5082 510

13 5233 5268 534

Sandstone, fine- to medium-grained, with very thininterbeds of shale. Sample 74UT19 . . . . . . 24 360

Shale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . • . 2 362Zone 317-360 ft estimated to contribute slightly to flowof well. At 356 ft, (K) was 540 ~mho, (T) was l2.5°C.

Sandstone, fine- to medium-grained, with 3-ft interbedof shale. Sample 74UT20 . • . . . . . • • . . . . .

Zone 360-374 ft estimated to contribute to flowAt 374 ft, (K) was 550 ~mho, (T) was l2.8°C.

Shale, with two thin interbeds of sandstone.Sandstone. . • . • . . • • . . . . . . . . •Shale, with two thin interbeds of sandstone.Sandstone..•.••.Shale. . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . .Shale and sandstone in 0.5 to 2 ft beds.Sandstone, fine- to medium-grained, with thin inter-

beds of shale. Sample 74UT2l .•Compact layer•..•..........Sandstone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Shale, with three interbeds of sandstoneSandstone. . . • •

Bottom of l2-in pump pit, selectively perforatedShale. . .Sandstone.Shale. • . •Sandstone .•Shale. . . .Sandstone.Shale. . •Sandstone••.Shale.••••••.Sandstone. .• . • . .••Shale, with two thin interbeds of sandstone. .Sandstone. . . . . • . . .•Shale, with thin interbeds of sandstone.Sandstone•...Shale .•.•..

Stratigraphic change at 534 ft indicated by spontaneouspotential and resistivity curves. Zone 374-534 ft esti­mated to contribute slightly to flow of well. At 534 ft,(K) was 560 ~mho, (T) was l3.l o C.

Sandstone, with thin shaly sandstone interbeds . 18 552Zone either fractured or loosely consolidated as indicatedby (T) and (C) logs. Zone 534-552 ft contributes to flow ofwell. At 548 ft, (K) was 545 ~mho, (T) was l3.0°C. At560 ft, (K) was 600 ~mho, (T) was I3.7°C.

Shale, with very thin interbeds of sandstone . . . . 16 568

48

Log and construction data for well U(C-2-2)2ccc-l--Continued

Material Thickness(ft)

Depth(ft)

Sandstone, with very thin interbeds of shale and a l-ftthick, very compact cemented shale(?) at 578 ft. 20 588

Shale, with thin interbeds of sandstone. . . . • . 14 602Zone 552-602 ft estimated to contribute no flow to well.At 602 ft, (K) was 600 ~mho, (T) was l3.8°C.

Sandstone, fine- to medium-grained, with a few verythin interbeds of shale. Sample 74UT22. . . . . .. 23 625

Shale, fractured(?), with thin interbeds of sandstone. 8 633Zone 602-633 ft estimated to contribute to flow of well.Water quality improves upward (fig. 9) in shale bed at 630 ft.At 630 ft, (K) was 635 ~mho, (T) was l4.2°C.

Sandstone, fine- to medium-grained, with a few shaleinterbeds 0.5 to 2 ft thick. Sample 74UT23 • 33 666

Shale, with very thin interbed of sandstone. • . • .. 25 691Sandstone, very fine to fine-grained, with 2-ft inter-

bed of shale. Sample 74UT24 . 18 709Shale. . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . 7' 716Sandstone. . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • 6 722

Major stratigraphic changes indicated at 722 ft by spon­taneous potential and resistivity curves. Zone 633-722 ftestimated to contribute little or no flow to well. At700 ft, (K) was 640 ~mho, (T) was l4.4°C.

Shale..Sandstone.Shale...Sandstone.Shale...Sandstone, fine- to medium-grained, with a few very

thin interbeds of shale. Sample 74UT25 .Shale, fractured(?), with a few very thin interbeds of

410

363

16

726736739745

'748

764

sandstone. . • • • • • • • . . . • . • . . . . . .. 18 782Zone 722-764 ft estimated to contribute to flow of well.Water quality improves upward (fig. 9) in shale bed. At764 ft, (K) was 670 ~mho, (T) was l5.0°C.

Sandstone. . . . . . . . . • . • • 6 788Shale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 842Sandstone, fine- to medium-grained, with a few inter-

beds of shaly sandstone. Sample 74uT26. 12 854Shale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 858Sandstone. . • . . . . . . • • • • . . . . 3 861

Zone 764-861 ft estimated to contribute small quantity tototal flow of well. At 800 ft, (K) was 670 ~mho, (T) wasl5.l o C. At 854 ft, (K) was 670 ~mho, (T) was l5.4°C.

Total depth logged . . . . . . . . . • . • • . . 861

49

Log and construction data for well U(C-2-2)2ccc-l--Continued

Notes:Sieve analysis of selected drill-cutting samples made by u.S. GeologicalSurvey Hydrologic Laboratory. Grain sizes given are two largest percent­ages by weight as indicated by analysis. Samples probably partly frac­tionated because well was drilled with air-water rotary drill. Geo­physical logs were temperature (in degrees Celsius), conductivity (inmicromhos per em at 25°C) at ambient temperature, spontaneous potential,single-point resistivity, and gamma-ray. Specific conductance valuesgiven above are relative and were taken from conductivity curve and cor­rected to micromhos per em at 25°C. Geophysical logging was performedafter l6-in surface casing had been cemented in place and 6-in pilot holecompleted to total depth. Difference between driller's reported depth of865 ft and total depth reached of 861 ft may be due to settling of resi­dual drill cuttings. Completion of well consisted of reaming hole to 8 into total depth, subsequent reaming of hole to 14 in from 97 to 450 ft, andinstallation of l2-in pump pit (casing) to 450 ft. The l2-in casing wasperforated at 110-250, 310-370, and 410-450 ft with ~ x 6-in torch-cutslots. Well was left open from 450 to 865 ft.

The rocks that yield water to wells in the immediate area of wellU(C-2-2)2ccc-l consist of sandstone, interbedded with shale, of theDuchesne River Formation and possibly the uppermost part of the under­lying Uinta Formation. Water is confined in the aquifer, and east ofthis general area, wells flow. Artesian heads range from a few feet tomore than 100 ft (30 m) above land surface. West of this general area,the artesian conditions persist, but the potentiometric surface is belowthe land surface, which rises toward the west.

Wells in the general area have only moderate yields--l to about100 gal/min (0.06 to 6.3 l/s)--and prior to 1974 they were mostly usedfor stock and domestic purposes. A few were used intermittently tosupply water for well drilling. In the immediate area of the aquifertest, many of the older wells have been allowed to flow since they weredrilled or began to leak. This continuous flow, even though small atmost wells, has substantially lowered artesian pressures.

50

A summary of well data for the test area is given in thefollowing table:

Wells in vicinity of aquifer test northwest of Roosevelt, January-February 1974

Altitude: Estimated from Hancock Cove 7~-minute topographic map.Water level: Measurement prior to aquifer test.

Location Datedrilled

Depth(ft)

CasingDepth Diameter(ft) (in)

Al titude(ft)

Water level(ft above

land surface)Remarks

U(C-2-2)2ccc-l 1-74

2ccd-l 12-58

2cdc-l 12-60

3cad-l 11-72

12acd-l 7-73

12bbb-l 3-59

l2bbd-l 4-59

861 961/450

775 63

925 50

300 160

700 350

800

800

1612

6

10

10

6

8

8

5,458

5,424

5,413

5,503

5,282

5,349

5,329

57

110.5

112.5

4/{70R- 50M

90

l'umped well during test.

Appears to have small leakagearound casing. Has flowedmost of time since drilled.

Has flowed small amount mostof time since drilled--shut inmuch of time in last 3 monthswhen used for supply for oil­tes t dri 11 ing.

Supply well for oil-testdrilling. Shut in(?) for un­known length of time.

Do.

Has flowed most of time sincedrilled. Leaks enough aroundcasing that well was not usedfor observati on.

Generally shut in. Used byowner for water-well drillingwater supply.

1/ Measured immediately before aquifer test on 2-5-74.2/ 240 ft of casing perforated at selected intervals below 96 ft.1/ Measured 1-31-74 before development of test well.

~/ R, reported by driller when wellwas completed; M, measured inNovember 1973.

;2/ Estimated.

It can be inferred that the artesian pressure at well U(C-2-2)2ccc-lprobably would have been about that at distant wells U(C-2-2)3cad-l andl2acd-l had not such nearby wells as U(C-2-2)2ccd-l and l2bbb-l beenflowing for many years. It is equally probable that, despite short-termchanges in discharge at wells U(C-2-2)2cdc-l and l2bbd-l, the potentio­metric surface in the area had reached a new equilibrium prior to thedrilling of well U(C-2-2)2ccc-l.

Of greater importance to the interpretation of test results arethe changes that resulted from the drilling of well U(C-2-2)2ccc-1 andfrom preparations for the aquifer test. The well driller reported thatthe well began to flow at a depth of about 150 ft (46 m). Initial flowwas about 10 gal/min (0.63 lis), and the discharge increased to about 20

51

gal/min (1.3 lis) at total depth. The well flowed more or less continu­ously until a 24-hour period of preliminary test pumping and developmenton January 31-February 1, 1974. Subsequently, the well was allowed toflow 2-5 gal/min (0.13-0.32 lis) to prevent freezing in subzero weatherduring the testing. All these procedures produced varying impulses onthe artesian system.

Changes in artesian pressure also occurred at the observationwells. Wells that were flowing prior to the test were shut in, but allwells were allowed to flow an estimated 1-2 gal/min (0.063-0.13 lis) toprevent freezing; the small rate of flow and momentarily shutting inperiodically for measurement did not appear to affect the utility of thewater levels measured during the aquifer test.

Measurements at the pumped well, U(C-2-2)2ccc-l, were made withan air line, and discharge was measured with a pipe orifice. The dieseltest motor could not be precisely regulated; thus discharge varied some­what. The weighted-average discharge was 330 gal/min (21 lis) during a76-hour period.

Test analysis indicated that only the pumped well and the twonearest observation wells, U(C-2-2)2ccd-l and 2cdc-l, gave recognizablyuseful results (fig. 22). Drawdown and recovery data for the twoobservation wells were analyzed by the Theis nonequilibrium method(Lohman, 1972, p. 15). Recovery data from the pumped well were analyzedby the Theis recovery formula (modified after Ferris and others, 1962,p. 100-102).

The analysis indicated several problems. First, prepumpingwater-level measurements were rather erratic and showed a relativelyrapid rise--due to recovery from the pretest pumping for development;consequently, difficult extrapolations had to be made for the testperiod.

Second, a boundary condition appeared in both the drawdown andrecovery curves for both observation wells. The boundary position wasanalyzed by the graphic method of Moulder (in Bentall, 1963b, p.110-112). The determined position of the boundary was such that theobservation-well array was directly normal to the optimum position foran accurate determination. The most that could be obtained from thedetermination is that the boundary is close to--perhaps 800 ft (244 m)or less--and west of the pumped well. The slope of the log-log plot ofwater levels for the observation wells is too large for a singlewell-defined boundary and the larger slope may be caused by amultiplicity of impermeable boundaries within a complex heterogeneousaquifer. Because the pumped well is so close to the apparent positionof the boundary, the estimated value of T probably is twice the valuecomputed at the pumped well and is so listed in table 2.

On the basis of the analysis of this test, it is concluded thatthe transmissivity of the Duchesne River Formation is about 900 ft 2 /d

52

is about 0.0002 in thejust west of, the pumped

The lower permeabilitybeds penetrated by the

subsidence faulting such

(84 m2 /d) and that the storage coefficientvicinity of the observation wells. At, orwell, the formation has a lower permeability.probably is due to pinching out of sandstonethree wells, but it also could be due to minoras has been observed elsewhere in the basin.

The Duchesne River Formation in the vicinity of the test isdemonstrably nonhomogeneous. The aquifer transmissivity derived fromthe test is small, and from the boundary effect it can be seen that theformation has still lower transmissivity nearby. This is all importantto well-field design. For example, if the area were used as a source ofwater for a period as short as 6 weeks, a single well pumping 500gal/min (32 lis) would cause a drawdown of 40-50 ft (12-15 m) in anotherwell 3,000 ft (910 m) away. Multi-well pumping would create largerdrawdowns and certainly would create measurable mutual interference atdistance measurable in miles.

Aquifer tests in the Weber Quartzite (or Sandstone)

Big Brush Creek area

The Stauffer Chemical Co. has two wells finished in the WeberSandstone near their phosphate mine north of Vernal. Well (D-2-22)32bcb-3 (see table 6 and pl. 1) was reported drilled to 1,573 ft (479 m)and is finished both in the Weber Sandstone and the upper part of theunderlying Morgan Formation. Data for production tests of the well, asreported by the owner, did not include measurements of the recoveringwater level. Testing in December 1973 did not produce recognizabledrawdown effects in the other well, (D-2-22)29dcd-l, which at the timewas equipped with an automatic water-level recorder. However, the Testimated from specific capacity (table 6) for the water-bearing zoneopen to well (D-2-22)32bcb-3 was about 200 ft 2 /d (19 m2 /d), and K,calculated from the estimated T, is about 0.1 ft/d (0.03 mid).

During the summer of 1974, the Stauffer Chemical Co. had aground-water study made of its property by Dames and Moore, who ran anaquifer test on well (D-2-22)29dcd-l. Recomputation using data fromthis test (Stauffer Chemical Co., written commun., Jan. 13, 1975) areshown in figure 23, which indicates a T of about 1,400 ft 2 /d (130 m2 /d)and a K of 3.0 ft/d (0.9 m/d), calculated for 463 ft (141 m) of uncasedhole. The well was pumped about 34 hours at an average rate of 628gal/min (39.6 lis) and had an ending drawdown of about 84 ft (26 m),which yields a specific capacity of about 7.5 (gal/min)/ft or 1.6(l/s)/m of drawdown. The Stauffer Chemical Co. further reported that anobservation well (drilled for the test about 800 ft [244 m] northeast ofthe pumped well) showed no change in water level as a result of thepumping.

The plot of points inwater is affected by a change

figure 23 shows that the recovery of thein the formation at an unknown distance

53

and direction. A calculation of T from the latter part of the datashown in figure 23 gives a value of 2,700 ft 2 /d (250 m2 /d), or abouttwice that for the first part of the recovery. The change in slope isnot due to conditions in the aquifer at the well, and therefore thechange probably indicates a boundary beyond which the formation is morepermeable.

Echo Park

Echo Park is in the Yampa River Canyon near the confluence of theYampa and Green Rivers in Dinosaur National Monument. It is less than 1mi (1.6 km) east of the eastern boundary of the Uinta Basin (pl. 1).Echo Park well 3, S(B-7-l03)32adb-l, was drilled in 1970 for theNational Park Service. Sumsion (1971) reports that the well was drilledthrough 58 ft (18 m) of alluvium and that l4-in (36-cm) casing wastightly seated in the top of the Weber Sandstone. The water level was10 ft (3.0 m) below land surface. The well was then drilled throughfractured Weber Sandstone to a depth of 300 ft (91 m). The well beganto flow at a depth of 97 ft (30 m) and was flowing 150 gal/min (9.5 lis)at land surface when the well was 300 ft (91 m) deep. After the casingwas perforated from 165 to 300 ft (50 to 91 m) and controls wereinstalled, the well flowed 35.3 gal/min (2.23 l/s) through a 4-in(lO-cm) discharge pipe at 2.02 ft (0.62 m) above land surface. Theshut-in pressure after 17 hours 20 minutes was 2.43 ft (0.74 m) aboveland surface, or a rise of 0.41 ft (0.12 m). The specific capacity was86 (gal/min)/ft [17.8 (l/s)/m]. The calculated Twas 4,000 ft 2 /d (370m2 /d), and for the 230 ft (70 m) of casing open to the formation, thecalculated K was approximately 17 ft/d (5.2 mid).

Kamas area

About 17 mi (27 km) beyond the west end of the Uinta Basin, atest well, (D-2-6)16cda-l, was drilled at Kamas (pl. 1) by a Utahinteragency group. The data on the well are included here because theyare indicative of what possibly could be expected of the Weber Sandstonein the western Uinta Basin. The log and construction data (S. B.Montgomery, Utah Div. Water Resources, written commun., May 8, 1973,and Dec. 6, 1974) are given in the following table:

Log and construction data for well (D-2-6)16cda-l

Log by S. B. Montgomery, Utah Division of Water Resources. Alt. 6,515 ft.

Material

Soil, brown sandy loam .Soil and gravel, 0.5 to 2 in diameterClay with sand and pea gravelBoulders, gravel, and clay .

Thickness Depth(ft) (ft)

5 55 10

10 205 25

54

Log and construction data for well (D-2-6)16cda-1--Continued

Thickness Depth(ft) (ft)

15 40

5 45

10 55

5 60

5 65

31 96

14 1105 115

11 126

24 1505 155

25 180

10 190

12 202

13 215

5 220

5 225

5 2305 235

20 255

15 270

20 290

Material

Clay with gravel and quartzite boulders; water.Gravel, 0.25 to 1-in diameter, with some clay;water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Gravel and sand, up to 1 in diameter, and someclay near base; water.....•....

Sand, light-brawn, medium to coarse, with peagravel; water .

Sandstone, quartzitic, fine-grained, hard,fractured. . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . .

Sandstone, partly quartzitic, light-brawn-buff,white, and red, fine-grained, hard, fractured.

Silt, sand, and clay, buff, red-brown, and somegreen, soft; possibly a fault zone.. . . . . . •

Sandstone, with some silt and shale, red ....Sandstone, red and white, fine-grained, clean,

loose to friable . . . . . . . . • . • . . . .Sandstone, quartzitic, hard, brittle, fractured;hole caving badly...•.•..••.....•.

Do, but with loose sand and large fracturesSandstone, quartzitic, white, fine-grained, sub­angular, fractured .•••••.•....

Do, but with much loose sand in zone 180-185; at184 ft water level dropped from 27 to 56 ft ..•

Sandstone and siltstone, white-buff, soft, friable,fractured. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sandstone, quartzitic, white, fine-grained, hard,subangu1ar, fractured, with some loose sand; holecaving; at 204 ft water level rose 2 ft .•.•.

Sandstone, quartzitic, hard; intensely fracturedinto loose gravel-sized angular aggregate; holecaving; strong surge of water ..

Sandstone, quartzitic, hard, with buff loose sand;fractured. • . • • . . . . . . • . . . . • •

Sandstone, quartzitic, white-red, hard, but in­tensely fractured into loose, gravel-sized, angu­lar aggregate; strong surge of water .....

Sandstone, red, fine-grained, loose to friable.Siltstone and shale, red-brown, soft, with some

sandy shale; mostly red-brown shale at 250-255 ft.Sandstone, silty and sha1y, red, loose to friable;

fractured .Sandstone, quartzitic, white to light-gray, hard,with red, soft friable siltstone and sandstone .

Sandstone, white to reddish-brown, fine-grained,some porous, soft sand and quartzitic, gray to redhard sand; much loose pink sand and wide fracturesat 300-308 ft .•.........•...•...

55

18 308

Log and construction data for well (D-2-6)16cda-1--Continued

Material Thickness(ft)

Sandstone, quartzitic, light, reddish-brown, veryfine to fine-grained, hard, well fractured; looseand friable sand in fractures at 319-324 ft 35

Do, but with "honeycomb" openings . . . . . . . . . 7Sandstone, light.-brown to buff and white, hard, verycalcareous in part, extensively fractured, with muchloose or friable sand in fractures; fractures wideenough to catch the percussion bit; hole cavingbadly " " " " " " " , " " " " " " " " " 15

Depth(f t)

343350

365

Casing: 20-in surface pipel6-in

l2-in

Open hole: 277-365 ft

0-20 ft0-126 ft, perforated with Mills knife,

20-118 ft122-277 ft, perforated, 124-233 and 252­

272 ft

Although the well is partly perforated in the Beaver Creek fillthat lies on the Weber Sandstone, Mr. Montgomery reports that relativelylittle water was contributed to the well by the unconsolidated deposits.The formation, moreover, is not under artesian pressure at the well andhas a water level approximately 20 ft (6.1 m) below that in theoverlying fill. This water-level condition indicates both that theWeber can receive recharge in the vicinity of the well, and that watermoving through the formation is discharged elsewhere at a lower altitudethan the approximate 6,470-ft (1,970-m) altitude of the water level inthe well.

Although the well was tested twice, both tests were productiontests, and the recovery of water levels was not measured either time.When drilled to 308 ft (94 m) on May 2, 1973, the well had a 37-hourspecific capacity of 21.4 (ga1/min)/ft [4.4 (l/s)/m] of drawdown andproduced 1,370 gal/min (86.4 l/s). Because a better yield was expectedwith deepening, the well was then drilled to 365 ft (111 m) and againtested. On July 19, 1973, the l7-hour specific capacity was 23.9(ga1/min)/ft [4.9 (l/s)/m] while pumping 1,410 gal/min (89.01/s). Themaximum rate of yield determined later was 1,800 gal/min (114 l/s), withthe pumping level at the bowls at 120 ft (36.6 m), or about 76 ft (23.2m) of drawdown.

The formation is under water-table conditions at the well. Usingan assumed storage coefficient of 0.01, the estimated T is about 6,000ft 2 /d (557 m2 /d), and the calculated K for the 271-ft (83-m) section offormation exposed in the well is about 20 ft/d (6.1 mid).

56

Table 6.--Records of selected wells in the northern Uinta Basin area for which specific capacity was calculated and values for transmissivity and

hydraulic conductivity were estimated

Location: See text for description of numbering system. 0, well deepened,Depth: Code (follows figure for depth): 0, measured to nearest foot or less; t, measured to nearest foot or more; 3, reported by driller; 6, reported hy

than driller.Casing depth: Depth to bottom of blank casing or top of first perforated interval.Water-bearing material: B, unclassified sedimentary rock; C, conglomerate; F, shaLe; FO, iron-stained fine-grained metamorphic rock; G, gravel; JF, jointvd ,r[

tured shale; L, limestone; P, clay; R, sand and gravel; S, sand; SV, soft sandstone; V, sandstone; xv, crossbedded sandstone; OL, cavernous limestone; 3G, 1llcdillillgrave 1; 3S, medium sand; 3V, medium-grained sandstone; 4C, coarse-grained conglomerate; 4G, coarse gravel; 4R, coarse sand and gravel; SG, very coarse 'ill,coarse grained sand and grave 1 (inc I udes beds 0 f pebbles, cobb les, and boulders); 6R, clayey sand and grave 1; 5U, very coarse grained unconso I ida ted 6S,clayey sand; 7Q, silt; lV, silty sandstone; 8F, sandy shale; 8L, sandy limestone; 8P, sandy clay.

Well finish: F, perforated casing with gravel pack; G, conunercial well screen with gravel pack; 0, open end; P, perforated; W, shored (dug); X, open hole.Pumping period: A, 15 minutes or less; B, 15-30 minutes.Drawdown: Where shown as l foot, most figures are estimated [rom indication of lesser amount. Code (follows figure for drawdown): 0, measured to nearest foot or

1, measured to nearest foot or more; 2, air-line measurement; 3, reported by driller; 5, estimated from inaccurate measurement; 6, reported by source othEr than dl i I j;

Specific capacity: Calculated from yield and drawdown.

Estimated transmissivity (T): Estimated by method of Theis. Brown, and Meyer (in Bentall, 1963a),Estimated hydraulic conductivity (K): Calculated by dividing T by either length of well open to aquifer or by thickness of major aquifer.

NOTE: 'Ille reader is reminded that-individual values of transmissivity that were estimated from values for specific capacity are, at best, approximations.vidual values for hydraulic conductivity are calculated from the estimates for T, those individual values for K also are approximations. The principal val\l(·values listed in this table lies in their indication of relative permeability a~d areas of consistent aquifer 'Zharacteristics, See paRes 20 and '22 1\11' dilimitations and applicability.

Eslilll<ltcd

Location Depth( ft)

Cas ingdiameter

(in)

Casil1~

depth(ft)

Water­hearingmaterial

Thicknessof majoraqlli fer(tt)

Length ofwell open

(tt)We 11

f illishYield

(gal/min)

Pumpingperiud(hours)

SpecificDrawdown capacity

(ft) [(gal/min)/ft]

Transmis­sivity

T( ft'/d)

Hydrau I j,

conducL i viI

Wells finished in alluvium of Holocene age

')Oil

10(j flO

1,lon III(J

~) , / () ( I

ZO(\ Ii"

11)

10()

20()

400 1(1

150 2!1h, 'i00 HOO

')00 :!O()

1{)(1

1,b(I()2,()()()

1,100 (iI)

6,000 BOO4,()()() IOU

2001,100 11)(1

6,(lOU2,2004,OOu j()()

h ,oon HIIO

j ,(Jon1,OO() r)(1

"J ,000 !IHI

)'ill

1,400

(Il ~4 - 21) 12bcc - J 1U l6 8 4,00

(11-7 -1 9) 12dad-2 16 96 13 2 17

1l(D-)-1)6ch'h-1 4J 6 23 10 10.0

Wells finishpd in alluvium of Pleistocene age

(1l-4-21) 2had-l SO 0 hS 38 42 18 8 2.2')

ll(C-J~4) 'j')dsh-l \H 48 8 49 10 12 14 86

J6ddll-1 48 40 8 72 8 :3() l 30 .0

IT())-! -2) 17had-1 110 4', (; 2 to 1\ 3.0

\o1ells finished in glacial outwash of Pleistocene age

(1l~2-22)16ddh-l 64 64 9 20 60 l .33

(D-]-!O) Ibacd-] 80 66 ',8 b2 14 \ 8 ) 6J2288h-1 hi 67 \R 100 42 l 2 4

([). 1 ~ 2 I) :3 2L c',-I 3'1 1'1 \8 29 !O 27 1 74

(D-4-2 t) 7aad-l rl () ]7 (: 17 1', 4 1 3 7\

Reel' - 1 46 l6 8 2') 10 14 12 1 29h\"("-1 26 l6 8 23 10 rl 4 6 2'19ldd - 1 ]() ]0 (; 0 100 4 2'), ()

Ild{"h-I l\ l\ \8 2\ 0 20 21 '1\11 11111,-1 2h 26 C " 10 1 3,3

14cdc - 1 24 2J 30 1') 0

14cdd ~ I 100 ]7 °11' Il 1 8 14 51I 'idah-] 10 11 \8 23 17 2') 4 6.2516hha -2 17 28 8 8 30 I ] 30.016cclJ-2 26 iJ 'it; 13 100 1\ 6 16 7

11aaa-2 2h 26 ',8 12 60 llJ 017aah-1 lO 27 (; J lO 7 "17ahiJ-I ',2 44 R 44 6 30 30 020Baa-2 28 21 (; \ 40 10 020<lha -1 ',4 42 ')j{ 12 16 II> .0

20dad -1 'is 10 60 12.0211>all-1 30 20 111 4'i 'i,t))ni:ldB-1 21 10 I 'J.O22daa-l 27 ,., 11 1 7\23hl'c -1 23 n 20 '),()

2kha-l 26 22 (; 1J III \2:3Ldh-1 )c, 2"1 " 60 I') .02Jdhl>-1 lo lo R " 1 .2°,23dca-l 40 19 '" 1', 11 16 1 202"3ddd-l 20 20 2() .22

25adfl-l lao n 2) 20 10 2 026ach-l 20 12 8 10 1 10.02hdl,,' -I \8 28 J'3 12 10 1 ':i.O21bl>ll-l 46 10 16 40 ".U2Hahd-l hi' \2 I'i 1\ 1':i.O

29hh1>-1 hO 4\ 1') l'l 6 10 1 .M)34ddd- ] '14 20 6 10 1 J 10,036hdh-l \U 10 J() :'(j 10 8 1 1 2'1

(ll-4':U)JOhad-l 10 12 4 18 " 1 1.4031h(:(:-/ 22 22 II 'l() 1 12 \

(n-4-2"3)l'ihbh-l 2q 2'J 'iR \0 12 \ 2 4. tlU(1l-4· 24 )30ddl' -'j 12 ?H H 38 14 /l(1l-,)-19) Hh"dc-I 24 8 111 !O 8 4,()()

l'lhhh-I 41 Jh H 4 40 H .00IfHcl,-1 611 1H k HI JlI III 10 ,0

'0 h 20 I( 12 ]'; ':>0\1I 40 '" 2h . flO

Bdah-l 1,2 28 R 14 1.4017ach-l 30 lO 8 12 2.00

(1l~'i-2'j)20hcd-1 11 h 81' 1 .50

20hde-1 l6 I'; 51< 40 oS .on"32adiJ-l 26 26 "R 1\ 12 1.2')

(n-b-21)31aca-1 f.O 2') \8 20 1 /0 1.00(1)-0-22) ldad- J 43 ]H 23 '" 17 20 'i03 24 1K '.!) 9

Iddil-l 40 18 2() 'JH }o 4') i' 24 1', !H "(1l-7-!O)%cc-] l6 Jh 51< 10 11 .' 1J

lOcl'I,-1 41 1.7 51< 20 23 .8717aaa -] 2') I' , 7 7122dcd-l l!1() 10 ] 28 48 87 ]2 15 J 10 1 \0

(11-8-20) Idhc-l 'iK l70 II \0 h 1.40

57

Table 6.--Records of selected wells in the northern Uinta Basin area for which specific capacity was calculated and values for transmissivity andhydraulic conductivity were estimated--Continued

Estimated

Location Depth(ft)

Casingdiameter

(in)

Casingdepth(ft)

Water­he.!lringmaterial

Thicknessof majoraquifer

(ft)

Length ofwell open

(ft)Well

finishYield

(gal/min)

pumpingperino(hours)

Drawdown(ft)

Transmis- HydraulicSpecific sivity conductivitycapacity T K

[(gal/min)/ft] (ft-r/d) (ft/d)

Wells finished in glacial outwash of Pleistocene age - Continued

(D-8-20) Iddh-lllacd-l

(D-8-21) 6bdd-36bdd-46bdd-5

U(A-1-1) 20a<.:c-120add-l28ahl1-228chh-113hha-1n

\1(A-2-1) 36bhd-llI(B-1-1) 2aha-1

2a<.:a-l

2add-l19aad-1

19ada -119cee ~ 119ddd-l25hc<:-125bcc -2

25hcd-l26ada-l27ada-l27adiJ-l34dcc -1

j4ddd-lj5<.:,:c-l

11(11-1-2) 36Jdd-lII (11-1-4) 33dad-l["(I,>-I-H) l'Jddd-1

2Ydhd-129Jdd-132a(.'('-1l2adc -1DllCa-1

U(l-'>-1-9) IbJa-lIhda -2

12ada -1I ?add-l12cl(jd-2

12daa -1II (II -2 -4) 9aa,' ~]

15hdd-1

2bdcc ~ 1I' (l -1-1) 2cco-1

3hc'iJ-l5daa ~ 16ada -]

hued -I12cCl' -]18dcd -124aaa -124chh-]

8cdd-l9dij(i-l'Jdi'ld-]D

11l'dd -11Ihad-lll

11:,,'(' -I1811ht'-1lBcbb-l19abc-120dila -1

22a3<1-124dcc -I2Scha-]2'll'dh-f,26adCl-I

2bdi,I,-1l\dl',I-l

"U-I-/)j(),jI)d-J

IOk,!'- J

I' «( -1 -K) 41,,1<1-1

llhhL-l-211ccd-l11lld-21ldd( -1I'J('(<.'-]

10 3

8377

5243274574

D46]9

9748

\3421212hi

13110190181II

J218

IIIIIW,

'J'J11440SHi'1

j(I

11,

2!

'8

6443

Ill)IUH)

29lY

II4UJ24441

28J2

217'4

16')]

IIIdKH

lHII

100J828

III

4f,Wl41

')2

JlSUII

I')'l

iO

l:l9Bc.O

1313

66

1216

6

666

106

43

6866

4030274413

63219B748

132712

12

33306085

1\

71

99lID4018

2151182219

6143

1005020

19l'J

1818

lh

24

2"

3820121254

2J1,6he')7

81

31401821

1012468141

40Jj

80

11',

5R5R5R5RIR

IRR

18

58\R

\818IRIR\8

IK\8

\R'iRC,"

"K\8

\(,

\R

'"'il{

8

\R,'iR')R

\B\BIR

\RIRIRIRIR

IK18\RIR

S

1818\R\B51{

C,"''if.:

\R(

',a',a'if{

IR

'"

5241

42

10

10

180

74

69111010

1J12

c,1

10

20j(]

I C,

16

?R11

19IJ

14

4n

80

II

1511

1213

27142010

II

13

1/8181

10

18848

21

I')

20

8

IIII

18

12

4()

58

37040

280265255

201110II20

2040401215

2050II60

8

2010

1,410

1,6006

1030

61012

JO10HJJO30

1230121015

IbOIn3040

7

II20102140

LOLO12

1001\

10020203120

JO4n

I3020

1025

8102')

152040BO25

10I C

,

HI

30'hO

20101230lO

41

24152110

2424

4821466559

816

410

I

24II

16I

241

2246

201649\8

2

I6

10

36

I10

1

10

B J3J]

3

181I10

110

') 314 J13 III J

4 ]

1\

16

2021

4I C

,

2\I

]0

1')2222

6

I24272110

1

/4

/0

2U\4\J

7.711.606.094.084.32

2.50.69

2.501.504.00

8340.040.0

.753.00

.l:\]')0.0

.6815.0

1.33

1.00.61

28.827.6

3.00

10.0') .00

.6010.02,00

h .00

1.0010.06.003.00

1, 'iO1') .02.402 50'i .00

B .8917h3.00

40.070

? 201 4]

/11.67

10 0

h7\(1 0

2.00'i .00l'il

25.01.33

.BOJ,) .0

1 00

1".020,0

1.00W,Olo.n

1 14J6hi]}

j'l.O

.R3

.48

.81

.83

1O .0h3

h ()()

1') ,0

I

l.00

h .onl.OOb .00

10.0

1,500

600600

400100

)409,0009,000

100

12,000

200

'i ,600r1 ,600

'iOO

100

400

170

2\0l,200

400400

1,000

1.700

'iUO9,000

100

400

2,000

400900700

R.ODO

,000

JOO

800

6.400

IO()

4060

308

10hOO'iOO

10

HOO

20

\070

20

40

40

30200\0

100100

8n

40400

10

\0

]()O

10

60\0

400

bOO

1002U()

1.100100

4()O

:!O

Table 6.--Records of selected wells in the northern Uinta Basin area for which specific capacity was calculated and values for transmissivity andhydraulic conductivity were estimated... -Continued

Estimated

Thickness Transmis- Hydraulic

Casing Casing Water- of major Length of Pumping Specific sivity conductivity

Location Depth diameter depth bearing aquUar well open Well Yield period Drawdown capacity T !(ft) (in) (ft) material (ft) (ft) finhh (gal/min) (houra) (ft) [ (gal/min)/ft] (ft1"/d) (ft/d)

Wells finished in glacial outwash of Pleistocene age - Continued

U(C-1-8) 13ccc-2 64 64 5. 34 20 26 0,77

14add-l 76 5. 30 1 30,0

14bac~1 38 30 5. 11 30 7 4,29 900 100

14bda-l 30 30 5. 30 12 2,50

24bbb-l 42 42 5. 20 13 1.54

24bbd-l 43 • 30 1 30,0

24dcc~1 200 91 5. 61 300 190 1.58 300

24ddc -1 48 48 5. 9 20 ,45

24ddd-l 43 • 30 2 15.0

2Sadb-1 54 54 5. 34 IS 22 ,68

U(C -2 -1) 27b6b-l 42 42 0 60 25 2.40

27dbb-l 42 34 • p 7 6 1.17 200 30

29ddc-l 48 40 5. 10 p 5 10 ,SO 100 20

JSdbb-1 46 46 5. a 30 7 4.29

U(C-2-J)6baa-l SO 40 • 10 10 p IS 5 J .00 500 SO

7bab-1 31 31 5. 0 20 24 ,83

26d.. -l 80 70 C 74 10 p IS IS 1.00 200 20

27bbc-l 56 56 5. 0 IS 30 ,50

27cbb-3 32 22 • 10 P 8 10 ,80 100 10

28aba-1 38 38 5. 30 0 20 22 ,91

U(C-2-4) Iddd-l 31 31 5. 20 21 ,95

3cbb-l 40 • 12 8 19 4.21

U(C-2-5)27ccc-2 47 36 s 11 11 20 2 10.0 2,000 200

U(C-2-6) 14dbc-1D 95 70 R IS 20 1 20,0 4,000 300

14dbd-l 43 43 R 18 IS 8 1.88

18cda-l 44 28 S 18 IS IS 1 15,0 4,500 300

20abd-1 55 44 5' 12 11 20 2 10,0 3,100 300

20hac~1 57 46 S IS 10 IS 1 15.0 4,700 300

21bba-l SO 38 12 1 12.0 1,700 100

24aad-l 79 41 20 5 33 ,IS 30 2

24baa-l 32 21 • 11 11 F 12 4 3.00 500 SO

U(C-2-7)13cba-2 36 28 5R 11 8 p 20 2 10,0 2,000 200

13cba -3 37 37 5R 0 12 6 2,00

lJcbd-l 19 IS 5. P 7 1 7,00 1,400 400

U(C-3~2)31bac-l 48 48 R 0 12 10 1.20

U(C-3-3)10cab-1 52 52 5. 47 100 24 8 12 5

24daa-1 SO 30 R 40 13 5 10 , SO 100

31cdc-l 36 35 • 10 8 ,25

U(C-3-4)26cdc-1 60 58 5. 2 10 8 ,25

31cab-l 70 41 5R 12 29 20 6 33 650 20

31ccb-1 70 44 R 7 26 7 18 ,39 SO 7

31dad-1 30 20 • 28 10 12 4 3.00 500 SO

32abd-1 65 62 5G 3 40 1 40 .032bda-l 59 50 S 8 9 25 1 25.0 5,600 700

33.C8-1 50 38 5R 35 11 35 1 35,0 8,000 700

33adb-l 51 41 R 10 20 10 .0 2,000 200

33had-1 43 30 5R 10 35 35.0 8,000 80033bbc-1 43 36 R 7 10 3,33 650 100

34aca-l SO 42 R 8 20 20,0 4,300 500

34bac-l 53 41 S 11 9 24 24,0 5,000 600

34bcb-1 32 22 R 10 20 14 1.43 250 30

34bda-l 40 32 R 8 20 1 20.0 4,000 500

36cad~1 41 36 R 5 20 1 20,0 4,000 800

36cba-1 48 48 R 10 33 ,30

U(C-3-5) 13bbb-2 50 40 5R 24 10 20 1 20 .0 4,000 400

13cac-2 37 12 37 5. 177 20 5 35,4

13cac-3 35 20 35 • 143 20 20 7.15

13cac-4 35 12 35 5. 17 130 1 6 21.713c8c-5 43 12 43 5. 23 135 1 3 45.013ccc -1 47 8 47 5R 50 31 1.61

14ddd-1 45 12 42 5. 200 35 5.71

14ddd-2 49 12 49 5R 125 25 5,024acc-l 100 6 46 S 10 10 20 1 20.024bhh-l 40 12 38 5R 120 16 30 4,0

25bch-l 14 b 14 5. 10 5 2,0

25bcb-1D 29 29 5R a 10 12 ,83

250cc-l 29 29 5R ()

i~ \ 8 1.25

25ccc-1 57 57 5. 40 () 35 ,57

36bhd-1 SO 50 5R 42 0 35 7 5.0036ddc~1 144 15 5R 41 26 P .4 125 ,0032 <10

lI(C-J-ll) 15coh-1 83 83 5. 35 46 ,76

U(C-4-2)5888-1 28 4G 40 10 4.00

59

Table 6.--Records of selected wellsin the northern Uinta Basin area for which specific capacity was calculated and values for transmissivity and

hydraulic conductivity were estimated--Continued

Estimated

Thicknessfransmis- Hydraulic

Casing Cui.ng Water- of major Length of Pumping Specific sivity conductivity

Depth di.ameter depth bearing aquifer well open Well Yield period Drawdown capacity T KLocation ( ft'l d) (ft/d)

(ft) (in) (ft) material (ft) (ft) finish (gal/min) (hours) (ft) [ (ga1/min) 1ft]

Wells finished in glacial outwash of Pleistocene age - Continued

U(C-4-3) 5.db-1 59 48 5' 12 11 20 20.0 4,000 400U(C-4-4) 6hca-l J1 21 5. 10 12 2.00 400 40

6hcc -3 12 48 • W 10 1 10 .0

6bda-l 50 4 40 4c 10 P 3D 2 15.0 3,000 300

lJ(C-4-5) Ibdb-l 22 6 14 5. 35 9 3.89

U(C-4-8) llacc-l 52 10 52 5. 25 15 1. 67

13cch-2 25 6 25 5. 13 15 13 1. 15

U(D-l-l)4baa-l 3D 6 30 5. 19 0 8 7 1.14

6abb-l 35 6 35 5. 27 0 20 2 2 10.0

6bbb-1 161 14 120 5. 159 40 F 1,480 36 115 12.9 2,300 50

lOcda-l 50 8 29 5. 43 15 P 50 13 3.85 670 40

lOcdb-l 27 6 20 • 12 7 P 40 10 4.00 740 100

1 'Jsda-l 32 7 17 • 24 15 p 50 7 7.14 1,500 100

15add-l 3D 7 15 • 25 15 p 50 5 10 .0 2,000 100

16aaa-l 32 6 32 5. 0 20 22 .91

l6cch-l 40 8 14 5. 23 10 P 50 15 3.33 550 60

19aaa-l 50 10 37 5. 49 13 P 135 44 3.07 500 40

19a.. -2 47 10 46 5. 125 41 3.05

1988a-3 55 10 51 S 96 48 22 4.36

19aoa-l 36 6 36 • 10 1 10.0

19add-l 54 12 44 5. 50 10 220 44 5.00 870 90

19sdd-2 67 12 37 5. 46 19 160 25 6.40 1,140 60

19daa-l 50 12 20 5. 35 3D 400 39 10.3 2,200 70

19dsa-2 55 8 35 • 40 15 25 3 8. J3 1,500 100

19dss-3 50 10 38 • 12 175 32 ') .47 970 802l(hc-l 255 8 35 5. 31 2 30 2 15.0 3,200 500

28ada-l 50 8 24 S. 3D 10 50 20 2.50 400 40

30sda -1 24 19 5R 15 I 40 13.3 '3,000 600

II (ll-1-2) Hcdd-l 41 )5 R 6 40 10.0 2,000 300

17sah-1 40 30 R 9 10 3D 4. '}7 800 90

170aa-l 34 28 G 5 5 40 40.0 9,000 1,800

lI(f)-2-1) 2had-l 24 24 I. 24 20 2.22

')ol1h-l 26 20 I. 8 6 30 7 4.27 800 100

8baa-l 3D 15 5. 20 15 25 16 1. 56 270 20

9<:cc-l 33 26 • 9 7 12 4 3.00 500 60

14ddd-l 24 5. 3D 4 7. ')0

14ddd-2 29 26 5. 25 10 b 1. 6 7

15ddc -1 ')0 8 28 \H 22 X 100 2 50 .0

17aha-l 28 6 18 5. 23 P 12 11 1.09 200 3D

230aa-l 20 6 20 5. 0 40 5 8.0023cco-l 38 6 24 5. 19 X 25 2 4 6.25

23cdd-l 13 10 12 5. 7 [) 10 16 10 1.00

1l(D-3-1) lcdc-l 40 3 31 5. 3D 6 J 5.00

lJ(I)-3-2) 7ddh-1 " lJ 5. 12 2.007ddl1-"J 35 " " 19 12 3.00

Well finished in the Browns Park Formation

(D-1-2l) 2 7chh-l \8 4 15 17 .88 180 40

(lJ-2·24) 7dhh-l 80 21 75 78 42 12 J.50 900 10

Wells finished in the Duchesne River Formation

(1l-5-19) 10caa-l 70 20 43 .047 <10 <·21 ')aac-1 242 224 16 20 .25 60 4

l6<.:ca-l 210 200 10 68 .10 3D 320add-1 1\0 142 8 35 14 40 5

(1l-5-20) Jcah-2 610 230 62 90 .66 10 .2

lJ (c\ -1-1) 2 1hh h ~ 1 111 " 4 15 20 36 2 24 0823ccc-l \90 \ 190 V 10 5 3D 1727ddd-l 312 4 82 V 34 230 5 115 043 40 .2

360he-l 263 4 2)8 (' 5 5 5 120 042 40

lJ(I\-1-2) 31dcc-l 94 15 V 12 19 11 3D 37 40

J Idee-lO 200 IOU 9 42 .21 3D32aca -1 200 100 23 40 30 1.33

U(I-I-l-1) 10daa-2 180 IIi 108 63 25 150 .17 50

U(Il-1-2) 24ddrl-l 190 170 15 20 12 146 .08 2026aco-l \60 450 17\ 80 60 270 .22 3D .4

UOs-I-4) 2dba-l 496 313 18 80 8 14\ 06 10 .1l! (H-2-1) 26dad-l 8\ 42 10 43 10 50 .20 40 \

U(C-l-l)6bbh-l 200 170 10 30 10 3D 33 3D 18bec -1 174 144 20 30 10 9 I 11 400 \3

2hl1ah-l 18\ 3\ 11 150 10 6\ 15 40 .3

29hbh-l 50 20 7 3D R 10 80 20029bbh-2 32\ 290 15 35 20 100 .20 30 .930aad-l 3\3 14 39 137 10 265 ()1R <10 <.03

30dda-l 45 16 17 29 3 38 079 20 1Jldl>b-l 420 "0 120 70 75 170 20 40

33cc('-1 300 180 20 220 .027 <10 <.536nh: -1 260 50 .14 40

U(l>1-2) Ihaa-l 220 15') 3 35 9 100 09 20 .6ll>cb-l 1\2 21 32 131 II 110 14 40 39add-l 150 12 40 30 80

60

6 .....Records of selected wells in the northern Uinta Basin area for which specific capacity was calculated and values for transmissivity andTable

hydraulic conductivity were estimated--Continued

Estimated

Thickness Transmis- Hydraulic

Casing Casing Water- or major Length of Pumping Specific sivity conductivity

Location Depth diameter depth bearing aquifer well open Well Yield period Drawdown capacity T K

(ft) ( in) (ft) material (ft) (ft) finish (gal/min) (hours) (ft) [ (gal/min)/ftj (ft"-/d) (fUd)

Wells finished in the Duchesne River Fonnation - Continued

U(C-I-2) llddh-2 160 121 V 25 39 15 60 0 " 60

13cdd-2 260 110 V 53 150 20 60 .33 30

1 ')hhc-1 100 V ] 2 I 50

15l'ch-1 120 V 12 35 34 100

22hha-l 200 100 V 55 60 40 128 .31 80

22chh-l 810 60 V 480 750 200 33 6.06 1,600

27aaa -1 2IS SV 26 9 3 3.00

36adc -1 170 40 v 11 1]0 20 115 17 50 .4

U(C-I-3) lIdac-l 10 v 15 21 56 160

27hhb-1 65 50 V 11 15 5 )5 14 40

lOhd,: -1 82 40 63 30 60 2 30 0 B ,000 100

32('aa-1 200 160 44 30 30 60 .50 130 ]

33dcc-1 320 205 40 95 12 69 17 50 5

Ddda-ID 160 16 67 144 10 25 .40 100 .7

33ddd -1 53 34 8 19 10 5 2.00 600 ]0

33ddd -2 160 38 20 90 22 60

])ddd -3 140 100 40 20 30 67 170

34hhh-1 704 500 150 204 10 50 .20 50 .3

1l(C-1-4)3lbda -1 440 45 25 337 30 50 .60 160 .5

32bca-1 157 7 10 40 .25 70 10

Ddt:(; -1 60 20 20 )5 4 50 .08 10 .3

34bhd-1 380 200 56 180 lJ 230 .06 10 .05

U«(;-l-S) 9ahb-l 64 18 46 10 10 ] .00 270

13aad-1 85 35 15 50 10 30 .3J 30

13ahc -1 100 70 30 10 25 40 100

2bccc -2 200 4 42 1°)8 5 98 .O'd 10 I

27cdc-10 126 )6 101 26 2') J 15 040 <10 <.4

Dadh-I 120 65 12 \\ 40 70 57 160 3

33adl'-l 120 6\ 40 70 51 160 J

lSaca-1 7S 14 4 28 14 40 3

l6cah-1 177 137 40 411 7 172 .041 10 <'3

t:(C-2-1)2clH'-1 200 175 18 12 30 .40 100 4

9add ~ 1 140 4 50 .080 10

9dad-1 140 207 52 '133 12 75 16 40

1Jddd-I 221 202 8 2J 12 42 .29 80

14 cc b -1 6'> 20 10 2.00 SSO

14cdh-2 180 1SO 18 10 4 152 .026 <10 <.3l5aad-1 192 90 J4 102 12 190 .063 10 1

16ddd-J 620 \ 240 .021 <10

18chh-l ]S') 180 2 2 I 00

2011al>-1 43h 123 \ ll3 14 bO .2:3 60 .2

20hhh-1 85 J5 III 15 ')0 50 14 J 57 1,100 20

21['('d- ] /81 ]')2 I' I 1'19 12 ]0 40 100 .8

21cdd-l 350 200 V 8 150 7 202 035 <10 <.1

22hht'-1 'i'J(J , 101 12 100 12 JO .J

22cl'l-1 81 flO I' 21 2 69 ,o2Y <10 <.\2]('(:t'-1 l(,] ll() s\ II Cd 2'1 96 28 70 I27I1ch-] 160 III ,. 20 20 10 .024 <10 <.52';lacl-1 78 48 v 24 30 10 \0 20 50 2

31dhc-l J2 12 8 10 18 56

ll:ah-1 340 180 n 160 \00 320 ] .31 JO .2

t\61 l2 110 631 no 16 18/ 11 410 88dhh·] 540 6 280 80 200 200 00 270

12i:lcd-l !O() 3'JO '3 'i0 350 400 .88 240l]ccc-1 121 20 :!o I no 270 50

l:(C-2- l)'ihch-1 380 240 25 140 70 240 .29 80 .6lDddc-l 100 40 14 60 10 25 40 100 214cca -1 91 19 25 72 12 10 40 100 I17Jhh-1 80 is 20 \C, JO 2 " 0 4,500 80

U(C-2-f, )333a-1 54 JO 18 2/, 20 23 81 240

lJ(C-2-7)lOacb-1 I 'jO 80 b3 15 4 4 00 1,200 211

lOdah-l 61 49 14 II 20 2(J II 6, ]00 hOn

['(c-3-10) 5dhfl-1 184 75 7 10 "8 b II ] 3,200 JOO

lI(n-I-1) 11aad-2 180 lib sv 4 10 1/ 40 1111] h,-,<I-1 190 [hO i.H" 40 Hl "4 O?h <10 < J

29ddd -1 pr) 34'1 16 )0 6 2 'i0 ()2It <10 < J)6acc -1 442 117 121 32') 5 340 .01 'i <10 < OJ

l'(D-1-2) 7ahd-l 200 19 12 181 8 70 II )0 27aIHI-lD 320 220 80 100 20 150 lJ 40Reaa -1 ]7') 122 J9 lJ 1'.32 .098 10

Bdch-l 200 6(} 120 45 10 4 SO 1,3')0 108deh-2 200 UO JO I 60 OJ 7 <10 <.3

]7hah-2 200 48 50 152 25 14 I 79 500 ]

lYehh-1 liS 90 45 2\ ) B') .OJ,) <10 <2l'Je{'l'-1 111 110 14 21 I JOJ .030 <10 <. 5

14ddd-l 280 I flO 6" 2') 10 40 2') 70U(D-2-1 )3ccc-! 375 l'i 25 3fiO 30 h ,00 1,800

'irlac -1 300 YO O'l6 III!(l,hh-l lOO 21 10 279 140 uu. <1U <.041 Jdl'{'-l lOO 111 lh() ()')() 10 1

l'lccd-j 100 90 91 91 044 <10 <.116ddd -I 257 215 10 42 50 080 10 2IBcdd-1 170 135 ,~ ]0) 60 13 40 118del' -I 310 no 15 2n 140 nIh <10 <.19aal>-1 II" 110 8 " 18 16 411 5

61

Table 6.--Records of selected wells in the northern Uinta Basin area for which specific capacity was calculated and vaiues for transmissivity and

hydraulic conductivity were e.stimated--Continued

Estimated

Thickness Transmis- HydraulicCasing Casing Water- of major Length of pumping Specific sivity conductivity

Location Depth diameter depth hearing aquifer well open Well Yield period Drawdown capacity T K( ft) ( in) (Et) material (ft) (it) finish (gal/min) (hours) (ft) [ (ga1/min)/ft] (ft"tld) (Ef7d)

Wells finished in the Duchesne River Formation - Continued

U(D ~2 -1) 2Qbbb-1 325 285 V 20 20 15 50 0.30 70

U(D-2-2)18cdc-1 500 V 5 140 .036 <10

Wells finished in the Uinta Formation

(D-7-19) 12daa-1 61 15 46 X 4 40 .10 30 .7

(0-7-20)46b,-1 70 25 40 F 8 56 .14 60

(0-8-22) 15bb,-1 120 60 60 F 30 80 .38 200

(0-9-24)3dbd-l 100 11 33 .33 80

U(C~1-7)328cd·l 208 60 146 2 156 .013 <10 <.07

U(C-2-2)29ccc-1 200 12 108 51 35 380 48 56 6.79 2,000 40

30ddd -1 200 12 114 30 86 605 48 55 11.0 3,200 40

3l~as-1 175 8 107 68 125 1 1 125.0 3D ,000 >400

U(C~2-3)2Sacs-l 260 6 105 155 25 1 212 .12 30 .2

25daa-l 239 6 75 11 164 130 12 11 11 .8 3,500 21

33cdd-1 350 66 In 284 200 2 100 2.00 600 2

lJ(C-2~4)30ddd-1 220 65 135 18 1 99 .18 50 .4

Hand-1 525 350 395 150 60 40 130 .46 110 .7

34aad-1 1,000 500 100 130 100 100 1.00 270 2

U(C-2-5) 21cch-1 181 146 44 35 15 1 15.0 4,800 100

28cds-1 80 45 SV 17 12 5 1 5.00 1,500 100

28eds-1D 150 129 V 20 21 8 34 .24 50 2

29hhd-1 56 41 V 25 15 10 1 10.0 3,100 200

32acd-1 600 350 V 60 70 200 .35 100 2

34ahh-1 148 V 12 40 .30 100

34aob-2 200 140 V 40 12 125 .096 30 .8

350ah-1 120 90 V 30 20 75 .27 70

U(C-2-8) 25ada-l 640 V 3 640 .0047 <10

lJ (C -3 ~ 1) 15aha-1 300 150 65 43 50 5 50 .10 30 .6

U(C-3-2)3ads~1 38 18 S 8 20 10 18 .56 150

8aaa-1 142 26 115 10 85 .12 30 .3

29had-l 100 5 55 .091 3031d('d-1 80 80 10 10 1.00

l1(C-)~3)4das-l 200 100 15 100 15 80 .19 50

14dcc-1 75 5 25 50 .50 140 30

J')ehe -1 100 38 40 62 X I 45 .022 <10 <.2U(C-J-4) 7aca-l 460 4.00 60 60 P 60 320 19 50 .8

JOhed-1 350 320 6 P 11 125 .088 20 330ceh~ 1 500 220 180 I' 4 382 .01 <10 <.06

U(C-3-,») 7aca-1 500 400 100 I' 35 384 .091 20 .2

lJ(c-3-6)25cda-1 130 100 5 63 .079 10 .30(e-3-7) 19dba-2 90 50 13 35 20 30 .67 190 5U(C-3-8) 7ddh-1 124 120 51 4 10 6 .67 530 10

18beh-1 111 23 49 88 8 30 .27 70 .8

2')e8c-l 100 35 40 10 45 .22 50 .8

2')ced-l 410 220 V 60 7 210 .033 <10 <.225cdd-I 160 V 77 5 35 14 40 .5

U(C-3-9) Idcd-I 490 39 01. 1 1 2 12 .11 60 606ch('-I 201 116 I 14 16 58 19 .05 900 56

12ehh-l 80 27 V 59 53 12 8 ')0 470 9

Dada-I 105 6 16 61 89 8 40 .20 50 .613dcc -1 140 6 20 40 120 8 129 .062 10 .0814aah-l 300 Ph 0 9 60 .014 <10 <.03

23aad-2 400 4 280 4 280 .014 <10 <.0824aaa-1O 548 I )25 10 20 .50 140 .6

24aca -1 116 8 8 108 20 33 .61 150U(C-3-10) 22(8c-I 213 1\ 25 8 106 12 80 .15 40 .4

32bcd-1 120 8 20 25 27 30 20 1. 50 450 1732bcd-2 200 5 40 39 64 15 35 .43 100 232dcc-I 260 5 210 II 30 5 10 \0 140 5

12dcd-l 340 6 30 V 20 310 7 150 .047 <10 <.03U(C-4-3)3aaa-l 64 6 38 v 3 4 1 4.00 >1.100 >40

4cba-l 250 4 180 81. 75 29 3 40 .075 10 .15bbd-l 100 6 41 .IF S9 20 20 1.00 270 5

U(C-4-5) Ibdc-1 108 6 25 v 83 2 100 .020 <10 <.1

11(C-4-10) 5acb-l 180 10 10 170 7 100 ,070 10 .069ada-1 400 20 380 10 3D .3J 90 .2

9dhh-l 140 21 119 8 .63 170 1U(D-3-1)4haa-l 45 30 15 10 25 .40 100 7

5llab-l 110 46 64 30 5 6.00 1,800 30

7dcd-I 175 140 20 3'i 8 20 .4U 100148"" -] 80 80 II 40 20 2 00

Wells finished in the Currant Creek Format ion

11(C-1-7) 19dbd-l 140 16 30 30 10 35 .29 60 2

U(C-2-10) 20aac-1 100 40 54 50 1 50.0 >12 ,000 >200

Well finished in the Mesaverde Group (or Formation)

V(e-I-B) 13dcc-1 184 176 30 35 3 .86 200 30

Well finished in the Frontier Sandstone Member of the Mancos Shale

L1(c-I-B) 12edh-I 78 1 12 4 3 1,GO 800

62

Table 6.--Records of selected wells in the northern Uinta Basin area for which specific capacity was calculated and values for transmissivity andhydraulic conductivity were estimated--Continued

Estimated

Location Dl'pth(it )

Casingdiameter

(in)

Casingdepth(ft)

Water­bearingmaterial

Thickne.ssof major

aquifl'r(ft)

Length ofwell open

(ft)Well

finish

Yie ld(gal/min)

Pump ingpn-iod(hours)

SpecificDrawdown capacity

(ft) [(gal/min)/ft]

Transmis- Hydraulicsivity conductivity

T K(ft1"/d) (ft/d)

Wells finished in the Dakota Formation

(D-J-19)19dba-l 21,0 llU U5 130 3 35 0.086 10

L9dbb-l 200 1,7 147 153 20 30 .67 UO

(O-4-21)4cdd-l 40 15 25 30 3 10.0 2,000

Wells finished in the Morrison Format ion

(D-3-19)2ldca-l 305 80 225 20 I 94 0.21 50

(D-4-2l)3bbd-l 50 22 3/. 20 10 2 34 .29 50

(0-4-24) J2c<:d-l SI 61 6 20 25 48 40 .63 80

Wdl finished in the Curtis Formation

(D-3-21 )13bdb-lD 150 3 J 30 3V 10 20 3 0.50 100

Wells finished in the Entrada Sandstone

(D-4- 23) 26cab- 2 168 3V 10 80 0.13 200

26cab-3 965 300 35 450 33 35 520 .063 10

Well finished in the Twin Creek Limestolle (or Formation)

U(C-1-8)3ddc-l 130 3 lID 20 l2 10 3 1.2 180

Wells finished the Glen Canyon Sandstone

(D-3-l9)13bab-l 200 16 V 2 60 0.033 <102laba-l 415 40 XV 375 30 4 7.5 2,000

23bbb-l 226 24 V 202 10 10 1.0 270(D-3-21)32cdb-l 200 24 XV liS III 10 25 .40 100

34aad-l 248 80 XV 750 168 12 19 105 .1I 30(D-4-20)ldea-1 740 V lOO 2D 5.0 l,500

Well finished in the Moenkopi Formation

(D-2-23)9bad-l 1I5 3 79 35 55 3 0.036 <10

Wells finished in the Weber Quartzite (or Sandstone or Formation)

(D-2-22 )29dcd-l 630 12 167 V 463 628 34 84 7,5 2,00032bcb-3 2/l ,562 12 91 V ~/l, 480 488 22 750 .65 200

S (B-4-104) 36ddd- 1 l ,451 7 1,317 7V 134 15 402 .037 <10

Well finished in the Mutual Formdtion

(D-l-20)l2dca-l 160 3 90 FO 12 9 3 0.89 190

1/ Total length of perforation listed by dri ller was 1I0 ft. Estimated effective length is 81 it.2/ Well not cased. Diameter given is diameter of hole.3/ Depth reached when logged in December 1973 .

~/ Inc ludes. some sandstone in upper part of the Morgan Formation.

63

0.08.9

80

02

50.02

<'0.055I

.9

.2

<0,3

.1<.07

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

(*)-Out of Print

TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

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

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

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

*No. 4. Ground water in Tooele Valley, TooeleThomas, U.S. Geological Survey, in UtahRept., p. 91-238, pIs. 1-6, 1946.

County, Utah, byState Eng. 25th

H. E.Bienn.

*No. 5. Ground water inDistrict, DavisU.S. Geological53-206, pls. 1-2,

the East Shore area, Utah: Part I, BountifulCounty, Utah, by H. E. Thomas and W. B. Nelson,Survey, in Utah State Eng. 26th Bienn. Rept., p.1948.

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

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

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

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

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

*No. 10. A compilation ofwaters in Utah, byGeological Survey,

chemical quality data for ground and surfaceJ. G. Connor, C. G. Mitchell, and others, U.S.

1958.

*No. 11. Ground water in northern Utah Valley, Utah:the period 1948-63, by R. M. Cordova andGeological Survey, 1965.

64

A progress report forSeymour Subitzky, U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. 19. An appraisal of the quality ofbasin, Utah, by D. C. HahlSurvey, 1968.

surface water in the Sevier Lakeand J. C. Mundorff, U.S. Geological

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

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

No. 22. Reconnaissance of the ground-watermont River valley, Wayne County,Geological Survey, 1969.

resources of the upper Fre­Utah, by L. J. Bjorklund, U.S.

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

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

No. 25. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Curlew Valley, Utah and Idaho, byE. L. BoIke and Don Price, U.S. Geological Survey, 1969.

No. 26. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Sink ValleyElder Counties, Utah, by Don Price andGeological Survey, 1969.

area,E. L.

Tooele and BoxBoIke, U. S.

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

65

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

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

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

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

No. 32. Geology and water resourcesSan Juan Counties, Utah, by1971.

of the Spanish Valley area, Grand andC. T. Sumsion, U.S. Geological Survey,

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

No. 34. Summary of water resources of SaltHely, R. W. Mower, and C. Albert1971.

LakeHarr,

County, Utah, by Allen G.U.S. Geological Survey,

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

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

No. 37. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Blue Creek Valley area, Box ElderCounty, Utah, by E. L. BoIke and Don Price, U.S. Geological Survey,1972.

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

No. 39. Reconnaissance of chemicalsediment in the Price RiverGeological Survey, 1972.

quality of surface water and fluvialBasin, Utah, by J. C. Mundorff, U.S.

No. 40. Ground-water conditions in the central Virgin River basin, Utah, byR. M. Cordova, G. W. Sandberg, and Wilson McConkie, U.S. Geo­logical Survey, 1972.

No. 41. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Pilot Valley, Utah and Nevada, byJerry C. Stephens and J. W. Hood, U.S. Geological Survey, 1973.

No. 42. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the northern Great Salt Lake Desertand summary hydrologic reconnaissance of northwestern Utah, byJerry C. Stephens, U.S. Geological Survey, 1973.

66

No. 43. Water resources of the Milford area, Utah,water, by R. W. Mower and R. M. Cordova,1974.

with emphasis on groundU.s. Geological Survey,

No. 44. Ground-water resources of the lower Bear River drainage basin, BoxElder County, Utah, by L. J. Bjorkland and L. J. McGreevy, U.S.Geological Survey, 1974.

No. 45. Water resources of the Curlew Valley drainage basin, Utah andIdaho, by Claud H. Baker, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey, 1974.

No. 46. Water-quality reconnaissance of surface inflow to Utah Lake, byJ. C. Mundorff, U.S. Geological Survey, 1974.

No. 47. Hydrologic reconnaissance ofMillard and Beaver Counties,Geological Survey, 1974.

the Wah Wah Valley drainage basin,Utah, by Jerry C. Stephens, U.S.

No. 48. Estimating mean streamflow in the Duchesne River Basin, Utah, byR. W. Cruff, U.S. Geological Survey, 1974.

No. 49. Hydrologic reconnaissance ofColorado, by Don Price andSurvey, 1975.

the southern Uinta Basin, Utah andLouise L. Miller, U.S. Geological

No. 50. Seepage study of the Rocky Point Canal and the Grey Mountain­Pleasant Valley Canal systems, Duchesne County, Utah, by R. W.Cruff and J. W. Hood, U.S. Geological Survey, 1975.

No. 51. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Pine Valley drainage basin, Mil­lard, Beaver, and Iron Counties, Utah, by J. C. Stephens, U.S. Geo­logical Survey, 1976.

No. 52. Seepage study of canals in Beaver Valley, Beaver County, Utah, byR. W. Cruff and R. W. Mower, U.S. Geological Survey, 1976.

WATER CIRCULARS

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

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

BASIC-DATA REPORTS

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

67

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

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

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

*No. 5. Selected hydrologic data, Pavant Valley, Millard County, Utah, byR. W. Mower, U.S. Geological Survey, 1963.

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

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

No.

*No.

No.

8.

9.

10.

Selected hydrologic data, upper Sevier River basin, Utah, byCarpenter, G. B. Robinson, Jr., and L. J. Bjorklund, U.S.logical Survey, 1964.

Ground-water data, Sevier Desert, Utah, by R. W. Mower andFeltis, U.S. Geological Survey, 1964.

Quality of surface water in the Sevier Lake basin, Utah, byHahl and R. E. Cabell, U.S. Geological Survey, 1965.

C. H.Geo-

R. D.

D. C.

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

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

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

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

No. 15. Hydrologic and climatologic data, 1967, Salt Lake County, Utah,byA. G. He1y, R. W. Mower, and C. A. Horr, U.S. Geological Survey,1968.

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

68

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

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

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

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

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

No. 22. Periodic water- and air-temperature records for Utah streams,1966-70, by G. L. Whitaker, U.S. Geological Survey, 1971.

No. 23. Selected hydrologic data, lower Bear River drainage basin, BoxElder County, Utah, by L. J. Bjorklund and L. J. McGreevy, U.S.Geological Survey, 1973.

No. 24. Water-quality data for the Flaming Gorge Reservoir area,Wyoming, 1969-72, by E. L. BoIke and K. M. Waddell,logical Survey, 1972.

INFORMATION BULLETINS

Utah andU.S. Geo-

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

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

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

*No. 4. Ground-water investigations in Utah in 1960 and reports publishedby the U.S. Geological Surveyor the Utah State Engineer prior to1960, by H. D. Goode,' U.S. Geological Survey, 1960.

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

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

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

69

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

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

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

*No. 11. Amendments to plan of work and work outline for the Sevier Riverbasin (Sec. 6, P.L. 566), U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1964.

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

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

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

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

*No. 16. Summary of water well drilling activities in Utah, 1960 through1965, compiled by Utah State Engineer's Office, 1966.

*No. 17. Bibliography of U.S. Geological Survey water-resources reports forUtah, compiled by Olive A. Keller, U.S. Geological Survey, 1966.

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

No. 19. Ground~water hydrology of southern Cache Valley, Utah, by L. P.Beer, 1967.

*No. 20. Fluvial sediment in Utah, 1905-65, A data compilation by J. C.Mundorff, U.S. Geological Survey, 1968.

70

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

*No. 22. Bibliography of U.S. Geological Survey water-resources reports forUtah, compiled by Barbara A. LaPray, U.S. Geological Survey, 1972.

No. 23. Bibliography of U.S. Geological Survey water-resources reports forUtah, compiled by Barbara A. LaPray, U.S. Geological Survey, 1975.

71

The maximum observed well yield was 1,410 gal/min (89 l/s) or3.14 ft 3 /s (0.089 m3 /s). For most of the outwash and terrace depositsnear the mountains, potential yields of large-diameter wells are notmuch larger because of the thinness of the deposits. Southward from themountains, maximum well yields should diminish to less than 1 ft 3 /s(0.03 m3 /s).

Ground water in most of the glacial outwash, alluvium, and re­lated coarse-grained deposits is unconfined; locally it is partlyconfined by leaky strata near the land surface. The S for thesedeposits was determined at only one locality (table 2) and ranged from0.012 to 0.056. The minimum areal value for Sy is estimated to be 0.10,or about 10 acre-ft (0.012 hrn 3

) per 100 acre-ft (0.12 hrn 3 ) of saturateddeposits. Under the climatic and streamflow regimen extent and thecanal irrigation system in use, it is doubtful that the saturatedsection will ever be permanently dewatered.

Duchesne River and Uinta Formations

The Duchesne River and Uinta Formations are considered togetherbecause they share some common hydrologic and lithologic characteristicsand because the lower beds of the Duchesne River Formation in thecentral part of the area function together with the uppermost sandy bedsof the underlying Uinta Formation as a common aquifer. The twoformations interfinger at the east and west ends of the basin. Valuesfor T and K from tables 2, 3, and 6 are plotted on plate 3 to show theareal distribution of the coefficients.

K for both formations is small where the rocks are virtually un­disturbed. As a result, the T values calculated for many wells rangefrom less than 10 ft 2 /d (3 m2 /d) to a maximum of about 100 ft 2 /d (30m2 /d). The distribution of these lower values roughly fits the dis­tribution of porosity shown in figure 18. Most of the partially pene­trating, small-diameter wells for which the values were estimated havesmall yie1ds--less than 10 gal/min (0.6 l/s)--and large drawdown.Values for K derived from many wells, however, are 100 times, or more,the values given for the rock samples listed in table 3. The highervalues of K indicate that the formations are fractured. Where theestimated values for T and K are relatively great, such as at wellsU(C-2-l)20bbb-l, U(C-2-2)29ccc-l, and U(C-3-l0)5dba-l, it is almostcertain that fractures are the main avenues of water movement to wells.

S for both the Duchesne River and Uinta Formations is small wherethere are artesian conditions; and the range in values of 0.00017 to0.00074, which were obtained for the test at Roosevelt probably are rep­resentative of the formations in most of the central part of the basin.Although the values for n ranged from 7 to 41 percent (table 3), therocks are fine grained, and where unweathered they generally are tightlycemented. Although individual beds may have an Sy as high as 10 percent,the basinwide average Sy for sandstone in the two formations isestimated to be 0.01, or about 1 acre-ft (0.0012 hm 3

) per 100 acre-ft(0.12 hm3

) of saturated formation.

34