AGENDA HIGHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 4, 2014

Transcription

1 AGENDA HIGHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 4, :00 p.m. Multi-Purpose Room Highland City Council Chambers, 5400 West Civic Center Drive, Highland Utah :00 P.M. WORK SESSION Multi-Purpose Room WORK SESSION 1. North Utah County Aquifer Association Project 2. Park Use Discussion CERTIFICATE OF POSTING The undersigned duly appointed City Recorder does hereby certify that on this 2 nd day of September, 2014, the above agenda was posted in three public places within Highland City limits. Agenda also posted on State ( and City websites ( JOD ANN BATES, City Recorder In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Highland City will make reasonable accommodations to participate in the meeting. Requests for assistance can be made by contacting the City Recorder at , at least 3 days in advance to the meeting. The order of agenda items may change to accommodate the needs of the City Council, the staff and the public. This meeting may be held electronically via telephone to permit one or more of the council members to participate. THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN ALL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.

2 NORTH UTAH COUNTY AQUIFER ASSOCIATION AQUIFER STORAGE & RECOVERY (ASR) FEASIBILITY STUDY (HAL Project No.: ) August 2012

3

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... i LIST OF TABLES... iv LIST OF FIGURES... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF STUDY... E-1 ALTERNATIVE RECHARGE SITE IDENTIFICATION... E-1 PRIORITIZATION OF RECHARGE ALTERNATIVES... E-2 WATER SUPPLY POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE FOR RECHARGE... E-5 WATER RIGHTS... E-5 PROPOSED PLAN... E-6 EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER RECHARGE... E-6 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS... E-7 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES... E-8 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND PERMITTING... E-9 FUNDING SOURCES... E-9 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF STUDY INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Dependence on Groundwater Declining Groundwater Levels Surplus Flows PREVIOUS STUDIES Conjunctive Management of Surface and Ground Water in Utah USGS Model USGS Hydrology Report Conceptual Plan STUDY OBJECTIVES Primary Objectives of Feasibility Study Technical Feasibility Institutional Feasibility Financial Feasibility CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVE RECHARGE SITE IDENTIFICATION IDENTIFICATION OF SUITABLE RECHARGE SITE AREAS USING GIS Data Sources Procedure Results SPECIFIC SITES IDENTIFIED BY MEMBER AGENCIES Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) North Utah County Aquifer Association i ASR Feasibility Study

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pleasant Grove City American Fork City Highland City Alpine City Lehi City Saratoga Springs City CHAPTER 3 PRIORITIZATION OF RECHARGE ALTERNATIVES PURPOSE OF PRIORITIZATION PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA Availability of Source Water for Recharge Construction Cost Confidence Level Potential Annual Volume Area Benefitted Capital Cost per Acre-Foot Other Concerns or Issues RESULTS OF PRIORITIZATION CHAPTER 4 WATER SUPPLY POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE FOR RECHARGE HISTORICAL FLOW RECORDS American Fork River Dry Creek Fort Creek ESTIMATED ANNUAL FLOWS WINTER FLOWS SURPLUS SNOWMELT RUNOFF FLOWS SUMMARY CHAPTER 5 WATER RIGHTS WATER RIGHTS CURRENTLY IN UTAH LAKE WATER RIGHTS FROM SOURCES THAT CAN BE DELIVEREDTO UTAH LAKE EXISTING WATER RIGHTS WITH CHANGE APPLICATIONS WATER RIGHTS OF THE PROVO RIVER WATER RIGHTS REVIEWED FOR EACH CITY CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT (CUWCD) WATER RIGHTS CHAPTER 6 PROPOSED PLAN GENERAL PROPOSED RECHARGE SITES American Fork Debris Basin Recharge Site Battle Creek Debris Basin Recharge Site Alpine Dry Creek Recharge Area Highland Gravel Pit Recharge Site North Utah County Aquifer Association ii ASR Feasibility Study

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS CUWCD Overflow Basin Recharge Site PROPOSED RECOVERY SITES NUCAA Recovery Well O&M Cost for Recovery of Recharge Water CHAPTER 7 EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER RECHARGE BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER MODEL DESCRIPTION AND METHODS SIMULATED AQUIFER RECHARGE AND RECOVERY RATES MODELING RESULTS CHAPTER 8 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS COST SUMMARY BENEFITS SUMMARY BENEFIT-COST RATIO CHAPTER 9 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES CURRENT ORGANIZATION NEW ORGANIZATION OPTIONS CHAPTER 10 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND PERMITTING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES American Fork Debris Basin Battle Creek Debris Basin Alpine Dry Creek Recharge Area Highland Gravel Pit Recharge Area CUWCD Overflow Basin NUCAA Recovery Well OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS Utah Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permit National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit CHAPTER 11 FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES Operating Budgets Central Utah Project Completion Act, Section 202(a)(2) Utah Division of Water Resources, Conservation and Development Fund Bonding Coupons POTENTIAL FUNDING AND REPAYMENT SCENARIO APPENDIX A Available Information Regarding Potential Recharge Rates at Alternative Recharge Sites APPENDIX B North Utah County Aquifer Association iii ASR Feasibility Study

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preliminary Modeling of Aquifer Recharge at Selected Sites APPENDIX C Streamflow Data APPENDIX D NUCAA Certificate and Interlocal Cooperation Agreement APPENDIX E Sample Recharge Permit and Recovery Permit Water Right Application Forms LIST OF TABLES TABLE E-1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL RECHARGE SITES... E-2 TABLE E-2 PRIORITIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE RECHARGE SITES... E-4 TABLE E-3 WINTER STREAM FLOWS... E-5 TABLE E-4 SURPLUS MAY AND JUNE FLOWS... E-5 TABLE E-5 TOTAL USEABLE WATER RIGHTS... E-6 TABLE E-6 NUCAA ASR PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY... E-7 TABLE E-7 ALTERNATIVE M&I WATER COST SUMMARY... E-8 TABLE 2-1 SITE 1 DESCRIPTION CUWCD OVERFLOW BASIN TABLE 2-2 SITE 2 DESCRIPTION OREM CITY WELL TABLE 2-3 SITE 3 DESCRIPTION BATTLE CREEK DEBRIS BASIN TABLE 2-4 SITE 4 DESCRIPTION PLEASANT GROVE RECHARGE BASINS 1 AND TABLE 2-5 SITE 5 DESCRIPTION GROVE CREEK RECHARGE BASIN TABLE 2-6 SITE 6 DESCRIPTION GROVE CREEK/BATTLE CREEK DITCH TABLE 2-7 SITE 7 DESCRIPTION AMERICAN FORK DEBRIS BASIN TABLE 2-8 SITE 8 DESCRIPTION HIGHLAND GRAVEL PIT TABLE 2-9 SITE 9 DESCRIPTION DRY CREEK DEBRIS BASIN TABLE 2-10 SITE 10 DESCRIPTION ALPINE OPEN SPACE TABLE 2-11 SITE 11 DESCRIPTION ALPINE OPEN SPACE TABLE 2-12 SITE 12 DESCRIPTION ALPINE DRY CREEK CHANNEL TABLE 2-13 SITE 13 DESCRIPTION ALPINE HIGH BENCH DITCH TABLE 2-14 SITE 14 DESCRIPTION LEHI OPEN SPACE TABLE 2-15 SITE 15 DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL INJECTION WELL SITE TABLE 2-16 SITE 16 DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL INJECTION WELL SITE TABLE 3-1 ALTERNATIVES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES SUMMARY TABLE 3-2 ESTIMATED ANNUAL RECHARGE VOLUMES FOR SURFACE SPREADING SITES TABLE 3-3 ESTIMATED ANNUAL RECHARGE VOLUMES FOR INJECTION SITES TABLE 3-4 PRIORITIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE RECHARGE SITES TABLE 4-1 AVERAGE ANNUAL STREAM FLOWS North Utah County Aquifer Association iv ASR Feasibility Study

8 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE 4-2 PERCENTAGE OF AMERICAN FORK RIVER FLOW ABOVE UPPLER POWERPLANT TABLE 4-3 WINTER STREAM FLOWS TABLE 4-4 IRRIGATION SYSTEM DIVERSION CAPACITIES TABLE 4-5 SURPLUS MAY AND JUNE FLOWS TABLE 5-1 TOTAL USEABLE WATER RIGHTS TABLE 5-2 ALPINE CITY WATER RIGHTS TABLE 5-3 AMERICAN FORK CITY WATER RIGHTS TABLE 5-4 HIGHLAND CITY WATER RIGHTS TABLE 5-5 LEHI CITY WATER RIGHTS TABLE 5-6 PLEASANT GROVE CITY WATER RIGHTS TABLE 5-7 SARATOGA SPRINGS CITY WATER RIGHTS TABLE 6-1 AMERICAN FORK DEBRIS BASIN RECHARGE SITE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TABLE 6-2 BATTLE CREEK DEBRIS BASIN RECHARGE SITE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TABLE 6-3 ALPINE DRY CREEK RECHARGE AREA CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TABLE 6-4 HIGHLAND GRAVEL PIT RECHARGE SITE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TABLE 6-5 CUWCD OVERFLOW BASIN RECHARGE SITE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TABLE 6-6 NUCAA RECOVERY WELL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TABLE 7-1 ESTIMATED RECHARGE RATES TABLE 7-2 FLOW BUDGET ANALYSIS FOR ASR PROGRAM WITH 91% RECOVERY TABLE 7-3 ANNUAL WELL WITHDRAWALS ASSUMING 80% RECOVERY TABLE 7-4 FLOW BUDGET ANALYSIS FOR ASR PROGRAM WITH 80% RECOVERY TABLE 8-1 NUCAA ASR PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY TABLE 8-2 NUCAA ASR PROJECT ANNUAL O&M COST SUMMARY TABLE 8-3 ALTERNATIVE M&I WATER COST SUMMARY TABLE 8-4 NUCAA ASR PROJECT BENEFIT-COST RATIO LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2-1 Using GIS to Identify Suitable Recharge Areas FIGURE 2-2 North Utah County Areas suitable for Aquifer Recharge FIGURE 2-3 Alternative Recharge Sites FIGURE 6-1 American Fork Debris Basin Recharge Site FIGURE 6-2 Battle Creek Debris Basin Recharge Site FIGURE 6-3 Alpine Dry Creek Recharge Facilities FIGURE 6-4 Highland Gravel Pit Recharge Site FIGURE 6-5 CUWCD Overflow Basin Recharge Site FIGURE 6-6 Proposed NUCAA Recovery Well North Utah County Aquifer Association v ASR Feasibility Study

9 TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURE 7-1 Recharge and Recovery Locations Used to Model Effects of ASR Program FIGURE 7-2 Groundwater Response at Observation Sites A, B, & C FIGURE 7-3 Groundwater Response at Observation Sites D, E, & F FIGURE 7-4 Groundwater Response at Observation Sites G, H, & I FIGURE 7-5 Impacts of ASR Program on Deep Pleistocene Aquifer During Dry Cycle (Year 16) FIGURE 7-6 Impacts of ASR Program on Deep Pleistocene Aquifer During Wet Cycle (Year 25) North Utah County Aquifer Association vi ASR Feasibility Study

10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF STUDY North Utah County Aquifer Association (NUCAA) was organized by Alpine, American Fork, Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD), Highland, Lehi, Pleasant Grove, and Saratoga Springs for the purpose of managing the groundwater aquifer in northern Utah County. A grant from the Central Utah Project (CUP) was secured to perform a feasibility study for the implementation of an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project. All NUCAA cities depend exclusively on groundwater for drinking water. High growth rates in the area have resulted in declining groundwater levels. Since there are surface water sources available to most cities that are currently flowing to Utah Lake, there is a desire to preserve the quality of the water before it becomes degraded as it enters Utah Lake. Previous studies completed in relation to an ASR project in northern Utah valley include a new 3-dimensional groundwater model of the aquifer prepared by the USGS in 2009 and a conceptual level ASR plan prepared under the leadership of Highland City in March The objective of this study is to evaluate the technical, institutional, and financial feasibility of an ASR project in northern Utah valley. ALTERNATIVE RECHARGE SITE IDENTIFICATION A GIS database was used to evaluate soil types, aquifer conductivity, and primary recharge area boundaries to quickly identify locations where artificial recharge is most likely to be successful. A site was considered suitable for artificial recharge by surface spreading if it met all three of the following criteria: 1. Surface soils in Hydrologic Groups A and B, 2. Receiving aquifer with a hydraulic conductivity greater than or equal to 10 feet per day, 3. Located within the primary recharge area for the principal aquifer. NUCAA member agencies each identified specific recharge sites based on the agency s local knowledge of land use and ownership, soils properties, and proximity of other infrastructure that could be used to deliver water to each site. Table E-1 summarizes the sites identified by each agency. North Utah County Aquifer Association E-1 ASR Feasibility Study

11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pleasant Grove City TABLE E-1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL RECHARGE SITES NUCAA AGENCY NAME OF SITE SITE DESCRIPTION CUWCD CUWCD Sludge Beds Surface spreading on 3.48 acre parcel owned by CUWCD near their Utah Valley Water Treatment Plant. Orem City Well Direct injection into Orem City s existing well. Battle Creek Surface spreading in debris basin located at the mouth of Debris Basin Battle Creek Canyon Pleasant Grove Surface spreading in two small existing basins located east of Recharge Basins the city. 1 & 2 American Fork Highland City Alpine City Lehi City Saratoga Springs City Grove Creek Recharge Basin Grove Creek / Battle Creek Ditch None American Fork Debris Basin Highland Gravel Pit Dry Creek Debris Basin Alpine Open Space 1 Alpine Open Space 2 Alpine Open Space 3 Alpine Irrigation Ditch Lehi Open Space Potential Injection Well Site 1 Potential Injection Well Site 2 Surface spreading in new basin constructed just east of the existing debris basin located east of the city at about 800 North Surface spreading in existing unlined ditch extending between Grove Creek and Battle Creek. No sites identified because the City is not located within the primary recharge area. Surface spreading in debris basin located just south of the American Fork River at the mouth of American Fork Canyon. Surface spreading within existing gravel pit located north of the American Fork River at the mouth of American Fork Canyon Surface spreading in existing debris basin located near the boundary between Lehi and Highland. Surface spreading in new basin constructed in a semiimproved park near 400 S 200 E, Alpine Surface spreading in new basin constructed in unimproved open space near 400 N 1400 E, Alpine Surface spreading in unimproved open space area adjacent to Dry Creek Surface spreading in abandoned, unlined irrigation ditch. Surface spreading in new basin constructed in unimproved open space near an existing Lehi City well, tank, and irrigation reservoir. Direct injection into potential new well located adjacent to Pioneer Crossing Highway about 2000 feet east of Jordan River Direct injection into potential new well located near the intersection of Pioneer Crossing Highway and Redwood Rd PRIORITIZATION OF RECHARGE ALTERNATIVES As NUCAA members considered the 16 alternative recharge sites outlined in Table E-1 they recognized that there was not sufficient budget to evaluate each alternative in detail. Therefore, a method of prioritizing alternative recharge sites was developed to determine which sites should be evaluated in more detail. Criteria used for this prioritization are as follows. Availability of source water for recharge Construction cost North Utah County Aquifer Association E-2 ASR Feasibility Study

12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Confidence level Potential annual volume Area benefited Capital cost per acre-foot Other concerns or issues Table E-2 is a matrix that arrays each alternative against the prioritization criteria listed above. The table lists alternatives in order of priority. NUCAA representatives agreed that the top five alternatives in the table should be advanced for more detailed study. North Utah County Aquifer Association E-3 ASR Feasibility Study

13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE E-2 PRIORITIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE RECHARGE SITES Site ID Site Name 7 American Fork Debris Basin 3 Battle Creek Debris Basin 12 Alpine - Dry Creek Channel 8 Highland Gravel Pit 1 CUWCD Property 3b 3a Battle Creek Debris Basin w/ SL Aqueduct Battle Creek Debris Basin w/ Ditch 10 Alpine Open Space 1 13 Alpine High Bench Ditch 2 Orem City Well 4 Pleasant Grove Recharge Basins 1 and 2 w/ Ditch 14 Lehi Open Space 6 Grove Creek - Battle Creek Ditch 9 Dry Creek Debris Basin 11 High Bench Ditch and Alpine Open Space 2 15 Saratoga Springs Well 7 5a 16 5 Grove Creek Recharge Basin w/ SL Aqueduct Saratoga Springs Hearthstone Well Grove Creek Recharge Basin Recharge Method Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Injection Well Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Injection Well Surface Spreading Injection Well Surface Spreading 9.5 American Fork, Provo River via CUWCD Pipeline Recharge Effectiveness Confidence Level Potential Ann. Volume 1 Area Benefited Capital Cost/Ac-Ft/Yr 4.25 Battle Creek Medium $30,000 High Small $45-$ Dry Creek, Provo River via CUWCD Pipeline American Fork, Provo River via CUWCD Pipeline High $320,000 Medium 2,880 4 Large $111 Basin owned by NUCWCD Construction of recharge basin must wait until pit is mined out 2.1 Provo River via UVWTP High $100,000 Medium Medium $165-$ Rough estimates. Actual recharge rates would need to be determined by pilot studies. Battle Creek, Provo River via Salt Lake Aqueduct High $180,000 High 612-1,224 Small $147-$ Battle Creek, Grove Creek Medium $200,000 High Small $178-$265 Basin owned by NUCWCD Basin owned by NUCWCD NA UVWTP High $260,000 Medium Medium $467-$653 5 Well Owned by Orem 12 Provo River via CUWCD Pipeline High $170,000 Low Medium $787-$ Dry Creek Low $200,000 Medium Medium $833-$1,667 City Springs in area indicate this is a discharge area Houses near by down gradient NA CUWCD CWP High $680,000 Low Medium $1,221-$1,709 5 Well available for Maximum recharge volume limited by winter flow of Battle Creek. 3 Maximum recharge volume limited by winter flow of Grove Creek. 4 Maximum recharge volume limited by flow capacity of CUWCD North Branch Pipeline (8 cfs). 5 Does not include treatment costs ($65/ac-ft) Area (acres) Water Source Grove Creek, Provo River via Salt Lake Aqueduct Availability of Source Water for Recharge Construction Cost High $1,430,000 Medium 576-1,152 Small $1,241-$2, Grove Creek Medium $1,280,000 Medium Small $2,777 Other Concerns/Issues years only Houses near by down gradient Houses near by down gradient Priority High $180,000 High 2,736-5,472 Large $33-$66 1 Medium $70,000 High Medium $90-$ Dry Creek Low $130,000 Low Medium $366-$732 Area is sloped Dry Creek Low $120,000 High Medium $379-$ Grove Creek Medium $230,000 Medium Small $498-$ Provo River via CUWCD Pipeline High $620,000 Medium 576-1,152 Medium $538-$1,076 Site owned by Micron Grove Creek Medium $170,000 Medium Small $590-$1, NA CUWCD CWP High $700,000 Medium Medium $2,518-$3, North Utah County Aquifer Association E-4 ASR Feasibility Study

14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WATER SUPPLY POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE FOR RECHARGE A large portion of the flow from local streams that could be available for recharge occurs from mid-october through mid-april. Estimated average annual winter flows for each stream are summarized in Table E-3. TABLE E-3 WINTER STREAM FLOWS STREAM AVERAGE ANNUAL WINTER FLOW (acre-feet) American Fork River at Mouth of Canyon 8,177 Battle Creek 662 Grove Creek 461 Dry Creek 2,565 Fort Creek 1,018 TOTAL 12,883 Essentially all of the flow from mid-april through mid-october is diverted into local irrigation systems. An exception occurs during the snowmelt runoff period (May and June) when streamflow often exceeds the capacity of the irrigation systems. Surplus May and June flows of American Fork, Dry Creek, and Fort Creek are listed in Table E-4. STREAM TABLE E-4 SURPLUS MAY AND JUNE FLOWS AVERAGE MAY SURPLUS FLOW (acre-feet) AVERAGE JUNE SURPLUS FLOW (acre-feet) American Fork River at Mouth of Canyon 4,553 5,846 Dry Creek 2,722 3,119 Fort Creek TOTAL 7,993 9,860 Based on the above analysis, there is a significant amount of water from local streams in northern Utah County that could potentially be used for groundwater recharge. NUCAA cities also have Provo River water available to them from irrigation canals that flow through the area. CUWCD also has Provo River water and water from other sources that could be transported to the NUCAA area through existing conveyance facilities. At certain times these other water sources could be used for groundwater recharge. WATER RIGHTS The water rights of each participating city have been evaluated to look for the opportunities of utilization of the water rights in the aquifer storage and recovery project. After meeting with the North Utah County Aquifer Association E-5 ASR Feasibility Study

15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY State Engineer in August of 2010, it was concluded that the main intent was to ensure that the water rights of Utah Lake had to be kept whole, which is generally the terminus for water in Northern Utah Valley. The water rights that can easily be utilized are summarized in four categories (1) water rights currently in Utah Lake, (2) water rights from sources that can be delivered to Utah Lake, (3) existing water rights based on either of the above two categories with approved change applications that have been filed on them to allow for diversion from wells in Northern Utah Valley by the cities, and (4) water rights in the Provo River that can be utilized during the non-irrigation season. A summary of the total usable water rights for the cities is included in Table E-5. TABLE E-5 TOTAL USEABLE WATER RIGHTS CITY VOLUME FLOW RATE (acre-feet) (cfs) Alpine American Fork Highland 1, Lehi 5, Pleasant Grove Saratoga Springs 3, TOTAL 12, Central Utah Water Conservancy District owns numerous water rights that could potentially be used for groundwater recharge as long as the uses do not interfere with existing CUP or CWP operations or required capacities. The water rights to be considered for this project can be summarized into two different groups CUP water and CWP water. The CUP water are rights that are part of the Central Utah Project and are owned by the United States. The CWP water rights are rights that have been acquired by and are owned by the CUWCD. PROPOSED PLAN The proposed plan for the North Utah County ASR Project includes both recharge and recovery elements. The recharge components of the proposed plan include the top five prioritized sites as described in Chapter 3. These sites could provide an average recharge of 8,560 acre-feet per year. Recovery of recharged water would be accomplished primarily through existing wells with the exception of one new recovery well that would be located adjacent to the American Fork Lehi boundary south of I-15. Because the ASR project is only about 80 percent efficient, an average of 6,850 acre-feet would be recovered each year with annual recovery ranging from about 3,500 acre-feet to over 16,000 acre-feet, depending on the amount of precipitation that occurs in a given year. EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Potential impacts of the proposed aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project were evaluated North Utah County Aquifer Association E-6 ASR Feasibility Study

16 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY using the new groundwater model of Northern Utah Valley prepared by USGS (Gardner, 2009). Proposed recharge sites are described in Chapter 6, including surface spreading locations in Alpine, Highland (2), Pleasant Grove, and Orem. Representative recovery well locations were identified for each of the NUCAA participating agencies to recover stored water. Based on the results of the groundwater modeling of the proposed ASR program with 80% recovery of the total recharge volume, the overall impact on the groundwater system is favorable. Since recharge was constant over the simulated 30-year period and recovery varied based on whether it was a wet year or a dry year, the groundwater impact varied on an annual basis. During wet years, while recovery rates were low, the groundwater levels increased in the ASR model compared to the base model during that year. During dry years, when recovery rates were high, the groundwater levels decreased in the ASR model compared to the base model. There is an overall positive impact on the groundwater system from implementation of an ASR program with 80% recovery over a 30 year period. Although there are some periods of lower water levels during extreme dry periods, the overall aquifer impact is positive while still providing an additional 6,850 acre-feet of water source to Northern Utah County. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The estimated total construction cost for the NUCAA ASR Project is $5,252,000. These costs are summarized by project element in Table E-6. TABLE E-6 NUCAA ASR PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY Construction Project Element Cost American Fork Debris Basin Recharge Site $160,000 Battle Creek Debris Basin Recharge Site $32,000 Alpine Dry Creek Recharge Area $560,000 Highland Gravel Pit Recharge Site $220,000 CUWCD Overflow Basin Recharge Site $130,000 NUCAA Recovery Well $4,150,000 Total Construction Cost $5,252,000 Total estimated interest during construction is $105,000. The estimated annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost for the ASR project is $382,000. The present worth of O&M is $8,206,000 based on a 50-year project life and the current Bureau of Reclamation planning interest rate of 4 percent. Therefore, the total present worth project cost including construction cost, interest during construction and capitalized O&M is $13,563,000. M&I water benefits are estimated as the cost of the next best alternative source of water to serve this need. In the absence of the ASR Project, it is assumed that NUCAA cities would contract with CUWCD for 6,850 acre-feet of water per year from the CWP Project. CUWCD has established the cost of CWP water to include a one-time development fee of $9,200 per acrefoot and annual fees of $ per acre-foot. The annual fees include O&M costs, including North Utah County Aquifer Association E-7 ASR Feasibility Study

17 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY pumping power, and a charge to cover facility replacement costs. As shown in Table E-7 the estimated capital cost of this alternative water project is $115,665,000. TABLE E-7 ALTERNATIVE M&I WATER COST SUMMARY Project Element Cost Water Development Fee (6,850 $9,200) $63,020,000 Capitalized Annual Fee (6,850 a.f. x $357.76, 50 4 percent interest) $52,645,000 Total Capital Cost $115,665,000 Based on the benefits and costs described above, the benefit-cost ratio for the NUCAA ASR Project is 8.53 to 1. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES Upon conclusion of the feasibility study the purpose of the Association expires and a new institutional structure must be created to implement ASR projects selected by the different entities. It is recommended that the Association be reorganized as an interlocal cooperation entity. In addition to the basic statutory requirements, the new interlocal cooperation agreement should address the following: 1. Membership. Initial participating entities should be identified and sign on to the Agreement. Define how representatives from each member are appointed. Provisions for adding additional members and participants should be outlined. 2. Financial Affairs. Determine if the Association shall have any financial function, or if all funding and expenditures shall be made by the affected members. 3. Powers of the Association. a. Meet regularly to review and coordinate all aspects of ASR projects in the aquifer. Review proposed change applications, recharge applications and recovery applications before filing. Filing, reporting and accounting will be the responsibility of the ASR project sponsors. Maintain open communications among the entities. Encourage cooperation towards achieving acceptable solutions. b. Review existing projects at least annually by reviewing the recharge and recovery accounting reports required by the Division of Water Rights. Recovery plans for each project must be presented by the sponsors during the first quarter of each year. 4. Define Role of Board. Declare that the Association serves only as an advisory body. Actions taken by the Association board are not binding on the member entities of the Association unless ratified by their respective governing bodies. 5. Decision-Making Authority. Define whether there will be any types of decisions that the board must make before an ASR project proceeds, or whether the board serves exclusively for the purposes of planning, coordinating, reviewing, and reporting on all North Utah County Aquifer Association E-8 ASR Feasibility Study

18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY aspects of proposed and ongoing ASR projects in the aquifer to foster cooperation and maximum utilization of the groundwater resource. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND PERMITTING If Federal funding is used for the project or if there is a commitment of Federal resources towards the project then the project must comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In order to comply with NEPA at a minimum a Categorical Exclusion will be required, but a more detailed Environmental Assessment may be needed. There are no anticipated fatal flaws from an environmental perspective that would be caused by the project. Because the NUCAA ASR Project plan does not include direct injection methods of recharge, a UIC permit will not be required. However, at some future time if direct injection is added as a means of additional recharge, a UIC Class V permit would be required. A NPDES permit will likely be required for the discharge of water into Dry Creek. Because the discharge water would be of similar water quality to water in the stream, there would unlikely be difficulties in obtaining the permit. FUNDING SOURCES Potential sources of funding available for the NUCAA ASR Project include: Funds from the operating budgets of NUCAA cities Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA), Section 202 (a)(2) funding. Utah Division of Water Resources, Conservation Development Funding. AA Bonding coupons. Although there could be many funding scenarios for the NUCAA ASR Project, one potential scenario is evaluated to demonstrate financial feasibility of the project. This scenario is as follows. CUCPA Section 202(a)(2) grant of $3,413,800 (65% of project construction cost) DWRe loan of $1,838,200 (35% local cost share) Provisions of DWRe loan as follows o Interest rate = 3% o Repayment period = 20 years o Annual loan payment = $123,556 Based on this funding scenario, annul O&M costs of $382,000, and an average water supply of 6,850 acre-feet per year that would be provided by the project, the cost per acre-foot of water would be $73.80 which is very affordable when compared to the cost of other potential new water sources. North Utah County Aquifer Association E-9 ASR Feasibility Study

19 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF STUDY INTRODUCTION Cities in the North Utah County area have formed an association to manage the North Utah County Aquifer. These cities presently include Alpine, American Fork, Highland, Lehi, Pleasant Grove, and Saratoga Springs. This association is called North Utah County Aquifer Association (NUCAA). As part of the effort to manage groundwater in the area, NUCAA has identified five planning objectives: To promote the use of renewable water supplies To provide for the efficient use of all water resources by allowing water to be transported by storing water in one location, but recovering a like quantity elsewhere. To reduce groundwater overdraft, through storing water in the groundwater basin to prevent further water level declines. To utilize groundwater storage to accommodate seasonal demand for water. To augment the water supply. NUCAA has been successful in securing a matching federal grant through the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) to conduct a feasibility study for Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) in the north Utah County area. CUWCD is also an active participant in the study. ASR involves injecting water into an aquifer through wells or by surface spreading and infiltration and then pumping it out when needed. The aquifer essentially functions as a reservoir. Water is stored in times of surplus, typically during wet years, and withdrawals occur in dry years when available water falls short of demand. This study is intended to give direction to future NUCAA activities and to aid in the securing of available grants for ASR projects. BACKGROUND Dependence on Groundwater NUCAA cities are exclusively dependent on groundwater sources for the drinking water supplies. Therefore maintaining the quantity and quality of water available in the aquifers is of vital interest to these communities. Declining Groundwater Levels Over the past three decades NUCAA cities have experienced very high growth rates with a corresponding increase in the number of new wells. This increase in groundwater pumping has resulted in a reduction of groundwater levels and diminished discharge from flowing wells, springs, and drainage sloughs. Measured water levels in wells in northern Utah Valley declined an average of 22 feet from 1981 to North Utah County Aquifer Association 1-1 ASR Feasibility Study

20 CHAPTER 1 Purpose of Study Surplus Flows Most NUCAA cities have surplus flows available from springs and surface sources, primarily during the winter and spring runoff. There is an altruistic desire by these cities to better utilize this water rather than allowing it to flow to Utah Lake, where its quality is greatly diminished and the water cannot be put to beneficial use by the cities. PREVIOUS STUDIES Conjunctive Management of Surface and Ground Water in Utah In July 2005 the Utah Division of Water Resources published a report that provided detailed information about conjunctive management strategies and their potential to help meet growing demand in Utah and help mitigate other groundwater problems. This report described two ASR sites in north Utah County Dry Creek channel between Alpine and Lehi and American Fork River channel downstream from the canyon mouth. USGS Model In 2009 the USGS published a report documenting an updated three-dimensional, finitedifference, numerical model that was developed to simulate ground-water flow in northern Utah Valley. The model is based on hydrologic data collected from 1947 to One of the modeled scenarios documented in the report indicates that the addition of artificial recharge near the mouth of American Fork Canyon results in a general water-level rise throughout much of the northern part of the valley. This finding is indicative that an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) project might be viable in northern Utah Valley. USGS Hydrology Report In 2009 the USGS also published a report entitled Hydrology of Northern Utah Valley, Utah County, Utah, This report describes the groundwater hydrology of northern Utah Valley and provides supporting information for the USGS model report published earlier that year. Conceptual Plan Under the leadership of Highland City, a conceptual-level plan for ASR was developed in March 2009 based on use of the existing American Fork debris basin as a surface-spreading facility. Although the report primarily addresses recharge at the mouth of American Fork Canyon, it also suggests potential for artificial recharge in other locations within the NUCAA area. STUDY OBJECTIVES Primary Objectives of Feasibility Study This feasibility study addresses the feasibility of ASR projects in north Utah County based on Technical Feasibility, Institutional Feasibility, and Financial Feasibility. Technical Feasibility In order to develop the ASR concept further, technical feasibility must be clearly demonstrated North Utah County Aquifer Association 1-2 ASR Feasibility Study

21 CHAPTER 1 Purpose of Study to NUCAA cities, regulators, and the public. Institutional Feasibility Once technical feasibility has been demonstrated, the study must show how the ASR project will work within the framework of existing water right laws and water quality regulations and the political interests of each city. Financial Feasibility Lastly, to complete the feasibility analysis, the project must be demonstrated to be financially feasible to show that it can be successfully financed and that it will be affordable to NUCAA cities. North Utah County Aquifer Association 1-3 ASR Feasibility Study

22 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVE RECHARGE SITE IDENTIFICATION This chapter documents alternative recharge sites for evaluation of feasibility for an ASR program implemented in northern Utah County. The intent is to have an array of feasible recharge alternatives that are ranked and prioritized for future implementation. IDENTIFICATION OF SUITABLE RECHARGE AREAS USING GIS As a first step in identifying potential recharge sites, a GIS database was used to evaluate soil types, aquifer conductivity, and primary recharge area boundaries. This exercise provides a quick screening of recharge areas to identify locations where artificial recharge is most likely to be successful. Data Sources Soils. Soils data was obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Tooele Area-Utah, Tooele County and Parts of Box Elder, Davis, and Juab Counties, Utah White Pine and Elko Counties, Nevada. This data set is a digital soil survey and generally is the most detailed level of soil geographic data developed by the National Cooperative Soil Survey. The information was prepared by digitizing maps, by compiling information onto a planimetric correct base and digitizing, or by revising digitized maps using remotely sensed and other information. For purposes of this study, soils in Hydrologic Groups A and B were considered to be suitable for artificial recharge. Hydrologic Groups A and B are soils that have higher infiltration rates compared to Groups C and D. Aquifer Conductivity. Aquifer conductivity properties data was exported from the USGS MODFLOW model using the Argus ONE software interface. For this evaluation the hydraulic conductivity of the top layer of the receiving aquifer was included in the shapefile. Areas where the hydraulic conductivity of the receiving aquifer is greater than 10 feet per day are considered to be suitable for artificial recharge. Primary Recharge Area. Recharge of water from surficial sources to the principal basin-fill aquifer occurs predominantly near the mountain front within the primary recharge area of the valley where confining layers are thin and discontinuous. These primary recharge areas are identified in the USGS report Hydrology of Northern Utah Valley, Utah County, Utah, Recharge sites must be located within the primary recharge area in order to effectively recharge the principal aquifer. Procedure As described previously, GIS was used as a tool to identify areas suitable for artificial recharge. This was done by comparing soils within hydrologic groups A and B, area where the hydraulic conductivity of the upper layer of the aquifer is greater than 10 feet per day, and the primary recharge area. Areas that intersect these three general areas were determined to be suitable for aquifer recharge. Figure 2-1 illustrates the process that was used to identify areas suitable for aquifer recharge. North Utah County Aquifer Association 2-1 ASR Feasibility Study

23 CHAPTER 2 Alternative Recharge Site Identification Results Figure 2-2 shows the results of the GIS exercise. The areas shaded in yellow are areas that could be considered suitable for artificial recharge. They are generally located along the foothills and benches surrounding the valley. FIGURE 2-1 Using GIS to Identify Suitable Recharge Areas North Utah County Aquifer Association 2-2 ASR Feasibility Study

24 DRAFT NORTH UTAH COUNTY AREAS SUITABLE FOR AQUIFER RECHARGE FIGURE 2-2

25 CHAPTER 2 Alternative Recharge Site Identification SPECIFIC SITES IDENTIFIED BY MEMBER AGENCIES After suitable recharge areas were identified using GIS, meetings were held with each city and the CUWCD to identify specific recharge sites. These sites were identified based on the cities local knowledge of land use and ownership, soils properties, and proximity of other infrastructure that could be used to deliver water to each site. Locations of these sites are shown in Figure 2-3. Each site description provided below also includes an information table about the site. Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) Two recharge sites were identified by the CUWCD. These sites are located near CUWCD s Utah Valley Water Treatment Plant (UVWTP) in north Orem. The first site (see Table 2-1) is owned by CUWCD and is currently used as an overflow basin to infiltrate overflow from UVWTP operations. The second site is an Orem City production well (see Table 2-2). CUWCD has plans to construct a transmission pipeline that will convey treated surface water from the UVWTP to its CWP water project. This pipeline will run right past the Orem City well. The pipeline and well could potentially be used for direct injection into the aquifer. PARAMETER Location Proposed Recharge Method Potential Recharge Water Source(s) Description Other Required Infrastructure Site Ownership Potential Institutional Issues Potential Environmental Issues TABLE 2-1 SITE 1 DESCRIPTION - CUWCD OVERFLOW BASIN DESCRIPTION About 1250 N E., Orem, UT 305 ft. N., 1708 ft. E. SW Corner, Section 1, T. 6 S., R. 2 E., SLB&M Surface Spreading Provo River via CUWCD pipelines at Utah Valley Water Treatment Plant Site lies on a 3.48-acre parcel owned by the CUWCD. About 2.1 acres of the site is an overflow basin that could potentially serve as a recharge basin. The remainder of the site is occupied by sludge-drying beds for the CUWCD s Utah Valley Water Treatment Plant. Much of the potential recharge basin area is covered with wetland vegetation and there is some standing water at the west end of the site (possibly from recent storms). A short length of pipeline with a flow control valve would be required to deliver untreated water from the water treatment plant to the basin. Central Utah Water Conservancy District The site currently supports wetland vegetation. The wetland appears to be manmade and isolated from jurisdictional waters of the United States. The site would likely be determined to be non-jurisdictional by the Army Corps of Engineers. However, if Federal Funds are used to develop the site as a recharge basin, mitigation might be required for any impacts to wetland or wildlife resources. North Utah County Aquifer Association 2-4 ASR Feasibility Study

26 Pleasant Grove Vineyard 11. Alpine Open Space Alpine High Bench Ditch 8. Highland Gravel Pit 7. American Fork Debris Basin Lindon Orem 2. Orem City Well 6. Grove Creek - Battle Creek Ditch 3. Battle Creek Debris Basin 189 Provo FIGURE Miles 14. Lehi Open Space Draper 12. Dry Creek Channel Alpine Lehi OP Dry Creek Debris Basin Highland Cedar Hills OP Saratoga Springs Well 7 Saratoga Springs DRAFT 10. Alpine Open Space OP 74 OP 146 American Fork 5. Grove Creek Recharge Basin 16. Saratoga Springs Hearthstone Well 4. Pleasant Grove Recharge Basins 1 & 2 Eagle Mountain OP 68 OP 114 Utah Lake 1. CUWCD Overflow Basin NORTH UTAH COUNTY AQUIFER ASSOCIATION ALTERNATIVE RECHARGE SITES

27 TABLE 2-2 SITE 2 DESCRIPTION OREM CITY WELL CHAPTER 2 Alternative Recharge Site Identification PARAMETER Location Proposed Recharge Method Potential Recharge Water Source(s) Description Other Required Infrastructure Site Ownership Potential Institutional Issues Potential Environmental Issues DESCRIPTION About 950 N E., Orem, UT 1643 ft. S., 1400 ft. E. NW Corner, Section 12, T. 6 S., R. 2 E., SLB&M Direct injection or in-lieu recharge Provo River via CUWCD pipelines at Utah Valley Water Treatment Plant Drinking water production well owned and operated by Orem City. The well lies on a 1/10-acre parcel of land. The well was drilled in 1961 to a depth of 923 feet. It has a 24- and 20-inch-diameter casing and was drilled by cable-tool method. At total of 505 feet of well casing is perforated from a depth of 375 to 880 feet. The pump intake is set at 435 feet depth. The well has about 45 feet of drawdown at the maximum pumping rate of 1400 gpm. The well was repaired and cleaned in The CUWCD has plans to construct a pipeline in 1000 East as part of the CWP water project. This pipeline will convey treated drinking water from CUWCD s Utah Valley Water Treatment Plant. This pipeline could provide water for injection. Additionally, the well would need to be re-equipped with a separate 6- inch pipe run with flow meters and valves to allow it to function as both a production well and a recharge well. As an alternative to direct injection, the CUWCD could potentially provide treated drinking water from its treatment plant in exchange for recharge credits which could be used at its Geneva well field. Orem City Agreements would be required between Orem City and CUWCD to allow the well to be used as an injection well. Injectate would need to comply with water quality requirements for the intended use of the aquifer. Pleasant Grove City Pleasant Grove City identified four sites east of the city (see Tables 2-3 through 2-6). These sites include an existing debris basin located at the mouth of Battle Creek, two smaller existing basins between Battle Creek and Grove Creek, and a proposed basin site near the mouth of Grove Creek. An abandoned irrigation ditch could be used to convey water from Grove Creek to the small basins or to the Battle Creek basin. North Utah County Aquifer Association 2-6 ASR Feasibility Study

28 CHAPTER 2 Alternative Recharge Site Identification TABLE 2-3 SITE 3 DESCRIPTION BATTLE CREEK DEBRIS BASIN PARAMETER Location Proposed Recharge Method Potential Recharge Water Source(s) Description Other Required Infrastructure Site Ownership Potential Institutional Issues Potential Environmental Issues DESCRIPTION 600 ft. east of Pleasant Grove City boundary at about 50 South 3800 ft. E. SW Corner, Section 22, T. 5 S., R. 2 E., SLB&M Surface Spreading Battle Creek and potentially Grove Creek via reconstructed ditch. Provo River via the Salt Lake Aqueduct. Existing debris basin located at mouth of Battle Creek Canyon. The basin covers an area of about 4.25 acres and has a holding capacity of 44 acre-feet. The dam has a structural height of 47 feet and a hydraulic height of 43 feet. Based on drill logs for the dam, the foundation material generally consists of silty or clayey gravel with cobbles and boulders. If Grove Creek Water is used for recharge at this site an abandoned 0.8-milelong ditch and diversion structure would need to be reconstructed. If Provo River water is used, a pipeline connection from the Alpine Aqueduct Reach 3 will be needed. North Utah County Water Conservancy District Would require an operating agreement with North Utah County Water Conservancy District. If existing ditch is reconstructed to convey water from Grove Creek, the diversion structure would need to be reconstructed. Would require a Section 404 Permit and likely an Environmental Assessment though the U.S. Forest Service. TABLE 2-4 SITE 4 DESCRIPTION PLEASANT GROVE RECHARGE BASINS 1 AND 2 PARAMETER Locations Proposed Recharge Method Potential Recharge Water Source(s) Description Other Required Infrastructure Site Ownership Potential Institutional Issues Potential Environmental Issues DESCRIPTION 550 ft. east of Pleasant Grove City boundary at about 450 North & 350 North 2300 ft. N ft. E. SW Corner, Section 22, T. 5 S., R. 2 E., SLB&M 1900 ft. N ft. E. SW Corner, Section 22, T. 5 S., R. 2 E., SLB&M Surface Spreading Grove Creek via reconstructed ditch Two existing basins located proximate to the abandoned Grove Creek Battle Creek Ditch. Each basin is about 0.5 acre in area and may have a holding capacity of 3-5 acre-feet. The embankments on the downhill side are about 15 feet high. Grove Creek/Battle Creek Ditch would need to be reconstructed. Private Unknown If existing ditch is reconstructed to convey water from Grove Creek, the diversion structure would need to be reconstructed. Would require a Section 404 Permit and likely an Environmental Assessment though the U.S. Forest Service. North Utah County Aquifer Association 2-7 ASR Feasibility Study

29 CHAPTER 2 Alternative Recharge Site Identification TABLE 2-5 SITE 5 DESCRIPTION GROVE CREEK RECHARGE BASIN PARAMETER Locations Proposed Recharge Method Potential Recharge Water Source(s) Description Other Required Infrastructure Site Ownership Potential Institutional Issues Potential Environmental Issues DESCRIPTION Eastern boundary of Pleasant Grove City at about 800 North 1500 ft. S ft. E. NW Corner, Section 22, T. 5 S., R. 2 E., SLB&M Surface Spreading Grove Creek, Provo River via Salt Lake Aqueduct Proposed recharge basin directly east of the Grove Creek Debris Basin and the Salt Lake Aqueduct. The Grove Creek Debris basin is membrane-lined and therefore not suitable for recharge. A new recharge basin could be constructed immediately uphill from the debris basin. It is assumed that the proposed basin would have similar foundation materials to the debris basin which are sandy gravels with some silts and clays. A new diversion structure and ditch would be required to convey water from Grove Creek. A new turnout and possibly a pump station would be required to convey water from the Provo River via the Salt Lake Aqueduct. Private Unknown Construction of a new basin would need to comply with Utah State Administrative Rules for Dam Safety. Would require a Section 404 Permit and likely an Environmental Assessment though the U.S. Forest Service for the diversion structure. TABLE 2-6 SITE 6 DESCRIPTION GROVE CREEK/BATTLE CREEK DITCH PARAMETER Locations Proposed Recharge Method Potential Recharge Water Source(s) Description Other Required Infrastructure Site Ownership Potential Institutional Issues Potential Environmental Issues DESCRIPTION 500 ft. east of Pleasant Grove boundary between Grove Creek & Battle Creek Section 22, T. 5 S., R. 2 E., SLB&M Surface Spreading Grove Creek, Battle Creek Existing unlined ditch in poor condition. Ditch extends about 0.8 mile between Grove Creek and Battle Creek. Could be used as a stand-alone facility or as a conveyance facility to deliver water to other proposed recharge basins. Diversion structure on Grove Creek would need to be reconstructed. Grove Creek diversion structure. Would require a Section 404 Permit and likely an Environmental Assessment though the U.S. Forest Service for the diversion structure. Private Unknown Unknown North Utah County Aquifer Association 2-8 ASR Feasibility Study

30 CHAPTER 2 Alternative Recharge Site Identification American Fork City The boundaries of American Fork City are outside the primary recharge area. Therefore there are no suitable recharge sites within American Fork City. Highland City Three recharge sites were identified within Highland City (see Tables 2-7 through 2-9). These sites include the existing debris basin near the mouth of American Fork Canyon, an existing gravel pit near the mouth of American Fork Canyon, and the Dry Creek Debris Basin located on Dry Creek near the boundary of Highland and Lehi Cities. These sites are shown on Figures 5 and 6. TABLE 2-7 SITE 7 DESCRIPTION AMERICAN FORK DEBRIS BASIN PARAMETER Locations Proposed Recharge Method Potential Recharge Water Source(s) Description Other Required Infrastructure Site Ownership Potential Institutional Issues Potential Environmental Issues DESCRIPTION Near mouth of American Fork Canyon 1900 ft. S ft. W. NE Corner, Section 31, T. 4 S., R. 2 E., SLB&M Surface Spreading American Fork Creek, Provo River via CUWCD North Branch Pipeline Existing debris basin located at mouth of American Fork Canyon. The basin covers an area of about 13 acres and has a holding capacity of 90 acre-feet. The dam has a structural height of 22 feet and a hydraulic height of 13 feet. Drill logs for the dam are unavailable; however, visual inspection indicates that the basin consists primarily of gravel with cobbles. There is some accumulation of fine sediment at the west end of the debris basin near the outlet. American Fork City has constructed a pond for their pressurized irrigation system within the debris basin. The concrete-lined pond occupies about 3.5 acres. The pond s location and elevation limit the depth of water that can be impounded in the debris basin. If the depth becomes too great then water flows backward through the irrigation pond overflow and into the irrigation pond. This condition is acceptable during occasional floods, but is unacceptable for routine operation. Under current operation the outlet gates are closed from about November 1 through April 1 to increase groundwater recharge. A new turnout and a short length of pipeline would be required to deliver water from the CUWCD North Branch Pipeline. American Fork City, Highland City, Cedar Hills City Potential operational conflict with American Fork City pressurized irrigation pond. Unknown North Utah County Aquifer Association 2-9 ASR Feasibility Study

31 TABLE 2-8 SITE 8 DESCRIPTION HIGHLAND GRAVEL PIT CHAPTER 2 Alternative Recharge Site Identification PARAMETER Locations Proposed Recharge Method Potential Recharge Water Source(s) Description Other Required Infrastructure Site Ownership Potential Institutional Issues Potential Environmental Issues DESCRIPTION Near mouth of American Fork Canyon 600 ft. S ft. W. NE Corner, Section 31, T. 4 S., R. 2 E., SLB&M Surface Spreading American Fork Creek, Provo River via CUWCD North Branch Pipeline Part of a larger on-going gravel mining operation. Highland City owns three parcels of land totaling 10.5 acres within the pit. According to City officials, the contract with the rock products company expires in The site is located adjacent to the Lehi Canal and the terminal structure for the CUWCD North Branch Pipeline. Turnouts from the Lehi Canal and from the CUWCD North Branch Pipeline Highland City Construction of a new basin would need to comply with Utah State Administrative Rules for Dam Safety. Unknown TABLE 2-9 SITE 9 DESCRIPTION DRY CREEK DEBRIS BASIN PARAMETER Locations Proposed Recharge Method Potential Recharge Water Source(s) Description Other Required Infrastructure Site Ownership Potential Institutional Issues Potential Environmental Issues DESCRIPTION On Dry Creek at the boundary between Highland and Lehi cities 2700 ft. S ft. E. NW Corner, Section 34, T. 4 S., R. 1 E., SLB&M Surface Spreading Dry Creek, Provo River via Alpine Aqueduct Reach 3 or Provo Reservoir Canal Existing debris basin located on Dry Creek neat the boundaries of Highland and Lehi Cities. The basin covers an area of about 23 acres and has a holding capacity of 226 acre-feet. The dam has a structural height of 37 feet and a hydraulic height of 22 feet. Based on drill logs for the dam, the foundation material generally consists of silty sands and gravels. If Provo River Water is delivered to this site via the Alpine Aqueduct Reach 3 or the Provo Reservoir Canal, a new turnout structure would be required. North Utah County Water Conservancy District Would require an operating agreement with North Utah County Water Conservancy District. Unknown North Utah County Aquifer Association 2-10 ASR Feasibility Study

32 CHAPTER 2 Alternative Recharge Site Identification Alpine City Three potential recharge basin sites were identified by Alpine City (see Tables 2-10 through 2-12). All three sites are City-owned open space. An abandoned irrigation ditch with a high seepage loss rate was also identified (see Table 2-13). TABLE 2-10 SITE 10 DESCRIPTION ALPINE OPEN SPACE 1 PARAMETER Locations Proposed Recharge Method Potential Recharge Water Source(s) Description Other Required Infrastructure Site Ownership Potential Institutional Issues Potential Environmental Issues DESCRIPTION About 400 S. 200 E., Alpine, UT 1200 ft. S. NW Corner, Section 30, T. 4 S., R. 2 E., SLB&M Surface Spreading Dry Creek An open space area that is semi-improved for a park. The parcel contains 7.4 acres. The parcel also appears to be used as a detention basin and has a berm along the northwestern side to create a basin. Overflow ditch may need to be cleaned/repaired to deliver water from Dry Creek to recharge basin. Alpine City Alpine City residents may have objections to scarification of basin or other disturbances needed for recharge. Unknown TABLE 2-11 SITE 11 DESCRIPTION ALPINE OPEN SPACE 2 PARAMETER Locations Proposed Recharge Method Potential Recharge Water Source(s) Description Other Required Infrastructure Site Ownership Potential Institutional Issues Potential Environmental Issues DESCRIPTION About 400 N E., Alpine, UT 2200 ft. S., 280 ft. E., NW Corner, Section 20, T. 4 S., R. 2 E., SLB&M Surface Spreading Dry Creek An unimproved open space area. The parcel contains 3.2 acres. Abandoned irrigation ditch may need to be cleaned/repaired to deliver water from Dry Creek. Alpine City Unknown Unknown North Utah County Aquifer Association 2-11 ASR Feasibility Study

33 CHAPTER 2 Alternative Recharge Site Identification TABLE 2-12 SITE 12 DESCRIPTION ALPINE DRY CREEK CHANNEL PARAMETER Locations Proposed Recharge Method Potential Recharge Water Source(s) Description Other Required Infrastructure Site Ownership Potential Institutional Issues Potential Environmental Issues DESCRIPTION About 400 S. 200 E., Alpine, UT 1500 ft. S., 2700 ft. W., NE Corner, Section 25, T. 4 S., R. 1 E., SLB&M Surface Spreading Dry Creek An unimproved open space area adjacent to Dry Creek. The site contains 8.1 acres. Would need improvements such as diversion structure parallel ditches, check structures or terracing to facilitate recharge. None Alpine City Unknown May need Stream Alteration permit and 404 Permit for diversion structure. TABLE 2-13 SITE 13 DESCRIPTION ALPINE HIGH BENCH DITCH PARAMETER Locations Proposed Recharge Method Potential Recharge Water Source(s) Description Other Required Infrastructure Site Ownership Potential Institutional Issues Potential Environmental Issues DESCRIPTION East side of Alpine, UT Sections 18, 19, 20 & 29, T. 4 S., R. 2 E., SLB&M Surface Spreading Dry Creek An abandoned, unlined irrigation ditch approximately 2.7 miles long. Ditch may require cleaning and repair in some areas. None Private easement Unknown Unknown Lehi City Lehi City identified one site adjacent to the IM Flash facility in the northeast corner of the City (see Table 2-14). The Site is planned open space on property owned by Micron and is located adjacent to a Lehi City well and reservoir. North Utah County Aquifer Association 2-12 ASR Feasibility Study

34 TABLE 2-14 SITE 14 DESCRIPTION LEHI OPEN SPACE CHAPTER 2 Alternative Recharge Site Identification PARAMETER Locations Proposed Recharge Method Potential Recharge Water Source(s) Description Other Required Infrastructure Site Ownership Potential Institutional Issues Potential Environmental Issues DESCRIPTION Northeast of IM Flash facility, Lehi, UT 1900 ft. N., 2300 ft. E., SW Corner, Section 27, T. 4 S., R. 1 E., SLB&M Surface Spreading Dry Creek, Provo River via Provo Reservoir Canal or Alpine Aqueduct Reach 3 The site is planned open space near an existing Lehi City well, tank, and irrigation reservoir. Water can be delivered to the site from the Alpine Aqueduct Reach 3 by gravity pressure or from the Provo Reservoir Canal by pumping. The geotechnical investigation for the tank indicates that the upper feet of the site consists of lean clay with sand underlain by gravels with silts and sand. Existing Lehi City pipeline. Private (designated as future open space) Unknown Unknown Saratoga Springs City The two sites in Saratoga Springs City are both injection well sites (see Tables 2-15 and 2-16). One is located on the east side of the Jordan River where the water quality is high. The other site is west of the Jordan River where the water quality is low. North Utah County Aquifer Association 2-13 ASR Feasibility Study

35 CHAPTER 2 Alternative Recharge Site Identification TABLE 2-15 SITE 15 DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL INJECTION WELL SITE 1 PARAMETER Locations Proposed Recharge Method Potential Recharge Water Source(s) Description Other Required Infrastructure Site Ownership Potential Institutional Issues Potential Environmental Issues DESCRIPTION Adjacent to Pioneer Crossing Highway, 2000 ft. east of Jordan River. 500 ft. S., 2400 ft. W., NE Corner, Section 24, T. 5 S., R. 1 W., SLB&M Direct injection Provo River via CWP Pipeline. This site is a potential injection well east of the Jordan River. The ground water quality in this area is very good. The wells in this area flow under artesian pressure, so injected water will need to be pumped to overcome the hydrostatic head. A turnout from the CUWCD s CWP pipeline will be needed. Private Unknown Unknown TABLE 2-16 SITE 16 DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL INJECTION WELL SITE 2 PARAMETER Locations Proposed Recharge Method Potential Recharge Water Source(s) Description Other Required Infrastructure Site Ownership Potential Institutional Issues Potential Environmental Issues DESCRIPTION One mile east of intersection of Pioneer Crossing Highway and Redwood Road ft. S., 2400 ft. W., NE Corner, Section 22, T. 5 S., R. 1 W., SLB&M Direct injection Provo River via CWP Pipeline. This site is a potential injection well west of the Jordan River. The ground water quality in this area is brackish and not suitable for drinking water. The site will be investigated to determine the potential of creating a fresh water bubble within the aquifer that can be used as a drinking water supply. A turnout from the CUWCD s CWP pipeline will be needed. Private Unknown Unknown North Utah County Aquifer Association 2-14 ASR Feasibility Study

36 CHAPTER 3 PRIORITIZATION OF RECHARGE ALTERNATIVES PURPOSE OF PRIORITIZATION As NUCAA members considered the 16 alternative recharge sites described in the previous chapter, they recognized that there was not sufficient budget to evaluate each alternative in detail. Therefore, a method of prioritizing alternative recharge sites was developed to determine which sites should be evaluated in more detail as part of this study. PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA Seven criteria were used to evaluate and prioritize each alternative. A brief description of each criterion is provided as follows. Availability of Source Water for Recharge Each alternative recharge site was assigned a water source that could potentially be used for recharge. The availability of water from these sources was then rated as high, medium or low based on the amount of water that is not presently being used for other purposes and is not already recharging the principal aquifer. Construction Cost A preliminary cost estimate was prepared for each of the 16 recharge sites. improvements at each site were identified by the following means: Needed Review of information from the description of alternative recharge sites. Interviews and information provided by Member Agencies. Site visits and field investigations. Aerial mapping. Preliminary cost estimates used for prioritization of alternative sites are summarized in Table 3-1. After the prioritization of alternatives, more detailed cost estimates were prepared for the top five projects from the priority list. Those more detailed cost estimates are presented later in this report. Confidence Level Confidence level for each alternative was rated high, medium or low based on the perceived likelihood of being able to successfully perform groundwater recharge at each site. In order for a site to be given a high confidence level, there must be empirical data or observations of high infiltration of surface water. North Utah County Aquifer Association 3-1 ASR Feasibility Study

37 Site ID CHAPTER 3 Prioritization of Recharge Alternatives TABLE 3-1 ALTERNATIVES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES SUMMARY Site Name Construction Cost 1 CUWCD Overflow Basin $100,000 2 Orem City Well $260,000 3 Battle Creek Debris Basin $30,000 3a Battle Creek Debris Basin w/ Ditch $200,000 3b Battle Creek Debris Basin w/ SL Aqueduct $180,000 4 Pleasant Grove Recharge Basins 1 and 2 w/ Ditch $230,000 5 Grove Creek Recharge Basin $1,280,000 5a Grove Creek Recharge Basin w/ SL Aqueduct $1,430,000 6 Grove Creek - Battle Creek Ditch $170,000 7 American Fork Debris Basin $180,000 8 Highland Gravel Pit $320,000 9 Dry Creek Debris Basin $170, Alpine Open Space 1 $130, High Bench Ditch and Alpine Open Space 2 $200, Alpine - Dry Creek Channel $70, Alpine High Bench Ditch $120, Lehi Open Space $620, Saratoga Springs Well 7 $680, Saratoga Springs Hearthstone Well $700,000 Potential Annual Volume The potential annual volume of recharge for surface spreading sites is based on the estimated infiltration rate for each site, the area available for recharge, and the duration of recharge. Estimated recharge rates and annual volumes for each of the 13 surface spreading sites are listed in Table 3-2. Estimated infiltration rates listed are based on review of available information and are meant to provide an order of magnitude range of potentially achievable recharge rates. These estimates and data used to develop them are described in Appendix A. Actual recharge rates are sitespecific and, especially for long-term sustainable recharge rates, cannot be precisely determined until recharge is underway. However, order-of-magnitude level estimates are helpful to prioritize sites for further evaluation. North Utah County Aquifer Association 3-2 ASR Feasibility Study

38 CHAPTER 3 Prioritization of Recharge Alternatives TABLE 3-2 ESTIMATED ANNUAL RECHARGE VOLUMES FOR SURFACE SPREADING SITES Ann. Ann. Recharge Recharge Recharge Recharge Area Rate Low Rate High Days of Vol. Low Vol. High Site ID Site Name (acres) (ft/day) (ft/day) Recharge (ac-ft) (ac-ft) 1 CUWCD Property Battle Creek Debris Basin ,224 3a Battle Creek Debris Basin w/ Ditch ,512 3b Battle Creek Debris Basin w/ SL Aqueduct ,224 4 Pleasant Grove Recharge Basins 1 and 2 w/ Ditch Grove Creek Recharge Basin ,152 5a Grove Creek Recharge Basin w/ SL Aqueduct ,152 6 Grove Creek - Battle Creek Ditch American Fork Debris Basin ,736 5,472 8 Highland Gravel Pit ,880 5,760 9 Dry Creek Debris Basin Alpine Open Space High Bench Ditch and Alpine Open Space Alpine Open Space Alpine High Bench Ditch Lehi Open Space ,152 The other 3 of the 16 identified sites would require recharge through direct injection, either through an existing or a new well. Estimated recharge rates and annual volumes for these injection sites are shown in Table 3-3. The estimated recharge rate for Site 2 is based on experience with other wells of similar capacity, diameter and depth. Site 15 is a recharge rates are more uncertain because of artesian conditions that exist at that site and the lack of experience in performing injection under artesian conditions. Because of lack of data, the same recharge rates as Site 2 were used for Site 15. The existing well at Site 16 is smaller diameter, therefore a lower recharge rate was assumed. TABLE 3-3 ESTIMATED ANNUAL RECHARGE VOLUMES FOR INJECTION SITES Ann. Ann. Recharge Recharge Recharge Recharge Rate Low Rate High Days of Vol. Low Vol. High Site ID Site Name (gpm) (gpm) Recharge (ac-ft) (ac-ft) 2 Orem City Well Saratoga Springs Well Saratoga Springs Hearthstone Well North Utah County Aquifer Association 3-3 ASR Feasibility Study

39 CHAPTER 3 Prioritization of Recharge Alternatives Area Benefited Preliminary modeling was performed to determine the lateral extents of the areas benefited by conducting artificial recharge at the alternative recharge sites identified in Chapter 2. Conceptual aquifer recharge rates were entered into the model at each of the identified potential recharge sites in separate model runs. Each model run assumed constant annual aquifer recharge over a period of 30 years to give a steady-state impact from artificial recharge. No recovery of recharge water was assumed for this analysis. The computed water surface from base model was subtracted from the computer water surface from each solution with added aquifer recharge to give the project impact for each site. Using the principle of superposition, the impact from recharge a multiple sites was also calculated. Results of this exercise, including contour maps showing increases in ground water levels, are provided in Appendix B. Based on the preliminary modeling results, the area benefited by each alternative recharge site was designated as large, medium, or small. Capital Cost per Acre-Foot The capital cost per acre-foot of recharge was calculated by dividing the estimated capital cost for each alternative by the potential annual volume of recharge for that site. This was expressed as a range based on the range of recharge volume. Other Concerns or Issues Several of the sites have other issues that could create conflicts or affect the viability of a given recharge site. These issues include items such as land ownership, land use, proximity of downgradient structures that could be impacted, and the presence of springs. RESULTS OF PRIORITIZATION Table 3-4 is a matrix that arrays each alternative against the prioritization criteria described above. The matrix was reviewed and discussed in detail with NUCAA representatives. Based on that review each alternative was assigned a priority for implementation. Table 3-4 lists the alternatives in order of priority. There was agreement among NUCAA representatives that the top five alternatives on the priority list should be advanced for more detailed study. North Utah County Aquifer Association 3-4 ASR Feasibility Study

40 CHAPTER 3 Prioritization of Recharge Alternatives TABLE 3-4 PRIORITIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE RECHARGE SITES Site ID Site Name 7 American Fork Debris Basin 3 Battle Creek Debris Basin 12 Alpine - Dry Creek Channel 8 Highland Gravel Pit 1 CUWCD Property 3b 3a Battle Creek Debris Basin w/ SL Aqueduct Battle Creek Debris Basin w/ Ditch 10 Alpine Open Space 1 13 Alpine High Bench Ditch 2 Orem City Well 4 Pleasant Grove Recharge Basins 1 and 2 w/ Ditch 14 Lehi Open Space 6 Grove Creek - Battle Creek Ditch 9 Dry Creek Debris Basin 11 High Bench Ditch and Alpine Open Space 2 15 Saratoga Springs Well 7 5a 16 5 Grove Creek Recharge Basin w/ SL Aqueduct Saratoga Springs Hearthstone Well Grove Creek Recharge Basin Recharge Method Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Injection Well Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Surface Spreading Injection Well Surface Spreading Injection Well Surface Spreading 9.5 American Fork, Provo River via CUWCD Pipeline Recharge Effectiveness Confidence Level Potential Ann. Volume 1 Area Benefited Capital Cost/Ac-Ft/Yr 4.25 Battle Creek Medium $30,000 High Small $45-$ Dry Creek, Provo River via CUWCD Pipeline American Fork, Provo River via CUWCD Pipeline High $320,000 Medium 2,880 4 Large $111 Basin owned by NUCWCD Construction of recharge basin must wait until pit is mined out 2.1 Provo River via UVWTP High $100,000 Medium Medium $165-$ Rough estimates. Actual recharge rates would need to be determined by pilot studies. Battle Creek, Provo River via Salt Lake Aqueduct High $180,000 High 612-1,224 Small $147-$ Battle Creek, Grove Creek Medium $200,000 High Small $178-$265 Basin owned by NUCWCD Basin owned by NUCWCD NA UVWTP High $260,000 Medium Medium $467-$653 5 Well Owned by Orem 12 Provo River via CUWCD Pipeline High $170,000 Low Medium $787-$ Dry Creek Low $200,000 Medium Medium $833-$1,667 City Springs in area indicate this is a discharge area Houses near by down gradient NA CUWCD CWP High $680,000 Low Medium $1,221-$1,709 5 Well available for Maximum recharge volume limited by winter flow of Battle Creek. 3 Maximum recharge volume limited by winter flow of Grove Creek. 4 Maximum recharge volume limited by flow capacity of CUWCD North Branch Pipeline (8 cfs). 5 Does not include treatment costs ($65/ac-ft) Area (acres) Water Source Grove Creek, Provo River via Salt Lake Aqueduct Availability of Source Water for Recharge Construction Cost High $1,430,000 Medium 576-1,152 Small $1,241-$2, Grove Creek Medium $1,280,000 Medium Small $2,777 Other Concerns/Issues years only Houses near by down gradient Houses near by down gradient Priority High $180,000 High 2,736-5,472 Large $33-$66 1 Medium $70,000 High Medium $90-$ Dry Creek Low $130,000 Low Medium $366-$732 Area is sloped Dry Creek Low $120,000 High Medium $379-$ Grove Creek Medium $230,000 Medium Small $498-$ Provo River via CUWCD Pipeline High $620,000 Medium 576-1,152 Medium $538-$1,076 Site owned by Micron Grove Creek Medium $170,000 Medium Small $590-$1, NA CUWCD CWP High $700,000 Medium Medium $2,518-$3, North Utah County Aquifer Association 3-5 ASR Feasibility Study

41 CHAPTER 4 WATER SUPPLY POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE FOR RECHARGE This chapter identifies the water supply that could potentially be available for groundwater recharge from the local streams in northern Utah County. This evaluation does not consider the water rights that would be necessary to use the water for that purpose. A discussion of water rights is provided in Chapter 5 of this report. HISTORICAL FLOW RECORDS In the past the USGS has maintained stream gages on the American Fork River, Dry Creek, and Fort Creek. A summary of each gage is provided below. American Fork River This gage, No American Fork Above Upper Power Plant Near American Fork Utah, is located about 4 miles above the mouth of the canyon near an historic diversion structure for a hydroelectric power plant. The period of record for this gage is October 1927 through September 1989 (62 years). Table 1 in Appendix C is a monthly summary of mean daily flows for this period. The average annual discharge for the 62-year period is 40,861 acre-feet. American Fork City has recently acquired the gaging station equipment and plans to maintain the gage again. Dry Creek The historic Dry Creek gage site, No Dry Creek Near Alpine Utah, is located in Alpine near the Grove Drive crossing of Dry Creek. The period of record for the gage is October 1947 through September 1955 (8 years). Table 2 in Appendix C is a monthly summary of mean daily flows for this period. The average annual discharge for the 8-year period is 15,426 acrefeet. Fort Creek The old Fort Creek gage site, No Fort Creek at Alpine Utah, is located in Alpine near the Fort Canyon Road crossing of Fort Creek. The period of record for the gage is October 1947 through September 1955 (8 years). Table 3 in Appendix C is a monthly summary of mean daily flows for this period. The average annual discharge for the 8-year period is 6,073 acrefeet. ESTIMATED ANNUAL FLOWS In the report entitled Hydrology of Northern Utah Valley, Utah County, Utah, , the USGS provided a summary of annual gaged or estimated streamflow for streams in northern Utah Valley for the period. This summary is provided in Table 4 in Appendix C. The average annual flows for American Fork River and Battle, Grove, Dry, and Fort Creeks are summarized in Table 4-1. North Utah County Aquifer Association 4-1 ASR Feasibility Study

42 TABLE 4-1 AVERAGE ANNUAL STREAM FLOWS CHAPTER 4 Water Supply Potentially Available for Recharge STREAM ANNUAL FLOW (acre-feet) American Fork River 43,100 Battle Creek 3,800 Grove Creek 2,700 Dry Creek 14,900 Fort Creek 5,900 In the USGS study, the American Fork River was assumed to be representative of other streams within the study area. The Dry Creek and Fork Creek flows were estimated by correlating the historical gage data with the American Fork River by linear regression. The Battle Creek and Grove Creek flows were estimated by using ratios of basin area and annual precipitation to the basin area and annual precipitation of the American Fork River basin. Total streamflow for Battle and Grove Creeks was distributed between the two creeks so that Grove Creek was 70 percent of the flow of Battle Creek. This distribution was established in a USGS Open-File Report Ground-Water Resources of Northern Utah Valley, Utah, The 1984 report also indicates that the flow records from the American Fork River gaging station do not include inflow from four tributaries downstream from the gaging station which would contribute about 10 percent additional flow. Therefore, in each case the annual flow of each stream is a direct percentage of the gaged American Fork River flow. These percentages are shown in Table 4-2. TABLE 4-2 PERCENTAGE OF AMERICAN FORK RIVER FLOW ABOVE UPPER POWER PLANT STREAM PERCENTAGE OF FLOW American Fork River at Mouth of Canyon 110% Battle Creek 8.9% Grove Creek 6.2% Dry Creek 34.5% Fort Creek 13.7% WINTER FLOWS A large portion of the flow from local streams that could be available for recharge occurs from mid-october through mid-april or it seeps into the ground down gradient from the primary recharge area. During this period, the water flows past irrigation diversions and flows to Utah Lake. Estimated average monthly winter flows are shown in Table 5 in Appendix C. As shown in the table, an average of 12,883 acre-feet of winter flow could potentially be available for groundwater recharge. Total winter flows summarized by stream are summarized in Table 4-3. North Utah County Aquifer Association 4-2 ASR Feasibility Study

43 TABLE 4-3 WINTER STREAM FLOWS CHAPTER 4 Water Supply Potentially Available for Recharge STREAM AVERAGE ANNUAL WINTER FLOW (acre-feet) American Fork River at Mouth of Canyon 8,177 Battle Creek 662 Grove Creek 461 Dry Creek 2,565 Fort Creek 1,018 TOTAL 12,883 SURPLUS SNOWMELT RUNOFF FLOWS Essentially all of the flow from mid-april through mid-october is diverted into local irrigation systems. An exception occurs during the snowmelt runoff period (May and June) when streamflow often exceeds the capacity of the irrigation systems. Surplus flows during this timeframe can be determined based on the capacity of the irrigation diversions on each stream. Personal communication with the water master for the Pleasant Grove Irrigation Company revealed that the irrigation system generally has sufficient capacity to divert and convey snowmelt runoff flows from Battle Creek and Grove Creek. Therefore, the surplus snowmelt flows from those streams is assumed to be zero. Estimates of May and June flows for American Fork River at mouth of canyon, Dry Creek, and Fort Creek are provided in Table 6. These estimates are based on recorded flows at the American Fork River above Upper Power Plant gage. Estimated diversion capacities of the various irrigation systems are included in Table 4-4. TABLE 4-4 IRRIGATION SYSTEM DIVERSION CAPACITIES STREAM IRRIGATION SYSTEM DIVERSION CAPACITY (cfs) American Fork River American Fork Irrigation Company 67 1 Lehi Irrigation Company Pleasant Grove Irrigation Company 15 3 Dry Creek Alpine Irrigation Company Fort Creek Alpine Irrigation Company Estimated based on discussion with water master. Ditches are generally at capacity when staff gage on weir reads 1.1 feet. Flow rate corresponds to 1.1 feet of head on 17.5 long suppressed weir. Includes water delivered to Highland City P.I. system. 2 Estimated based on discussion with water master. Ditches are generally at capacity when staff gage on weir reads 1.1 feet. Flow rate corresponds to 1.1 feet of head on 5 long suppressed weir. Includes water delivered to Highland City P.I. system. 3 From communication with Art Estes, water master. 4 From communication with Shane Sorenson, City Engineer. North Utah County Aquifer Association 4-3 ASR Feasibility Study

44 CHAPTER 4 Water Supply Potentially Available for Recharge Using the diversion capacities listed above, and the May and June flows provided in Table 6, an estimate of surplus May and June flows is provided in Table 7 in Appendix C. Average quantities of May and June surplus flows are shown in Table 4-5. STREAM TABLE 4-5 SURPLUS MAY AND JUNE FLOWS AVERAGE MAY SURPLUS FLOW (acre-feet) AVERAGE JUNE SURPLUS FLOW (acre-feet) American Fork River at Mouth of Canyon 4,553 5,846 Dry Creek 2,722 3,119 Fort Creek TOTAL 7,993 9,860 NUCAA cities also have Provo River water available to them from irrigation canals that flow through the area. CUWCD also has Provo River water and water from other sources that could be transported to the NUCAA area through existing conveyance facilities. At certain times these other water sources could be used for groundwater recharge. SUMMARY Based on the above analysis, there is a significant amount of water from local streams in northern Utah County that could potentially be used for groundwater recharge. However, before this water can be used for recharge, water rights would need to be identified to support that purpose and required change and recharge applications would need to be filed with and approved by the State Engineer. North Utah County Aquifer Association 4-4 ASR Feasibility Study

45 CHAPTER 5 WATER RIGHTS The water rights of each participating city have been evaluated to look for the opportunities of utilization of the water rights in the aquifer storage and recovery project. After meeting with the State Engineer in August of 2010, it was concluded that the main intent was to ensure that the water rights of Utah Lake had to be kept whole, which is generally the terminus for water in Northern Utah Valley. The water rights that can easily be utilized are summarized in four categories (1) water rights currently in Utah Lake, (2) water rights from sources that can be delivered to Utah Lake, (3) existing water rights based on either of the above two categories with approved change applications that have been filed on them to allow for diversion from wells in Northern Utah Valley by the cities, and (4) water rights in the Provo River that can be utilized during the non-irrigation season. WATER RIGHTS CURRENTLY IN UTAH LAKE This type of water right would be either shares of stock in irrigation companies with storage rights in Utah Lake or other water rights that have been acquired by the cities or Central Utah Water Conservancy District that have a right to store in Utah Lake. These rights could be utilized since the water that will be stored from the surface sources in the aquifer would be water that is on its way to Utah Lake. The shares of stock in the irrigation companies or other Utah Lake water rights would keep Utah Lake whole by not being diverted and placed to beneficial use. WATER RIGHTS FROM SOURCES THAT CAN BE DELIVERED TO UTAH LAKE This type of water right would be springs, drains, or sloughs generally close to Utah Lake where the historic use of the water can be eliminated and the water shepherded to Utah Lake. Any use from sources in this category that can be eliminated, no matter the time period, would work. Utah Lake is kept whole and water can be stored and recovered at a later date. EXISTING WATER RIGHTS WITH CHANGE APPLICATIONS This type or category of water right would be where a city has an existing change application for diversion of water from wells based on shares of stock in Utah Lake and currently is not utilizing or not fully utilizing the water right. This type of right could be utilized adding storage and recovery to the right, however, additional tracking will be required and may be more problematic. Eventually the cities will have the need for the water as approved in the existing change applications, hence, this type of right may just be used for a limited amount of time. WATER RIGHTS OF THE PROVO RIVER Water Rights in the Provo River that are owned by Central Utah Water Conservancy District potentially can be diverted directly from the Provo River and utilized for storage and recovery. Some of the water rights in the Provo River can also be delivered to Utah Lake and water from the sources that have been identified can be utilized in this project. WATER RIGHTS REVIEWED FOR EACH CITY The following tables show the water rights that have been identified for each city and for Central Utah Water Conservancy District. By no means should this be considered to be an all- North Utah County Aquifer Association 5-1 ASR Feasibility Study

46 CHAPTER 5 Water Rights encompassing list of the water rights that can be utilized. There are other water rights that are currently available to the participants in this study or will become available that can be utilized for this project. Some cities have other water rights that they believe could be used for recharge but have determined to initially focus on water rights that could be used with minimal opposition. As artificial recharge efforts progress, some may choose to explore using other water rights. The kind of water rights that should be avoided are water rights that are direct diversions from the Jordan River only. There are some water rights available and actively being marketed that historically have been used from the Galena Canal. There is no way that these water rights could keep the level of Utah Lake up because they do not have storage in Utah Lake. Other water rights on the Jordan River that do not have storage rights in Utah Lake should also be avoided. A summary of the total usable water rights for the cities is included in Table 5-1. Tables 5-2 through 5-7 summarize each city s water rights. TABLE 5-1 TOTAL USEABLE WATER RIGHTS CITY VOLUME FLOW RATE (acre-feet) (cfs) Alpine American Fork Highland 1, Lehi 5, Pleasant Grove Saratoga Springs 3, TOTAL 12, TABLE 5-2 ALPINE CITY WATER RIGHTS WATER SOURCE VOLUME FLOW RATE CHANGE RIGHT # (# of shares) (acre-feet) (cfs) APP # SOURCE East Jordan (14 shares) a26110 Well Warm Springs a Wells Grove Spring Wadsworth Spring Box Elder Canyon Stream Cottonwood & Hidden Hollow Springs School House, Birch, Hamongog Springs Cottonwood & Hidden Hollow Springs TOTAL North Utah County Aquifer Association 5-2 ASR Feasibility Study

47 CHAPTER 5 Water Rights TABLE 5-3 AMERICAN FORK CITY WATER RIGHTS 1 WATER SOURCE VOLUME FLOW RATE CHANGE RIGHT # (# of shares) (acre-feet) (cfs) APP # SOURCE Fort Field Little Dry Creek WUA (6 shares) a Wells Ovard Slough a Wells Roberts Spring a Wells Drain Drain Gravel Pit Spring Unnamed Spring Springs TOTAL American Fork City claims other water rights including winter flows of the American Fork River. This report is not intended to preclude use of those water rights at some future date. TABLE 5-4 HIGHLAND CITY WATER RIGHTS WATER SOURCE VOLUME FLOW RATE CHANGE RIGHT # (# of shares) (acre-feet) (cfs) APP # SOURCE -- Other shares owned in East Jordan no change filed ( shares) East Jordan (25 shares) a Wells East Jordan (8.5 shares) a Well East Jordan (60 shares) a Well South Jordan (140.5 shares) a Wells South Jordan (58.5 shares) a Wells Fort Field Little Dry Creek WUA (5 shares) a Well TOTAL 1, North Utah County Aquifer Association 5-3 ASR Feasibility Study

48 CHAPTER 5 Water Rights TABLE 5-5 LEHI CITY WATER RIGHTS WATER SOURCE VOLUME FLOW RATE CHANGE RIGHT # (# of shares) (acre-feet) (cfs) APP # SOURCE East Jordan (10.5 shares) a Wells East Jordan (104 shares) a Wells East Jordan (69 shares) a Wells East Jordan (64 shares) a Well East Jordan (43 shares) a Wells East Jordan (21 shares) a Wells East Jordan (42 shares) A Wells South Jordan (106 shares) a19988 Drain & Well South Jordan (30 shares) a20020 Drain & Well South Jordan (20 shares) a20021 Drain & Well South Jordan (15 shares) a20022 Drain & Well Fort Field Little Dry Creek WUA (4 shares) a21578 Drain East Jordan (25 shares) a Wells East Jordan (1 share) a Wells 2 Drains East Jordan (3 shares) a Wells Fort Field Little Dry Creek WUA (25.6 shares) a Wells East Jordan (70.5 shares) a Fort Field Little Dry Creek WUA (0.51 shares) 5 Wells 1 Drain 4 -- a Wells East Jordan (18.5 shares) a Wells 2 Drains East Jordan (48 shares) a Wells 1 Drain East Jordan (16.5 shares) a Wells 2 Drains East Jordan (45 shares) a Wells 1 Drain East Jordan (65 shares) a Wells 1 Drain Utah & SL Canal 4 Wells a30973 (159 shares) 1 Drain Utah & SL Canal 4 Wells a32198 (59 shares) 1 Drain Utah Lake Dist. (108 shares) a Wells Utah Lake Dist. (31 shares) a Wells TOTAL 5, North Utah County Aquifer Association 5-4 ASR Feasibility Study

49 CHAPTER 5 Water Rights TABLE 5-6 PLEASANT GROVE CITY WATER RIGHTS WATER SOURCE VOLUME FLOW RATE CHANGE RIGHT # (# of shares) (acre-feet) (cfs) APP # SOURCE East Jordan (44 shares) a Wells East Jordan (21 shares) a Wells Utah Lake Dist. (25 shares) a Wells Utah Lake Dist. (9 shares) a Wells Utah Lake Dist. (46 shares) a Wells Blue Spring Stream a Wells Robinson Slough a Wells Springs in Benjamin Slough area a Wells Unnamed Spring a Wells Unnamed Spring a Wells Battle Creek Wade Springs TOTAL TABLE 5-7 SARATOGA SPRINGS CITY WATER RIGHTS WATER SOURCE VOLUME FLOW RATE CHANGE RIGHT # (# of shares) (acre-feet) (cfs) APP # SOURCE Utah & SL Canal (81 shares) Utah & SL Canal (72 shares) a Wells Welby Jacob (384 shares) a Wells East Jordan (21 shares) a Wells East Jordan (83 shares) a Wells East Jordan (10 shares) a Wells East Jordan (12 shares) a Wells East Jordan ( shares) a Wells South Jordan (106.5 shares) a Wells South Jordan (14 shares) a Wells Utah & SL Canal (27 shares) a Wells Utah & SL Canal (14 shares) a Wells Central Utah Water Conservancy District TOTAL 3, CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT (CUWCD) WATER RIGHTS Central Utah Water Conservancy District owns numerous water rights that could potentially be used for groundwater recharge as long as the uses do not interfere with existing CUP or CWP operations or required capacities. The water rights to be considered for this project can be summarized into two different groups CUP water and CWP water. The CUP water are rights North Utah County Aquifer Association 5-5 ASR Feasibility Study

50 CHAPTER 5 Water Rights that are part of the Central Utah Project and are owned by the United States. The CWP water rights are rights that have been acquired by and are owned by the CUWCD. There are several ways to utilize these water rights, which include but may not be limited to the following: 1. Diverting surplus flows that would not otherwise be utilized by the project and recharge this water. This water could be diverted into facilities that can deliver the water to recharge ponds through appropriate water rights changes and agreements. 2. There is a potential that CUP water from Jordanelle or Strawberry Reservoirs could be recharged directly by this project. Many of the NUCAA participants have contracts with CUWCD for CUP water. During years when CUP water is not fully used, cities could use their unused CUP water for recharge. 3. Replace early irrigation season secondary sources of water such as Dry Creek and American Fork River with CUP or CWP water and allow Dry Creek and the American Fork River to be used for recharge for a longer period of time. 4. Replace the winter pumping of wells by municipalities with treated surface water from the Provo River and allow the groundwater to stay in the system. 5. Utilization of Interim CWP water until the full demand for CWP water develops, CWP water could be temporarily used for replacement water to Utah Lake so that other sources of water can be diverted and used for recharge. 6. Utah Lake and Provo River water rights purchased by CUWCD from Geneva Steel could also potentially be used for recharge. Other water sources could be used to recharge the groundwater and CUWCD rights could be used to make Utah Lake whole. 7. Water Right Number 55-77, which is the Hamblin water, can be used, when available, for recharge. North Utah County Aquifer Association 5-6 ASR Feasibility Study

51 CHAPTER 6 PROPOSED PLAN GENERAL The proposed plan for the North Utah County ASR Project includes both recharge and recovery elements. The recharge components of the proposed plan include the top five prioritized sites as described in Chapter 3. These sites could provide an average recharge of 8,560 acre-feet per year. Recovery of recharged water would be accomplished primarily through existing wells with the exception of one new recovery well that would be located adjacent to the American Fork Lehi boundary south of I-15. Because the ASR project is only about 80 percent efficient, an average of 6,850 acre-feet would be recovered each year with annual recovery ranging from about 3,500 acre-feet to over 16,000 acre-feet, depending on the amount of precipitation that occurs in a given year. PROPOSED RECHARGE SITES Under the proposed plan natural groundwater recharge would be augmented by providing artificial recharge at five sites in northern Utah County. All five sites involve surface spreading as the recharge mechanism. Three of the sites involve very few capital improvements. Recharge at these sites would likely occur first. One of the sites involves a significant amount of pipeline construction. Another site cannot be developed until gravel mining operations are completed. American Fork Debris Basin Recharge Site The American Fork Debris Basin is located within the boundaries of Highland City near the mouth of American Fork Canyon. The site is owned jointly by Highland City, American Fork City and the City of Cedar Hills. The basin covers an area of about 13.2 acres; however, only about 9.7 acres is available for surface spreading because American Fork City has constructed a regulating pond for its pressurized irrigation system within the basin. Historically, in some years the outlet gates for the basin have been closed in the fall to induce recharge into the groundwater aquifer. During those periods all inflow to the basin entered the ground and there was no surface flow below the basin. Based on this anecdotal data the average observed recharge rate for the basin is 2.24 feet per day (average inflow of 15 cfs spread over 13.2 acres). Therefore, assuming a recharge period of 180 days, the annual recharge volume that could be achieved at the basin is 3,900 acre-feet per year (2.24 feet per day spread over 9.7 acres). Winter flows of American Fork average nearly 8,200 acre-feet. Recommended improvements to facilitate long-term recharge at the American Fork Debris Basin include the following items: Installing a flow measurement weir with an electronic recording device located at the entrance to the basin. Installing a flow measurement weir with and electronic recording device immediately downstream from the debris basin to measure any outflow from the basin. North Utah County Aquifer Association 6-1 ASR Feasibility Study

52 CHAPTER 6 Proposed Plan Refurbishing the outlet gates to ensure a tight seal and prevent water from leaking past the gates. Removing accumulated sediment and debris from the basin. These existing and proposed facilities are shown in Figure 6-1. The estimated construction for these improvements is $160,000 as shown in in Table 6-1. TABLE 6-1 AMERICAN FORK DEBRIS BASIN RECHARGE SITE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Total Price Mobilization Lump Sum $9,800 1 $9,800 Furnish and Install Flow Measurement Weir w/ Recorder Each $20, ,000 Refurbish outlet gates Lump Sum $10, ,000 Excavate and remove accumulated sediment Cubic Yard $6.00 8,000 48,000 Engineering & Administration (20%) 21,560 Contingency (25%) 26,950 Total Construction Cost (rounded) $160,000 Annual operating costs for the American Fork Debris Basin recharge facility are expected to be minimal. Occasional removal of accumulated fine sediment will be needed to maintain the recharge rate for the basin. This cost is estimated to be $10,000 every five years. Battle Creek Debris Basin Recharge Site The Battle Creek Debris Basin is located immediately east of Pleasant Grove City near the mouth of Battle Creek Canyon. The site is owned by the North Utah County Water Conservancy District. The basin covers an area of about 4.25 acres. Historically, in some years the outlet gates for the basin have been closed in the fall to induce recharge into the groundwater aquifer. During those periods all inflow to the basin entered the ground and there was no surface flow below the basin. Over the past two years Pleasant Grove City has taken spot measurements of the flow entering the basin using a measurement weir located upstream from the basin. Based on these flow measurements, the observed recharge rate, the basin is capable of providing recharge at a rate of at least 4.65 cfs or about 2.2 feet per day. Therefore, assuming a recharge period of 180 days, the annual recharge volume that could be achieved at the basin is 1,650 acre-feet per year (2.2 feet per day spread over 4.25 acres). However, the average winter flow of Battle Creek is only about 660 acre-feet. Recommended improvements to facilitate long-term recharge at the Battle Creek Debris Basin include the following items: Installing a flow measurement weir with an electronic recording device located at the entrance to the basin. North Utah County Aquifer Association 6-2 ASR Feasibility Study

53 FIGURE 6-1 NO SCALE AREA AVAILABLE FOR SURFACE SPREADING DRAFT FLOW MEASUREMENT WEIR WITH RECORDER REFURBISH OUTLET GATES AMERICAN FORK DEBRIS BASIN RECHARGE SITE

54 CHAPTER 6 Proposed Plan Facilities for the Battle Creek Debris Basin Recharge Site are shown in Figure 6-2. estimated construction cost for these improvements is $32,000 as shown in Table 6-2. The TABLE 6-2 BATTLE CREEK DEBRIS BASIN RECHARGE SITE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Total Price Mobilization Lump Sum $2,000 1 $2,000 Furnish and Install Flow Measurement Weir w/ Recorder Each $ 20, ,000 Engineering & Administration (20%) 4,400 Contingency (25%) 5,500 Total Construction Cost (rounded) $32,000 Annual operating costs for the Battle Creek Debris Basin recharge facility are expected to be negligible. Alpine Dry Creek Recharge Area The Alpine Dry Creek recharge area begins at the 300 North Street crossing of Dry Creek in Alpine and extends to the SR-92 crossing of Dry Creek in Highland. The total stream channel length in this recharge area is 3 miles. Under the proposed plan, recharge water would be delivered to the Dry Creek channel through existing Alpine City Pressurized Irrigation (P.I.) System pipes and a new connection pipe to the CUWCD North Branch Pipeline. This water would be delivered during the non-irrigation season when the system is not in use. However, because the P.I. pipes are shallow and subject to freezing, the coldest part of the winter would be avoided. The estimated period of recharge would be from October 15 through December 15 and from February 15 through April 15. New valves would be installed in the City s P.I. System to isolate the pipes used to convey recharge water from the rest of the system. The recharge capacity of this stretch of channel was estimated by measuring the flow of Dry Creek during the declining limb of the snowmelt runoff event of During this period of time there was flow in the upper portions of Dry Creek, but this flow had completely infiltrated before reaching the Alpine Main Street crossing of Dry Creek. A flow of 5.08 cfs was measured immediately downstream from the Alpine Boulevard crossing of Dry Creek. This flow was totally infiltrated at approximately 150 South. The length of this reach of stream is 1.25 miles, therefore the recharge capacity of Dry Creek channel was estimated to be 4.0 cfs per mile or 12 cfs for the entire 3-mile-long recharge area. However, the hydraulic capacity of the P.I. system pipes was calculated to be less than 4.5 cfs. Therefore, the annual recharge volume for the Dry Creek channel was estimated to be 1,000 acre-feet per year (4.5 cfs for 120 days). Recharge water could come from several sources including CUP water under contract with NUCAA cities, other Provo River water owned by NUCAA cities, and CUWCD-owned water. North Utah County Aquifer Association 6-4 ASR Feasibility Study

55 FIGURE 6-2 NO SCALE AREA AVAILABLE FOR SURFACE SPREADING DRAFT FLOW MEASUREMENT WEIR WITH RECORDER BATTLE CREEK DEBRIS BASIN RECHARGE SITE

56 CHAPTER 6 Proposed Plan Recommended improvements to facilitate recharge at the Dry Creek site include the following items: Constructing 3,300 linear feet of 18-inch-diameter pipeline to connect the CUWCD North Branch Pipeline to the Alpine City P.I. System. Installing 20 in-line valves in existing pipelines ranging in size from 2 inches to 16 inches to isolate the P.I. pipelines to be used to convey recharge water from the rest of the system. Constructing a discharge structure to facilitate release of recharge water into the Dry Creek channel. This structure includes a 16 X6 tee and a 6 butterfly valve. Existing and proposed facilities for the Alpine Dry Creek Recharge Area are shown in Figure 6-3. The estimated construction cost for these improvements is $560,000 as shown in Table 6-3. TABLE 6-3 ALPINE DRY CREEK RECHARGE AREA CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Total Price Mobilization Lump Sum $34,000 1 $34,000 Furnish and install 18-inch-diameter PVC C905 pipe with fittings Linear Foot $75 3,314 $248,550 Connection to pump station Lump Sum $15,000 1 $15,000 Cut in 2" gate valves Each $2,800 2 $5,600 Cut in 4" gate valve Each $3,000 5 $15,000 Cut in 6" gate valve Each $3,300 8 $26,400 Cut in 8" gate valve Each $3,500 3 $10,500 Cut in 10" gate valve Each $3,900 1 $3,900 Cut in 18" butterfly valve Each $11,500 1 $11,500 Discharge structure to Dry Creek Lump Sum $10,000 1 $10,000 Engineering & Administration (20%) $76,090 Contingency (25%) $95,113 Total Construction Cost (rounded) $560,000 Annual operating costs for the Alpine Dry Creek recharge facilities are expected to be negligible. Highland Gravel Pit Recharge Site The Highland Gravel Pit recharge site is located within the boundaries of Highland City near the mouth of American Fork Canyon. The site is owned by Highland City and is currently leased to a rock products company as part of its gravel mining and processing operation. The lease from the city will expire within two years after which time the site would be available for other uses. The portion of the city-owned property closest to SR-92 and the Lehi Ditch could be developed into a 5.6-acre recharge basin. North Utah County Aquifer Association 6-6 ASR Feasibility Study

57 NO SCALE ALPINE DRY CREEK RECHARGE FACILITIES D R 5- A 24 FT FIGURE

58 CHAPTER 6 Proposed Plan Because of its proximity to the American Fork Debris Basin, it is assumed that Highland Gravel Pit Recharge Site will have a similar recharge rate (2.24 feet per day). Therefore, assuming a recharge period of 180 days, the annual recharge volume that could be achieved at the basin is 2,200 acre-feet per year (2.24 feet per day spread over 5.6 acres). Winter flows of American Fork could be diverted into the recharge basin through the Lehi Ditch, or Provo River water could be delivered to the site through the North Branch Pipeline. Recommended improvements to facilitate long-term recharge at the Highland Gravel Pit Recharge Site include the following items: Excavating and disposing of unsuitable material and grading the basin. (It is assumed that excavation of most of the basin material will be done at no cost by allowing the contractor to keep the gravel materials excavated from the site.) Connecting to Highland City s Pressurized Irrigation Pipeline adjacent to the CUWCD North Branch Pipeline vault and laying a short length of 12-inch-diameter pipe with a butterfly valve Constructing a turnout structure in the Lehi Ditch. Constructing a 30-inch-diameter ADS pipeline to convey recharge water from the Lehi Ditch Installing an outlet structure with a safety grate on the 30-inch pipe. These proposed facilities are shown in Figure 6-4. The estimated construction for these improvements is $220,000 as shown in in Table 6-4. TABLE 6-4 HIGHLAND GRAVEL PIT RECHARGE SITE COST ESTIMATE Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Total Price Mobilization Lump Sum $14,000 1 $14,000 Basin grading Lump Sum $100,000 1 $100,000 Connection to Highland City P.I. pipeline, 12" discharge pipe and 12" Lump Sum $20,000 1 $20,000 butterfly valve Lehi Ditch turnout structure Lump Sum $5,000 1 $5,000 Furnish and install 30-inch-diameter ADS pipe Linear foot $ $11,390 Outlet structure w/ safety grate Lump Sum $1,000 1 $1,000 Engineering & Administration (20%) $30,278 Contingency (25%) $37,848 Total Construction Cost $220,000 Annual operating costs for the Highland Gravel Pit recharge facility are expected to be minimal. Occasional removal of accumulated fine sediment will be needed to maintain the recharge rate for the basin. This cost is estimated to be $6,000 every five years. North Utah County Aquifer Association 6-8 ASR Feasibility Study

59 TURNOUT STRUCTURE W/ MEASUREMENT FLUME FIGURE 6-4 NO SCALE 12-INCH PIPE W/ BUTTERFLY VALVE AREA AVAILABLE FOR SURFACE SPREADING DRAFT 30-INCH ADS PIPE W/ SAFETY GRATE CUWCD NORTH BRANCH PIPELINE HIGHLAND GRAVEL PIT RECHARGE SITE

60 CHAPTER 6 Proposed Plan CUWCD Overflow Basin Recharge Site The CUWCD Overflow Basin Recharge Site is located adjacent to CUWCD s Utah Valley Water Treatment Plan (UVWTP) in northeast Orem. The site is owned by the CUWCD. Immediately adjacent to the overflow basin are CUWCD s sludge drying beds that are used in conjunction with the water treatment process. In its current configuration the overflow basin covers an area of about 1.5 acres. However, CUWCD has plans to modify their treatment process at UVWTP which will likely require an expansion of their sludge drying beds. This modification could impinge on the overflow basin and reduce its size. Over the years CUWCD has used the overflow basin to contain overflows from the UVWTP or when draining adjacent water storage reservoirs. Observations of CUWCD personnel during these releases to the overflow basin are that water that enters the basin infiltrates at a rapid rate. However, there are no reliable quantitative measurements of the infiltration rate. Because of its location along the foothills, which is similar to the American Fork and Battle Creek Debris Basins, it was assumed that the CUWCD Overflow Basin would have a similar recharge rate of 2.24 feet per day. Assuming a recharge period of 240 days, the annual recharge volume that could be achieved at the basin is 800 acre-feet per year (2.24 feet per day spread over 1.5 acres). Recommended improvements to facilitate long-term recharge at the CUWCD Overflow Basin include the following items: Installing a flow meter with a recorder. Excavating and removing accumulated sediment from the basin. Facilities for the CUWCD Overflow Basin Recharge Site are shown in Figure 6-5. estimated construction cost for these improvements is $130,000 as shown in Table 6-5. The TABLE 6-5 CUWCD OVERFLOW BASIN RECHARGE SITE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Total Price Mobilization Lump Sum $7,000 1 $7,000 Furnish and Install Flow Meter w/ Recorder Each $20,000 1 $20,000 Excavate and remove accumulated sediment Cubic Yard $ ,000 $60,000 Engineering & Administration (20%) $17,400 Contingency (25%) $21,750 Total Construction Cost $130,000 Annual operating costs for the CUWCD Overflow Basin recharge facility are expected to be minimal. Occasional removal of accumulated fine sediment will be needed to maintain the recharge rate for the basin. This cost is estimated to be $5,000 every five years. North Utah County Aquifer Association 6-10 ASR Feasibility Study

61 FIGURE 6-5 NO SCALE AREA AVAILABLE FOR SURFACE SPREADING DRAFT EXISTING 30-INCH DRAIN LINE EXISTING 4-INCH DRAIN LINE INSTALL FLOW METER IN EXISTING OUTLET STRUCTURE CUWCD OVERFLOW BASIN RECHARGE SITE

62 CHAPTER 6 Proposed Plan PROPOSED RECOVERY SITES As mentioned earlier in this chapter, recovery of recharged water will mostly occur at existing wells operated by NUCAA cities. Notable exceptions are that the CUWCD will recover water at its CWP wells located in Vineyard. Some of these wells are currently under construction as part of another project. The other exception is a proposed new NUCAA well that would be constructed as part of the ASR project. This well would be used to recover recharge water for American Fork, Lehi, and Saratoga Springs. A description of this new well follows. NUCAA Recovery Well The NUCAA Recovery well would be constructed near the American Fork Lehi boundary south of Interstate 15 (see Figure 6-6). This location is also near the CUWCD s CWP Pipeline. At this location the well would be able to pump directly into American Fork City s water distribution system, Lehi City s system, or into the CWP Pipeline. Water pumped into the CWP Pipeline would be delivered to Lehi City on a space-available basis. The well would be a 24 inches in diameter and drilled to a depth of 1,200 feet in order to tap the most productive layers of the aquifer. In this zone artesian conditions are likely to exist which would reduce the amount of required pumping head. This configuration is similar to other wells recently drilled to the south for Rocky Mountain Power and CUWCD. Construction of the well would include the following elements: Constructing an 8-inch-diameter test well to a depth of 1,200 feet. Constructing a 24-inch-diameter with casing and well screen. Constructing a well house with appropriate electrical and mechanical equipment. Constructing a booster pump to boost discharge pressure for pumping into CWP Pipeline. Constructing a connection to the CWP Pipeline. Constructing a connection to the American Fork City water distribution system. Constructing a connection to the Lehi City water distribution system. Estimated construction costs for the NUCAA Recovery Well are $4,150,000 as shown in Table 6-6. North Utah County Aquifer Association 6-12 ASR Feasibility Study

63 ,000 Feet Legend Proposed NUCAA Pipelines AF_12_inch_Pipelines Lehi_10_inch_Pipelines Lehi_8_inch_Pipelines "M PROPOSED NUCAA RECOVERY WELL Proposed_Pipelines CWP Pipeline DRAFT CROSSING PIONEER AMERICAN FORK CITY LEHI CITY NORTH UTAH COUNTY AQUIFER ASSOCIATION ASR FEASIBILITY STUDY PROPOSED NUCAA RECOVERY WELL FIGURE 6-6

64 CHAPTER 6 Proposed Plan TABLE 6-6 NUCAA RECOVERY WELL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Unit Unit Price Quantity Total Price Test Well Construction Mobilize & Setup Lump Sum $ 50,000 1 $50,000 Construct 8" Test Well LF $ $120,000 Perform Testing & Misc Lump Sum $40,000 1 $40,000 Engineering & Admin. (20%) $42,000 Contingency (25%) $52,500 Total for Test Well Construction $310,000 Recovery Well Construction Mobilize & Setup Lump Sum $150,000 1 $150,000 Construct 24" Recovery Well LF $ $960,000 Well Development, Test, Disinfection Lump Sum $200,000 1 $200,000 Engineering & Admin. (20%) $262,000 Contingency (25%) $327,500 Total for Recovery Well Construction $1,900,000 Well House & Pump Station Construction Land Purchase Acre $80, $40,000 Site Improvements Lump Sum $100,000 1 $100,000 Construct Building Lump Sum $300,000 1 $300,000 Well Pump & Motor Lump Sum $150,000 1 $150,000 Piping, Valves & Meters Lump Sum $120,000 1 $120,000 Chlorination Equipment Lump Sum $30,000 1 $30,000 HVAC Equipment Lump Sum $40,000 1 $40,000 SCADA Equipment Lump Sum $30,000 1 $30,000 Electrical Equipment Lump Sum $250,000 1 $250,000 Pump Equipment to meet CUWCD HGL Lump Sum $100,000 1 $100,000 Engineering & Admin. (20%) $232,000 Contingency (25%) $290,000 Total for Well House & Pump Station Construction $1,680,000 Connection to CUWCD Pipe Construct Turnout Structure EA $50,000 1 $50,000 Construct Turnout Tee & Valve Lump Sum $20,000 1 $20,000 12" Piping from Aqueduct to Pump Station LF $ $17,500 Engineering & Admin. (20%) $17,500 Contingency (25%) $21,875 Total for Connection to CUWCD Pipe $130,000 North Utah County Aquifer Association 6-14 ASR Feasibility Study

65 CHAPTER 6 Proposed Plan TABLE 6-6 (Continued) NUCAA RECOVERY WELL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Connection to American Fork Pipe Construct Connection w/ Valve Lump Sum $20,000 1 $20,000 16" Piping from Connection to Pump Station LF $ $30,000 Engineering & Admin. (20%) $10,000 Contingency (25%) $12,500 Total for Connection to American Fork Pipe $70,000 Connection to Lehi Pipe Construct Connection w/ Valve Lump Sum $20,000 1 $20,000 16" Piping from Connection to Pump Station LF $ $18,000 Engineering & Admin. (20%) $7,600 Contingency (25%) $9,500 Total for Connection to Lehi Pipe $60,000 Total Construction Cost $4,150,000 O&M Cost for Recovery of Recharge Water The main component of O&M cost for recovery of recharge water is electrical power cost for pumping. Power costs per acre-foot of recovered recharge water will vary from site to site depending on the piezometric water surface within the well, the pressure head of the water distribution system into which the water is pumped, the capacity factor of the pump station, the condition of the pumps and motors, and other factors. For purposes of estimating pumping power costs, pumping conditions for Highland City wells were considered to be representative for the entire NUCAA area. Based on a total dynamic head of 470 feet, a capacity factor of 42 percent, a capacity charge of $16.84/kW/month, and an energy charge of $ /kWh, the estimated pumping power cost is $50.00 per acre-foot. Based on pumping 6,850 acre-feet per year, the total annual pumping power cost is $342,500. Additionally, a replacement reserve of $35,000 annually is required to replace pumps, motors, and electrical and mechanical equipment every 20 years. North Utah County Aquifer Association 6-15 ASR Feasibility Study

66 CHAPTER 7 EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER RECHARGE BACKGROUND Potential impacts of the proposed aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project were evaluated using the new groundwater model of Northern Utah Valley prepared by USGS (Gardner, 2009). Proposed recharge sites are described in Chapter 6, including surface spreading locations in Alpine, Highland (2), Pleasant Grove, and Orem. Representative recovery well locations were identified for each of the NUCAA participating agencies to recover stored water. These sites are shown in Figure 7-1. This chapter documents the evaluation of the impacts from the proposed ASR projects. The analysis assumes a complete ASR program with both recharge and recovery components. However, initially NUCAA members intend to begin with the recharge component only. While the effects of this type of operation are not evaluated specifically in this report, there is a general understanding that this will a benefit to the aquifer with overall increases in groundwater levels. GROUNDWATER MODEL DESCRIPTION AND METHODS The USGS model domain includes the basin fill aquifers and tributary bedrock aquifers north of Provo Bay from the topographic ridge of the Lake Mountains on the west to the topographic ridge of the Wasatch Mountains on the east within Utah County. The principal aquifers simulated in the USGS model include the following: 1. Shallow Unconfined aquifer, 2. Shallow Pleistocene aquifer (confined), 3. Deep Pleistocene aquifer (confined), and 4. Quaternary / Tertiary aquifer (confined). Other aquifers simulated in the USGS model include the western unconsolidated aquifer, bedrock aquifer, and pre-lake Bonneville unconfined aquifer. Groundwater conditions during the years of 1947 through 2004 were simulated by USGS for the identified aquifers in a transient model. Simulated recharge and discharges from the aquifers were varied from year to year based on precipitation and well and spring discharge records and estimates. The calibrated transient groundwater model developed by Gardner (2009) was used to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed ASR projects. Specifically, the model stress periods representing the years 1975 through 2004 were assumed to be representative of the variation in aquifer response to natural climatic fluctuations. The transient groundwater model was developed using the MODFLOW Graphical User Interface (GUI) developed by the USGS for use within the Argus ONE software. In order to simplify the evaluation and avoid compatibility issues with other MODFLOW user-interfaces, the same GUI within Argus ONE was used for this evaluation. The base model scenario consisted of the calibrated transient model for the years 1975 through 2004 with well discharges throughout the model corresponding to historical well withdrawals and projected future well withdrawals. Projected future withdrawals specifically included approved water right change applications for Central Utah Water Conservancy District s (CUWCD) CWP project and Lakeside Power s proposed new well. North Utah County Aquifer Association 7-1 ASR Feasibility Study

67 DRAFT RECHARGE AND RECOVERY LOCATIONS USED TO MODEL EFFECTS OF ASR PROGRAM FIGURE 7-1

68 CHAPTER 7 Effects of Groundwater Recharge In order to evaluate the impact of the proposed ASR programs, the difference was calculated between the computed water surface from the base model and the computed water surface with the proposed artificial recharge sites and recovery wells. This difference was computed for each year of the simulation. A flow budget analysis was also performed to determine the volume of recharge water lost over the 30 year simulation to additional evapotranspiration and discharge to springs, streams, Utah Lake, etc. as a result of the ASR program. SIMULATED AQUIFER RECHARGE AND RECOVERY RATES Aquifer recharge rates were developed for each site based upon minimum sustainable recharge water availability and site limitations including characteristics of surface deposits, receiving aquifer parameters, evaporation potential, etc. The estimated recharge rate for each recharge site was entered into the model beginning in the stress period representing 1975 and continued through the final stress period representing Estimated recharge rates for each site are summarized in Table 1. TABLE 7-1 ESTIMATED RECHARGE RATES SITE NAME ANNUAL RECHARGE RATE (AC-FT/YR) Dry Creek 1,000 Highland Gravel Pit 2,200 American Fork Debris Basin 3,900 Battle Creek Debris Basin 660 CUWCD Overflow Basin 800 TOTAL: 8,560 Groundwater withdrawal rates for recovery wells were determined based upon how much precipitation was recorded for the year simulated in the model. If the recorded precipitation for the year was above normal, it was assumed that the withdrawal rate for that year would be about half of the annual artificial recharge rate. If the recorded precipitation for the year was below normal, it was assumed that the demand for water would be increased proportionally to how dry the year was. Therefore, the withdrawal rate was set to the annual artificial recharge rate plus the additional volume not withdrawn in the wet years that was proportional to how far below normal precipitation it was during that year compared to other dry years. The ASR program is set up for injection of recharge water in the primary recharge areas near the mountain front with recovery wells primarily located within the confined aquifers in the middle of the valley. Because of this arrangement, it is understood that recovery volumes will be somewhat less than the volume recharged into the aquifer. In other words, some of the recharged water will be lost from the aquifer to increased evapotranspiration (ET) and discharge to springs, streams, and Utah Lake. As water is recharged into the unconfined aquifer in the primary recharge area, it raises the water levels in the aquifer. This increased water level is propagated downstream to the margins of the confining layers of the valley which results in increased potentiometric surfaces within each of the confined aquifers. Elevated water levels in the shallow unconfined aquifer result in increased evapotranspiration and discharge to springs, streams, and Utah Lake. North Utah County Aquifer Association 7-3 ASR Feasibility Study

69 CHAPTER 7 Effects of Groundwater Recharge It was initially assumed that about 91% of the recharged water could be recovered while maintaining a balance between the recharged water and the withdrawals and losses. The discharge rates for the recovery wells (at 91% recovery) were entered into the model along with added recharge at each of the recharge sites. Comparison of the results of this scenario to the base model revealed that the final computed water surface elevations in the 91% recovery scenario were generally lower than the base model. This was confirmed from the flow budget analysis that showed that the modeled additional losses exceeded the difference between the recharged volume and the recovered volume. A summary of the flow budget analysis for the 91% recovery scenario is shown in Table 7-2. TABLE 7-2 FLOW BUDGET ANALYSIS FOR ASR PROGRAM WITH 91% RECOVERY PARAMETER VOLUME (ACRE-FEET) Total Recharged Volume ( ) 256,800 Total Volume Recovered ( ) 233,444 Difference between Total Recharge Volume & Total Volume Recovered 23,356 Modeled Additional Losses to ET, springs, streams and Utah Lake 27,333 Net Loss from Aquifer as a result of ASR program w/ 91% recovery 3,977 Because there was a net loss from the aquifer assuming an ASR program with 91% recovery rate, the flow budget was further analyzed to compute the percent recovery rate that would be sustainable without a net loss from the aquifer. Review of the flow budget results revealed that the recharge rate was proportional to the change in the mean water level in the model on a year-to-year basis. Recharge rate is defined as the ASR recharge volume minus the ASR recovery volume in any given year. As the recharge rate increases, the mean water level increases. It was also discovered that as the water level increases, the additional amount of water lost from the aquifer to ET and discharge to springs, streams, and Utah Lake increases. Using these relationships, it was determined that a recovery rate of about 80% would result in a sustainable balance in the aquifer assuming similar climatic conditions as experienced from 1975 through Withdrawal rates for each recovery well assuming about 80% recovery are shown in Table 7-3 for the simulated model years 1975 through These rates were entered into the groundwater model to verify a sustainable balance in the aquifer. Based on the results of the model run, it was determined that over the 30 year period, there would be a slight net gain to the aquifer as shown in Table 7-4. Therefore, it was determined that an 80% recovery rate would not adversely impact the groundwater aquifer. North Utah County Aquifer Association 7-4 ASR Feasibility Study

70 CHAPTER 7 Effects of Groundwater Recharge TABLE 7-3 ANNUAL WELL WITHDRAWALS ASSUMING 80% RECOVERY YEAR ALPINE (AC-FT) HIGHLAND (AC-FT) AMERICAN FORK (AC-FT) LEHI (AC-FT) SARATOGA SPRINGS (AC-FT) PLEASANT GROVE (AC-FT) CWP WELLS (AC-FT) TOTAL (AC-FT) ,174 1,174 1,174 1, ,600 7, ,325 1,325 1,325 1, ,807 7, , , , ,497 1,497 1,497 1, ,041 9, , , , , , ,876 1,876 1,876 1, ,558 11, ,705 2,705 2,705 2, ,257 3,687 16, ,297 2,297 2,297 2, ,068 3,132 13, ,255 2,255 2,255 2, ,048 3,075 13, ,370 1,370 1,370 1, ,868 8, ,073 2,073 2,073 2, ,826 12, , ,525 1,525 1,525 1, ,079 9, , , , , , ,033 1,033 1,033 1, ,409 6, ,342 1,342 1,342 1, ,830 8, ,764 1,764 1,764 1, ,405 10, ,101 2,101 2,101 2, ,864 12, ,567 1,567 1,567 1, ,136 9,446 TABLE 7-4 FLOW BUDGET ANALYSIS FOR ASR PROGRAM WITH 80% RECOVERY PARAMETER VOLUME (ACRE-FEET) Total Recharged Volume ( ) 256,800 Total Volume Recovered ( ) 205,440 Difference between Total Recharge Volume & Total Volume Recovered 51,360 Modeled Additional Losses to ET, springs, streams and Utah Lake 48,846 Net Gain to Aquifer as a result of ASR program w/ 80% recovery 2,514 North Utah County Aquifer Association 7-5 ASR Feasibility Study

71 CHAPTER 7 Effects of Groundwater Recharge MODELING RESULTS Based on the results of the groundwater modeling of the proposed ASR program with 80% recovery of the total recharge volume, the overall impact on the groundwater system is favorable. Since recharge was constant over the simulated 30-year period and recovery varied based on whether it was a wet year or a dry year, the groundwater impact varied on an annual basis. During wet years, while recovery rates were low, the groundwater levels increased in the ASR model compared to the base model during that year. During dry years, when recovery rates were high, the groundwater levels decreased in the ASR model compared to the base model. The degree of impact to groundwater levels also varied based on location in the model. Areas near recovery well locations had a greater negative impact during dry years as a result of the increased pumping but recovered to water levels higher than the base model during wet years. Areas near recharge locations generally had higher water levels than the base model in most years with only slightly lower water levels than the base model during times of sustained drought. In order to visualize the groundwater response, graphs were generated depicting the groundwater impact of the ASR program in each of the principal confined aquifers compared to the base model at various observation locations throughout northern Utah County (see Figures 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4). The selected observation locations where graphs were generated are shown on Figures 7-5 and 7-6. The graphs for each location also show the total annual recharge volume and the total annual recovery volume. Recovery volumes are high during dry years and low during wet years. Recharge volume was constant throughout the 30 year simulation. The critical groundwater responses were during several consecutive years of higher than normal precipitation and consecutive years of sustained drought. During the 30-year simulation, there were 15 wet years (higher than normal precipitation) and 15 dry years (lower than normal precipitation). The worst drought period occurred between years 13 and 18 with the peak negative groundwater impact occurring during year 16. Groundwater impact contours for this model year are shown on Figure 7-5. Following this drought was several wet years from year 21 through year 25. The peak positive groundwater impact occurred in year 25. Groundwater impact contours for this model year are shown on Figure 7-6. Based on the results of the modeling, there is an overall positive impact on the groundwater system from implementation of an ASR program with 80% recovery over a 30 year period. Although there are some periods of lower water levels during extreme dry periods, the overall aquifer impact is positive while still providing an additional 6,850 acre-feet of water source to Northern Utah County. In order to achieve but not exceed the 80% recovery described above, a simple operating rule was developed based on the assumed recharge and recovery patterns described earlier in this chapter. This operating rule assesses an 8.8 % loss on the end-of-year net recharge balance. The accounting procedure would be as follows. The current end-of-year balance is calculated by taking the previous end-of-year balance, adding the amount of water recharged in the current year, subtracting the amount of water recovered in the current year, and subtracting and 8.8% loss. This procedure is shown in the equation below. North Utah County Aquifer Association 7-6 ASR Feasibility Study

72 Groundwater Impact (ft) Groundwater Response Observation Site A Time (Years) ASR Volume (ac ft/yr) Groundwater Impact (ft) Groundwater Impact (ft) Shallow Pleistocene Deep Pleistocene QT Aquifer Recharge (ac ft) Recovery (ac ft) Groundwater Response Observation Site B Time (Years) DRAFT Shallow Pleistocene Deep Pleistocene QT Aquifer Recharge (ac ft) Recovery (ac ft) Groundwater Response Observation Site C Time (Years) ASR Volume (ac ft/yr) ASR Voume (ac ft/yr) Shallow Pleistocene Deep Pleistocene QT Aquifer Recharge (ac ft) Recovery (ac ft) NORTH UTAH COUNTY AQUIFER ASSOCIATION ASR FEASIBILITY STUDY GROUNDWATER RESPONSE AT OBSERVATION SITES A, B, & C FIGURE 7-2

73 Groundwater Impact (ft) Groundwater Response Observation Site D Time (Years) ASR Volume (ac ft/yr) Groundwater Impact (ft) Groundwater Impact (ft) Shallow Pleistocene Deep Pleistocene QT Aquifer Recharge (ac ft) Recovery (ac ft) Groundwater Response Observation Site E Time (Years) DRAFT Shallow Pleistocene Deep Pleistocene QT Aquifer Recharge (ac ft) Recovery (ac ft) Groundwater Response Observation Site F Time (Years) ASR Volume (ac ft/yr) ASR Volume (ac ft/yr) Shallow Pleistocene Deep Pleistocene QT Aquifer Recharge (ac ft) Recovery (ac ft) NORTH UTAH COUNTY AQUIFER ASSOCIATION ASR FEASIBILITY STUDY GROUNDWATER RESPONSE AT OBSERVATION SITES D, E, & F FIGURE 7-3

74 Groundwater Impact (ft) Groundwater Response Observation Site G Time (Years) ASR Volume (ac ft/yr) Groundwater Impact (ft) Groundwater Impact (ft) Shallow Pleistocene Deep Pleistocene QT Aquifer Recharge (ac ft) Recovery (ac ft) Groundwater Response Observation Site H Time (Years) DRAFT Shallow Pleistocene Deep Pleistocene QT Aquifer Recharge (ac ft) Recovery (ac ft) Groundwater Response Observation Site I Time (Years) ASR Volume (ac ft/yr) ASR Volume (ac ft/yr) Shallow Pleistocene Deep Pleistocene QT Aquifer Recharge (ac ft) Recovery (ac ft) NORTH UTAH COUNTY AQUIFER ASSOCIATION ASR FEASIBILITY STUDY GROUNDWATER RESPONSE AT OBSERVATION SITES G, H, & I FIGURE 7-4

75 South Jordan Sandy Riverton 4 Draper 3 2 Bluffdale 1 Draper Alpine Herriman Dry Creek Recharge Site Alpine Ranch Well! (1 0! ( Highland Gravel Pit American Fork Debris Basin Cedar Hills (! -5 0 D" (! D R 5- A 24 FT -1 2 American Fork Racetrack Well (! -5 B (! " -1 Lehi Future Well -2 American Fork -4 A" E" Saratoga Springs Well Eagle Mountain C" Highland Highland Well #3 Lehi (! Pleasant Grove -4 (! Pleasant Grove Loader Well Battle Creek Debris Basin! ( " F Lindon 0 " 0-6 CUWCD CWP Wells -5-1 Saratoga Springs!! ( ( (! (! (! (!! ( Vineyard CUWCD Overflow Basin (!! ( (! (!! ( (! " H (!! ( (! 0 Eagle Mountain G " I Orem LEGEND! ( RECHARGE SITES (! RECOVERY WELLS " OBSERVATION LOCATIONS -3 Provo GW IMPACT CONTOURS <-10 FEET -9 TO -6 FEET 0-5 TO -2 FEET 0-1 TO 1 FEET 0 6 TO 9 FEET 0 2 TO 5 FEET > 10 FEET NORTH UTAH COUNTY AQUIFER ASSOCIATION ASR FEASIBILITY STUDY Feet IMPACTS OF ASR PROGRAM ON DEEP PLEISTOCENE AQUIFER DURING DRY CYCLE (YEAR 16) Springville FIGURE

76 South Jordan Sandy 3 Riverton 4 Draper 5 7 Bluffdale Draper Alpine Ranch Well Dry Creek Recharge Site 10 (! C" 8 American Fork Debris Basin Cedar Hills (! D" 11 Lehi Highland Gravel Pit! (! ( Highland Highland Well #3 9 Alpine Herriman (! D R 5- A 24 FT -1 2 American Fork Racetrack Well B (! " 6 Lehi Future Well American Fork A" 1! ( E" Saratoga Springs Well Eagle Mountain Pleasant Grove (! Pleasant Grove Loader Well! ( " Battle Creek Debris Basin F Lindon 0 CUWCD CWP Wells 1 0!! ( ( (! (! (! (!! ( Vineyard Saratoga Springs G 3 " 4 CUWCD Overflow Basin (! (! (!! ( (! "! ( H (!! ( (! " I Orem 2 0 Eagle Mountain LEGEND! ( RECHARGE SITES (! RECOVERY WELLS " OBSERVATION LOCATIONS Provo GW IMPACT CONTOURS <-10 FEET -9 TO -6 FEET TO 5 FEET 6 TO 9 FEET > 10 FEET NORTH UTAH COUNTY AQUIFER ASSOCIATION ASR FEASIBILITY STUDY Feet IMPACTS OF ASR PROGRAM ON DEEP PLEISTOCENE AQUIFER DURING WET CYCLE (YEAR 25) 1-1 TO 1 FEET 0-5 TO -2 FEET Springville FIGURE

77 CHAPTER 7 Effects of Groundwater Recharge B c = B p + R in R out x (B p + R in R out ) Where: B c = end of current year balance B p = end of previous year balance R in = current year recharge amount R out = current year recovery amount North Utah County Aquifer Association 7-12 ASR Feasibility Study

78 CHAPTER 8 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS COST SUMMARY The estimated total construction cost for the NUCAA ASR Project as described in Chapter 6 is $5,252,000. These costs are summarized by project element in Table 8-1. TABLE 8-1 NUCAA ASR PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY Project Element Construction Cost American Fork Debris Basin Recharge Site $160,000 Battle Creek Debris Basin Recharge Site $32,000 Alpine Dry Creek Recharge Area $560,000 Highland Gravel Pit Recharge Site $220,000 CUWCD Overflow Basin Recharge Site $130,000 NUCAA Recovery Well $4,150,000 Total Construction Cost $5,252,000 For purposes of this analysis project construction is estimated to occur over a 2-year period. It is also assumed that interest during construction would accrue at 4 percent interest. Total estimated interest during construction is $105,000. The estimated annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost for the ASR project is $382,000 as shown in Table 8-2. The present worth of O&M is $8,206,000 based on a 50-year project life and the current Bureau of Reclamation planning interest rate of 4 percent. Therefore, the total present worth project cost including construction cost, interest during construction and capitalized O&M is $13,563,000. TABLE 8-2 NUCAA ASR PROJECT ANNUAL O&M COST SUMMARY Project Element Annual O&M Cost American Fork Debris Basin Recharge Site Sediment Removal $2,000 Highland Gravel Pit Recharge Site Sediment Removal $1,200 CUWCD Overflow Basin Sediment Removal $1,000 Pumping Power $342,500 Pump Station Equipment Replacement $35,000 Total Annual O&M Cost (Rounded) $382,000 North Utah County Aquifer Association 8-1 ASR Feasibility Study

79 CHAPTER 8 Economic Analysis BENEFITS SUMMARY Water supply provided by the NUCAA ASR Project will be used for Municipal & Industrial purposes. M&I water benefits are estimated as the cost of the next best alternative source of water to serve this need. In the absence of the ASR Project, it is assumed that NUCAA cities would contract with CUWCD for 6,850 acre-feet of water per year from the CWP Project. CUWCD has established the cost of CWP water to include a one-time development fee of $9,200 per acre-foot and annual fees of $ per acre-foot. The annual fees include O&M costs, including pumping power, and a charge to cover facility replacement costs. As shown in Table 8-3 the estimated capital cost of this alternative water project is $115,665,000. TABLE 8-3 ALTERNATIVE M&I WATER COST SUMMARY Project Element Cost Water Development Fee (6,850 $9,200) $63,020,000 Capitalized Annual Fee (6,850 a.f. x $357.76, 50 4 percent interest) $52,645,000 Total Capital Cost $115,665,000 BENEFIT-COST RATIO Based on the benefits and costs described above, the benefit-cost ratio for the NUCAA ASR Project is 8.53 to 1. This calculation is summarized in Table 8-4. TABLE 8-4 NUCAA ASR PROJECT BENEFIT-COST RATIO Present Worth of Project Benefits $115,665,000 Present Worth of Project Costs $13,563,000 Benefit-Cost Ratio 8.53 North Utah County Aquifer Association 8-2 ASR Feasibility Study

80 CHAPTER 9 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES CURRENT ORGANIZATION The Northern Utah County Aquifer Association is currently organized as an interlocal cooperation entity pursuant to Utah Code et seq. The Association was issued a Certificate of Creation on January 20, 2010, by the State of Utah. A copy of the Certificate and the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement are included in Appendix D. The purpose of this Association is to create, fund and operate an interlocal cooperation entity which shall serve the purpose of performing a feasibility study of the potential for recharging the ground water in Utah County in accordance with the Utah Groundwater Recharge and Recovery Act. The Association met regularly to receive reports on the progress of the feasibility study and to provide feedback to the technical team conducting the study. After examining and evaluating alternative recharge sites and running the USGS groundwater model, members of the team visited each city to discuss recharge options, potential water rights, and their potential plans for implementing an ASR program. NEW ORGANIZATION OPTIONS Upon conclusion of the feasibility study the purpose of the Association expires and a new institutional structure must be created to implement ASR projects selected by the different entities. Four institutional options are identified: 1. Disband the Association and allow each entity to pursue ASR projects individually and to work cooperatively with identified project partners they deem appropriate. 2. Reorganize the Association for the purposes of funding, engineering, permitting, implementing and managing ASR projects in Northern Utah County. The Association would become the decision-making body, manager and operator of the ASR projects. 3. Reorganize the Association with some limited decision-making authority for the purposes of planning and coordinating ASR projects. The Association would be granted some limited decision-making authority with respect to which projects should be further studied and implemented. But the funding and management of the projects would be outside the Association. 4. Reorganize the Association as an advisory board for the purpose of planning and coordinating all ASR projects among participating entities in Northern Utah County. The funding, construction, operation and management of an ASR project would be conducted by the specific entities participating in a given project. While each option has its benefits, because there has been no master ASR project identified which would be immediately implemented together by all entities, option 4 provides the best flexibility for designing and implementing future projects while at the same time providing the planning and coordinating required to efficiently and cooperatively develop the shared groundwater resource. It is recommended that the Association be reorganized as an interlocal cooperation entity. In addition to the basic statutory requirements, the new interlocal cooperation agreement should address the following: North Utah County Aquifer Association 9-1 ASR Feasibility Study

81 CHAPTER 9 Legal and Institutional Issues 1. Membership. Initial participating entities should be identified and sign on to the Agreement. Define how representatives from each member are appointed. Provisions for adding additional members and participants should be outlined. 2. Financial Affairs. Determine if the Association shall have any financial function, or if all funding and expenditures shall be made by the affected members. 3. Powers of the Association. a. Meet regularly to review and coordinate all aspects of ASR projects in the aquifer. Review proposed change applications, recharge applications and recovery applications before filing. Filing, reporting and accounting will be the responsibility of the ASR project sponsors. Maintain open communications among the entities. Encourage cooperation towards achieving acceptable solutions. b. Review existing projects at least annually by reviewing the recharge and recovery accounting reports required by the Division of Water Rights. Recovery plans for each project must be presented by the sponsors during the first quarter of each year. 4. Define Role of Board. Declare that the Association serves only as an advisory body. Actions taken by the Association board are not binding on the member entities of the Association unless ratified by their respective governing bodies. 5. Decision-Making Authority. Define whether there will be any types of decisions that the board must make before an ASR project proceeds, or whether the board serves exclusively for the purposes of planning, coordinating, reviewing, and reporting on all aspects of proposed and ongoing ASR projects in the aquifer to foster cooperation and maximum utilization of the groundwater resource. North Utah County Aquifer Association 9-2 ASR Feasibility Study

82 CHAPTER 10 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND PERMITTING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES If Federal funding is used for the project or if there is a commitment of Federal resources towards the project then the project must comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In order to comply with NEPA at a minimum a Categorical Exclusion will be required, but a more detailed Environmental Assessment may be needed. Although it is beyond the scope of this study to provide a detailed environmental analysis, there are no anticipated fatal flaws from an environmental perspective that would be caused by the project. A discussion of potential environmental issues at each project site is provided below. American Fork Debris Basin The American Fork Debris Basin is a highly disturbed area. There is little or no potential for archaeological artifacts to occur within the basin or the surrounding area. The basin does not qualify for listing as a historic site. There is little vegetation or wildlife habitat within the basin. Although the project would alter winter streamflow in the American Fork channel downstream from the basin, this channel is dewatered during most of the summer and fall due to upstream diversions. There is no useable fish habitat in American Fork below the basin nor is there wetland vegetation that would be affected by the project. Because existing water rights from Utah Lake or other surface sources tributary to Utah Lake would be used for recharge, there would be no net effect on the quantity or quality of water in Utah Lake. Battle Creek Debris Basin The Battle Creek Debris Basin is also a highly disturbed area. There is little or no potential for archaeological artifacts to occur within the basin or the surrounding area. The basin does not qualify for listing as a historic site. There is little vegetation or wildlife habitat within the basin. The historic Battle Creek channel no longer exists downstream from the debris basin and winter flows are conveyed to Utah Lake through piped conveyances. Summer and fall flow of Battle Creek is diverted into irrigation systems upstream from the debris basin. Alpine Dry Creek Recharge Area The Dry Creek channel carries no water except during the snowmelt runoff period or intense thunderstorms (hence the name Dry Creek ). There is no fish habitat or wetland vegetation within the project area of influence. Construction of pipelines and other facilities to convey water for recharge would occur primarily within existing roadways and city streets or other disturbed areas. There is little potential for cultural resources to occur. Because only high quality water will be used for recharge, there would be no adverse water quality impacts to Dry Creek or the groundwater aquifer. Highland Gravel Pit Recharge Area The Highland Gravel Pit Recharge Area is also a highly disturbed area. There is little vegetation or wildlife habitat within the proposed basin area. Although the project would alter winter streamflow in the American Fork channel downstream from the basin, this channel is dewatered North Utah County Aquifer Association 10-1 ASR Feasibility Study

83 CHAPTER 10 Environmental Issues and Permitting during most of the summer and fall due to upstream diversions. There is no useable fish habitat in American Fork below the basin nor is there wetland vegetation that would be affected by the project. CUWCD Overflow Basin The CUWCD Overflow Basin is also a highly disturbed area. There is little or no potential for archaeological artifacts to occur within the basin or the surrounding area. The basin does not qualify for listing as a historic site. There is some existing wetland vegetation surrounding the basin, but this vegetation exists because of treatment plant operations. Prior to construction of improvements it might be prudent to dewater the basin to verify that there are no jurisdictional wetlands. There is no natural stream channel below the basin. NUCAA Recovery Well The proposed recovery well site is located within an actively farmed field. Because of soil tilling and other farming practices there is little no potential for archaeological artifacts to occur within the site. Although the well will extract water from the underlying aquifer, it would only extract recharged water that has previously been placed in the aquifer, thus creating no net impact on the aquifer or associated springs and points of discharge. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS Utah Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permit Because the NUCAA ASR Project plan does not include direct injection methods of recharge, a UIC permit will not be required. However, at some future time if direct injection is added as a means of additional recharge, a UIC Class V permit would be required. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit A NPDES permit will likely be required for the discharge of water into Dry Creek. Because the discharge water would be of similar water quality to water in the stream, there would unlikely be difficulties in obtaining the permit. North Utah County Aquifer Association 10-2 ASR Feasibility Study

84 CHAPTER 11 FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES Potential sources of funding available for the NUCAA ASR Project include: Funds from the operating budgets of NUCAA cities Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA), Section 202 (a)(2) funding. Utah Division of Water Resources, Conservation Development Funding. Bonding coupons. Operating Budgets Some of the proposed project improvements have a very modest construction cost and could potentially be funded directly from operating budgets of NUCAA member cities or CUWCD. These improvements include the American Fork Debris Basin, Battle Creek Debris Basin and CUWCD Overflow Basin. Central Utah Project Completion Act, Section 202(a)(2) The CUPCA program, as originally authorized, contained $10,000,000 for groundwater recharge in several counties in Utah. One of the counties for which funding is authorized is Utah County. A portion of the funds have already been spent on a groundwater recharge project by the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District in Salt Lake County, a Provo City study, and this feasibility study. However, a substantial portion of the funds remain. The U.S. Department of Interior indicated there are remaining funds of about $8,000,000, when escalation of construction costs since initial authorization are considered. Under Section 202(a)(2) of the CUPCA, groundwater recharge projects are eligible for up to 65 percent federal funding with a local cost share of at least 35 percent. The federally-funded portion would be a grant and will not require repayment. Utah Division of Water Resources, Conservation and Development Fund Another source of funding could be through the Utah Division of Water Resources (DWRe). DWRe could provide a loan up to 85 percent of the construction cost with the local entity providing a 15 percent cost share. This funding would likely come through the Conservation and Development Fund of the DWRe. Interest rates vary from 1 percent to 4 percent with a loan period between 10 to 35 years. Bonding Coupons A fourth potential source of funding would be revenue bonding by NUCAA as an organization or by individual member cities. If NUCAA or individual cities decide to pursue the issuance of a bond to repay the cost of constructing the ASR project, the following costs associated with bonding would be incurred. First would be the cost of hiring a financial firm to compile the proper documents for issuing a bond. The cost of issuing the bond and insurance requirements would be roughly 2 percent of the construction costs. A second cost associated with the issuance of a North Utah County Aquifer Association 11-1 ASR Feasibility Study

85 CHAPTER 11 Funding Sources bond would be the requirements for a debt service reserve fund (DSRV). The cost for this would be about 10 percent of the construction cost. The DSRV is required in case the entity repaying the bond, cannot meet its annual repayment obligation. If this were to occur, the trustee would make the annual payment using funds from the DSRV account. The DSRV account draws interest. The third cost associated with using the bonding approach would be the cost of the trustee to administer the financial terms of the bond. The cost for services of the trustee would be approximately 1 percent of the construction costs. POTENTIAL FUNDING AND REPAYMENT SCENARIO Although there could be many funding scenarios for the NUCAA ASR Project, one potential scenario is evaluated to demonstrate financial feasibility of the project. This scenario is as follows. CUCPA Section 202(a)(2) grant of $3,413,800 (65% of project construction cost) DWRe loan of $1,838,200 (35% local cost share) Provisions of DWRe loan as follows o Interest rate = 3% o Repayment period = 20 years o Annual loan payment = $123,556 Based on this funding scenario, annul O&M costs of $382,000, and an average water supply of 6,850 acre-feet per year that would be provided by the project, the cost per acre-foot of water would be $73.80 which is very affordable when compared to the cost of other potential new water sources. North Utah County Aquifer Association 11-2 ASR Feasibility Study

86 APPENDIX A Available Information Regarding Potential Recharge Rates at Alternative Recharge Sites North Utah County Aquifer Association ASR Feasibility Study

87 Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. February 9, 2011 Technical Memorandum Available Information Regarding Potential Recharge Rates at Alternative Recharge Sites 1. Introduction As part of the North Ut ah County Aquifer Association (NUCAA) Aquifer Storage and Recove ry (ASR) Study, Hansen Allen & Luce, Inc. (HAL) identified 16 specific site s as potential locations for artificial recharge, either through surface in filtration or direct inje ction. A complete list o f those sites, including the methods by which the sites were identified and detailed descriptions of each site, was provided in the Alternative Recharge Sites technical memorandum (HAL, 2010), dated December 21, All potential recharge sites are shown in Figure 1, along with associated pipelines and channels. The purpose of this te chnical memorandum is to document available in formation regarding the potential recharge rates that could be achieved at each site. These estimates are based on review of a vailable information and are meant to provide an order of magnitude range of potentially achievable recharge rates. Actual recharge rates are site-sp ecific and, especially for long-term sustainable recharge rates, cannot be precisely determi ned until r echarge is underway. However, order-of-magnitude level estimates are helpful to prioritize site s for further evaluation, including potential field work. Available information reviewed for the purpose s of this Te chnical Memorandum i ncludes the following: Supplemental information included in the December 21, 2010 technical memorandum A review of wells and well logs in the Utah Division of Water Rights database Available literature, including two U.S. Geological Survey reports (Cederberg et al., 2009; Gardner, 2008) P:\_WR10-020\Tech Memo \Rechrg Site Info_209_TF.doc 1

88 850 PRELIMINARY SUBJECT TO REVISION Herriman Bluffdale Draper Alpine Overflow Ditch 13. Alpine Abandoned Ditch Alpine Open Space 1 Salt Lake 14. Lehi Open Space 12. Alpine Open Space Alpine Open Space 2 92 Alpine 15 Lehi Pipeline 8. Highland Gravel Pit Camp Williams Military Res 9. Dry Creek Debris Basin Highland American Fork Debris Basin 80 Lehi 74 Cedar Hills S:/PROJECTS/WR _NUCAA_RECHARGE_FEASIBILITY/GIS/MXDS/TECH_MEMO_FIGURES/FIG01_STUDY_AREA.MXD 112//2 Eagle Mountain N Feet Explanation 1. CUWCD Property Site name 16. Potential Injection Well 2 Potential site reference number Utah 15. Potential Injection Well 1 Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. 2/8/2011 JN WR Saratoga Springs CWP Pipeline Utah Lake Main American Fork Main Grove Creek Recharge Basin - Proposed Vineyard 146 Pleasant Grove 700 Geneva Main 1600 Orem 114 Lindon 1. CUWCD Property Future CUWCD Pipeline 2. Orem City Production Well 6. Grove Creek - Battle Creek Abandoned Ditch 4. Pleasant Grove Recharge Basins 1 & 2 3. Battle Creek Debris Basin 189 Provo NUCAA RECHARGE FEASIBILITY Study Area Figure 1

89 Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. 2. Surface Infiltration Sites Of the 16 potential re charge sites identified in the Dece mber 2010 technical memorandum (HAL, 2010), 13 are suitable for recharge by su rface infiltration, either through existing or new basins and/or unlined channels (Figure 2). All of those sites are located in the primary recharge area as defined by Ced erberg et al. (2008), ove rlying the unconfined a quifer. The unconfined aquifer is composed of pre-lake Bonneville deposits co nsisting primarily of u nconsolidated sand, coarse to very coarse gravel, and cobble and boulder d eposits with thin and discontinuous layers of clay and silt (Cederberg et al., 2008). Table 1 summarizes relevant information for the 13 potential surface infilt ration sites, 2 of which are existing unlined channels, 4 are existing basins, and 7 are prop osed basins. The area available for recharge at the potential sites varies from 0.5 to 11.6 acre s. Depth to water is on the order of 200 to 350 feet below ground surface (ft bgs). Two estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity are provided for each site (Table 1): Estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity fo r the top 80 inches of soil at each site, available from the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database Estimates of infiltration rates based on soil types found in the vadose zone in the vicinity of each potential site Saturated hydraulic conductivity values for the top 80 inches of soil range from 2.6 to 26 feet per day (ft/d) (Table 1). Infiltration rates range from 0.4 to greater than 1.6 ft/d. Infiltration rates are notably lower than valu es reported for surficial saturated hydraulic conductivity be cause of the presence of fine-grained materials (silts and clays) observed in the vadose zone. During recharge activities, the presence of fine-grained materials will reduce infiltration rat es only if the fine-grained units are laterally extensive. If the fine-grained materials are not laterally extensive, infiltrating water will likely move around those units without a significant reduction in infiltration at land surface. P:\_WR10-020\Tech Memo \Rechrg Site Info_209_TF.doc 3

90 PRELIMINARY SUBJECT TO REVISION Herriman Bluffdale Draper 13. Alpine Abandoned Ditch Alpine Open Space 1 Salt Lake 14. Lehi Open Space 12. Alpine Open Space 3 Alpine 11. Alpine Open Space Highland Gravel Pit Camp Williams Military Res 9. Dry Creek Debris Basin 92 Highland 7. American Forks Debris Basin 80 S:/PROJECTS/WR _NUCAA_RECHARGE_FEASIBILITY/GIS/MXDS/TECH_MEMO_FIGURES/FIG02_POTENTIAL_AREAS_SURFACE_INFILTRATION.MXD 112//2 N Eagle Mountain Feet Explanation 1. CUWCD Property Site name Utah Potential site reference number Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. 2/8/2011 JN WR Saratoga Springs 197 Lehi Utah Lake Main 74 American Fork Main Cedar Hills Grove Creek Recharge Basin - Proposed Vineyard 146 Pleasant Grove 700 Geneva Main Lindon 1. CUWCD Property Grove Creek - Battle Creek Abandoned Ditch 4. Pleasant Grove Recharge Basins 1 & 2 3. Battle Creek Debris Basin Orem 189 Provo NUCAA RECHARGE FEASIBILITY Potential Areas for Surface Infiltration Figure 2

91 Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. Table 1. Potential Surface Infiltration Site Data 5 Ref. No. Site Site Size (acres) Depth to Water (ft bgs) Vadose Zone Soil Type(s) Surface Soils K sat a (ft/d) Infiltration Rate (ft/d) Comment Existing basin c 1 CUWCD Property b Cemented sand, sand, gravel, clay/gravel, clay b 3 Battle Creek Debris d Silty or clayey gravel with cobbles c Existing basin Basin 4 Pleasant Grove 1 e 200 d Silty or clayey gravel with cobbles c Existing basins Recharge Basins 1 and 2 5 Grove Creek Recharge d Sandy gravels, silts, clays c Proposed basin Basin f 6 Grove Creek to Battle 0.5 g 200 d Sandy gravels, silts, clays c Existing channel Creek Ditch 7 American Fork Debris 9.5 h <10 d Gravel, cobbles 8 >1.6 i Existing basin Basin 8 Highland Gravel Pit j d Gravel, cobbles >1.6 i Proposed basin 9 Dry Creek Debris Basin k d Silty sands, gravels >1.6 i Existing basin 10 Alpine Open Space 1 l d 2.6 Proposed basin 11 Alpine Open Space 2 l d 2.6 Proposed basin 12 Alpine Open Space 3 l d Sand, gravel 8 >1.6 i Proposed basin 13 Alpine Irrigation Ditch l 1.6 m 350 d Existing channel 14 Lehi Open Space d Silt, clay, sand (upper 25 feet); gravel, clay n Proposed basin a h Estimate based on SSURGO, soil depth 80 inches Site is 13 acres, but irrigation pond on-site is 3.5 acres ft bgs = Feet below ground surface b i From Orem City Well Estimate based on sandy soil (Hillel, 1998) K sat = Saturated hydraulic conductivity c d Estimate based on sandy and silty soil (Hillel, 1998) j Well screened interval = 250 to 540 ft bgs ft/d = Feet per day d k d Estimated from Cederberg et al., 2009 Well screened interval = 750 to 1,000 ft bgs = Information not available e l Approximately 0.5 acre each Well screened interval = 1,830 to 2,380 ft bgs d f m Proposed 2.7 miles of ditch and assuming width of 5 feet g n 0.8 mile of ditch and assuming width of 5 feet Estimate based on loam soil (Hillel, 1998) P:\_WR10-020\Tech Memo \T01_Basins-Ditches.doc

92 Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. 3. Direct Injection Sites The other 3 of the 16 identified sit es would re quire recharge through direct injection, either through an existing or a new well (Table 2). An existing Orem City Well could be used to recharge water delivered from the Provo River through a planned Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) pipeline. This well would require retrofitting to allow for direct injection. Depth to water at the well is about 330 ft bgs, and the well is screened from 375 to 8 80 ft bgs. Based on available well information, a properly retrofitted and developed well could be recharged at a rate of 500 to 700 gallons per minute. Two potential well sites were identified for the City of Saratoga Springs (Figure 1, Table 2). Each site would require construction of a new direct injection well. On e of the site s (Potential Injection Site No. 1) is located in an area of artesian pre ssure. The second sit e (Potential Injection Site No. 2) is located in a n area of brackish grou ndwater. To recover water of the same quality that was injected in that well, the recovery rate would be less than 100 percent. If an increased TDS concentration we re acceptable for recovered water, then a recovery rate of close to 100 percent would likely be achiev able. Insu fficient information is a vailable to determine potential recharge rates for wells at these sites. 4. Summary Based on available information, recharge appears to be a viable option at each of the 16 sites, either through direct injection or through surface infiltration. Infiltration rates are sufficiently high to warrant f urther investigation at each of the 13 potential surface infiltration sites. Further investigation at potential sites should be prioritized on the basis of the availability of water rights, availability of physical water, construction and water delivery costs, ability to retain control of and recover recharged water, and other relevant factors. P:\_WR10-020\Tech Memo \Rechrg Site Info_209_TF.doc 6

93 Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. Ref. No. Site Well Depth (ft bgs) Table 2. Potential Direct Injection Site Data Screened Interval (ft bgs) Depth to Water (ft bgs) Aquifer Soil Type(s) Specific Capacity (gpm/ft) Comment 2 Orem City Well Clay/gravel 31 a Existing well requires retrofit to allow for direct injection 15 Potential Injection Well Site 1 (Saratoga Springs) 380 b b Clay, gravel Potential well located in area of artesian groundwater 16 Potential Injection Well Site b b b Clay, gravel 0.55 c Potential well located in area of 237 b b brackish groundwater a Drawdown = 45 ft at a pumping rate of 1400 gpm ft bgs = Feet below ground surface b From Utah Division of Water Rights water well logs (HAL 2010) gpm/ft = Gallons per minute per foot c From Utah Division of Water Rights water well logs (HAL 2010) well 2: drawdown is 22 feet at a bailing rate of 12 gpm = Information not available 7 P:\_WR10-020\Tech Memo \T02_Wells.doc

94 Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. References Cederberg, J.R., P.M. Gardner, and S.A. Thiros Hydrology of Northern Utah Valley, Utah County, Utah, Scientific Investig ations Report , U.S. Geological Survey. Version 2.0, February Gardner, Philip M Three-dimensional numerical model of ground-water flow in Northern Utah Valley, Utah County, Utah. Scientific Investigations Report , U.S. Geological Survey. Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc (HAL) Memorandum from Richard Noble to Files regardin g Alternative Recharge Sites. Project North Utah County Aquifer Association (NUCAA) Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Feasibility Study. December 21, Hillel, Daniel Environmental soil physics. Academic Press. U.S. Department of Ag riculture Natural Resources Conse rvation Service Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database f or Tooele Area-Utah, Tooele County and Parts of Box Elder, Davis, and Juab Counties, Utah. <htt p://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/ssurgo/>. Accessed January Utah Division of Wa ter Rights W elcome to the Division of Wa ter Rights. < Accessed January P:\_WR10-020\Tech Memo \Rechrg Site Info_209_TF.doc 8

95 APPENDIX B Preliminary Modeling of Aquifer Recharge at Selected Sites North Utah County Aquifer Association ASR Feasibility Study

96 Memorandum Page 1 of 2 DATE: January 11, 2011 TO: File FROM: J. Lance Nielsen, P.E. RE: Preliminary Modeling of Aquifer Recharge at Selected Sites PROJECT: ASR Feasibility Study PROJECT NO.: PURPOSE/BACKGROUND The North Utah County Aquifer Association (NUCAA) desires to investigate the feasibility of implementing an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project. A part of the investigation includes evaluating potential impacts of aquifer recharge using the new groundwater model of Northern Utah Valley prepared by USGS (Gardner, 2009). Potential recharge sites have previously been identified. These sites include surface spreading locations in Lehi, Alpine, Highland (2), Pleasant Grove, and Orem and a direct injection site also in Orem. This memorandum documents the methodology used to evaluate the impacts of recharge at these potential sites. METHODS The USGS model domain includes the basin fill aquifers and tributary bedrock aquifers north of Provo Bay from the topographic ridge of the Lake Mountains on the west to the topographic ridge of the Wasatch Mountains on the east within Utah County. The principal aquifers simulated in the USGS model include the following: 1. Shallow Unconfined aquifer, 2. Shallow Pleistocene aquifer (confined), 3. Deep Pleistocene aquifer (confined), and 4. Quaternary / Tertiary aquifer (confined). Other aquifers simulated in the USGS model include the Western unconsolidated aquifer, bedrock aquifer, and Pre-Lake Bonneville unconfined aquifer. Groundwater conditions during the years of 1947 through 2004 were simulated by USGS for the identified aquifers in a transient model. Simulated recharge and discharges from the aquifers were varied from year to year based on precipitation and well and spring discharge records and estimates. After calibration of the transient model, Gardner (2009) performed additional modeling to simulate various changes in aquifer withdrawals and the potential for an aquifer 6771 South 900 East Midvale, Utah (801) Fax (801)

97 Memorandum Page 2 of 2 storage injection program at the mouth of American Fork Canyon. The base model for these projections used the average recharge over the period of record, along with the well withdrawals from the year These conditions were then simulated over a 30 year period to approximate a steady-state condition. We utilized this base projection model as the starting point for this evaluation. The original USGS MODFLOW model was developed using the MODFLOW Graphical User Interface (GUI) developed by the USGS for use within the Argus ONE software. In order to simplify the evaluation and avoid compatibility issues with other MODFLOW user-interfaces, the same GUI within Argus ONE was used for this evaluation. Conceptual aquifer recharge rates were entered into the model at each of the identified potential recharge sites in separate model runs. Each model run assumed constant annual aquifer recharge over a period of 30 years to give a steady-state impact from artificial recharge. The computed water surface from base model was subtracted from the computer water surface from each solution with added aquifer recharge to give the project impact for each site. Using the principle of superposition, the impact from recharge a multiple sites was also calculated. RESULTS Figures 1-8 show the resulting groundwater increase from aquifer recharge at the identified potential sites. Conceptual recharge rates for each potential recharge area are shown below. Lehi Alpine Highland (gravel pit) Highland (debris basin) Pleasant Grove Orem (CUWCD) Orem Well Saratoga Well East Saratoga Well West 1,000 ac-ft 1,000 ac-ft 1,500 ac-ft 1,500 ac-ft 1,000 ac-ft 500 ac-ft 750 ac-ft 750 ac-ft 750 ac-ft Recharge volumes for each of the sites, except the Saratoga Wells, were entered into the top model layer in primary recharge areas which generally corresponded with the shallow Pleistocene aquifer. In the case of the Saratoga Wells, recharge volumes were entered into the shallow and deep Pleistocene aquifers for the West well and into the deep Pleistocene and Quaternary / Tertiary aquifers for the East well. Cc: 6771 South 900 East Midvale, Utah (801) Fax (801)

98 0.5 WEST VALLEY CITY SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY Miles LEGEND POTENTIAL RECHARGE SITE TAYLORSVILLE CITY MURRAY HOLLADAY CITY GROUNDWATER INCREASE CONTOUR (FEET) PARK CITY (SUMMIT CO) MIDVALE COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS PARK CITY (SUMMIT CO) WEST JORDAN CITY ALTA SOUTH JORDAN SANDY CITY HERRIMAN TOWN RIVERTON DRAPER CITY (SL CO) 1.5 HERRIMAN TOWN BLUFFDALE DRAPER CITY (UTAH CO) ALPINE 2 HIGHLAND CEDAR HILLS LEHI 1 AMERICAN FORK PLEASANT GROVE SARATOGA SPRINGS LINDON EAGLE MOUNTAIN VINEYARD OREM PROVO FAIRFIELD SPRINGVILLE SPANISH FORK MAPLETON NORTH UTAH COUNTY AQUIFER ASSOCIATION GROUNDWATER LEVEL INCREASE FROM AQUIFER RECHARGE AT LEHI SITE FIGURE 1

99 WEST VALLEY CITY SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY Miles LEGEND POTENTIAL RECHARGE SITE TAYLORSVILLE CITY MURRAY HOLLADAY CITY GROUNDWATER INCREASE CONTOUR (FEET) PARK CITY (SUMMIT CO) MIDVALE COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS PARK CITY (SUMMIT CO) WEST JORDAN CITY ALTA SOUTH JORDAN SANDY CITY HERRIMAN TOWN RIVERTON DRAPER CITY (SL CO) 0.5 HERRIMAN TOWN BLUFFDALE DRAPER CITY (UTAH CO) ALPINE Lehi HIGHLAND CEDAR HILLS Alpine Highland (gravel pit) 1 Highland (debris basin) LEHI AMERICAN FORK PLEASANT GROVE Pleasant Grove SARATOGA SPRINGS LINDON Orem (CUWCD) EAGLE MOUNTAIN VINEYARD Orem Well OREM PROVO FAIRFIELD SPRINGVILLE SPANISH FORK MAPLETON NORTH UTAH COUNTY AQUIFER ASSOCIATION GROUNDWATER LEVEL INCREASE FROM AQUIFER RECHARGE AT ALPINE SITE FIGURE 2

100 2 WEST VALLEY CITY SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY Miles LEGEND POTENTIAL RECHARGE SITE TAYLORSVILLE CITY MURRAY HOLLADAY CITY GROUNDWATER INCREASE CONTOUR (FEET) PARK CITY (SUMMIT CO) MIDVALE COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS PARK CITY (SUMMIT CO) WEST JORDAN CITY ALTA SOUTH JORDAN SANDY CITY HERRIMAN TOWN RIVERTON DRAPER CITY (SL CO) HERRIMAN TOWN BLUFFDALE DRAPER CITY (UTAH CO) 3 ALPINE 1 Lehi Alpine Highland (gravel pit) HIGHLAND 2.5 CEDAR HILLS Highland (debris basin) LEHI AMERICAN FORK PLEASANT GROVE Pleasant Grove SARATOGA SPRINGS 0.5 LINDON Orem (CUWCD) EAGLE MOUNTAIN VINEYARD Orem Well OREM PROVO FAIRFIELD SPRINGVILLE SPANISH FORK MAPLETON NORTH UTAH COUNTY AQUIFER ASSOCIATION GROUNDWATER LEVEL INCREASE FROM AQUIFER RECHARGE AT LEHI & ALPINE SITES FIGURE 3

101 5 WEST VALLEY CITY SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY Miles LEGEND POTENTIAL RECHARGE SITE TAYLORSVILLE CITY MURRAY HOLLADAY CITY GROUNDWATER INCREASE CONTOUR (FEET) PARK CITY (SUMMIT CO) MIDVALE COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS PARK CITY (SUMMIT CO) WEST JORDAN CITY ALTA SOUTH JORDAN SANDY CITY HERRIMAN TOWN RIVERTON DRAPER CITY (SL CO) HERRIMAN TOWN BLUFFDALE DRAPER CITY (UTAH CO) ALPINE 1 Lehi 4 HIGHLAND Alpine CEDAR HILLS 1.5 Highland (gravel pit) Highland (debris basin) 0.5 LEHI AMERICAN FORK PLEASANT GROVE Pleasant Grove SARATOGA SPRINGS LINDON Orem (CUWCD) EAGLE MOUNTAIN VINEYARD Orem Well OREM 0.5 PROVO FAIRFIELD SPRINGVILLE SPANISH FORK MAPLETON NORTH UTAH COUNTY AQUIFER ASSOCIATION GROUNDWATER LEVEL INCREASE FROM AQUIFER RECHARGE AT HIGHLAND SITES FIGURE 4

102 1.5 WEST VALLEY CITY SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY Miles LEGEND POTENTIAL RECHARGE SITE TAYLORSVILLE CITY MURRAY HOLLADAY CITY GROUNDWATER INCREASE CONTOUR (FEET) PARK CITY (SUMMIT CO) MIDVALE COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS PARK CITY (SUMMIT CO) WEST JORDAN CITY ALTA SOUTH JORDAN SANDY CITY HERRIMAN TOWN RIVERTON DRAPER CITY (SL CO) HERRIMAN TOWN BLUFFDALE DRAPER CITY (UTAH CO) ALPINE Lehi HIGHLAND CEDAR HILLS Alpine Highland (gravel pit) Highland (debris basin) LEHI AMERICAN FORK SARATOGA SPRINGS 0.5 PLEASANT GROVE 1 2 Pleasant Grove LINDON Orem (CUWCD) EAGLE MOUNTAIN VINEYARD Orem Well OREM PROVO FAIRFIELD SPRINGVILLE SPANISH FORK MAPLETON NORTH UTAH COUNTY AQUIFER ASSOCIATION GROUNDWATER LEVEL INCREASE FROM AQUIFER RECHARGE AT PLEASANT GROVE SITE FIGURE 5

103 WEST VALLEY CITY SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY Miles LEGEND POTENTIAL RECHARGE SITE TAYLORSVILLE CITY MURRAY HOLLADAY CITY GROUNDWATER INCREASE CONTOUR (FEET) PARK CITY (SUMMIT CO) MIDVALE COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS PARK CITY (SUMMIT CO) WEST JORDAN CITY ALTA SOUTH JORDAN SANDY CITY HERRIMAN TOWN RIVERTON DRAPER CITY (SL CO) HERRIMAN TOWN BLUFFDALE DRAPER CITY (UTAH CO) ALPINE Lehi HIGHLAND CEDAR HILLS Alpine Highland (gravel pit) Highland (debris basin) LEHI AMERICAN FORK PLEASANT GROVE Pleasant Grove SARATOGA SPRINGS LINDON Orem (CUWCD) EAGLE MOUNTAIN VINEYARD Orem Well OREM 0.5 PROVO FAIRFIELD SPRINGVILLE SPANISH FORK MAPLETON NORTH UTAH COUNTY AQUIFER ASSOCIATION GROUNDWATER LEVEL INCREASE FROM AQUIFER RECHARGE AT OREM SITES FIGURE 6

104 WEST VALLEY CITY SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY Miles LEGEND POTENTIAL RECHARGE SITE TAYLORSVILLE CITY MURRAY HOLLADAY CITY GROUNDWATER INCREASE CONTOUR (FEET) PARK CITY (SUMMIT CO) MIDVALE COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS PARK CITY (SUMMIT CO) WEST JORDAN CITY ALTA SOUTH JORDAN SANDY CITY HERRIMAN TOWN RIVERTON DRAPER CITY (SL CO) HERRIMAN TOWN BLUFFDALE DRAPER CITY (UTAH CO) ALPINE Lehi HIGHLAND CEDAR HILLS Alpine Highland (gravel pit) Highland (debris basin) LEHI 0.5 AMERICAN FORK PLEASANT GROVE Pleasant Grove SARATOGA SPRINGS LINDON 1 2 Orem (CUWCD) EAGLE MOUNTAIN VINEYARD 0.5 Orem Well OREM 0.5 PROVO FAIRFIELD SPRINGVILLE SPANISH FORK MAPLETON NORTH UTAH COUNTY AQUIFER ASSOCIATION GROUNDWATER LEVEL INCREASE FROM AQUIFER RECHARGE AT PG & OREM SITES FIGURE 7

105 0.5 WEST VALLEY CITY SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY Miles LEGEND POTENTIAL RECHARGE SITE TAYLORSVILLE CITY MURRAY HOLLADAY CITY GROUNDWATER INCREASE CONTOUR (FEET) PARK CITY (SUMMIT CO) MIDVALE COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS PARK CITY (SUMMIT CO) WEST JORDAN CITY ALTA SOUTH JORDAN SANDY CITY HERRIMAN TOWN RIVERTON DRAPER CITY (SL CO) HERRIMAN TOWN BLUFFDALE DRAPER CITY (UTAH CO) ALPINE Lehi HIGHLAND CEDAR HILLS Alpine Highland (gravel pit) Highland (debris basin) 1.0 LEHI AMERICAN FORK PLEASANT GROVE Pleasant Grove SARATOGA SPRINGS LINDON Orem (CUWCD) EAGLE MOUNTAIN VINEYARD 0.5 OREM Orem Well PROVO FAIRFIELD SPRINGVILLE SPANISH FORK MAPLETON NORTH UTAH COUNTY AQUIFER ASSOCIATION GROUNDWATER LEVEL INCREASE FROM AQUIFER RECHARGE AT SARATOGA SITES FIGURE 8