Three-dimensional numerical model of ground-water flow in northern Utah Valley, Utah County, Utah

Philip M. Gardner

doi:10.3133/sir20085049

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20085049

Three-dimensional numerical model of ground-water flow in northern Utah Valley, Utah County, Utah

Philip M. Gardner

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A three-dimensional, finite-difference, numerical model was developed to simulate ground-water flow in northern Utah Valley, Utah. The model includes expanded areal boundaries as compared to a previous ground-water flow model of the valley and incorporates more than 20 years of additional hydrologic data. The model boundary was generally expanded to include the bedrock in the surrounding mountain block as far as the surface-water divide. New wells have been drilled in basin-fill deposits near the consolidated-rock boundary. Simulating the hydrologic conditions within the bedrock allows for improved simulation of the effect of withdrawal from these wells. The inclusion of bedrock also allowed for the use of a recharge model that provided an alternative method for spatially distributing areal recharge over the mountains. The model was calibrated to steady- and transient-state conditions. The steady-state simulation was developed and calibrated by using hydrologic data that represented average conditions for 1947. The transient-state simulation was developed and calibrated by using hydrologic data collected from 1947 to 2004. Areally, the model grid is 79 rows by 70 columns, with variable cell size. Cells throughout most of the model domain represent 0.3 mile on each side. The largest cells are rectangular with dimensions of about 0.3 by 0.6 mile. The largest cells represent the mountain block on the eastern edge of the model domain where the least hydrologic data are available. Vertically, the aquifer system is divided into 4 layers which incorporate 11 hydrogeologic units. The model simulates recharge to the ground-water flow system as (1) infiltration of precipitation over the mountain block, (2) infiltration of precipitation over the valley floor, (3) infiltration of unconsumed irrigation water from fields, lawns, and gardens, (4) seepage from streams and canals, and (5) subsurface inflow from Cedar Valley. Discharge of ground water is simulated by the model to (1) flowing and pumping wells, (2) drains and springs, (3) evapotranspiration, (4) Utah Lake, (5) the Jordan River and mountain streams, and (6) Salt Lake Valley by subsurface outflow through the Jordan Narrows. During steady-state calibration, variables were adjusted within probable ranges to minimize differences between model-computed and measured water levels as well as between model-computed and independently estimated flows that include: recharge by seepage from individual streams and canals, discharge by seepage to individual streams and the Jordan River, discharge to Utah Lake, discharge to drains and springs, discharge by evapotranspiration, and subsurface flows into and out of northern Utah Valley from Cedar Valley and to Salt Lake Valley, respectively. The transient-state simulation was calibrated to measured water levels and water-level changes with consideration given to annual changes in the flows listed above.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 40° to 40.583333333333336° latitude; -112.25° to -111.25° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Philip M. Gardner. 2009. Three-dimensional numerical model of ground-water flow in northern Utah Valley, Utah County, Utah. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20085049

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Monitoring recreation on federally managed lands and waters—Aspects of visitor use

Federally managed public lands and waters receive around 1 billion recreational visits each year. Data on these visitors can aid in guiding policy decisions, managing resources effectively, and communicating the economic contributions of lands and waters. This report explores the methods used by agencies to collect data on aspects of recreational visitor use to Federal lands and waters (apart from visitation numbers, which are the focus of a companion publication). Aspects of recreational visitor use include visitor demographics, recreational activity participation, visitor satisfaction, visitor attitudes and experiences, trip characteristics, and economic contributions. We review practices used to understand aspects of visitor use across seven Federal agencies, revealing similarities such as the use of visitor intercept surveys and coverage of similar topic areas, and differences in how survey programs are operationalized and how specific questions on visitor surveys are worded. We also evaluate emerging technologies, such as geolocated social media and mobile device location data, for their potential to aid in understanding aspects of visitor use. This report concludes with potential opportunities to enhance data collection and coordination, ensuring cost-effective data collection and informed decision making.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2026

Evaluation of best management practices at an edge-of-field site in the Eagle Creek watershed, Ohio, 2012–20

In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey worked in partnership with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to identify farm fields in priority watersheds—watersheds critically important to Great Lake health. Intensive best management practices were implemented in five States to test the efficacy of best management practices, also referred to as agricultural conservation practices, to reduce sediment and nutrient runoff on agricultural fields. These fields were chosen as representatives of the priority watersheds because their farming practices and geographical conditions were common among farms in those watersheds. A farm site located near Findlay, Ohio, in the Eagle Creek watershed used two conservation practices, cover crop (Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 340) and variable rate technology (VRT; Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 590), which represent common practices in the Maumee priority watershed. This study monitored surface runoff and subsurface tile runoff at the Eagle Creek watershed site. The effects of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on sediment and nutrient runoff were assessed from October 2012 to September 2020. Cover crops were applied in fall of 2016, 2017, and 2018, coinciding with VRT applications. The following parameters were analyzed as part of the study: runoff discharge; peak discharge; and concentrations and loads of total phosphorus, particulate phosphorus, dissolved reactive phosphorus, and suspended sediment. High peak runoff events disproportionally affected nutrient concentrations and loads in runoff. A threshold of the 85th percentile of the peak discharge was chosen to assess the effect of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on nutrient mitigation at each gage. Runoff events below the 85th percentile were considered small, and runoff events over the 85th percentile were considered large. Concentrations from collected water-quality samples were used for the analysis; estimated concentrations were excluded from the statistical evaluation. All surface runoff parameters during small runoff events, except surface runoff volume, were significantly lower in the period with cover crops and VRT implementation. Contrarily, subsurface runoff parameters during small events were not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. Surface and subsurface parameters during large events were also not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. These results indicate cover crops and VRT may improve water quality during small runoff events, but additional best management practices that mitigate large runoff events may lead to greater water-quality improvement given the contribution of large events to overall losses.

Ohio↗

USGS2026

Continuous monitoring and temporal variability of fluorescence of dissolved organic matter in karst groundwater of the Edwards aquifer, south-central Texas, 2019–24

Widespread urbanization on the Edwards aquifer recharge zone in south-central Texas has prompted the development of new approaches and tools for evaluating the current and future status of water quality in the San Antonio and Barton Springs segments of the Edwards aquifer. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the San Antonio Water System and the City of Austin, applied continuous monitoring of fluorescence of dissolved organic matter (fDOM) to characterize the sources and transport of dissolved organic matter and associated constituents in the Edwards aquifer. Continuous fDOM time-series data were adjusted using empirically derived temperature, turbidity, and inner-filter-effect correction factors prior to analysis and interpretation. Fully corrected fDOM time-series data from the study sites were evaluated for short- and long-term temporal variability in fDOM in the context of the hydrologic and climatic conditions that occurred during the 5-year study period to understand vulnerability of the aquifer to potential contaminants in recharge. Study results indicate that fDOM is an effective proxy for dissolved organic carbon that, in turn, is indicative of the influx of recent surface water and associated contaminants, and thus, aquifer vulnerability to those contaminants. Although other continuously monitored water-quality parameters provide insights into changes in water quality in response to varying hydrologic conditions, the quantitative relation between fDOM and dissolved organic carbon directly indicates the timing and magnitude of pulses of organic constituents derived from the land surface, whereas other water-quality parameters do not.

Texas↗