O T •<* 3 1 3f Y "1 A 'A* .1ft*-*?**..
Reconnaissance of the 

Hydrothermal Resources of Utah

By F. EUGENE RUSH

GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1044-H

A brief description of the kydrothermal 

resources of Utah

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1983
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

JAMES G. WATT, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Dallas L. Peck, Director

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Rush, F. Eugene

Reconnaissance of the hydrothermal resources of Utah.

(Geological Survey Professional Paper 1044-H)

Bibliography

Supt.ofDocs.no.: 119.16: 1044-H

1. Geothermal resources Utah. I. Title. II. Series: United States. Geological Survey. Professional Paper 1044-H.

GB1199.7.U8R87 553.7 82-600009

AACR2

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402
CONTENTS

	Page

Abstract _____________________________ Hi

Introduction ___________________________ 1

Purpose and scope ______________________ 1

Previous work ________________________ 1

Well- and spring-numbering system ____________ 1

Regional geologic setting ________________ ____ 3

Middle Rocky Mountains __________________ 3

Colorado Plateaus _____________________ 3

Basin and Range _______________________ 3

Regional hydrologic setting __________________ 4

Geothermal relations _______________________ 5

Regional heat flow ______________________ 5

Relation of thermal waters to hydrogeologic framework — 6

Distribution of thermal waters _______ _______ 7

	Page

Discussion of prospects —————————————————————— 8 

Roosevelt Hot Springs and the Cove Fort-Sulphurdale

areas ——————————————————————————— 11

Thermo Hot Springs ———————————————————— 13

Southwestern Escalante Desert —————————————— 18

Monroe and Joseph KGRA ____———————————— 21

Crater Hot Springs ________————————————- 28

Navajo Lake KGRA ____________——————_— 33

Meadow and Hatton Hot Springs ————————————— 33

Vicinity of Salt Lake City ____———————————— 37

Great Salt Lake Desert ____—————————————- 39

Other areas ———————————————————————— 40

Summary and conclusions ———————————————————— 40

References cited ——————————————————————— 43

ILLUSTRATIONS

Page

FIGURE 1. Map showing land prospectively valuable for geothermal resources in Utah and index map of Utah ____ _______ H2

2. Diagram showing location-numbering system _______ _____________________——————————— 3

3. Map showing generalized east-west patterns of Cenozoic igneous rocks and positive aeromagnetic anomalies and a generalized

distribution of young igneous rocks __________ ________________________—————————— 4

4. Diagram showing a conceptual model of a hydrothermal convection cell __—————____——————————————— 7

5. Map showing geothermal areas of Utah __________ ___________________________________ 9

6. Map showing location of leased National Resource Land in Utah, September 1976 ____________——_______ 10

7. Reconnaissance geologic map of the Thermo Hot Springs area and audio-magnetotelluric configuration for the Thermo Hot

Springs area ————____——________________________________—————————————— 14 

8.-11. Map showing

8. Distribution of orifices at Thermo Hot Springs __ _______________________—————__———— 15

9. Temperature at a depth of 30 m in the Thermo Hot Springs area and distribution of vegetation in the Thermo Hot

Springs area, 1976 ________________________________________————__——— 16

10. Shallow conductive heat flow in the Thermo Hot Springs area ___________________——_____ 18

11. Estimate heat flow in southwestern Utah _________________________—————————————— 20

12. Reconnaissance geologic map of the Newcastle area; and ground-water levels and direction of flow in the alluvium of the

Newcastle area, spring 1976 ________________________________________———__--— 22

13. Graph showing temperature profile of the Christensen Brothers thermal irrigation well near Newcastle, Utah —__——- 23 

14.-17. Map showing

14. Temperatures at a depth of 100 m in the Newcastle area _________—____—————————————— 24

15. Distribution of heat-flow from the principal hot-water aquifer in the Newcastle area —————————— —— —— 25

16. Helium concentrations in the Newcastle area _____________————____—————————————— 26

17. Estimated heat flow and measured spring temperatures in the Monroe-Joseph area____——————————— 26

18. Surficial geology of Monroe and Red Hill Hot Springs __ ____________________--———————————— 28

19. Map showing Thomas, Keg, and Desert calderas, near Crater Hot Springs _____——___————————————- — -- 30

20. Reconnaissance geologic map of the Crater Hot Springs area and a simple Bouguer gravity map of the Crater Hot Springs area 32

21. Generalized cross section of Crater Bench ___________________________________--________._-- 34

22. Map showing spring orifices and pools on the mound of Crater Hot Springs _________-___——_______—_-__- 35

23. Map showing phreatophyte distribution in the Crater Hot Springs area _____________——————— — - — ----- 36

24. Map showing heat flow in the Crater Hot Springs area ________________________--_--______---- 37

25. Reconnaissance geologic map of the Meadow and Hatton Hot Springs area_____—___________—_———----------- 38

26. Map showing estimated heat flow and water temperatures in the Meadow and Hatton Hot Springs area ---------------- 40

27. Map showing areas of rapid snowmelt near Hatton Hot Springs, March 1976 ______________- — ---------- 41

28. Map showing areas of warm ground water in the Jordan Valley________'_—____ ———— ---------------- 42

III
IV

TABLE

CONTENTS

TABLES

Page

1. Relation of hydrothermal areas to mineral belts and to age of Cenozoic igneous rocks __ ______ _ ___ __——— H5

2. Thermal-conductivity values used in this report_____________________-________________-——— 7

3. Formulas for geothermometers used in this report-_____________________— ___-_________--—--- 8

4. Known geothermal resource areas in Utah _______________________________________ ——— - 8

5. General characteristics of thermal spring groups ___________________________--_____---——— 11

6. Estimated reservoir temperatures derived by geothermometer formulas for springs (and one well) with temperatures greater

	than 50°C and silica concentration greater than 50 mg/L___________________—_ — ————— ______ 12

7. Evapotranspiration of mixed water from Thermo Hot Springs hydrothermal system __——— — ___ ————— — ——— —— 19

8. Estimated conductive heat discharge from Thermo Hot Springs hydrothermal system—alluvial area only ———_ —— —— 19

9. Chemical analyses of water from Christensen Brothers thermal well near Newcastle, Utah _ ——— ————— ————— —— 21

10. Estimated conductive heat discharge from the Newcastle hydrothermal system—alluvial area only_____ — —————— 21

11. Measured flow and temperature of Monroe and Red Hill Hot Springs __________________ — ——— — ———— 27

12. Measured flow and temperature of Joseph Hot Springs____ _______________— ————— - — ——— — ————— 27

13. Measured flow and temperature of Crater Hot Springs_______________________ ——————— ——— — ————— 34

14. Evapotranspiration of ground water from Crater Hot Springs hydrothermal system __ —— ——————— ————— ————— 35

15. Summary of data for selected hydrothermal systems in Utah__________________——————————————————— 41

16. Inventory of Thermo Hot Springs _ ________ _____ ___ ____ ______ _ ___ _ _ ____ —— - — ——— 46

17. Inventory of Crater Hot Springs, February 1976_______________________________________————— 47

18. Selected subsurface temperature and heat-flow data not summarized on maps ——— — _ —— ——————— ————— ——— 48

CONVERSION OF UNITS

For use of those readers who may prefer to use inch-pound units rather than metric units, the conversion factors for the terms used in this

report are listed below:

Multiply metric unit

calories (cal) 

degrees Celsius (°C) 

milligrams (mg) 

kilograms (kg) 

liters (L) 

meters (m) 

millimeters (mm) 

centimeters (cm) 

hectometers (hm) 

kilometers (km) 

square centimeters (cm2) 

square kilometers (km2) 

cubic meters (m3) 

liters .per second (L/s)

By

3.974 x 10-3 

1.8°C + 32 

1.543 x 10-2 

2.205

.2642 

3.281 

3.937 x

.3937 

3.281 x

.6214

.1550

.3861 

35.31 

15.85

10-2

To obtain inch-pound unit

British thermal units (B.t.u.)

degrees Fahrenheit (°F)

grains

pounds (Ib)

gallons (gal)

feet (ft)

inches (in)

inches (in)

feet (ft)

miles (mi)

square inches (in2)

square miles (mi2)

cubic feet (ft3)

gallons per minute (gal/m)
GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH

By F. EUGENE RUSH

ABSTRACT

Geologic factors in the Basin and Range province in Utah are more 

favorable for the occurrence of geothermal resources than in other 

areas on the Colorado Plateaus or in the Middle Rocky Mountains. 

These geologic factors are principally crustal extension and crustal 

thinning during the last 17 million years. Basalts as young as 10,000 

years have been mapped in the area. High-silica volcanic and intrusive rocks of Quaternary age can be used to locate hydrothermal 

convection systems. Drilling for hot, high-silica, buried rock bodies is 

most promising in the areas of recent volcanic activity. Southwestern 

Utah has more geothermal potential than other parts of the Basin and 

Range province in Utah. The Roosevelt Hot Springs area, the Cove 

Fort-Sulphurdale area, and the area to the north as far as 60 kilometers from them probably have the best potential for geothermal development for generation of electricity. Other areas with estimated reservoir temperatures greater than 150°C are Thermo, Monroe, Red Hill 

(in the Monroe-Joseph Known Geothermal Resource Area), Joseph 

Hot Springs, and the Newcastle area. The rates of heat and water 

discharge are high at Crater, Meadow, and Hatton Hot Springs, but 

estimated reservoir temperatures there are less than 150°C. Additional exploration is needed to define the potential in three additional areas in the Escalante Desert.

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The State of Utah has an abundance of thermal 

springs and probably is a promising area for geothermal 

exploration. This study, a 2-year reconnaissance of the 

geothermal resources on the public lands of Utah, was 

begun by the U.S. Geological Survey in the summer of 

1975. The purpose of the reconnaissance was to describe 

the general geohydrologic framework for geothermal 

systems, and to provide more detailed descriptions and 

evaluations than were previously available for some of 

the more promising hydrothermal systems. Most of the 

data were gathered and evaluated during the summer of 

1975 and in 1976. This report presents the results of the 

study. A data report (Rush, 1977) has already been 

released which contains subsurface-temperature data 

for 30 wells.

PREVIOUS WORK

The earliest known reference to geothermal systems 

of Utah is by Gilbert (1890, p. 332-335); he briefly 

described Fumarole Butte, gaseous discharges from the 

butte, and nearby Crater Hot Springs (fig. 1). Many

years later Stearns, Stearns, and Waring (1937, p. 96, 

108-109,179-183) described about 60 thermal springs 

in Utah and summarized the literature about them. A 

similar summary was made by Waring (1965). At the 

East Tintic mining district, about 30 km northwest of 

Nephi (fig. 1), Levering and Goode (1963) worked with 

geothermal gradient holes in their search for hydrothermal ore bodies. In another mining area, the Iron 

Springs district about 16 km west of Cedar City, (fig. 1), 

Sass and others (1971, p. 6399-6400) described temperature measurements in eight drill holes. They concluded that the heat flow in that area is about 1.9 x 106 

cal/cm2/s.

Heylmun (1966) and Batty and others (1975, p. 233- 

241) presented brief, general discussions of geothermal 

resources in Utah. However, both papers presented few 

data. A comprehensive data report on the thermal 

springs of Utah (Mundorff, 1970) contains an abundance of information for about 60 springs. Additional 

data have been published by Milligan, Marselli, and 

Bagley (1966). Additional estimates of reservoir temperatures were made for 47 hydrothermal systems in 

Utah by Swanberg (1974), using the Na-K-Ca geothermometer developed by Fournier and Truesdell (1973).

Olmsted and others (1975, p. 27-76) provided a discussion of hydrothermal concepts and of exploration and 

evaluation techniques in a report describing hydrothermal systems in the western part of the Basin and 

Range province. This discussion was useful as a guide in 

the study and other workers probably will find it of 

similar value. The University of Utah, Department of 

Geology and Geophysics, is currently (1977) investigating Roosevelt Hot Springs KGRA (Known Geothermal 

Resource Area) and other areas, primarily evaluating 

various geophysical techniques for geothermal exploration. In one of the resulting reports, Parry, Berson, and 

Miller (1976) describe the geology and water chemistry 

of Roosevelt and Monroe Hot Springs.

WELL- AND SPRING-NUMBERING SYSTEM

The system of numbering wells and springs in Utah, 

used herein, is based on the cadastral land-survey system of the U.S. Government. The number describes the 

position on the land net of the well, spring, or site where 

geothermal observations were made. In the land-survey

Hi
H2 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

system, the State is divided into four quadrants by the 

Salt Lake base line and meridian, and these quadrants 

are designated by the uppercase letters A, B, C, and D, 

indicating the northeast, northwest, southwest, and 

southeast quadrants, respectively. Numbers designating the township and range (in that order) follow the 

quadrant letter, and all three are enclosed in parentheses. The number after the parentheses indicates the

112°

section, and the section commonly is followed by three 

letters indicating the quarter section, the quarterquarter section, and the quarter-quarter-quarter section (generally 4 hm2 ) 1 ; the letters a, b, c, and d indicate,

'The basic land unit, the section, is ideally 2.6 km2 ; however, many sections are irregular. 

Such sections are subdivided into 4 km2 tracts, generally beginning at the southeast corner, 

and the surplus or shortage is taken up in the tracts along the north and west sides of the 

section.

41

COLUMBIA PLATEAUS

Q

EXPLANATION

Land prospectively 

valuable for geothermal resources 

(1971) as determined by USGS

Known Geothermal 

Resource Area (KGRA)

KGRA

1. Crater Hot Springs

2. Rooseveh Hot Springs

3. Cove Fort-Sulphurdale

4. Monroe-Joseph

5. Thermo Hot Springs

6. Lund

7. Newcastle

8. NavajoLake

Province Boundary

Adapted from Godwin and others 1971, figure 2 

0 50

ARIZONA

100 150 200 KILOMETERS

0 50 100 MILES

FIGURE 1.—Land prospectively valuable for geothermal resources in Utah, and an index map of Utah.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H3

respectively, the northeast, northwest, southwest, and 

southeast quarters of each subdivision. The number 

after the letters is the serial number of the well or spring 

within the 4 hm2 tract; the letter "S" preceding the 

serial number denotes a spring. If a well or spring cannot be located within a 4 hm2 tract, less than three 

location letters are used and the serial number is omitted. Thus (C-29-8)9ba designates a well in the 

NWV4NWV4 sec. 9, T. 29 S., R. 8 W. The numbering 

system is illustrated in figure 2.

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING

Utah essentially includes parts of three physiographic provinces as defined by Fenneman (1931): the Middle 

Rocky Mountains, the Colorado Plateaus, and the Basin 

and Range province (fig. 1). Each area is described 

briefly below, but more emphasis is given to the Basin 

and Range province because of its greater potential for 

geothermal development.

MIDDLE ROCKY MOUNTAINS

In Utah the Middle Rocky Mountains province includes the Wasatch Range and the Uinta Mountains. 

The Wasatch Range rises to an altitude of 2,400 to 3,400 

m above sea level, or between 1,200 and 2,000 m above

Sections within a township

R 11 W Well

Tracts within a section 

Sec. 1

29

4

9

16

21

-28

\j

33

\3

1 °\

15

22

27

V34,

2

11

V\

23\

26

35

-6 miles —

{

-IILLARD^ :OUNTY 1

BEAVER^ 

:OUNTY r

IRON — i

:OUNTY [

A

413

24

^25

^ 

36

/

\

^\M

C-29-11) ~i-

"c/

•*-*.

— -•

— •—

~j

(."

Jl

\ 

/

's

\

c

b

/ /

/ //

/// 

add -2

— n 

\\

' Salt Lake! 

City

I 

D

1 nr

-a

B

b a

.__ a -I— 

^/i b ' a

"Vr^;

//Well 

/ d

lile ————— i

M_T LAKE 

ASE LINE

5ALT LAKE 

MERIDIAN

FIGURE 2.—Well- and spring-numbering system.

the valley floors of the Basin and Range province. The 

range is an uplifted block of folded and faulted strata, 

bounded on the west by a major fault zone, the Wasatch 

Fault. The Uinta Mountains are generally higher than 

the Wasatch Range, reaching altitudes greater than 

4,000 m above sea level. They are described by Fenneman (1931, p. 177) as aflat-topped anticline. Most of the 

consolidated rocks that crop out in both mountain 

ranges are pre-Cenozoic sedimentary or silicic plutonic 

rocks.

COLORADO PLATEAUS

The province, as implied by its name, is an area of 

broad uplift with strata nearly horizontal in most 

places. The outcrops are mostly Mesozoic and older 

sedimentary rocks. Notable exceptions are Tertiary and 

Quaternary volcanic rocks in the southwestern part of 

the province (south-central Utah) and a few scattered 

Tertiary intrusive bodies in the southeastern part of the 

state. Land-surface altitudes are commonly between 

1,500 and 3,000 m above sea level. A continuation of the 

Wasatch Fault zone marks the western boundary of the 

province.

BASIN AND RANGE

The Basin and Range province is characterized by 

elongated, mostly north-trending mountain ranges and 

narrow flat-bottomed valleys. The province contains 

rocks widely ranging in composition and age. The older 

rocks consist of a wide variety of Mesozoic and Paleozoic 

sedimentary rocks and their metamorphosed equivalents. Overlying the sedimentary and metamorphic 

rocks are Cenozoic volcanic rocks and valley fill. Valley 

fill, mostly alluvium, may be as thick as 3,000 m in some 

basins. Lacustrine deposits are common.

According to Stewart (1971), most or perhaps all of 

the major valleys in the Great Basin of the Basin and 

Range province can be considered to be grabens, and 

most or all of the mountains can be considered to be 

horsts or tilted horsts. The geometry of block faulting 

related to these structures requires sizable east-west 

extension of the thin crust under the province; the extension was estimated by Stewart to be about 2.4 km for 

each major valley. Most of this extension took place in 

the last 17 million years, or perhaps even in the last 

7-11 million years. In Utah, grabens which are not 

bounded by faults of equal displacement generally have 

the master fault on the east side.

In western Utah, igneous rocks and hydrothermal 

mineral zones are in well-defined east-west belts (fig. 3), 

each successively younger to the south (table 1), according to Stewart, Moore, and Zietz (1977). Figure 3 shows
H4 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

the distribution of igneous rocks less than 6 million 

years old; some are less than 10,000 years old. They are 

mostly basalt and crop out generally in southwestern 

Utah. These very young igneous rocks do not seem to be 

along an east-west belt but rather on an alinement 

parallel to Basin and Range structure. The implication 

is that Basin and Range structure controls the distribution of these rocks; whereas the older belts predate 

Basin and Range structure. Stewart, Moore, and Zietz 

(1977) see genetic and age similarity between these 

belts and the belt of upper Cenozoic volcanic rock extending along the Snake River Plain in southern Idaho 

eastward into the Yellowstone region of northwestern 

Wyoming.

Very young volcanic rocks in Utah are reported by 

Rowley, Anderson, and Williams (1975, p. B18), and 

Smith and Shaw (1975, p. 82). Volcanic rocks probably 

less than 10,000 years old are found near Fillmore and 

65 km southwest, 50 km south, and 30 km southeast of 

Cedar City (fig. 3). These young rocks are largely basaltic, but scattered rhyolitic cones are known (Liese, 

1957).

Silicic intrusive rocks were emplaced at the same 

time as the silicic volcanic rocks (Whelan, 1970). The

42° 120°

40°

38C

36°

118 116°

0 100 KILOMETERS 

0 50 MILES

EXPLANATION

Generalized areas of outcrop of volcanic rocks 

within east-west belts

17-6 my. 34-17 m.y. 43-34 m.y.

—— East-west trends of aeromagnetic anomalies 

related to Mesozoic and Tertiary rocks

largest exposure of such an intrusive body in Utah is the 

Mineral Mountains, 80 km north of Cedar City.

REGIONAL HYDROLOGIC SETTING

Precipitation on the semiarid valley floors of the 

Basin and Range province in Utah, as well as much of 

the Colorado Plateaus, averages less than 200 mm per 

year (U.S. Weather Bureau, no date). The higher 

mountains of the Wasatch Range and the Uinta 

Mountains generally receive precipitation of 1,000 mm 

or more per year, most accumulating as snow in the 

winter. The mountains of the Basin and Range province 

average about 500 mm or less yearly.

The relatively large amounts of precipitation that fall 

in the mountains flow toward the ground-water reservoirs and major streams in two ways: (1) Flow from the 

mountains in small streams. Part of this water infiltrates the stream beds and percolates to the water table. 

(2) Flow percolates directly into the fractures and pore 

space of consolidated rocks of the mountains; this water 

then flows in the subsurface across the consolidated 

rock—valley-fill contact. The latter is considered to be 

the smaller volume of water in most areas; an exception 

is in areas of carbonate rocks that have developed interconnected solution channels. Most of the ground water

122°

36° -

Adapted from Stewart and others (1977, figure 1) 

EXPLANATION

Basaltic flows 

Andesitic flows 

and breccias

Rhyolitic flows 

Rhyolitic tuffs

Intrusive rocks

FIGURE 3.—Generalized distribution of young and old igneous rocks. A, East-west patterns of Cenozoic igneous rocks and positive aeromagnetic 

anomalies show southward migration of igneous activity in California, Nevada, and Utah. B, Igneous rocks less than 6 million years old in 

western Utah, Nevada, and parts of adjoining states seem to parallel Basin and Range structure.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH 

TABLE 1.—Relation of hydrothermal areas to mineral belts and to age ofCenozoic igneous rocks

H5

[The areas of western Utah are as shown in figure 4. The areas and mineral belts are listed in order from north to south. The ages of the rocks are from Stewart and others (1977, p. 71)]

Hydrothermal 

areas

Mineral 

belt

Approximate

average age

of rocks

(m.y.)

General 

hydrothermal 

characteristics

North of Cenozoic igneous 

rock area.

Northern Cenozoic igneous 

rock area.

Between Cenozoic igneous rock 

areas.

Southern Cenozoic igneous 

rock area.

South of Cenozoic igneous 

rock area.

Oquirrh-Uinta _ 

Deep Creek-Tintic

Mid-Utah gap __- 

Wah Wah-Tushar _

>43 

_ 35 

_ 33

Iron Springs _______. 

Southern Nevada-Utah gap

26

20

Small, low-temperature 

thermal springs.

Small or low-temperature 

thermal springs common.

Includes Crater Hot Springs 

and hot water at east 

Tintic mining district.

Very few thermal springs 

or wells.

Includes Cove Fort-Sulphurdale 

area, Roosevelt, Thermo, 

Joseph, and Monroe Hot 

Springs.

Includes Newcastle area.

circulates to depths of only several tens to several 

hundred meters, and generally has a temperature near 

or slightly higher than the ambient land-surface temperature for the lowlands (10°-16°C). Some ground 

water migrates through fault-created fractures to great 

depth where it absorbs heat from wall rock. This heated 

water returns to the land surface along with the 

shallow-circulating ground water, where it is ultimately discharged as springs, to streams, by evapotranspiration, or from wells. In agricultural areas, a 

secondary source of ground-water recharge to the 

valley-fill reservoir is infiltration from fields, canals, 

and reservoirs. Summers are usually hot with low 

humidity. As a result, on lowlands, potential lake evaporation greatly exceeds precipitation.

Some of the valleys in the Basin and Range province 

are hydrologically isolated; that is, water that falls as 

precipitation remains within the basin until it is discharged back to the atmosphere. However, in areas 

where interconnected solution channels have developed, ground water may follow complex flow paths beneath interbasin divides and flow for tens or hundreds of 

kilometers and for thousands of years before discharging to the land surface. Commonly, this interbasin flow 

involves moderately deep circulation beneath mountain 

ranges and, as a result, its discharge is significantly 

above ambient temperature. A probable example of discharge from an interbasin regional flow system is the 

Fish Springs group (Mundorff, 1970, p. 37), about 90 km

northwest of Delta on the south edge of the Great Salt 

Lake Desert. The estimated discharge is 1.4 m3/s. Water 

temperatures reportedly range from 18° to 76°C. The 

recharge areas for these springs are probably to the 

south and west and probably include parts of Nevada. 

The principal sources of geothermal fluids are water 

stored in the hydrothermal reservoir and water entering the geothermal-circulation system as recharge from 

precipitation. Because of the semiarid climate of much 

of the area, most geothermal development for generation of electricity will remove fluids from storage at a 

higher rate than natural replenishment.

GEOTHERMAL RELATIONS

REGIONAL HEAT FLOW

The average conductive heat flow to the earth's surface is approximately 1.6 HFU (1 heat-flow unit [HFU] 

= 1 x 10~6 cal/cm2/s or 1 /u,cal/cm2/s, according to 

Schubert and Anderson, 1974). Considerable variation 

in flow exists in Utah. Based on data from Sass and 

others (1971) and Sass and Munroe (1974), the area of 

highest heat flow in Utah is the Basin and Range province, which has heat-flow values commonly in the range 

of 1.5 to 2.5 HFU. By comparison the "Battle Mountain 

High" (in Nevada) is an area of abnormally high heat 

flow where conductive heat-flow values are commonly 

in the range of 2.5 to 3.5 HFU. According to Lachenbruch and Sass (1977), the "Battle Mountain High" may
H6 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

be a part of a larger region of exceptionally high heat 

loss extending from western Nevada to Yellowstone 

Park, Wyo., and including the northwestern corner of 

Utah. No data were collected as part of this study to 

determine whether the northwestern corner of Utah is 

an area of very high heat flow. Data from this study, and 

the work of others, indicate that the Basin and Range 

province in Utah probably has an average heat flow of 

about 2 HFU.

The Colorado Plateaus and the Middle Rocky 

Mountains provinces in Utah have heat-flow values 

near the average for the earth's surface. Values published by Sass and others (1971) and by Sass and Munrofe (1974) for these areas generally range from 1.3 to 2.0 

HFU and average about 1.6 HFU.

The causes of variation in heat flow to the earth's 

surface are complex and poorly understood. Some of the 

factors that contribute to the diversity are (1) variations 

in crustal thickness, (2) convection of magma beneath 

and possibly within the lower parts of the crust, 

(3) movement of ground water in hydrothermal convection cells, (4) variations in the distribution of radioactive elements such as uranium, thorium, and 

potassium-40 in crustal rock, (5) intrusion into the 

upper crust of young magmas, and (6) general circulation of shallow ground water.

RELATION OF THERMAL WATERS TO HYDROGEOLOGIC 

FRAMEWORK

The present level of geothermal knowledge is in part 

presented by White and Williams (1975) and is briefly 

summarized as follows: (1) Some geothermal systems 

are supplied only by a "normal" geothermal gradient; 

some by magmatic heat. (2) Youngest igneous rocks 

have the best potential as heat sources. (3) Purely basic 

volcanic systems rarely form thermal anomalies of economic interest for generation of electricity, whereas 

silicic volcanic systems may do so if they are large 

enough. (4) Young basic volcanoes are produced by 

magma sources in the mantle and, under some conditions, are potential indicators of buried high-level silicic 

bodies with no obvious surface manifestations. (5) 

Silicic magmas are always erupted from high-level 

storage chambers, probably in the upper 10 km of the 

crust. (6) High-temperature convection systems can be 

sustained for many thousands of years with heat from 

high-silica magma bodies. Perhaps because of the very 

high viscosities of such magmas, these systems are associated with magma chambers at shallow levels in the 

crust. (7) Cooling by hydrothermal convection tends to 

offset continued heating, but the rate of supply of 

magma from deep crustal or mantle sources is the dominant heat supply for both high-level magmatic and hydrothermal systems. (8) Basic magmas rise through the 

crust to the surface through narrow pipes and fissures

created by faulting; the individual magma pulses are 

volumetrically small, and such systems contribute little 

stored heat to the upper crust until magma chambers 

begin to form at high levels. (9) Fluid temperature is of 

critical importance in determining how a hydrothermal 

system may be utilized and is the most important single 

factor in evaluating a system. Hot-water convection 

systems can be divided into those of three temperature 

ranges: (a) Above 150°C; these systems may be considered for generation of electricity; (b) from 90°C to 150°C; 

these systems are attractive for space and process heating; and (c) below 90°C; these systems are likely to be 

utilized for heat only in locally favorable circumstances. 

(10) Natural geysers and active deposition of siliceous 

sinter (amorphous hydrous silica) are reliable indicators of subsurface temperatures at least as high as 

180°C. On the other hand, travertine deposits (calcium 

carbonate) and opaline residues produced by sulfuric 

acid leaching have no reliable relation to reservoir temperature. (11) In the Basin and Range province, heat 

flows are sufficiently high that the existence of a thick 

blanket having low thermal conductivity (high-porosity 

clay beds, for example) could locally raise the temperatures to levels of economic interest. The above abbreviated summary can be used as a partial guide to the 

general relation of thermal waters to the hydrogeologic 

framework.

Most thermal springs and wells are in valleys near 

the margins of the mountains. Spring positions probably are controlled by Basin and Range faults. Some 

springs are in valley bottoms; others are on upland 

slopes. Only a few thermal springs are in a mountainous 

setting; the most prominent example is Midway Hot 

Springs, 45 km southeast of Salt Lake City (Mundorff, 

1970, p. 46).

Recharge to the hydrothermal systems is by either 

meteoric water in the nearby shallow, ground-water 

reservoir or by percolation in the nearby mountains. 

The dominant driving force for deep circulation probably is the difference in density between cold recharge 

water and hot upflowing water, but head differences 

between recharge area and springs may contribute as 

shown in figure 4.

The hot water rising from the hydrothermal reservoir 

may be greatly diluted by shallower-circulating cold 

water, lowering the temperature but increasing the flow 

of thermal springs above the hydrothermal reservoir. 

As shown in figure 4, only part of the upflow of thermal 

water may directly reach the land surface, because part 

may enter near-surface aquifers and cool by conduction 

as it flows laterally from the spring area.

The model described above maybe modified in several 

ways to approximate the variety of hydrothermal systems: (1) No converting magma may be present in the 

upper crust, but rather the heat source may be deeper in
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H7

the crust or in the mantle; (2) the downward flow of cold 

water to the hydrothermal reservoir may be through 

any deep permeable route; and (3) calcium carbonate 

and amorphous silica may deposit on the walls of the 

upflow zone, creating an isolated or semi-isolated conduit or self-sealing cap. As a result, movement of water 

between the isolated part of the hydrothermal convection cell and the surrounding rock, alluvium, or land 

surface would be reduced or eliminated.

Vertical flow of shallow nonthermal ground water 

may modify conductive heat flow to the land surface. In 

areas of recharge (downward percolation of water), heat 

flow to the land surface is decreased; whereas in areas of 

ground-water discharge to the atmosphere (upward 

flow) the normal heat flow to the land surface is increased. The magnitude of the distortion is related to 

the velocity and quantity of vertical flow of water.

Conductive heat flow is computed as follows:

TABLE 2. — Thermal-conductivity values used in this report

[Values based on work done in Nevada and Utah by Olmsted and others (1975, p. 64; Olmsted, 

oral commun., 1976) and Sass (written commun., 1975). See also Sass and others (1976)]

Lithology

Clay .__.__..________..______.

Silt _._________...__.___-__..

Sand ___ __ __ __ _____ .

Gravel

Igneous rocks of felsic to

Estimated 

conductivity values 

(mcal/cm/s°C)

Saturated Unsaturated

1.5-2.5 1.5-2.0

2.5-3.0 2.0-2.5

3.0-4.0 2.0-3.5

4.0-6.0 3.0-5.0

4.5-6.0 3.0-5.5

_ , 3.5-5.0 2.5-4.5

5.0-9.0 4.0-7.0

6±

HFU =

where

HFU is heat-flow unit, in microcalories per square

centimeter per second, 

K is thermal conductivity of the rock material, in

millicalories per centimeter per second per degree

Celsius, and 

/ is the geothermal gradient, in degrees Celsius per

kilometer.

The estimated K values used in this report are summarized in table 2. From the formula it has been seen

Valley

wnflow of cold water 

(recharge)

Conductive 

», heat flow in 

) T crystalline

rock

Heat source 

(Unspecified depth)

FIGURE 4.—Conceptual model of a hydrothermal convection cell.

that, with no variation in regional heat flow, the geothermal gradient generally will vary as lithology varies. As a result, heat flow to the land surface is a more 

consistent index of geothermal-resource potential than 

shallow temperature-gradient data.

The values of thermal conductivity for the various 

lithologies, as listed in table 2, are based on laboratory 

determinations using cores and drill cuttings. The values listed in the table are the ranges into which most 

samples fall. The factors that control thermal conductivity are: (1) texture of rock or alluvium, (2) mineral 

content, (3) layering within the rock, (4) porosity and 

pore size, (5) degree of water saturation, and (6) the 

dissolved mineral content of the saturating water. 

There may be additional factors.

Chemical composition of thermal spring waters can 

be used to estimate hydrothermal-reservoir temperatures. The geothermometers used in this report are 

listed in table 3 and are from Fournier and Rowe (1966) 

and Fournier and Truesdell (1973). The basic assumptions in using these geothermometers (Fournier and 

others, 1974) are: (1) Temperature-dependent reactions 

occur at depth; (2) there is an adequate supply of chemical constituents; (3) water-rock chemical equilibrium 

occurs at reservoir temperature; (4) re-equilibration at 

lower temperatures as the water flows to the surface is 

negligible; and (5) hot water is not diluted by shallow 

cold water. If mixing occurs, the least adversely affected 

geothermometers listed in table 3 are the Na-K-Ca 

geothermometer and the graphic method. Therefore, 

where temperature calculations differ and mixing is 

suspected, the Na-K-Ca and graphic-method calculations should be favored.

DISTRIBUTION OF THERMAL WATERS

In this report a thermal well or spring is defined as 

having a water temperature above the average landsurface ambient temperature, which, as stated previously, commonly ranges from 10°C to about 16°C depending on altitude and geographic location. In the
H8 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

TABLE 3. — Formulas for geothermometers used in this report

[From R. O. Fournier, written commun., 1975 and 1977. Concentrations: Na, K, and Ca in 

molality; SiO2 in mg/kg, which is approximately the same as mg/L]

Formula

identification Formula Remarks

used in table 6

NKC Na-K-Ca Geothermometer 

1647

log(Na/K + £log(Ca/Na) + 2.24 _~ 273

Q Quartz (conductive) 

Geothermometer

_ 1309 _ 

toc ~ 5.19-logSiO2 ~ 273

C Chalcedony Geothermometer 

1032

4.69-logSiO2

273

S Amorphous Silica

(silica gel) Geothermometer

_ 731 

toc ~ 4.52-logSiO2 ~ 273

GM Graphic methods for estimating temperature of a 

hot-water component in a 

mixed water (Truesdell 

and Fournier, 1977, and 

Mariner, R. H., written 

commun., 1978). Use solubility curve of quartz 

above 120°C and chalcedony solubility curve 

below this temperature 

where reservoir is volcanic 

rock.

If magnesium concentrations are in excess of 

10 mg/kg or if travertine 

(tufa) is being deposited, 

computed temperature 

may be too high. ^ Va in 

all computations for 

table 7.

Computed temperature 

usable if spring discharge is lower than 

boiling. Computed temperatures between 

120°C and 180°C are of 

questionable meaning, 

because either chalcedony or quartz may be 

controlling the silica 

concentration.

Used mostly in basalt 

areas. Computed temperature usable if 

<120°C, but may be usable up to 180°C.

Computed temperature 

should be considered if 

opal deposits are present.

A plot of dissolved silica 

and enthalpy are used. 

Valid for spring with 

temperature lower than 

about 80°C and flow rate 

greater than about 2 L/s.

low-altitude areas of southwestern Utah (near St. 

George), the highest ambient temperatures prevail. 

Elsewhere on valley floors, the range is commonly from 

10°C to 14°C.

A map compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey for 

Utah (fig. 1) shows the eight KGRA's and lands prospectively valuable for geothermal resources. Not surprisingly, the general geographic distribution is the 

same as distribution of thermal springs described by 

Mundorff (1970, fig. 2). Table 4 summarizes information 

on the KGRA's.

The geographic distribution of thermal waters in 

Utah is shown in figure 5. This distribution is based on 

the thermal-spring report by Mundorff (1970) and on 

data collected during this study. The springs are

TABLE 4.—Known geothermal resource areas in Utah

[October 1976. Total area includes all land irrespective of ownership. Leased areas are 41 

federal leases]

KGRA County

Location Area (km2)

Township Range

(S.) (W.)

Total Leased

Cove Fort-Sulphurdale

Crater Hot 

Springs

Roosevelt Hot

Thermo Hot

Total (rounded)

--Beaver, 

Millard

. Iron

. Beaver,

Iron

24-26 

13

14 

32

25-26

38

36

26

27 

29

30 

31

6-7

8

8-9 

14 3-4

8

15

9

9 

13

11-13 

12

100 

70

16

66

10

4.3

121

105

. 490

79 

70

14

2.9

0

0

100

54

320

grouped into northwest, southwest, and Wasatch Range 

Front areas in figure 5. In table 5, the spring groups 

have been categorized on the basis of several hydrothermal characteristics. The springs of the southwest 

area have the most favorable characteristics. This is 

also the area of geothermal leasing of Federal lands (fig. 

6). Most of the following discussions will be concerned 

with hydrothermal prospects in the southwest area.

Estimated reservoir temperatures for selected sites 

are given in table 6. The temperature estimates are 

based on chemical analyses of geothermometers (table 

3). Six prospects may have reservoir temperatures 

above 150°C and, therefore, they may have potential for 

generation of electricity: Roosevelt, Thermo, and 

Joseph Hot Springs, Newcastle area, the Cove FortSulphurdale area, and the Monroe-Red Hill Hot Springs 

complex. Six other hot springs listed in the table may 

have reservoir temperatures in the 90-150°C range, 

and therefore, they have value for space and process 

heating. The locations of the first group are shown in 

figure 1. The table contains location numbers for all the 

sites. In the table, graphic-method calculations are 

based on the quartz-solubility curve unless the 

chalcedony-solubility curve is indicated.

DISCUSSION OF PROSPECTS

In this section, geothermal systems that are considered to have the best potential for development are 

discussed. These systems include seven of the eight 

KGRA's in Utah and several other areas of interest. The 

Lund KGRA was not included because of lack of data. 

(See table 18 for temperature data for areas not discussed in this section.)
ffi

05

COLORADO ___ _ ___ __

cj

O 

CO

C^ ^

CJ 

H 

O 

fa 

E-> 

ffi 

H 

ffi g

PH

O 

H 

ffi

COOH

COO

fa 

ffi
H10 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

114° 113° 112°

EXPLANATION

Township in which National Resource Land is 

leased for geothermal exploration and develop- III 

ment

Leases

Competitive 

Noncompetitive 

Total

Number

41 

172 

213

Area 

(km2)

318 

1227 

1545

38° I--

'Delta

FIGURE 6.—Location of leased National Resource Land in Utah, September 1976.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH Hll

TABLE 5.—General characteristics of thermal-spring groups 

[Group data based mostly on data in Mundorff (1970) and Milligan and others (1966). For location of groups, see fig. 5]

Thermal 

spring 

groups

Wasatch 

Range.

Northwest 

area.

Southwest 

area.

Location

Along the major 

fault zone 

separating the 

Basin and Range 

province 

from the Colorado Plateaus 

and the Middle 

Rocky Mountains 

provinces. 

In the Basin and

Range province, 

an area of 

above normal 

conductive 

heat flow.

__dO—— ——

Spring Dissolveddischarge solids 

rate concentrations

Wide Wide 

ranges. ranges.

do _ _do _ _

Water temperature at land 

surface <°C)

20-77; hottest 

springs are at 

the south end 

of the area.

18-42, except 

for Crater Hot 

Springs (87°C) 

near south end 

of area.

•Generally high,

32-85, commonly above 

70.

Silica content of 

water

(mg/L)

15-85; 

highest 

at the 

south end 

of the area.

5-33;

Crater Hot 

Springs 

(57-59) 

near south 

end of 

area. 

28-400;

highest 

at Roosevelt Hot 

Springs.

Spring deposits 

and gas discharges

Travertine common. 

Travertine common;

some hydrogen 

sulfide.

travertine, and 

hydrogen sulfide 

common; sulfur 

deposits at 

Sulphurdale.

ROOSEVELT HOT SPRINGS AND THE COVE 

FORT-SULPHURDALE AREAS

The locations of these two adjacent KGRA's are 

shown in figure 1. Roosevelt Hot Springs (C-26-9)34dcS, 

is on the west flank of the Mineral Mountains in Beaver 

County, about 20 km northeast of the town of Milford. 

Cove Fort, (C-25-7)30, and Sulphurdale, (C-26-7)7, are 

about 25 km northeast of Roosevelt Hot Springs near 

the northeastern corner of Beaver County and on the 

west flank of the Tushar Mountains and the Pavant 

Range. The surface geology of the two areas is quite 

different. At Roosevelt Hot Springs, an alluvial valley 

lies to the west and a large Tertiary pluton of granite to 

the east. At Cove Fort and Sulphurdale, the dominant 

lithology is young basaltic lava flows, commonly of 

Quaternary age.

Lee (1908, p. 21) describes a silica deposit on the 

southwestern flank of the Mineral Mountains and about 

25 km south of Roosevelt Hot Springs. He reports that 

cold water issues from a mound of silica 400 m in diameter. This geologic feature was not visited as part of this 

study, but if this is a hot-spring deposit, it may be an 

area of geothermal-resource potential. From the location description, the mound probably is at (C-29-10)24c.

Phillips Petroleum Co., Thermal Power Corp., and 

the University of Utah are actively exploring the hydrothermal system in the Roosevelt Hot Springs area. 

Phillips and Thermal Power, who have made many 

geophysical surveys, have drilled a total of nine deep

exploratory wells (as of April 1977) to depths commonly 

less than 1,500 m. Results of well tests reportedly were 

very favorable, and additional exploration and development wells are planned. The University has made 

extensive geophysical surveys, funded by the National 

Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy 

(formerly the Energy Research and Development Administration), and the U.S. Geological Survey, and the 

results were published in a series of reports. Because of 

these very extensive exploration activities, which have 

been continuing since the early 1970's, no additional 

field data were collected in this area as part of this 

study.

The geology of the Roosevelt Hot Springs area has 

been mapped by Petersen (1975), Parry, Berson, and 

Miller (1976, p. 22), and Liese (1957). Petersen mapped 

10 lithologic units, including 4 units of hot-spring 

deposits. According to Patrick Muffler (written commun., 1976), the heat source is related to Pleistocene 

rhyolites that crop out on the west flank of the Mineral 

Mountains (fig. 1). Rhyolite as young as 490,000 years 

has been identified. Hydrothermally altered ground is 

common in the area. Brown (1977, p. 5) estimates the 

age of hydrothermally deposited opal near Roosevelt 

Hot Springs at roughly 350,000 years.

Basin and Range faulting controls the location of 

Roosevelt Hot Springs. One of the Basin and Range 

faults, the Dome fault, is marked by an abundance of 

siliceous sinter (opal) in mounds for a distance of nearly 

5 km. The model shown in figure 6, with some
H12 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

TABLE 6. —Estimated reservoir temperatures derived by geothermometer formulas for springs (and one well) with temperatures greater than 50°C

and silica concentrations greater than 50 mgIL

[For formulas, see table 3. Chemical data mostly from Mundorff, 1970, table 1. Silica: First number is concentration for thermal-water sample; remaining numbers are concentrations for 

nearby cold water sources. Discharge temperature: First number is for thermal-water sample; remaining numbers are for cold-water sources and correspond to silica concentrations in

adjoining column]

Hydrothermal 

source Location

Christensen well,

Newcastle, UT__(C-36-15)20bb

Cove FortSulphurdale __ T. 25 and 26 S.

R. 6 and 7 W.

Crater

Hot Springs _ _(C- 14-8)108

Crystal

Hot Springs __ (C-4-D11 and

12S

Hatton

Hot Springs _ (C-22-6)35ddS

Joseph

Hot Springs __ (C-25-4)23S

Meadow

Hot Springs __ (C-22-6)26ccS

Monroe

Hot Springs __ (C-25-3)10ddS

Ogden

Hot Springs __ (B-6-l)23ccS

Red Hill

Hot Spring __ (C- 25-3)1 IcaS

Roosevelt

Hot Springs __ (C-26-9)34dcS

Stinking

Hot Springs __ (B-10-3)30bbS

Thermo

Hot Springs _ _ (C-30-12)21S

Concentrations in Concentrations 

molality ( x 10~3 ) in mg/L

Potas- MagneCalcium Sodium sium sium (SiO2 ) 

(Ca) (Na) (K) (Mg)

1.45 11.74 0.54 0.4 99

34

62

8.61 35.50 1.23 1 68 59

19

22

2.54 _ _ 124 73

11.6 ____ _ _ 89 44

37

7.04 62.64 1.73 1 36 85

50

10.8 44.37 3.58 *114 47

37

7.01 24.06 1.25 *49 51

36

33

8.41 119.1910.40 8 53

30

5.99 26.88 1.35 *34 83

36

33

.475 90.48 12.07 3.3 405

22.40 487.2 16.82 *335 53

30

2.07 15.57 1.25 9.7 108

23

49

Temperature Formula 

(°C) used to

compute 

Dis- Computed reservoir 

charge reservoir temperature

95

13

12

87

12

14

58

36

14

65

12

41

14

65.5

13

14

58

10

75

13

14

85

51

10

82.5

14

14

166 NKC

138 Q

110 C

150-160 GM

110 Q

80 C

140 GM

120 Q

92 C

66 C

100-110 GM

101 C

170 GM

69 C

120 GM

73 C

115 GM

323 NKC

75 C

90 GM2

99 C

160 GM

293 NKC

234 Q

109 S

75 C

95 GM2

199 NKC

115 C

141 Q

170-200 GM

Estimated 

reservoir 

temper- Remarks °c'

(rounded)

140-170 No springs present. Difference

in computed temperatures

may indicate mixing of thermal and nonthermal waters.

200± Estimate from Renner, White,

and Williams (1975, p. 21).

110-140 Reservoir rock may not be

basalt. Differences in computed temperatures may 

indicate mixing of thermal

and nonthermal waters.

90-120 Mixed water. Dissolved-solids

are 1,665 mg/L.

70-110 Subsurface temperature of

67°C measured in nearby

shallow well. Mixed water.

100-170 __

70-120 Mixed water.

70-120 Reservoir temperature probably the same as for Red Hill

Hot Springs or 100°-160°C.

75-90 Reservoir temperature computed with formula NKC is

probably too high. Dissolved solids are 8,820 mg/L.

100-160 Difference in computed

temperatures may indicate

mixing of thermal and nonthermal waters.

260-290 Subsurface temperature as

high as 262°C reported by

Phillips Petroleum Co.

Opal deposits.

75-95 Dissolved solids are about

36,000 mg/L.

140-200 Travertine deposits indicate

that temperature computed

with formula NKC may be

too high. Difference in computed temperatures may

indicate mixing of thermal

and non-thermal waters.

'Formula NKC not used where magnesium concentrations exceeded 10 mg/L. 

'Based on chalcedony solubility curve.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H13

modifications, is perhaps representative of this hydrothermal system. Recharge to the system probably 

occurs only in a permeable zone in the Mineral 

Mountains, the same general area where much of the 

recharge for Milford Valley originates. Nearly all the 

hot, saline water rising as part of the convection cell 

enters relatively shallow, fresh-water aquifers and then 

mixes with the fresh water as it flows westward toward 

the axis of Milford Valley (Mower and Cordova, 1974, pi. 

4).

Roosevelt Hot Springs, the only thermal spring in the 

area, has had a very small flow during historic time, on 

the order of 1 L/s or less (Mundorff, 1970, p. 42). Since 

about the mid-1960's, the only flow to the surface has 

been a small seep supporting a very small area of tules. 

The measured temperature of the spring was 85°C in 

1950. The spring was sampled at that time, and according to Mundorff (1970, p. 16), silica had a concentration 

of 405 mg/L and the dissolved solids were 7,040 mg/L. 

The dominant ions were sodium and chloride.

The estimated reservoir temperature (table 6), on the 

basis of geothermometer calculations and reported well 

temperatures, is 260°-290°C. If the reservoir temperature is dependent entirely on regional heat flow, the 

maximum depth of circulation would be about 6-7 km. 

This calculation is based on estimated reservoir temperature, a conductive heat flow of 2 HFU, mean thermal conductivity of 5 x 10~3 caL/cm/s°C, and an ambient 

land-surface temperature of about 10°C. If a shallow, 

magmatic-heat source is present, the local heat flow 

could be much higher and the depth to the hydrothermal 

reservoir would be less. The amount of heat and water 

discharged by the hydrothermal system under native 

conditions was not estimated.

No data have been collected as part of this study at the 

Cove Fort-Sulphurdale area for two reasons: (1) Phillips 

Petroleum Co., Union Oil Co. of California, and other 

companies are actively exploring the area, and (2) the 

only surface manifestations of hydrothermal activity 

are sulfur deposits, hydrothermally altered ground, and 

gaseous emissions at Sulphurdale. Mundorff (1970, p. 

50) lists mine drainage, sampled by Lee (1908, p. 19-20) 

as having 10,810 ppm (parts per million) of dissolved 

solids, sulfate concentrations of 7,600 ppm, and iron 

concentration of 1,360 ppm.

Most of the Federal land in the KGRA was leased to 

Union Oil Co. of California, but no deep holes have been 

completed to date (1977). In 1976, Union Oil Co. failed to 

penetrate more than about 300 m in a hole scheduled to 

be drilled much deeper. Additional deep-well drilling 

attempts are planned.

The reservoir temperature has been estimated by 

Renner, White, and Williams (1975, p. 21) to be approximately 200°C. On the basis of the estimated reservoir

temperature, a conductive heat flow of 2 HFU, estimated mean thermal conductivity of 5 x 10~3 cal/cm/s°C 

for the rock, and an ambient land-surface temperature 

of 10°C, the maximum depth of circulation to the hydrothermal reservoir is computed to be about 5 km. If a 

shallow, magmatic-heat source were present, the local 

geothermal gradient may be much higher and the depth 

of circulation could be much less.

Recharge for the area and for the hydrothermal system is believed to come from the Tushar and Pavant 

Ranges to the east. Ground water in the area probably 

flows generally westward or northwestward, and it 

probably is the only significant means of heat and water 

discharge from the hydrothermal system.

At Neels, a railroad siding about 60 km north of 

Roosevelt Hot Springs at (C-20-8)28b, Lee (1908, p. 32) 

reports that a well was drilled to a depth of 609 m, and 

hot water was encountered at a depth of 549 m. An entry 

in Lee's log of the well (1908, p. 33) states that gas under 

pressure was sufficient to raise 2,800 kg of drilling tools 

122 m up the well bore. According to Kenneth Bull (oral 

commun., 1977), gas-discharging vents have been found 

in the young lava-flow area northwest of Cove Fort and 

north of the Mineral Mountains. The triangular area 

including Roosevelt Hot Springs and the Cove FortSulphurdale area and extending northward to Neels 

probably has the best potential for geothermal development in Utah.

THERMO HOT SPRINGS

Thermo Hot Springs is about 50 km southwest of 

Roosevelt Hot Springs along the axial drainage of the 

northern part of the Escalante Desert (Milford Valley) 

at (C-30-12)21S and 28S. Schmoker (1972) interprets 

aeromagnetic and gravity data to indicate the general 

area to be underlain by a large Tertiary, intrusive pluton of tabular form having a thickness of about 8 km. 

The mountains to the northwest, the Shauntie Hills, are 

a horst dipping to the southeast under the Tertiary 

volcanic rocks and extending at least as far south as the 

Thermo Hot Springs area. Schmoker interprets Milford 

Valley as a graben with an alluvial thickness ranging 

from 760 to 1,070 m.

The Black Mountains, southeast of the springs, are 

mostly volcanic rocks associated with a possible caldera 

(Crosby, 1973) that range in age from 19 to 26 million 

years (Rowley, 1978). Rowley mapped a rhyolite about 3 

km east of Thermo Hot Springs having an age of 10.3 

million years (fig. 7). Rhyolites and other quartzbearing volcanic rocks of Pliocene age have been 

mapped by Erickson (1973). Their occurrence is widespread in both the Shauntie Hills and the Black 

Mountains.
H14 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

T30S

38°10' -

T31 S

Base from aerial photographs 2 KILOMETERS

j

0 1 MILE

Consolidated-rock geology 

adapted from Peter D. Rowley 

(1978)

FIGURE 7.—Reconnaissance geologic map of the Thermo Hot Springs area, and audio-magnetotelluric configuration for the Thermo Hot

Springs area.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH HIS

Qm

Qc

Qt

QTb

Trt

Qma

Old

QTb

Th

Trt

TVS

Tm

Qpw

CORRELATION OF MAP UNITS

Qpd Qfp Qf ~ Holocene

- Pleistocene

Pleistocene

and 

Pliocene

- Pliocene

- Miocene

QUATERNARY

- TERTIARY

DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS

HYDROTHERMALLY—RELATED DEPOSITS

Spring-mound deposits—Windblown quartz sand collecting in 

areas of spring discharge; mostly fine-to medium-grained, 

light tan. Mound surface commonly white where salt has 

accumulated from evaporated water. Minor amount of 

travertine and siliceous sinter

Spring-mound apron deposits—Mostly windblown quartz sand 

collecting in damp areas; some dark-gray basalt fragments. 

Sand fine- to medium-grained, tan 

VALLEY—FLOOR DEPOSITS

Wet-playa deposits—Light-tan, sandy silt and clay. Land surface 

soft due to saturation of water to the land surface. Surface 

white due to deposition from evaporated water

Dry-playa deposits—Mostly tan sandy silt and day. Land surface 

is hard most of the time

Flood-plain deposits—Mostly light-tan to light-brown silt and 

day; locally indudes some sand. Deposits underlie hard 

surface marked by abundant and distinctive stream-channel 

meander scars

Dissected lake deposits—Mostly light-tan to light-brown, fine- to 

medium-grained quartz sand and silt; minor amounts of 

dark-gray volcanic rock fragments up to 2 cm in diameter 

locally present Indudes sand dunes that form low hills 

southwest of the spring mounds 

ALLUVIAL—APRON DEPOSITS

Alluvial fan of Shauntie Hflls drainage—Light-tan to light-brown 

sity fine- to medium-grained sand Land surface is commonly 

soft

Colluvium—Tan to brown fine- to medium-grained sand and 

sit, commonly with a poorly developed gravel pavement on 

the land surface. Indudes some gravel bars and sand dunes. 

Major drainage channels have dark-gray volcanic rock 

boulders up to 30 cm in diameter

Talus of Mount Dutton Formation—Accumulations of angular

blocks of rock 

CONSOLIDATED ROCKS

Basalt lava flows

Horse Valley Formation—Rhyodacitic lava flows and volcanic

mudflow breccia 

Rhyolite of Thermo Hot Springs

Volcanic rocks of Shauntie Hills—Volcanic mudflow breccia, 

lava flows, and ash-flow tuff

Mount Dutton Formation—Volcanic mudflow breccia and 

minor lava flows

———— Contact

—?— Fault, bar and ball on downthrown side, dashed where inferred, 

queried where doubtful

—?——— Possible fault

— - — Lineament

........ Shore line of Lake Bonneville

> Hot spring

LINE OF EQUAL APPARENT RESISTIVITY—Line values in 

ohmmeters

Data point

FIGURE 7.—Continued.

•63

Fault-controlled Thermo Hot Springs flow from two 

north-trending spring-controlled mounds each of which 

is about 1 km long and ranges from about 50 to about 

200 m wide (fig. 8). The mounds, which rise about 4-8 m 

above the surrounding valley floor, are probably composed mostly of windblown sand and lesser amounts of 

siliceous sinter and travertine debris. On the spring 

mounds, a total of 69 spring orifices were inventoried 

(table 16 in table section), 54 of which were on the west 

mound. The total observed spring flow was estimated to 

be about 2 L/s and the maximum observed water temperature was 82.5°C.

Mundorff, (1970, p. 18) lists four chemical analyses of 

water samples from Thermo Hot Springs. The 

maximum silica concentration was 108 mg/L and the 

dissolved solids were 1,500 mg/L. The dominant ions 

were sodium and sulfate.

The estimated reservoir temperature (table 6), based 

on chemical analyses of water samples and geothermometer (table 3) calculations, is 140°-200°C. The 

maximum depth of circulation of water to the hydrothermal reservoir probably is between 3 and 4 km, 

on the basis of a regional conductive heat flow of 2 HFU, 

mean thermal conductivity of the rock and alluvium of 

about 4.5 x 10~3 cal/cm/s°C, and an ambient landsurface temperature of 12°C. The calculation assumes 

the absence of any shallow magmatic-heat source.

113°12'30" R12W

EXPLANATION

J-' Spring and number 

in table 16

0 200 400 METERS

1000 FEET

TULES AREA (6)

20121 

27I28

WEST 

SPRING 

MOUND

SOUTH MEADOW 

AREA (1-4)

EAST 

SPRING 

MOUND

15

FIGURE 8.—Distribution of orifices at Thermo Hot Springs.
H16 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

113°12'30" R12W

38°

10'

17

34

Base from aerial photographs: U.S. Geological Survey, 1953

0 1 KILOMETER

Based on temperatures measured at 

a depth of 30 m in wells, 1976

0 1/2 1 MILE 

FIGURE 9.—Temperature at a depth of 30 m in the Thermo Hot Springs area; and distribution of vegetation in Thermo Hot Springs area, 1976.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H17

Recharge for the hydrothermal system probably occurs in the nearby mountains or seeps downward 

* through a permeable zone from the saturated alluvium 

of the valley. To estimate the amount of mixing of the 

upflowing thermal water with nonthermal water, a 

graphic method developed by Truesdell and Fournier 

(1977) was used. The amount of mixing was estimated 

using temperature and silica-concentration data for 

thermal and nonthermal ground water in the area. For 

nonthermal ground water, the range of silica concentrations used in the calculation was 23-49 mg/L and a 

water temperature of 14°C (table 6).

The results suggest that as the thermal water rises, it 

mixes with nonthermal water at an approximate ratio 

of 40 percent thermal water to 60 percent nonthermal 

water and enters a shallow aquifer within the alluvial 

valley fill. Some of this mixed water is discharged by 

Thermo Hot Springs, but most is discharged from a 

shallow water table by evapotranspiration of phreatophytes.

The distribution of the mixed thermal-nonthermal 

water in the alluvium is shown on three maps. Figure 7 

includes an audio-magnetotelluric map which shows

DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS

HYDROTHERMALLY(?)—RELATED PHREATOPHYTES

Mostly saltgrass and pickleweed; locally some 

greasewood, rabbitbrush, and saltbush. Land surface 

commonly covered with salt, and soil is damp to land 

surface. Depth to water table generally less than 1 m. 

Includes rules around spring orifices and areas of 

ponded water

Bare playa soil except for locally scattered mounds of 

greasewood and saltbush. Land surface white with 

abundant salt east of spring mounds. Smaller salt 

accumulation west of mounds. Soils damp and very 

soft. Depth to water table generally less than 0.5 m

Mostly bare playa; locally some saltgrass and 

pickleweed. Land surface less salty and soils less 

damp than bare playa (preceding unit). Depth to 

water table generally less than 2 m

Greasewood and rabbitbrush mixed with lesser 

amounts of pickleweed and saltgrass. Depth to water 

table probably ranges between 1 and 3 m

Greasewood growing on a playa; land surface locally 

salty. Depth to water table probably ranges between 2 

and 5 m 

OTHER PHREATOPHYTES

Greasewood, rabbitbrush, and saltbush. Mixed with big 

sage and shadscale on higher parts of the area. 

Proportion of big sage and shadscale increases with 

increase in altitude. Depth to water table ranges 

between 3 and 15 m 

XEROPHYTES

Big Sage, shadscale, and associated xerophytes 

growing on upland areas where depth to water table 

exceeds about 15m; plants obtain moisture only from 

soils above water table 

°^ Hot spring

— — LINE OF EQUAL TEMPERATURE IN °C—Dashed where 

approximately located

FIGURE 9.—Continued.

the low-resistivity, elongated body of thermal water 

underlying the general spring-mound area; this body 

has its long axis parallel to the northeastward direction 

of ground-water flow as defined by Mower and Cordova 

(1974, pi. 4). Figure 9 includes temperatures measured 

at a depth of 30 m below land surface. In addition to the 

thermal anomaly near the spring mounds, two additional thermal areas are shown to the southeast and 

east. These two areas are probably associated with 

permeable fault zones separate from the permeable 

zones underlying the spring mounds. Contours of conductive heat flow on figure 10 show similar patterns.

Figure 9 shows the distribution of vegetation in the 

Thermo Hot Springs area. Three types of vegetation are 

shown: (1) The xerophytes in the northwestern and 

southeastern parts of the map that do not root to or use 

ground water, (2) greasewood, rabbitbrush, and 

saltbush that obtain much of their water from the shallow ground water in the valley fill reservoir, and (3) 

phreatophytes near the spring mounds that use rising 

thermal water at rates greater than the surrounding 

phreatophytes. Net mixed-water discharge by 

phreatophytes from the hydrothermal system is computed in table 7 as the difference between the gross 

discharge of the area and the estimated discharge if no 

hydrothermal system were present. The estimated discharge of mixed water by phreatophytes is 1.4 x 10~6 

m3/yr or equals a continuous flow of 44 L/s. The portion 

of this flow that is deep-circulating thermal water is 

about 40 percent or 18 L/s.

Olmsted and others (1975, p. 66, p. 220-224) have 

developed two methods of estimating conductive heat 

discharge from hydrothermal systems. Their method 

(A) is based on a subsurface-temperature map and the 

thermal gradient from the map's datum plane to the 

land surface. Method (B) is based on a heat-flow map for 

a hydrothermal system. Because both methods use the 

same data base, only method (B) is presented in table 8.

Method (B) yields a conductive heat discharge from 

the system of 16 x 1013 cal/yr; method (A), 15 x 1013 

cal/yr. A third method was also used, based on an estimated reservoir temperature of 200°C (table 6), convective water flow through the deep hydrothermal reservoir of 0.6 x 106m3/yr, and an ambient land-surface 

temperature of 12°C. This last method yielded the lowest of the three estimates, 11 x 1013 cal/yr, and was 

applied only to the area of evapotranspiration near the 

spring mounds. In that computation of convective flow, 

because no increment for warm ground-water flow to 

the northeast from the thermal areas was included, the 

estimate of total heat discharge is probably too small. 

The value 15 x 1013 cal/yr was selected to represent the 

probable heat discharge from the entire hydrothermal 

system. As depth increases, the three heat anomalies
HIS GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

shown in figures 9 and 10 probably expand and merge 

into a single hydrothermal system.

SOUTHWESTERN ESCALANTE DESERT

The southwestern part of the Escalante Desert is 

northwest of Cedar City (fig. 1). Three communities are

referred to in this section: Newcastle ([C-36-15]!?), 

Beryl ([C-33-16]32), and Lund ([C-32-14J21) (fig. 11). 

Newcastle is in the southeastern part of the desert, 

about 40 km west of Cedar City. Beryl is northwest of 

the valley axis and 30 km northwest of Newcastle. Lund 

is 25 km northeast of Beryl along the Union Pacific 

Railroad tracks.

113°05' R10W 113°00'

38°10' -

T31 S

38°05' -

EXPLANATION

Alluvium—Mostly clay, silt, and sand

CONSOLIDATED ROCK—Mostly Tertiary and 

Quaternary volcanic rocks

Contact

——— — Fault, dashed where approximately located; 

bar and ball on downthrown side

—— ~ —— Lineament observed on aerial photographs

LINE OF EQUAL HEAT FLOW—Dashed 

where approximately located. Units are 

M cal cm-2 sec-1.

FIGURE 10.—Shallow conductive heat flow in the Thermo Hot Springs area.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H19

TABLE 7.—Evapotranspiration of mixed water from Thermo Hot Springs hydrothermal system

[1976 conditions. The combined and nonhydrothermal system discharge rates are based on research by Lee (1912), White (1932), Young and Blaney (1942), Houston (1950), Robinson (1965),

and Harr and Price (1972) in other areas]

Average annual evapotranspiration rates 

(approximate)

Phreatophyte area

Mostly saltgrass

Bare playa, saltgrass, 

and pickleweed

Greasewood, rabbitbrush, pickleweed,

Greasewood on playa

Greasewood, rabbitbrush, and saltbush

Total (rounded) _ _.

Depth 

to water 

table 

(m)

<1

< .5

<2

1-3

2-5

3-15

Combined 

discharge 

rate 

(m)

0.5 

.6

.4

.2 

.1

.06

—

Nonhydrothermal 

system 

discharge rate 

(m)

0.06 

.06

.06

.06 

.06

.06

--

Net 

hydrothermal 

discharge 

(m)

0.44 

.54

.34

.14 

.04

.0

J .3

Area (x!03m2)

1,700 

430

520

1,400 

420

4,500

Estimated average 

annual net 

discharge 

(rounded 

x 103m3)

750 

230

180

200 

20

0

2 1,400 

(1.4xl06m3/yr)

1Average for area.

2Mixed thermal and nonthermal water.

Newcastle is on the floor of the Escalante Desert near 

the northwestern flank of the Pine Valley Mountains, a 

range composed mostly of Tertiary volcanic rocks 

(Hintze, 1963). The floor of the Escalante Desert is described by Crosby (1973, p. 28) as the central region of a 

probable large caldera about 50 km in diameter. The 

rim of the caldera includes the surrounding mountains 

and Table Butte as shown in figure 11. Crosby gives no 

descriptions of the age or structure of the caldera in his 

report, but it is probably Tertiary.

The detailed distribution of young igneous rocks in 

this area is poorly known. Some basic igneous rocks less 

than 10,000 years old lie about 40 miles south of Newcastle, near the town of Veyo (Smith and Shaw, 1975, p. 

82, listed under Utah as Santa Clara). The reconnaissance geology of the area is shown in figure 12.

During December 1975, a newly drilled irrigation 

well (C-36-15)20bbd was test pumped at rates as high as 

108 L/s. This well, owned by the Christensen Brothers of 

Newcastle, is 152 m deep, has a 40-cm-diameter casing, 

and a static water level of about 43 m. The water disTABLE 8.—Estimated conductive heat discharge from Thermo Hot 

Springs hydrothermal system alluvial area only

[Method B of Olmsted and others (1975, p. 67). The approximate area was determined from

figure 10]

Range in heat 

flow units

(HFU) 

(xlO-6 cal/cm2/s

Approximate mean 

heat flow

(HFU)

Approximate 

area

(km2 )

Heat discharge 

(x!05 cal/s)

>15 _ _.

10-15

5-10 _____

3-5 ____.

.___ 20

.___ 12.5

.— 7.5

4

3.3

3.3

24

50+

6.6

4.1

18

20+

Total 

(rounded) ____ 80 50 

(16 x 1013 cal/yr)

charged was boiling, about 95°C at land surface (altitude = 1,605 ± m). A water sample was collected after 

6 hours of pumping; the chemical analyses are given in 

table 9. The dissolved-solids concentration was only 

1,120 mg/L; the silica concentration was 99 mg/L; and 

the dominant ions were sodium and sulfate. On January 

20, 1976, after a period of several weeks during which 

the pump was idle, subsurface temperatures were 

measured in the well, resulting in the temperature profile in figure 13. The profile shows an alluvial aquifer 

containing hot water at a depth below land surface 

between 70 and 110 m. Subsurface temperatures were 

lower above and below this aquifer. The maximum temperature recorded in the well was 107.8°C; the bottomhole temperature was 4.1°C less. The well was pumped 

during the 1977 irrigation season; the water was cooled 

in two ponds and applied to cropland by sprinklers.

The estimated reservoir temperature for the hydrothermal system, based on chemical analysis and 

geothermometers, is 140°-170°C in table 6. The difference in the calculations in table 6 probably results from 

mixing of thermal and nonthermal waters. The 

maximum depth of circulation in the hydrothermal reservoir required to produce these temperatures is estimated to be 3-4 km, on the basis of regional heat flow of 

2 HFU, thermal conductivity of the volcanic rocks that 

underlie the area of 5 x Ifr3 cal/cm/s°C, and an ambient 

land-surface temperature of about 14°C. The calculation assumes the absence of a shallow magmatic-heat 

source. Using the graphic method of Truesdell and 

Fournier (1977) to estimate the mixing of thermal with 

nonthermal water, the hot-water component of the 

mixed water is estimated to be about 60 percent on the 

basis of data in table 6.
H20 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

Shape and size of the hot-water body in the valley-fill 

(alluvial) aquifer are indicated in figures 12,14, and 15, 

as well as the temperature profile shown in figure 13.

The recharge area for the hydrothermal system is 

probably in the Pine Valley Mountains southeast of the 

town of Newcastle. The upward flow of thermal water is 

through a permeable range-front fault zone 1 km southeast of the thermal well (fig. 12). As hot water flows 

northward from the fault zone, its temperature declines 

owing to conductive-heat loss, mixing with cold, 

shallow-aquifer water, or both. Westward flow is relatively small compared to northward flow; this probably 

results from higher transmissivity toward the north 

than toward the west. Faulting and lithologic changes

114°00' R 19 W R 18 W R 17 W R 16 W R 15 W R 14W R 13 W 113°15' R 12 W

38W -

Rim of possible caldera 

(Crosby, 1973)

EXPLANATION

+ T- —r<2 H

Area of probable high 

heat flow

Well. Number is estimated 

heat flow in M cal/cm2 sec

-f +

Kannarraville £7

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

1:250,000 quadrangles

FIGURE 11.—Estimated heat flow in southwestern Utah.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H21

TABLE 9. — Chemical analyses of water from Christensen brothers 

thermal well near Newcastle, Utah

[Location (C-36- 15)20bbd. mg/L, miligrams per liter; pig/L, micrograms per liter; L/s, liters 

per second pimho, micromhos; °C, agrees Celsius]

Alkalinity, pH, field -.____ 7.6

total Phosphate, (as CaCO-,) mg/L 53 Ortho,

Aluminum, dissolved as

dissolved -/^g/L 40 phosphorus _ mg/L .04

Arsenic, Phosphate,

dissolved --Mg/L 100 dissolved,

Barium, Ortho __ mg/L .12 dissolved __ /j.g/L 300 Potassium,

Bicarbonate __mg/L 64 dissolved __ mg/L 21 

Boron, Residue, 

dissolved __ Mg^L 710 dissolved

Carbonate __ mg/L 0 Sodium 

Chloride, absorption 

dissolved _mg/L 52 ratio - _ _ 9.7

Cobalt, Selenium, 

dissolved __ ng/L 0 dissolved __ /u,g/L 0 

Fluoride, Silica, 

dissolved _ _mg/L 7.3 dissolved _ _ mg/L 99 

Hardness, Sodium, 

noncar- dissolved __ mg/L 270 

bonate - mg/L 95 Sodium __ Percent 77

Hardness, Specific '

dissolved _ -Mg/L 10 Specific 

Lead, conductance, 

dissolved __ ng/L 1 laboratory __;u,mho 1,600 

Lithium, Strontium, 

dissolved __ /Ag/L 460 dissolved, __ /ig/L 1,100 

Magnesium, Sulfate, 

dissolved _ _mg/L .4 dissolved _ _mg/L 580 

Manganese, Water 

dissolved _ -MS/L 70 temperaMercury, ture °C 97.0

dissolved __ fj.g/L .1 Yield-well __ L/s 95 

Molybdenum, Zinc, 

dissolved __ ng/L 13 dissolved __ fj,g/L 20 

NO2 +NO3 as 

Nitrogen, 

dissolved __ mg/L .22

to the west may be factors reducing westward flow. A 

helium-concentration survey (fig. 16) made by Denton 

(1976) produced a pattern generally similar to those in 

figures 14 and 15 near the fault zone that produces the 

hot water. He concludes that the helium is released from 

solution in the water as a result of either temperature or 

pressure decline while the water flows laterally in the 

shallow aquifer (E. H. Denton, oral commun., 1977). 

Estimates of conductive-heat discharge to the land 

surface were made using method (B) of Olmsted and 

others (1975) (table 10) yielding identical results to 

method (A) of 7 x 1013 cal/yr. Calculations of method (A) 

are not presented. Essentially all the discharge from the 

hydrothermal system is by lateral ground-water flow 

from the fault zone. The flow rate was computed on the 

basis of an estimated conductive-heat discharge and a 

reservoir temperature of 170°C. The estimated flow 

from the hydrothermal reservoir is about 0.4 x 106m3/

TABLE 10. — Estimated conductive heat discharge from the Newcastle 

hydrothermal system — alluvial area only

[Method B of Olmsted and others (1975, p. 69). The approximate area was determined from 

figure 15]

Range in heat Geometric mean Approximate Heat discharge

flow units heat flow area (x!05 cal/s) 

(xlO-6 cal/cm2/s) (HPU) (km2)

>30 - __ 50 1.2 6.0

20-30 -_ - - 24 1.0 2.4

10-20 „ ___ 14 3.3 4.6

5-10 . ____ 7.1 7.8 5.5

3-5 _ __ _ 3.9 9.1 3.5

Total 

(rounded) ____ X 10 22 22 

(7.0 x 1013 cal/yr)

'Average for area.

yr. The mixed water flows through the alluvium at an 

estimated rate of 0.7 x 106m3/yr. 

Figure 11 shows estimated heat flow based on measured temperature gradients for many sites in and near

the southeastern part of the Escalante Desert. In addition to the Newcastle area, high heat flow is shown west

of Beryl and northwest of Lund. The Lund KGRA (fig. 1) 

is a few kilometers southeast of Lund, but no data were 

available that indicated high heat flow in the KGRA. 

Another area east of Table Butte may have high heat 

flow, but data are sparse. In the irrigated area between 

Enterprise and Beryl, both upward and downward flow 

of shallow ground water may be distorting conductive

heat flow to the land surface.

MONROE AND JOSEPH KGRA

The Monroe and Joseph KGRA lies along the Sevier 

River in Sevier County, south-central Utah (fig. 1). The

Pavant Range is to the northwest, the Sevier Plateau to 

the southeast. The towns of Joseph ([C-25-4]14) and 

Monroe ([C-25-3J8 and 17) are on the flood plain of the 

river. Joseph Hot Springs is about 2 km southeast of 

Joseph (fig.17). Monroe Hot Springs is on the east edge 

of Monroe; Red Hill Hot Spring is about 1 km farther 

northeast. 

Tertiary volcanic rocks are dominant in the area. 

Monroe and Joseph are near the north edge of the 

Marysville volcanic area, where volcanism was extensive and prolonged from middle to late Tertiary. The 

volcanic rocks range in composition from basalt to 

rhyolite. Smith and Shaw (1975, p. 72) cite the age of the 

latest eruption, a rhyolite, as 20 million years. In the 

following discussion of the KGRA, Joseph Hot Springs 

will be described separately from Monroe and Red Hill 

Hot Springs because superficially it is a separate hydrothermal system. Monroe and Red Hill Hot Springs 

are parts of a single system. 

Monroe and Red Hill Hot Springs flow from travertine 

mounds forming a bench at the western foot of the
H22 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

113°37'30"

R 16 W R 15 W

113°30'

EXPLANATION

-1560— POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR—Shows 

altitude of water level in wells. Dashed 

where approximately located. Contour 

interval 2 meters. Datum is mean 

sea level

Well \ 

Direction of ground-water flow \

Christensen brothers well (C-36-15) 20 bbd

\

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

Newcastle 1:24,000,1972

2 MILES

Adapted from G. W. Sandberg, 

USGS, Cedar City. Utah, written 

communication 1976

FIGURE 12.—Reconnaissance geologic map of the Newcastle area; and ground-water levels and direction of flow in the alluvium ofthe

Newcastle area, spring 1976.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H23

Qya

Qf

TV

Qfp

Qc Ql

-

- Holocene 

- Pleistocene

Sevier Plateau. The springs are near the Sevier Fault, 

as shown on figure 18. Parry, Berson, and Miller (1976, 

p. 67) have mapped the consolidated-rock units near the 

spring. The principal units are Pliocene andesite and 

Miocene volcanic flows and tuffs. A flat valley floor west 

of the spring bench is underlain by alluvium of unknown thickness (fig. 18)

As part of this study, periodic measurements were 

made of all spring flow and water temperatures at 

Monroe and Red Hill Hot Springs (table 11). From 

March 1976 to March 1977 total flow varied from 11.0 to 

21.1 L/s and temperature ranged from 72°-75°C. The 

cause of the variation is not understood because data

CORRELATION OF MAP UNITS

- QUATERNARY

- TERTIARY

DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS

YOUNGER ALLUVIUlVL-Light-tan sandy silt and clay 

deposited in nearly horizontal, playalike areas. Land 

surface is hard and commonly has desiccation cracks. 

Deposit is thin and unsaturated.

FLOOD DEPOSITS OF PINTO CREEK—Light-tan to 

light-brown sandy silt deposited by Pinto Creek on its 

alluvial fan during frequent flood flows. Sand is 

mostly fine-grained quartz and volcanic-rock 

fragments. Material is mostly reworked Qf, described 

below. Forms moderately hard land surface with 

some desiccation cracks. Deposit is thin and generally 

unsaturated by ground water. Includes sand and 

gravel deposits along Pinto Creek in the mountains.

ALLUVIAL-FAN DEPOSITS OF PINTO 

CREEK—Mostly light-brown fine- to mediumgrained silty sand and sandy silt deposited by Pinto 

Creek. Sand is mostly quartz and volcanic-rock fragments. Material is derived mostly from volcanic rocks 

of the Pinto Creek drainage basin in the Pine Valley 

Mountains. Forms moderately soft land surface. 

Depth to ground-water saturation ranges from 15 m 

to 30 m beneath the land surface.

COLLUVIUM—Mostly medium- to dark-gray poorly 

sorted silt, sand, gravel, and boulders derived from 

the adjacent volcanic rocks of the mountains. Underlie a generally steep-sloping apron. Depth to 

ground-water saturation is generally greater than 30 

m.

LAKE BONNEVILLE SEDIMENTS—Mostly light-tan 

sandy silt. Largely undissected. Land surface 

generally hard. Depth to ground-water saturation is 

generally less than 30 m.

VOLCANIC ROCKS—Generally dark-gray basalt; 

commonly vesicular.

— Contact; dashed where approximately located

— Fault; dashed where inferred. Bar and ball on down - 

thrown side

—— Lineament observed on aerial photographs

FIGURE 12.—Continued.

were collected for only 1 year, probably a period too 

short to establish trends and causes of the trends. The 

annual spring flow was about 0.5 x 106m3 . A small 

amount of additional water, about 0.05 x 106m3/yr, is 

estimated to be discharged by evapotranspiration by 

phreatophytes on the travertine bench. The flow of Red 

Hill Hot Spring, the largest spring in the complex, was 

at its maximum during October through March of the 

period of record. Generally, this was also the period of 

lower measured temperatures of the spring. This fact 

suggests that flow from the spring probably is a mixed 

water and that during the period of high flow the proportion of nonthermal water in the mixture is larger than 

during periods of low flow when the spring has higher 

temperatures. On the basis of the graphic method of 

estimating hot-water component in a mixed water 

(Truesdell and Fournier, 1977) and data in table 6, it is 

concluded that thermal water probably is mixing with 

an equal amount of nonthermal water between the 

point where it leaves the hydrothermal reservoir and 

the springs. The thermal-water component in the mixed 

water that is discharged by the springs was about 0.2 x 

106m3/yr.

Samples of water from Red Hill and Monroe Hot 

Springs (Mundorff, 1970, p. 16) had sodium, sulfate, and 

chloride as the dominant ions as well as similar 

dissolved-solids concentrations of 2,630 mg/L and 2,700 

mg/L, respectively. However, Red Hill had a silica concentration of 83 mg/L compared to only 51 mg/L for 

Monroe Hot Springs. Farther south on the Sevier fault, 

Johnson Warm Springs (fig. 17), whose water chemistry 

is much different than the other two springs, has dissolved solids of only 428 mg/L.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Water level 

43 m

Temperature 

_ probe not in 

contact with 

formation

Location (C-36-15) 20 bbd 

Depth 152 m 

Diameter 40 cm

Altitude 1605± m Principal hot-water 

aquifer, 70 to 110 m

Maximum temperature 

107.8°C at depths 85-95 m

Bottom hole temperature 

103.7°C

75 80 85 90 95 100 

TEMPERATURE, IN °C

105 110

FIGURE 13.—Temperature profile of the Christensen Brothers thermal irrigation well near Newcastle, Utah.
H24 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

113°37'30" R 16 W R 15 W 113°30'

37°37'

EXPLANATION

60 — LINE OF EQUAL WATER TEMPERATURE, 1976— 

Dashed where approximately located. Interval 

10 degrees Celsius, except for 15 degree line

107 WeB and temperature in °C

Christen-sen brothers wet 

/(C-3&-15} 20 bbd

Based on temperatures measured 

at a depth of 100 m

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

Newcastle 1:24,000, 1972

2 MILES

FIGURE 14.—Temperature at a depth of 100 ra in the Newcastle area.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H25

113°37'30" R 16 W R 15 W 113°30'

EXPLANATION

LINE OF EQUAL CONDUCTIVE HEAT FLOW—Dashed 

where approximately located. Units are M cal 

cm-2 sec.-i

70 Well and heat-flow units

\

37°37'30"

hristensen 

brothers well 

(C-36-15) 2

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

Newcastle 1:24,000, 1972 0 1 3 KILOMETERS 

j_

0 1 2 MHES 

FIGURE 15.—Distribution of heat flow from the principal hot-water aquifef in the Newcastle area.
H26 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

113°35'30"

37'40'ar R16 

w

113°32'

37°37'30"

R 15 W

Christensen 

brothers well

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

Newcastle 1:24,000, 1972

0

Adapted from Denton (1976)

2 KILOMETERS 

I

0 1 MILE 

EXPLANATION

77--- LINE OF EQUAL HELIUM CONCENTRATION—Dashed where approximately located. Units are parts per 

billion in excess of ambient concentrations in air

FIGURE 16.—Helium concentrations in the Newcastle area at a depth 

of 0.6 m below land surface.

R 4 1/2 W R 4 W

The estimated reservoir temperature for the 

Monroe-Red Hill Hot Springs hydrothermal system is 

100°-160°C, as determined from data in table 6. The 

maximum depth of circulation to the hydrothermal reservoir, in order to produce these temperatures, is estimated to be about 2-4 km on the basis of a regional 

conductive heat flow of 2 HFU, thermal conductivity of 

the rock of about 5 x 10~3 cal/cm/s°C, and an ambient 

land-surface temperature of 12°C. The calculation assumes the absence of a shallow magmatic heat source.

The hydrothermal system probably is recharged on 

the Sevier Plateau, and thermal water circulates 

upward through a permeable fracture zone associated 

with the Sevier fault. In addition to the spring flow and 

evapotranspiration, discharge of mixed water may include an undetermined amount of lateral subsurface 

flow from the fault zone. Figure 17 shows a few data 

points for heat flow and the area of probable abovenormal regional heat flow confined to the vicinity of the 

fault.

The estimated heat discharge by spring flow and 

evapotranspiration is 3 x 1013 cal/yr. This estimate is 

based on a waterflow from the hydrothermal reservoir of 

a minimum of 0.2 x 106m3/yr (50 percent of spring and 

evapotranspiration discharge) and an estimated 

maximum reservoir temperature of 160°C. Lateral subsurface flow from the fault zone would discharge additional heat from the system.

Joseph Hot Springs is 8 km southwest and across a 

low unnamed mountain ridge from Monroe Hot Springs 

(fig. 17). The general geologic and topographic settings 

are similar to those at Monroe Hot Springs. The springs 

flow from a travertine bench at the western foot of the

R4W 112°10' R3W 112°05'

38°35'

EXPLANATION

Area of probable

high heat flow

»3 Well. Number is heat 

flow in n cal/cm2 sec

0 1 2 3 KILOMETERS

JOSEPH

I

1 MILE

FIGURE 17.—Estimated heat flow and measured spring temperatures in the Monroe-Joseph area.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH 

TABLE 11.—Measured flow and temperature ofMonroe and Red Hill Hot Springs

[Locations of sites shown on figure 18]

H27

Date

Sites

Red Hill Tunnel

Total 

flow

(L/s)

L/s °C L/s °C L/s °C Us °C L/s °C L/s °C L/s °C L/s °C Ivs °C

3-16-76 

4-13-76

5-11-76

6- 7-76

7-21-76

8-24-76

10- 5-76

12-27-76

2- 1-77

3-26-77

______ 5.7 

-__— 5.7

______ 5.6

6.2

______ 6.6

_ — 6.6

_— - 13.6

__ __ 15.2

______ 15.2

__ _ _ 11.2

75

75

75

75

75

75

74

7?

73

0.6 

1.0

o

<0.1

< .1

< .1

< .1

< .1

< .1

45

43

45

445

45

45

36

37

36

0.3

1

.1

1

.1

.1

.5

4

4

40

38

40

39.5

40

40

40

39

39

0.8 

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

4

3

56

66

65

65.5

65

65.5

60

60

60

0.4 

4

3

4

4

4

4

5

4

4

50"

48

CA

50

en

48

45

46

41

0.1

1

?,

o

?

?,

?

1

1

1

40

38

40

40.5

40

40

32

30

30

0.1

.1

.1

.0

.0.1

.0

.0

_-_ 4.1

____ 4.4

____ 4.1

____ 4.7

____ 4.7

4.6

____ 4.7

____ 4.0

____ 4.6

____ 4.2

47

48

48 .

48

48

48.5

45

35

44

0.2 ____ 

.0 — _

.0 — _

.0 __„

.0

.0 ____

.0 — _

.0 ____

.0

12.3 

1?,3

11 0

1?,5

1?,4

1?,4

19,4

?,08

?,1 1

166

ridge. The permeable zone through which hot water 

flows upward is the Dry Wash Fault zone. The narrow 

flood plain of the Sevier River is west of the fault. Table 

12 lists the periodic measurements of all flow from 

Joseph Hot Springs. The flow ranges from 1.3 to 2.7 L/s 

or an annual flow of about 0.07 x 106m3/yr. During the 

year that measurements were made, flow was generally 

declining for unknown reasons, but no pattern was observed in any relationship between flow and temperature as was observed at the Monroe-Red Hill Hot 

Springs complex. The maximum observed temperature 

of the springs was 65°C. In addition to the spring flow, a 

small amount of water, about 0.01 x 106m3/yr, is estimated to be discharged by evapotranspiration of 

phreatophytes on the travertine bench.

Chemical analyses of samples from Joseph Hot 

Springs (Mundorff, 1970, p. 16) show that the highest 

silica concentration was 85 mg/L. That sample had a 

dissolved-solids concentration of 5,150 mg/L. The dominant ions were sodium and chloride. The estimated reservoir temperature (table 6) and depth of circulation of 

thermal waters are about the same as for the MonroeRed Hill Hot Springs system.

Recharge for the hydrothermal system may originate 

as precipitation in the nearby highlands or come from 

saturated alluvium underlying the Sevier River flood 

plain. During upward circulation from the hydrothermal reservoir through the permeable fault zone, the 

thermal water is estimated to mix with nonthermal 

water in the proportion 35-65 percent, respectively.

TABLE 12.—Measured flow and temperature of Joseph Hot Springs

[Sites 1-12 are progressively farther north, with 1 the southernmost and 12 the northernmost]

3-16-76 ______

4-14-76 _ __

5-11-76 ______

6- 7-76 ______

7-21-76 ______

8-26-76 ______

10-26-76 ___ _

12-27-76 __ _

2- 1-77 ______

3-26-77 ______

Date

3-16-76 __ _

4-14-76 ______

5-11-76 ______

6- 7-76 ______

7-21-76 _ ___

8-26-76 ______

10-26-76 __ __

12-27-76 ______

2- 1-77 ______

3-26-77 ______

L/s

______ 0.8

.4

______ .2

______ .2

.2

______ .2

______ .2

______ .2

______ .2

.2

L/s

______ 0.1

.2

______ .2

.2

______ .2

.2

.2

_ ____ < .1

< .1

___ __ < .1

i

°c

58

47

56

56

56

56

52

45

44

°c

52

47

48

47.5

48

47.5

47

45

48

L/

<fl

<

<

<

<

<

<

<

I

^

<-

^

i

s

11

1

1

1

11

1

11

2

Vs

5.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

»

°c

61

59.5

61

61

60.5

61

60

59

58.5

°c

47

47

48

47

475

48

48

4fi

45

o>

3

<s

~

tf

L/s

<0

< .

< .

< .

1

L/s

0.1

o

.2

.2

.2

.2

.2

< .1

.1

< .1

3

°C

-

1 50

i 49

1 49

1 50

1 50

1 49.

1 48

1 48

1 49

>

°C

59

58

59

59

60

59

58

58

50

Sites

Sites

L/s

0.4

.4

.3

2

o

o

.5

.3

.3

4

L/s

0.1.1 (

.2 (

.2 (

.2 (

.2 <

.2 <

.1 (

.1 (

.1 <

LO

°C

4.9

43

43

42.5

42.5

43

43

41

44

°C

55

35

54

34

34.5

34

34

32

31.5

L/s

0 9

o

.2

.2

.2

.2

o

.2

o

.2

L/s

0.3

.3

.3

.2

.3

.3

.3

.3

.4

.2

Ll

°C

46

59.5

59

59.5

60

59.5

60

59

45

5

°C

65

64

64

64.E

64.E

64.E

55

57

61

L/s

0.2

.2

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.

L2

°C

37

38.5

38.5

39

38.5

39

38

38

33

6

L/s °C

5.5

.5 61

.6 60

.7 60

.6 60

.7 60

.7 60

.4 62

.4 59

.2 60

Total

(L/s)

2.7

2.7

2.6

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.5

1.8

1.8

1.3
H28 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

Therefore, only about one-third of the earlier reported 

rates of spring and evapotranspiration discharge would 

have circulated through the hydrothermal system. An 

additional unknown amount of thermal water is being 

discharged into the alluvium from the fault zone.

The heat-flow values on figure 17, ranging from 8 to 

18 HFU, probably are the result of high temperature 

gradients in the shallow ground-water system. Beneath 

the alluvial aquifers containing this shallow lateral 

flow, conductive heat flow toward the land surface probably is much less, such as is illustrated by the temperature profile in the Christensen Brothers well near 

Newcastle (fig. 13).

The estimated heat discharge by spring flow and 

evapotranspiration is 0.3 x 1013 cal/yr on the basis of a 

cooling of thermal water from a temperature as high as

170°C to an ambient land-surface temperature of 12°C. 

Lateral subsurface flow of mixed water from the fault 

zone to alluvium would discharge additional heat from 

the system.

CRATER HOT SPRINGS

Crater Hot Springs, also known as Baker Hot Springs 

and Abraham Hot Springs, is about 30 km northwest of 

Delta, Utah (fig. 1), at (C-14-8HOS. The springs and 

Crater Bench, a nearby, young basalt flow, are on the 

northwestern part of the broad, nearly flat alluvial floor 

of the Sevier Desert. The springs flow from a low 

travertine and alluvial mound a few hundred meters 

east of the lava flow. The altitude of the land surface at 

the spring mound is about 1,410 m above sea level.

R3 W 112°

38°38'

Qa

School

D

Spring-deposited travertine; 

hydrothermally-altered 

rock

Qa | Alluvial-apron deposits; 

mostly sand and gravel

TV | Volcanic rock of Miocene

age. Includes some landslide deposits

Contact 

Sevier fault

Spring and identification 

number in table 11

200 400 METERS

1000 FEET

Base from aerial photographs: U.S. Geological Survey, 1953

FIGURE 18.—Surficial geology at Monroe and Red Hill Hot Springs.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H29

Crater Bench is generally oval in shape, 16 km by 10 

km. The high point on the bench is at the top of 

Fumarole Butte (fig. 19), the neck of the volcanic conduit, having an altitude of 1,609 m. The butte takes its 

name from gas vents that were reported to have been 

active during historic time. The altitude of the surrounding area of the bench generally ranges from 1,460 

to 1,520 m above sea level; therefore, the upper surface 

of the lava flow generally ranges from about 50 to 100 m 

higher than the springs. At the northeast end of the 

bench, rhyolite, possibly Pliocene in age, has been 

mapped by Galyardt and Rush (1979). The remainder of 

the bench is probably either Pleistocene (<2-3 million 

years old) or late Pliocene in age. The bench is cut by a 

series of northeast-trending normal faults.

Crater Bench lies along the south edge of an east-west 

line of three calderas (fig. 19) described by Shawe 

(1972). The last eruption of the calderas is reported to 

consist of late Tertiary and Quaternary(?) basalt and 

rhyolite. Silicic-rock ages as young as 3.4±0.2 million 

years were reported by Shawe. Although the relation of 

a controlling fault of Crater Hot Springs to arcuate ring 

faults associated with magma-chamber roof collapse is 

unknown, the controlling faults and ring faults are 

proximal in location and age.

As part of the present study, the surface lithology of 

the Crater Hot Springs area was mapped (fig. 20). The 

vertical flow of hot water to the land surface is assumed 

to be through a fault-controlled permeable zone that 

generally underlies hot springs in the Basin and Range 

province. However, no fault cutting the spring mound 

could be located during geologic field mapping. A gravity map of the area (Smith, 1974) (fig. 20) shows a highgravity anomaly beneath the spring area that extends 

northwestward. The contour pattern is interpreted as 

possibly being caused by a shallow body of volcanic rock 

or hot-water deposits of relatively high density. The 

location of Smith's gravity anomaly suggests that any 

controlling fault for Crater Hot Springs may extend 

beneath Crater Bench and the spring area, as shown in 

figure 20.

Figure 21 is a generalized cross section of Crater 

Bench, based on Schlumberger resistivity soundings 

provided by A. A. R. Zohdy (written commun., 1975). 

The basalt flow is pictured as resting on top of alluvial 

valley fill; the depth to basement rock is about 1.1 km.

An inventory was made of about 40 spring orifices (fig. 

22). (See table 17.) The estimated spring flow was 90 L/s 

during February 1976. Some additional water seeps to 

and ponds on the land surface. No accurate measurement of this seepage was possible because of lack of 

observable flow in channels. In the table, this seepage is 

estimated as half the observed flow or a maximum of 45 

L/s, for a total of about 140 L/s. This total flow rate

probably is slightly too high because some water was 

"counted" twice at orifice pools Rl, R2, and R3 and 

perhaps elsewhere (fig. 22). Each of these three pools 

has two orifices—one yielding water, one receiving water.

Four sites of which flows were relatively large and 

accurate measurements could be made were selected for 

periodic discharge measurements. Nearly all flow from 

the springs is included in the periodic measurements 

(table 13). For example, on February 26,1976, the flow 

in the four channels was 87 L/s, compared to a total flow 

of 90 L/s as noted earlier during the same month. Flow 

was generally declining during this period, but no relation between flow rate and water temperature was observed. During the period of measurement, the flow rate 

averaged 69 L/s.

The largest single flow was from the main-drain 

orifice on the northeastern part of the mound (fig. 22). 

Flow was about 80 percent of the total channelized flow. 

The maximum observed temperature of Crater Hot 

Springs was 87°C (table 6).

According to Mundorff (1970, p. 14), the dominant 

ions are calcium, sulfate, and chloride. A water sample 

collected in 1958 had a silica concentration of 28 mg/L 

and a dissolved-solids concentration of only 1,440 mg/L. 

However, these concentrations represent flow from an 

orifice having a temperature of only 43°C, much less 

than the maximum. As a result, it is not known whether 

the sample analysis represents the hottest water.

The estimated temperature of the hydrothermal reservoir in table 6 is 110°-140°C. The computed depth of 

water circulation to the hydrothermal reservoir is 1.3- 

1.7 km, or only about 200-600 m into the bedrock underlying the alluvial valley fill. This estimate is based on a 

regional heat flow of 2 HFU, a mean thermal conductivity of 2.7 x 10~3cal/cm/s°C, an ambient land-surface 

temperaure of 14°C, and the estimated reservoir temperatures.

The hydrothermal system may be recharged by percolation of ground water from saturated alluvium or by 

infiltration of precipitation in the mountains, perhaps 

the mountains of the calderas to the north. Upflow from 

the reservoir presumably is along a fault. During the 

upflow, the thermal water mixes with nonthermal 

water in the proportion: 50 percent thermal water, 50 

percent nonthermal water, as computed by a graphic 

method of Truesdell and Fournier (1977). The mixed 

water flows upward to Crater Hot Springs where it flows 

onto the surface and supports vegetation or evaporates. 

Additional mixed water seeps into the shallow alluvium 

in the general spring area and supports phreatophytes 

(fig. 23); their water consumption is summarized in 

table 14 using the same general procedure described for 

Thermo Hot Springs. The total evapotranspiration of
H30 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

113°00' 112°45'

39°45' —

39°30

0 5 10 MILES 

FIGURE 19.—Thomas, Keg, and Desert calderas, near Crater Hot Springs.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H31

112°45' 112°30'

EXPLANATION

39°45'

Quartz monzonite of Desert Mountain

Marine sedimentary rocks

Contact

High-angle fault 

Dotted where .concealed

Low-angle fault 

Sawteeth on upper plate

II

to£ f'T 

UU §

HO

Adapted from Shawe, 1972

39°30'

Ring fracture

Dashed where inferred

———— 2300 ——

Aeromagnetic contour

Interval 100 gammas. Flown at 9,000 feet barometric 

elevation; flight line spacing approximately 1 mile

Ore deposit new Thomas Caldera 

Be, beryllium 

F, fluorspar 

U, uranium 

Mn, manganese

Attitude of flat silica laminae in geodes in 

rhyolite of the Keg Mountain

FIGURE 19.—Continued.
H32 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS 

R8W 112°42'30"

39°36' -

Adapted from Smith (1974)

Base from aerial photographs: 

U.S. Geological Survey.1971 1 MILE

FIGURE 20.—Reconnaissance geologic map of the Crater Hot Springs area and a simple Bouguer gravity map of the

Crater Hot Springs area.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H33

CORRELATION OF MAP UNITS

- Holocene

Qmc

Qs

Qf

Qm

Old

Qc

Ql

Qt

Qb

- Pleistocene

r QUATERNARY

DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS

HYDROTHERMALLY—RELATED DEPOSITS 

SPRING-MOUND CREST DEPOSITS—Mostiy red silt 

and sand deposits rich in manganese oxide. Where 

deposits are dry, soil is fluffy. Travertine and 

travertine debris locally present 

SPRING-MOUND DEPOSITS—Mostiy light-gray silt 

and clay, commonly transported by wind and trapped 

by moist ground. Minor amounts of travertine and 

travertine debris on east slope of mound which has 

an average slope of about 20 m/km

VALLEY—FLOOR DEPOSITS 

SAND DUNES—Mostiy small dunes of windblown, 

light-yellowish-brown sand partly stabilized by 

greasewood. Direction of sand movement is 

northeast

DISSECTED DEPOSITS OF LAKE BONNEVILLE—Light-yellowish-gray silt and clay. Dissected 

by local runoff and axial drainage southward on the 

valley floor

LAKE BONNEVILLE SEDIMENTS—Undissected, 

light-yellowish-gray silt and clay underlying a valley 

floor having an average slope southwestward of less 

than 1 m/km. Also present on Crater Bench in 

relatively low areas

ALLUVIAL—APRON DEPOSITS

ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS—Mostly basalt boulders and 

gravel in a matrix of light-yellowish-gray silt and sand 

below the mouth of small canyons cut into basalt 

flows of Crater Bench

COLLUVIUM—Mixture of mostly light-yellowish-gray silt 

and clay with lesser amounts of slope-wash debris 

derived from local upslope materials. Underlies 

alluvial apron of intermediate slope

BASALT TALUS—Angular basalt blocks eroded from 

Crater Bench and underlie irregular, steep slopes on 

the flank of the Bench

CONSOLIDATED ROCKS

FUMAROLE BUTTE LAVA FLOWS—Black vesicular 

to massive basalt forming Crater Bench. Mostly large, 

angular blocks. Bench extends 30 m to 60 m higher 

than adjacent valley floor

——————— Contact

———I——— Fault, bar and ball on downthrown side

——— - ——— Lineament of unknown origin. May be fault or fracture 

°^- Hot spring

— - 162— Gravity contours in milligals

FIGURE 20.—Continued.

mixed water is estimated to be 5 x 106m3/yr; this sum is 

equal to a continuous flow of 160 L/s. Additional water of 

unknown volume flows laterally from the area to be 

discharged elsewhere. On the basis of the evapotranspiration estimate above, the estimate that 50 percent of 

the mixed water is thermal water, a reservoir temperature of 140°C and an ambient land-surface temperature 

of 14°C, the convective heat discharge is 36 x 1013 cal/

yr.

Heat-flow estimates made for four water wells near 

Crater Hot Springs are shown on figure 24. The highest 

heat flow was 2.8 HFU, only slightly higher than the 

regional heat flow.

NAVAJO LAKE KGRA

Navajo Lake KGRA is on the Markagunt Plateau, 

about 30 km southeast of Cedar City in southwestern 

Utah (fig. 1). The Markagunt Plateau, part of the Colorado Plateaus, is a horst bounded by two major fault 

systems—the Hurricane fault zone on the northwest 

and the Sevier fault on the southeast. The width of the 

plateau near the KGRA is about 60 km. The Navajo 

Lake KGRA has an area of only 10 km2 (table 2). It was 

designated solely because of overlapping lease application on Federal land, as is required by law.

Most of the rocks exposed at the surface are Tertiary 

limestones (Wasatch Formation) and volcanic rocks including highly permeable Quaternary basaltic flows. 

Beneath these units is a thick sequence of mostly 

Mesozoic and older sedimentary rock, of which 

sandstone is the most common (Hintze, 1963). Silicic 

lavas were erupted, but they are generally older than 

the basaltic lavas. Smith and Shaw (1975, p. 82) list the 

largely unvegetated Markagunt basalt field as less than 

10,000 years old.

No hot springs have been found in the Navajo Lake 

area. A well drilled at (C-36-7)33, about 10 km northeast of the KGRA had a reported temperature of drilling 

mud returning in the bore to land surface of 43°C with a 

drilling depth of 1,862 m. This mud temperature could 

be produced with a heat flow of less than 2 HFU. As a 

result, the only possible indicator of geothermal potential is the very young basaltic flows.

MEADOW AND HATTON HOT SPRINGS

Meadow and Hatton Hot Springs are 18 km southwest 

of Fillmore (fig. 1) and a few kilometers north of the 

Cove Fort-Sulphurdale KGRA (fig. 1) in southwestern 

Utah. The springs are at (C-22-6)27ddS and (C-22- 

6)35ddS, respectively, on a low alluvial spring mount in 

Pavant Valley, a few kilometers west of the Pavant
H34 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

I | Adapted from A. A. R. Zohdy

| (USGS, Denver, written

0 5 MILES communication, 1975)

Crater Bench

West - East

A I ' A'

1600-,

EXPLANATION

1 Basalt, averages 

about 90 m thick i/nn 1 tUU ——

2 Interbedded basalt

and alluvium or

weathered basalt,

averages about

130m thick 1200 —

3 Alluvium, about

1,000 m thick

1000 — ———————————————————————————————————— . —

n-1609 m (Fumarole Butte)

/ — x

__^" 

s-"^

I^^H

<•_

2 '

"~

3

Crater Hot 

/ Springs

r

>

^^

>

>

^Inferred

fault

r-1600

1400

-1200

mnn

Altitude scale,

in meters

Location of section shown in figure 24 DATUM is SEA LEVEL

FIGURE 21.—Generalized cross section of Crater Bench.

Range. Underlying the alluvium of the spring area, 

volcanic rocks may be as shallow as 30 m from the land 

surface.

The Pavant Range has Paleozoic and Mesozoic 

quartzite and other sedimentary rocks thrust westward 

over Navajo Sandstone of Triassic (?) and Jurassic age 

(Hintze, 1963). North, west, and south of the springs, 

upper Tertiary and Quaternary basalt and basaltic 

andesite flows form low hills. A basaltic flow about 13 

kilometers north of Hatton Hot Spring has been dated 

as less than 10,000 years old by Smith and Shaw (1975, 

p. 82, Ice Springs field).

Lithologic units are shown in figure 25. The most 

prominent geologic and topographic feature in the area 

is the spring-deposited travertine ridge at Hatton Hot 

Spring. The ridge is about 2 km long and rises perhaps 

20 m above the general land surface. The shape and 

orientation of the ridge suggests fault control for the 

deposit-producing springs. Extending outward from the 

ridge is the very low alluvial spring mound (fig. 25) that 

is marked by many north-trending lineaments that may 

be faults. Travertine deposits at Meadow Hot Spring are 

small in volume, encircling the spring pool at the general land surface.

TABLE 13.—Measured flow and temperature of Crater Hot Springs

[Figure 22 shows locations of Spring E2, Spring R2, and the main-drain orifice. The Southwest ditch was measured south of Springs D1-D10 (table 17) and about 3 m northeast of concrete pools]

Spring E2

Date

2-26-76 _______

4- 8-76 _______

5-19-76 _ ____

6- 7-76 _______

7-23-76 _______

9- 2-76 _______

10-13-76 _______

11-15-76 ___ ___

12-30-76 __ ____

2- 3-77 _______

3-19-77 _______

Flow

(L/s)

_____ 4.8

_____ 3.7

_____ 4.5

_____ 3.6

_____ 4.8

_____ 3.9

_____ 7.1

_____ 4.3

— __ 5.1

_____ 3.1

Temperature (°C)

65

66" 

66

66" 

65 

64.5 

68 

64 

65

Spring R2

Flow

(L/s)

3.1 

4.5 

.3 

.6 

.0 

.0 

1.1 

1.4 

3.9 

1.9 

1.4

Temperature (°C)

70

74" 

76

69~5 

69 

67 

70 

695

Main-drain orifice

Flow

(L/s)

72.5 

73.6 

52.1 

52.9 

60.8 

52.3 

51.8 

51.5 

50.5 

46.2 

58.1

Temperature (°C)

52

59 

60

61 

65 

55 

55 

54 

54

Southwest ditch

Flow

(L/s)

7.4 

8.4 

6.5 

6.4 

6.5 

5.9 

6.0 

6.0 

6.0 

5.2 

6.0

Temperature (°C)

74 

78

70 

70 

68 

68 

72 

70
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H35

39°37'

112°44 ——r R8 W

EXPLANATION

•Nl Spring and number listed in table

——*• Ditch and direction of flow

<=> Large main pool

- 1.°1U Section comer in T 14 S, 

15114 R 8 W, Salt Lake 

Base and Meridian

DI-10

500 METERS

0 500 1000 FEET

FIGURE 22.—Spring orifices and pools on the mound of Crater Hot

Springs.

The observed discharge from both Meadow and Hatton Hot Springs was less than 1 L/s in the summer of 

1976. Mundorff (1970, p. 40) reports a flow of about 4 L/s 

from Meadow Hot Spring and an absence of flow at 

Hatton Hot Spring during several recent years. The 

temperatures at these two springs, and those at other 

nearby sites, are shown in figure 26. The highest temperature, 67°C, was measured in a 27-m well a few tens 

of meters north of Hatton Hot Spring. The 67°C temperature was measured from a depth of 5 m to total depth.

Hatton Hot Spring had a temperature of 36°C at that 

time; Meadow Hot Spring pool was 30°C. Agricultural 

wells, 3 km and more to the east of the spring mound, 

not shown on figure 26, generally have discharge temperatures of 13°C.

Mundorff (1970, p. 16) has published several chemical 

analyses for both Meadow and Hatton Hot Springs. He 

reports water temperatures for Meadow Hot Spring 

ranging from 29°C to 41°C. A sample collected in 1967 

had a silica concentration of 47 mg/L and dissolved 

solids of 4,900 mg/L. The principal ions were sodium and 

chloride. The Hatton Hot Spring sample was collected at 

a temperature of 38°C, had a silica concentration of 44 

mg/L, had dissolved solids of 4,670 mg/L, and had ion 

concentrations very similar to those of Meadow Hot 

Spring.

The temperature of the hydrothermal reservoir, estimated with geothermometers, is possibly in the range 

of 70°C to 120°C (table 6). The maximum depth of circulation required to produce the estimated reservoir temperatures with normal regional heat flow is about 2-3 

km; this estimate is based on a mean thermal conductivity of the underlying rock and thin alluvium of 5 x 10~3 

cal/cm/s°C and an ambient land-surface temperature of 

12°C. The calculations assume the absence of a shallow 

magma heat source.

Recharge to the hydrothermal system probably results from percolation downward from saturated alluvium of the area or from infiltration of precipitation in 

the Pavant Range. During upward flow, the thermal 

water may be mixing with nonthermal water in the 

proportion of about 40 percent thermal water and 60 

percent nonthermal water, as estimated by the graphic 

method of Truesdale and Fournier (1977). The mixed 

water is discharged by the springs, by evapotranspiration of pheatophytes on the spring mound, and by subsurface flow from the mound area principally to the 

north and west. The observed spring flow in 1976 was 

small, but the evapotranspiration was large. Much of

TABLE 14.—Evapotranspiration of ground water from Crater Hot Springs hydrothermal system

[1975 conditions. The combined and nonhydrothermal system discharge rates are based on research by Lee (1912), White (1932), Young and Blaney (1942), Houston (1950), Robinson (1965),

and Harr and Price (1972) in other areas]

Average annual evapotranspiration rates 

(approximate)

Phreatophyte area 

(See fig. 23)

Mostly bare soil, saltgrass, 

and picklewood

Mostly bare soil of 

spring mound

Meadow

Wet meadow

Mostly tules and 

very wet meadow

Total (rounded) _____

Depth 

to water 

table

(m)

— - 3-15

— _ 0-3

____ 0.4-1.5

— _ .5-2

<1

____ <.5

Combined 

discharge 

rate 

(m)

0.07 

.3

.1 

.4 

.8

1.2

— --

Nonhydrothermal 

system 

discharge rate 

(m)

0.06 

.2

.06 

.06 

.06

.1

Net 

hydrothermal 

discharge 

(m)

0.01

.1

.04 

.34

.74

1.1

____

Area (Xl03m2 )

2,200 

4,000

200 

470 

890

3,400

11,000

Estimated 

average 

annual net 

discharge 

(rounded, xlQOm3 )

20 

400

10 

160 

660

3,700

5,000 

(160 L/s)
H36 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

R8W 112°43'

39°36'

Base from aerial 

photographs: 

U.S. Geological 

Survey, 1971

0 1 KILOMETER

0 1/2 1 MILE 

FIGURE 23.—Phreatophyte distribution in the Crater Hot Springs area.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H37

DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS

Mostly bare soil of lowlands. Minor amounts of saltgrass

and pickleweed locally. Discharging water probably

not from Crater Hot Springs 

Mostly greasewood, locally some rabbitbrush, saltbush,

pickleweed, and big sage 

Mostly bare soil, saltgrass, and pickleweed on lowlands.

Soils are commonly moist and soft in the winter and

spring and firm during the summer and fall 

Mostly bare soil of spring mound; saltgrass and rabbitbrush

grow locally 

Meadow, saltgrass, and pickleweed on slopes of spring

mound and areas north of the mound. Some

cottonwood and willow of north edge of spring

mound. Soils firm most of the time 

Wet meadow with pickleweed and saltgrass. Soils are wet

and soft during winter and spring and dryer during

summer and fall 

Mostly tuffs and very wet meadow on slopes of spring

mound and nearby lowlands; locally some willow

growth. Soils are usually soft at all times. Some

lowlands may be covered with standing water during

most winters and springs 

Crater Bench; no phreatophytes or evapotranspiration of

ground water

Hot spring

FIGURE 23.—Continued.

R9W 112°45' R 8 W R7 W

T

15

S

39°30'

2.8

Fumarole 

Butte

EXPLANATION

Crater 

Hot Springs A >

.2.8

Well. Number is estimated 

heat flow in /zeal cm-2 sec-i

5 10 KILOMETERS

5 MILES Sugarville rj

FIGURE 24.—Heat flow in the Crater Hot Springs area.

the mound area commonly is saturated to land surface 

during the winter and spring; at other times, the water 

table is at a depth commonly no greater than 2-3 m. The 

spring mound has an area of approximately 32 km2 . The 

net evapotranspiration rate over the mound is estimated to average on the order of 0.3 m; therefore, the 

estimated evapotranspiration of mixed water is about 

10 x 106m3/yr. The rate of underflow to the west and 

north is unknown, but is estimated to be much less than

the rate of evapotranspiration. Only 40 percent of the 

total discharge of mixed water is convective flow from 

the hydrothermal reservoir or at least 4 x 106m3/yr. The 

heat convectively discharged by this flow of water is at 

least 43 x 10 13 cal/yr; this discharge figure is based on 

the cooling of the convective flow of thermal water from 

a possible reservoir temperature of 120°C to an ambient 

land-surface temperature of 12°C.

Figure 27 shows a melting pattern of freshly fallen 

snow near Hatton Hot Spring. According to White 

(1969), very high heat flow rates«are required to produce 

such melting. Subsurface temperatures as high as 70°C 

can be expected at depths of as little as 10 m under these 

snowmelt areas.

VICINITY OF SALT LAKE CITY

Geothermal resources in the Salt Lake City area 

probably have no potential for electric power generation, but they are discussed here because of their potential value for uses, such as space heating, associated 

with urban development. Two areas of hydrothermal 

potential have been mapped by Marine and Price 

(1964). Their map has been modified as a result of additional data that became available after its compilation in 1959. The modifications involved the enlargement of the hydrothermal areas, as shown on figure 28. 

The map is based on discharge temperatures of wells 

generally drilled to depths of 200 m or less.

The northern and larger of two areas extends generally westward from the faults along the Wasatch 

Range front at least to the Great Salt Lake. The western 

and northern boundaries of the warm-water body are 

generally unknown; however, the map shows approximate southern and eastern limits. The warmest water 

in the northern area issues from Becks (B-l-l)14dcbS 

and Wasatch Hot Springs (B-l-l)25dbS, 56°C and 

42°C, respectively. Both issue from Paleozoic limestone 

at the Warm Springs fault. The distribution of water 

temperatures suggests that most of the warm water 

originates from faults in the eastern part of the warmwater area, then migrates westward in the alluvium.

The hydrothermal area at the south end of Jordan 

Valley has similar temperatures. Crystal Hot Springs 

(C-4-l)ll and 12bS (fig. 28) has a reported temperature 

of 58°C. It, like Becks and Wasatch Hot Springs, probably flows from a permeable fault zone. The heat in the 

water is probably the result of deep circulation.

The warm-water areas (fig. 28) may be enlarged to a 

greater extent as more data become available. The 

southern area might be extended farther northward 

into the area northwest of Sandy, and the northern area 

may be enlarged westward and possibly northward.
H38 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

112°30' R6W R5W

9 / I I

Tabernacle/ \1

Crater /

Base from aerial photographs: 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1953 0 1 KILOMETER

j_____

0 1 MILE . 

FIGURE 25.—Reconnaissance geologic map of the Meadow and Hatton Hot Springs area.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H39

CORRELATION OF MAP UNITS

Qsd

Qsb

Qmci

Qmx

Qmt

Qb

T2 bf

Old

Ql

Qmc2

- Holocene

- Pleistocene

- QUATERNARY

- TERTIARY

DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS

HYDROTHERMALLY RELATED DEPOSITS

SPRING-MOUND TRAVERTINE—Highly porous to 

dense and banded calcium carbonate deposited 

during the cooling and evaporation of water 

discharged from the Hatton Hot Spring system. 

Commonly light tan, yellow or greenish gray. The 

mound of its crest extends 10m above the adjacent 

valley floor

SPRING-MOUND TALUS—Mostly angular fragments 

of travertine forming the flank of the spring mound, 

resulting from the disintegration of Qmt, described 

above. Mostly sand and gravel size; some larger 

blocks

SPRING-MOUND COLLUVIUM—Tan silty fine- to 

medium-grained sand. Dominantly travertine 

fragments carried by infrequent runoff from the 

mound. Minor salt crust present in some damp 

low-altitude areas. Surface generally is firm. Material 

saturated at shallow depths with ground water, 

having temperatures as high as 67°C

SPRING-MOUND COLLUVIUM—Mostly tan to brown 

sandy silt and silty sand derived characteristically by 

disintegration and erosion of spring mound 

travertine. Areas to the north and west have 

ground-water saturation generally to within 1 m of the 

land surface resulting in a surface salt crust or grassy 

wet areas. Locally, some areas have dry, firm surface 

VALLEY—FLOOR DEPOSITS

LAKE BONNEVILLE SEDIMENTS—Mostly medium-brown sandy silt; relatively undissected. Land 

surface, usually near horizontal and flat, usually damp 

and hard; salt crust and marsh areas common near 

springs and seeps. Depth to ground-water saturation 

generally less than 1 m

DISSECTED LAKE BONNEVILLE SEDIMENTS—(See above description of Ql.) Dissected by 

infrequent runoff. Locally includes blow sand, sand 

dunes, and playa silt and day. Depth to ground-water 

saturation variable and dependent on topographic 

position

SAND BAR—Tan, medium-to coarse-sand and fine 

gravel. Mostly quartz, travertine, and volcanic-rock 

fragments. Bars extend about 1 m above the general 

land surface. Formed in Lake Bonneville at an altitude 

of about 1455 m above mean sea level

SAND DUNES—Mostly fine- to coarse-grained, silty 

quartz sand transported mostly by southwesterly 

winds. Includes some dissected Lake Bonneville 

sediments (Qld) 

CONSOLIDATED ROCKS

QUATERNARY BASALT—Dark gray, commonly 

vesicular

LATE TERTIARY BASALT AND BASALTIC

ANDESITE 

Contact

—— - —— Lineament on aerial photographs; may be a fault

--------- Ridge line on spring mound

o— Spring or seep

FIGURE 25.—Continued.

Discovery of warm water at shallow depths elsewhere in 

the valley is unlikely.

Becks and Wasatch Hot Springs yield sodium 

chloride-type waters with fairly high concentrations of 

dissolved solids, 13,000-14,000 mg/L and 6,000-13,000 

mg/L, respectively. Crystal Hot Springs yields water 

with lower dissolved-solids concentrations, in the range 

of 1,300-1,700 mg/L. Water flowing from faults to the 

alluvium near the springs probably has ion concentrations similar to the springs. As this water mixes with 

nonthermal water in the alluvium, the mix will have 

chemical characteristics intermediate between water 

types. In the northern area, the water in the alluvium 

will, therefore, have dissolved solids that are highly 

concentrated but less concentrated than the spring flow. 

Water from Becks, Wasatch, and Crystal Hot Springs or 

from wells nearby may be useful for space heating, but 

development of wells in the vicinity of the springs may 

stop the spring flow.

GREAT SALT LAKE DESERT

Thick beds of high-porosity clay underlie the Great 

Salt Lake Desert of northwestern Utah (fig. 1). Such 

beds have an insulating quality, impeding the conductive flow of heat to land surface. As a result, geothermal 

gradients must be high to discharge the heat flowing 

upward in the earth's crust. For example, if a regional 

heat flow of 2 HFU and a thermal conductivity of porous 

clay of 2 x 10~3 cal/cm/s°C are assumed to be reasonable 

values, the computation of the geothermal gradient 

would be:

T HFU x 102

K

where

I is the geothermal gradient in °C/km, 

HFU is heat-flow units in /ucal/cm2/s, and 

K is thermal conductivity.

The calculation becomes

1 =

2xl02

= 100°C/km.

If surface ambient temperatures on the desert are 

about 10°C, subsurface temperature at a depth of 1 km 

would be 110°C if the described bed of clay were also of 

that minimum thickness. The implication is that areas 

of thick clay accumulation, like the Great Salt Lake 

Desert, may have low-temperature geothermal potential for space heating without a near-surface source of 

heat or a permeable zone in which to circulate upwardflowing hot water from great depths. The temperature-
H40 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

gradient data on the Bonneville Salt Flats in the western part of the Great Salt Lake Desert, of Turk (1973) 

and Whelan and Petersen (1974), support a conclusion 

that a geothermal potential may exist in the area.

OTHER AREAS

The few geothermal areas described in this report 

were selected because they appear to have the highest 

development potential. However, other areas in western Utah may have important geothermal potential. 

Additional sources of geothermal data on these areas 

are the thermal-spring report by Mundorff (1970), 

computer-stored temperature data of the Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, and 

other data in the files of the U.S. Geological Survey. (See

table 18.) Table 18 lists temperatures and heat-flow 

data for nearly 100 wells and springs. It is not designed 

to be a comprehensive listing of such data for Utah, but 

rather a limited listing for widely spaced data points 

selected to provide information on wells and springs 

having mostly above-ambient temperatures.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

1. Several publications have summarized data on hot 

and warm springs in Utah (Stearns, Stearns, and Waring, 1937; Waring, 1965; and Mundorff, 1970). As a 

result, no attempt was made to include in this report 

comprehensive tables of descriptions and data for ther112°30' R6W R 5 W

38°55' -

\

22

\

\

\

\

Heat-flow estimates 

based on subsurface 

temperature measurements

EXPLANATION

> f I

/A Area of probable high 

conductive heat flow

o

o ° Well Number is heat flow 

in/u cal cm-2 sec-1

T=13°

<" Spring and temperature in°C

) 1 2 KILOMETERS

T=14°

\

/

/

\T=15.5°

N\

\ N

^

^ T-22°

Meadow

Hot 

Springs ^^ T=30°

T=13

1 MtLE 

,3 0 3.7

,<2

\

\

\

/

FIGURE 26.—Estimated heat flow and water temperatures in the Meadow and Hatton Hot Springs area.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H41

TO MEADOW

R6W

38°5T 

T22S

T23S

o

I I

ROAD

EXPLANATION

Travertine

Alluvium

Area of rapid snowmelt

Contact

Hatton Hot Springs

ROAD

Base from aerial photographs: 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1976 TO HA TTON

500 METERS

0 500 1000 1500 FEET

FIGURE 27.—Areas of rapid snowmelt near Hatton Hot Springs, 

March 1976.

mal springs. However, data for selected hydrothermal 

systems are presented and summarized in table 15.

2. Geologic factors are more favorable for geothermal 

resources in the Basin and Range province than on the 

Colorado Plateaus or in the Middle Rocky Mountains. 

The structure of the Basin and Range province is a 

result of sizable east-west crustal extension and crustal 

thinning during the last 17 million years. Igneous rocks

less than 6 million years old crop out at many places, 

mostly in the southwestern part of Utah. Basalts as 

young as 10,000 years have been mapped.

3. The principal source of geothermal fluids is water 

stored in the hydrothermal reservoir and water entering the system as recharge from precipitation. Because 

of the semiarid climate of most of the area, most geothermal development for generation of electricity will 

remove fluids from storage at a higher rate than natural 

replenishment.

4. Conductive heat flows to the land surface at a 

generally high rate in the Basin and Range province of 

Utah are probably due to crustal thinning and possibly 

due to intrusion of young magmas into the earth's crust 

at shallow depths. The rates of conductive heat flow are 

commonly in the range of 1.5-2.5 HFU and probably 

average about 2.0 HFU. This is about normal for the 

Basin and Range province and considerably higher than 

the average of about 1.6 HFU for the entire earth.

5. High-temperature convection systems may be located by searching for high-silica volcanic and intrusive 

rocks that are of Quaternary age. Mapping of faults, 

hydrothermally altered rock, and thermal-spring deposits, along with the drilling of temperature-gradient 

holes, would be desirable components of an exploratory 

program.

6. Drilling for hot, high-silica, buried bodies of rock 

would best be pursued in the areas of recent volcanic 

activity.

7. Some geothermal systems may be related to calderas because of their potential for eruption of large 

volumes of silicic rock. An example is the potential 

relation of Crater Hot Springs and Crater Bench to 

Thomas, Keg, and Desert calderas.

8. The southwestern part of Utah probably has the 

most promising geothermal potential, judged on the 

basis of spring temperatures, silica concentrations, and 

deposits such as siliceous sinter and sulfur.

TABLE 15.—Summary of data for selected hydrothermal systems in Utah

Estimated water discharge from the hydrothermal reservoir 

(x 106m3/yr)

Hydrothermal 

system

Roosevelt

Cove FortSulphurdale

Thermo

N^ar Castle

Monroe-Red Hill

Joseph _

Crater

Evapotranspiration

Minor

.._— __do— _

.— 0.6

.02

.___ 2.5

4

Spring 

flow

Minor

None 

0.02

None 

.2 

.02

Minor

Ground-water 

outflow

Principal

Probably 

small 

0.4 

Unknown

do

do

Minimum 

total convective 

flow

Unknown

0.6

.4 

.2 

.02 

2.5 

4

Estimated 

total heat 

discharge (xlO13 

cal/yr)

Unknown

15

7 

3 

.3 

36 

43

Temperatures

Estimated 

reservoir

260-290

200± 

140-200

140-170 

100-160 

100-170 

110-140 

70-120

Spring 

flow 

maximum

85

~82~5

'107.8 

75 

65 

87 '67

Percent 

thermal 

water in 

mixed 

water

____

40

60 

50 

35 

50 

40

Estimated 

maximum depth 

of hydrothermal 

reservoir below 

land surface 

(km)

6-7

5 

3-4

3-4 

2-4 

2-4 

1.3-1.7

'Measured in well. 

2Supports phreatophytes and evaporates. Included in the evapotranspiration estimate.
H42 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

112°

40°50'

40°30'

^JBecfcs Hot Springs + * + + * :\ r a 4. 4. 4. 4.

+ + + 4- +

+ + + + + 

42 Wasatch Hot Springs

/£v Wvvvvvvv VV^VVWVVVVVVVvO^ «" *»* »= **° 

;~xx,?~~ u ««« u ~~~v^^~v^~~~xx~~~^..>sf #-.= # * =

4-+ O4-4- + 4- + + 

+ + +°+4- + + + +

jS Crystal \v Ha

/ Springs

Modified from Marine and Price (1964)

FIGURE 28.—Areas of warm ground water in the Jordan Valley.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H43

9. Deep exploratory drilling near Roosevelt Hot 

Springs has demonstrated that this KGRA has high 

potential for electric power generation. Reservoir temperatures are at least 260°C (table 15), and well testing 

demonstrates high reservoir permeability. The Aieat 

source may be related to Pleistocene rhyolites as young 

as 490,000 years.

10. The Cove Fort-Sulphurdale area may have reservoir temperatures as high as 200°C. No thermal water is 

known to discharge at land surface in the area, but 

sulfur deposits, altered ground, and gaseous emissions 

indicate past hydrothermal activity. Quaternary basalt 

flows are abundant in the area. The area extending 

northward 60 km to Neels, including Roosevelt Hot 

Springs and the Cove Fort-Sulphurdale KGRA's, probably has the best potential for geothermal development 

in Utah.

11. Thermo Hot Springs discharge from a hydrothermal system having an estimated reservoir temperature between 140°C and 200°C. Estimated hot-water 

circulation through the hydrothermal reservoir is at a 

rate of 18 L/s.

12. The Newcastle area has many thermal water 

wells but no thermal springs. The estimated reservoir 

temperature for the hydrothermal system is between 

140°C and 170°C. An irrigation well has pumped boiling 

water at a rate of 108 L/s. Thermal water is discharged 

from a range-front fault from which it flows northward 

into an alluvial aquifer. The thermal water discharges 

its heat mostly by conduction to the land surface.

13. The Monroe-Joseph KGRA contains two hydrothermal systems, one at Joseph Hot Springs and the 

other at the Monroe-Red Hill Hot Springs complex. Reservoir temperatures appear to be at least 100°C but may 

be as high as 160°C-170°C.

14. Crater, Meadow, and Hatton Hot Springs (table 

15) which discharge from hydrothermal reservoirs having estimated temperatures less than 150°C, could be

EXPLANATION

Alluvium 

Consolidated rocks

Areas where ground-water temperature is commonly between 

16°C and 21°C

Area where ground-water temperature is commonly above 

21°C

+ 

f

+ 

+

zzzzzt

•«. = =»* V

. = **"•«.

— — Contact, dashed where location is indefinite 

o 35 ty/e|i. number js temperature of water in °C

FIGURE 28.—Continued.

considered for space and process heating. Despite their 

probable low reservoir temperatures, these prospects 

have the largest estimates of heat and water discharge 

of those systems listed in table 15.

15. Areas that may have hydrothermal potential but 

are inadequately denned are all in the Escalante Desert 

northwest of Beryl and Lund and east of Table Butte.

REFERENCES CITED

Batty, J. C., Grenney, W. J., Kaliser, Bruce, Pate, A. J., and Riley, 

J. P., 1975, Geothermal energy and water resources in Utah, in 

Impacts of energy development on Utah water resources: Procedures Third Annual Conference Utah Section, American Water 

Resources Association, p. 223-241.

Brown, F. H., 1977, Attempt at paleomagnetic dating of opal, 

Roosevelt Hot Springs KGRA: University of Utah, Department of 

Geology and Geophysics, Technical Report 77-1, 13 p.

Crosby, G. W., 1973, Regional structure in southwestern Utah, in 

Geology of the Milford area 1973: Utah Geological Association 

Publication 3, p. 27-32.

Denton, E. H., 1976, Helium sniffer field test: Newcastle, Utah, 10-26 

March 1976: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 76-421, 4

PErickson, M. P., 1973, Volcanic rocks of the Milford area, Beaver 

County, Utah, in Geology of the Milford area 1973: Utah Geological Association Publication 3, p. 13-21.

Fenneman, N. M., 1931, Physiography of western United States: New 

York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 534 p.

Fournier,R. O., White, D. E.,andTruesdell,A. H.,1974,Geochemical 

indicators of subsurface temperature—Part 1, Basic assumptions: U.S. Geological Survey Journal of Research, v. 2, no. 3, p. 

259-262.

Fournier, R. O., and Rowe, J. J., 1966, Estimation of underground 

temperatures from silica content of water from hot springs and 

wet steam wells: American Journal of Science, v. 264, no. 11, p. 

685-697.

Fournier, R. O., and Truesdell, A. H., 1973, An empirical Na-K-Ca 

geothermometer for natural waters: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 37, p. 1255-1275.

Galyardt, G. L., and Rush, F. E., 1979, Geology of the Crater Hot 

Springs KGRA and vicinity, Juab and Millard Counties, Utah: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 79-1158, 1 sheet, scale 

1:24,000.

Gilbert, G. K, 1890, Lake Bonneville: U.S. Geological Survey Monograph 1, p. 332-335.

Godwin, L. H., Haigker, L. B., Rioux, R. L., White, D. E., Muffler, 

L. J. P., and Wayland, R. G., 1971, Classification of public lands 

valuable for geothermal steam and associated geothermal resources: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 647, 18 p.

Harr, R. D., and Price, K. R., 1972, Evapotranspiration from a 

greasewood-cheatgrass community: Water Resources Research, 

v. 8, no. 5, p. 1199-1203.

Heylmun, E. B., 1966, Geothermal power potential in Utah: Utah 

Geological and Mineralogical Survey, Special Studies 14, 28 p.

Hintze, L. F., 1963, Geologic map of southwestern Utah: Provo, Utah, 

Brigham Young University map, scale 1:250,000.

Houston, C. E., 1950, Consumptive use of irrigation water by crops in 

Nevada: Nevada University Bulletin 185, 27 p.

Lachenbruch, A. H., and Sass, J. H., 1977, Heat flow in the United 

States and the thermal regime of the crust, in Heacock, J. G., ed.,
H44 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

The earth's crust: Geophysical Monograph Series, v. 20, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., p. 626-675.

Lee, C. H., 1912, An intensive study of the water resources of a part of 

Owens Valley, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 294, 135 p.

Lee, W. T., 1908, Water resources of Beaver Valley, Utah: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 217, 57 p.

Liese, H. C., 1957, Geology of the northern Mineral Range, Millard 

and Beaver Counties, Utah: Salt Lake City, Utah, University of 

Utah, unpublished M.S. Thesis, 88 p.

Lovering, T. S., and Goode, H. D., 1963, Measuring geothermal gradients in drill holes less than 60 feet deep, East Tintic District, 

Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1172, 48 p.

Marine, I. W., and Price, D., 1964, Geology and ground-water resources of the Jordan Valley, Utah: Utah Geological and 

Mineralogical Survey Water-Resources Bulletin 7, 68 p.

Milligan, J. H., Marselli, R. E., and Bagley, J. M., 1966, Mineralized 

springs in Utah and their effect on manageable water supplies: 

Utah State University, Utah Water Research Laboratory Report 

WG23-6, 50 p.

Mower, R. W., and Cordova, R. M., 1974, Water resources of the Milford area, Utah, with emphasis on ground water: Utah Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication 43, 106 p.

Mundorff, J. D., 1970, Major thermal springs of Utah: Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey Water-Resources Bulletin 13,60 p.

Olmsted, F. H., Glancy, P. A., Harrill, J. R., Rush, F. E., and Van 

Denburgh, A. S., 1975, Preliminary hydrogeologic appraisal of 

selected hydrothermal systems in northern and central Nevada: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 75-56, 267 p.

Parry, W. T., Berson, N. L., and Miller, C. D., 1976, Geochemistry and 

hydrothermal alteration at selected Utah hot springs: Utah University Department of Geology and Geophysics Final Report, v. 3, 

131 p.

Petersen, C. A., 1975, Geology of the Roosevelt Hot Springs area, 

Beaver County, Utah: Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey, Utah Geology, v. 2, no. 2, p. 109-116.

Renner, J. L., White, D. E., and Williams, D. L., 1975, Hydrothermal 

convection systems, in Assessment of geothermal resources of the 

United States—1975: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 726, p. 

5-83.

Robinson, T. W., 1965, Water use studies utilizing evapotranspiration 

tanks, in Water resources of the Humboldt River near Winnemucca, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

1795, p. 83-104.

Rowley, P. D., 1978, Geologic map of the Thermo 15-minute quadrangle, Beaver and Iron Counties, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey 

Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-1493, 1 sheet.

Rowley, P. D., Anderson, J. J., and Williams, P. G., 1975, A summary 

of Tertiary volcanic stratigraphy of the southwestern high 

plateaus and adjacent Great Basin, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin 1405-B, 20 p.

Rush, F. E., 1977, Subsurface-temperature data for some wells in 

western Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 77-132, 

36 p.

Sass, J. H., Lachenbruch, A. H., Munroe, R. J., Greene, G. W., and 

Moses, T. H., Jr., 1971, Heat^flow in the western United States: 

Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 76, no. 26, p. 6376-6413.

——— 1976, A new heat^flow contour map of conterminous United 

States: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 76-756, 24 p.

Sass, J. H., and Munroe, R. J., 1974, Basic heat-flow data from the 

United States: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 74-9,426

PSchmoker, J. W., 1972, Analysis of gravity and aeromagnetic data,

San Francisco Mountains and vicinity, southwestern Utah: Utah 

Geological and Mineralogical Survey Bulletin 98, 24 p.

Schubert, Gerald, and Anderson, O. L., 1974, The earth's thermal 

gradient: Physics Today, v. 27, no. 3, p. 28-34.

Shawe, D. R., 1972, Reconnaissance geology and mineral potential of 

Thomas, Keg, and Desert calderas, central Juab County, Utah: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 800-B, p. B67-B77.

Smith, R. L., and Shaw, H. R., 1975, Igneous-related geothermal systems, in Assessment of geothermal resources of the United 

States—1975: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 726, p. 58-83.

Smith, T. B., 1974, Gravity study of the Fumerole Butte area, Juab 

and Millard Counties: Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah, 

unpub. M.S. thesis, 54 p.

Stearns, N. D., Stearns, H. T., and Waring, G. A., 1937, Thermal 

springs in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 679-B, p. B59-B206.

Stephens, J. C., 1974, Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Wah Wah 

Valley drainage basin, Millard and Beaver Counties, Utah: Utah 

Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication no. 47, 

53 p.

Stewart, J. H., 1971, Basin and Range structure: A system of horsts 

and grabens produced by deep-seated extension: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 82, no. 4, p. 1019-1044.

Stewart, J. H., Moore, W. J., and Zietz, Isidore, 1977, East-west patterns of Cenozoic igneous rocks, aeromagnetic anomalies, and 

mineral deposits, Nevada and Utah: Geological Society of 

America Bulletin, v. 88, no. 1, p. 67-77.

Swanberg, C. A., 1974, The application of the Na-K-Ca geothermometer to thermal areas of Utah and the Imperial Valley, California: 

Geothermics, v. 3, no. 2, p. 53-59.

Truesdell, A. H., and Fournier, R. O., 1977, Procedure for estimating 

the temperature of a hot-water component in a mixed water by 

using a plot of dissolved silica versus enthalpy: U.S. Geological 

Survey Journal of Research, v. 5, no. 1, p. 49-52.

Turk, L. J., 1973, Hydrogeology of the Bonneville Salt Flats, Utah: 

Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey, Water-Resources 

Bulletin 19, 81 p.

U.S. Weather Bureau (no date), Normal annual and May-September 

precipitation for the state of Utah: Map of Utah, scale 1:500,000,1 

sheet.

Waring, G. A., [revised by R. R. Blankenship and Ray Bentall], 1965, 

Thermal springs of the United States and other countries of the 

world—A summary: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

492, 383 p.

Whelan, J. A., 1970, Radioactive and isotopic age determinations of 

Utah rocks: Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey Bulletin 

81, 75 p.

Whelan, J. A., and Petersen, C. A., 1974, Bonneville Salt Flats—A 

possible geothermal area?: Utah Geological and Mineralogical 

Survey, Utah Geology, v. 1, no. 1, p. 71-82.

White, D. E., 1969, Rapid heat^flow surveying of geothermal areas, 

utilizing individual snowfalls as calorimeters: Journal of 

Geophysical Research, v. 74, no. 22, p. 5191-5201.

White, D. E., and Williams, D. L., eds., 1975, Assessment of geothermal resources of the United States—1975: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 726, 155 p.

White, W. N., 1932, A method of estimating ground-water supplies 

based on discharge by plants and evaporation from soil: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 659-A, 105 p.

Young, A. A., and Blaney, H. F., 1942, Use of water by native vegetation: California Department of Public Works, Division of Water 

Resources Bulletin 50, 154 p.
TABLES 16, 17, AND 18
H46 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

TABLE 16.—Inventory of Thermo Hot Springs 1

[Flow rate: Estimated total visible flow of the orifices. Elevation: Reference to adjacent land surface (LS). Specific conductance is in ^mhos/cm at 25°C. + indicates very small flows. See fig. 10 for

map no.]

Flow

Number

Map of

no. orifices L/s Direction

Principal orifice

Length

(m)

Width

(m)

Depth

(m)

Elevation

(m)

Temperature (°C)

Specific

conductance Remarks

West spring mound

Springs in south meadow area:

11+ Southwest

2 1 0.01 Southwest

34+ Southwest

44+ Southwest

and east

0.7

.3

.3

.3

0.4

.3

.3

.3

0.1

1.0

.3

1.0

AtLS

AtLS

AtLS

AtLS

39

70

66

2,100

____

Springs flowing east in mostly grassy channels:

52+ East

62+ East

74+ East

.4

.4

.3

.3

.4

.3

85+ East .3 .2 

Springs flowing in poorly developed channels:

95+ ____

10 4 + East

.3

.4

Springs flowing east in grassy channels to

11 9 .1 East

12 3 .1 East

Spring flowing west:

13 5 .3 West

.5

.2

.3

.3

.3

.6

____

1.7

.6

1.5

.6

AtLS

AtLS

+0.3

AtLS

AtLS

AtLS

56

54

72

61

70

____

____

----

____

lowlands:

.3

.2

.3

.6

.3

____

-.7

-.8

-.8

65

74

67

1,900

____

____

Springs north of trail crossing mound:

14 1 + East

15 1 3 West

16 2 2 East

17 1 + East

.3

.8

.2

.2

.2

.7

.2

.05

Summary of springs on west mound: 

Number of orifices: 54

Total visible flow: 1-2 L/s

.1

.8

AtLS

_ Q

-.5

AtLS

66

82.5

54

61

____

1,650

____

Southernmost spring on mound.

Located 3 m north-northeast of No. 1 along mound

axis.

20 m north of No. 2. Sinter deposits nearby.

North end of meadow at shoulder of mound. Sinter

deposits nearby.

15m north of No. 4. Located slightly east of mound

axis. Deposits of salt on surface.

Springs are oriented east-west. Only east spring supports grass; on east flank of mound.

Mound is sinter, 1.5 m in diameter. Other three

orifices are smaller and 3-6 m northeast.

Water flows to and ponds on lowlands near mound.

At southwest edge of north-south elongated grassy

area, llm north of No. 8.

Channel extends part way down flank.

Spring area has three distinct arms at mound axis.

Principal spring is middle spring of group.

On mound axis near south edge of trail crossing

mound. Flow ponds on lowlands.

At east margin of mound.

Located slightly west of mound axis in southern part

of a 20-m diameter tule area.

At east margin of mound.

On east flank of mound. Farthest north of springs on

mound.

Maximum temperature: 82.5°C

Specific conductance range: 1,650-2,100 ^mhos/cm

East spring mound

Springs in south area:

11+ East

22+ East

3 1 ..__

4 1 .1 East

51+ East

.3

.2

.2

.3

.4

.2

.2

.2

.3

.3

.3

.6

.6

.3

AtLS

-.4

AtLS

AtLS

-.4

64

57

61

67.5

56

____

____

iTob

Halfway up east flank of mound. Wet grassy area 10

m north, but no orifice.

Half way up east flank of mound.

Slightly higher on mound flank than No. 2. Sinter

deposits nearby.

At west edge of tules area.

On mound axis. Flow is to large tules area.

Spring in tules area (30 m x 150 m):

64+ East

Springs north of tules area:

7 1 .2 East

8 1 + East

90+ East

Spring at north end of mound:

10 3 .1 Northeast

2

1

1

1

>4

.2

2

-.7

_ n

AtLS

AtLS

70

36

68

2,000

Halfway up east flank of mound. Three grassy channels carry minor flow to lowlands.

Two-thirds down east flank of mound and 20 m north

of tules area.

At southwest corner of man-made reservoir.

Seep; 150 m northeast of reservoir. Sinter deposits

nearby on lowlands.

Three-fourths down north end of mound.

Summary of springs on east mound:

Number of orifices: 15

Total visible flow: 0.5-1.0 L/s

Maximum temperature: 70°C

'Inventory made in April and May 1976.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H47

TABLE 17.—Inventory of Crater Hot Springs, February 1976

[Directions, distances, dimensions, and flow rates are estimated. See figure 28 for locations of larger springs. Size: Small, length and width less than 0.2 by 0.2 m. Flow: Small, less than about

0.05 US]

Pool or 

orifice

Location Size

(length x width x 

de^th; in m)

Flow

(L/s)

Maximum 

temperature

Remarks

Main pools:

South (S) Southwest flank of spring-mound crest -_32 x 7 x 0.3

North (N) Northwest flank of spring-mound crest __30 x 4 x 1 

Along southwest ditch:

Dl ———_10 m southwest of main pool-south ___0.3x0.3x0.2 

D2 ___5 m southwest of Dl ____________ Small 

D3 ___15 m southwest of D2 ____________0.2 x 0.2 x 0.1 

D4 ___2 m southwest of D3 ____________ ____ 

D5 ___9 m southwest of D4 ____________1.5x1x1 

D6 -_- —_3 m southwest of D5 near bush 2 m high-_ ____ 

D7 ___1 m southwest of D6 ____________ ____ 

D8 ___9 m southwest of D7 ____________ __ 

D9 ___9 m southwest of D8 ____________ Small 

D10 ___Southwest of fence ______________0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5

East of main pools:

El—___20 m east of main pool-south _______6 x 5 x 0.5

E2_____12 m northeast of El ____________7 x 4 x 0.2

E3_____100m east of E2 -________________1 x 0.5 x 0.5

E4—————140 m east southeast of main pool-north-_1.5 x 17 x 0.5 

E5____90 m east of E4 ________________1.5 x 1.5 x 0.2

Recycling pools east of main pools:

Rl _____20 m southwest of E5 ____________1 x 1 x 0.6 

R2_____25meastof Rl _______________5 x 0.7 x 1 

R3_____15m southeast of R2 ____________ ____

Northeast of main pools:

Nl —_30 m east of main pool-north _______5 x 5 x 0.5 

N2 ___70 m northeast of main pool-north ___3 x 3 x 1 

N3 ___30± rawest of N2 _____________1 x 1 x 0.2 

N4 ___15± rawest of N3 ______________ ____

Main drain; spring: 

——— __500 m east of main pool-north ,3x4x1

1-2 

Small 

Small

9

Small 

9

0 

0.3-0.6

.3 

.3 

0

Small 

3 

5

0

.1

Small 

.3

72

28

58

63

74

80

77

69

84

38

82

64

87

71

70

29

25

59

77

52

Many small orifices, mostly in southeast

corner of pool; undrained. 

Drains in ditch to northeast.

Group of three orifices, 3-4 m west of ditch. 

Group of three orifices, 1 m west of ditch. 

1 m southeast of ditch.

llm northwest of swamp. 

5 orifices in ditch and many to southeast. 

Two orifices; temperature is of northeast 

orifice.

No visible orifices.

Ditch extending east southeast. At end of

ditch, flow = 5 L/s and temperature =

65°C.

Similar orifice 2 m northeast. 

Trenched east; flow dissipates.

Swamp on south; brush on north. 

Source orifice in west end of pool. 

Source is surface flow from swamp. Several 

other recycling orifices to east.

Several orifices; along ditch draining northeast from main pool-north.

Drains in ditch to northeast and then north 

toward set of buildings. Specific conductance was 5,800 ptmhos.

Summary:

Observed flow: 190± L/s

Flow from seeps and the like (approximate): 245± L/s

Total (rounded): 140± L/s

Observed orifices and pools: 40± 5 

Maximum observed temperature: 87°C

'May include some recycled water. 

'Estimated as half the observed flow.
H48 GEOHYDROLOGY OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

TABLE 18.—Selected subsurface temperature and heat-flow data not summarized on maps

[Temperature description: M, maximum in well; probably bottom-hole temperature in most wells; D, discharge temperature of well or spring. Temperature gradient: Estimated, computed from 

listed temperature, land-surface ambient temperature, and well depth. Estimated heat flow: HFU, heat-flow units, in /^cal/cmW based on average temperature gradient and generalized

thermal conductivity by lithology]

Approximate

well or spring

location

Total 

depth

(m)

Temperature

Degrees °C Description

Average

Temperature

gradient

°C/km

Estimated

conductive

heat flow

(HFU)

Remarks

Beaver area

(C-28-7)15bb—___________ 300 10 D

(C-28-7)31ad____________ 34 11.2 D

(C-29-7)15cd — __________ 46 11.6 D

(C-29-8)9ba ____________ 46 18 D

(C-29-8)31ad____________ 94 12.1 D

(C-29-8)35ab__________ 157 18.5 D

(C-29-8)36ac ——— — - 110 22 D

(C-30-7)5cd ____________ 245 22 D

(C-36-7)33_____________ 2,016 __

(D-5-22)22ac____________ 1,311 46 D

(D-ll-24)8ca___________ 2,002 25 D

(D-12-21)19bdS __________ ____ 19.5 D

(D-22-6)4ca ____________ 492 26.5 D

Mil

iC-27-10)6da—__________ 30 13.5 D

(C-27-10)31dc ____________ 213 27 D

(C-28-10)18ac ____________ 138 21 D

(C-28-10)14bb ____________ 78 20.5 D

(C-28-10)31dd __________ 59 13.5 D

(C-28-ll)10ac ____________ 69 16.5 D

(C-28-ll)23cb ____________ 29 14 D

(C-29-10)27bb ____________ 45 12.5 D

(C-29-ll)27ad ____________ 36 14.5 D

(C-30-9)7ad ______________ 22 33.5 D

(C-30-10)19ab ____________ 89 21 D

	r

(A-12-l)16dd— ___________ 74 22 D

(B-l-l)31d——_—______ 183 28.5 M

(B-l-9)24cd ______________ 79 24 D

(B-l-18)29cc ____________ 50 28 D

(B-l-18)31cb-_____________ 70 24 D

(B-4-3)19ca _____________ 146 24 D

(B-5-l)30ad ____________ 274 55 D

(B-5-13)31ac______________ 61 22 D

(B-6-3)19aa ______________ 67 19 D

(B-6-5)21aaS__---_-_____ ____ 21 D

(B-7-5)15cbS _____________ ____ 25 D

(B-7-5)22cdS---_--________ ____ 22 D

(B-8-5)5cdS -----____ _ _ 22 D

(B-10-6)9bbS___________ __ 22 D

(B-10-15)6cdS ____________ ---_ 20 D

(B-ll-ll)6dbS -_ _______ ____ 19 D

(B-12-5)22daS ____________ ____ 20 D

(B-12-6)33dbS ____________ ____ 20.5 D

(B-13-12)30caS-__--_------ ____ 25 D

(B-13-13)27ddS __________ ____ 21 D

(B-13-13)34cbS_ ________ ____ 21 D

(B-13-13)35bbS _________ ____ 23 D

(B-13-14)2IddS __________ ____ 19.5 D

(B-13-14)24dcS_ ________ ____ 23 D

(B-13-16)23ccS. __________ ____ 21 D

Very small <1 Irrigation well.

Very small <1 Unused.

Very small <1 Public-supply well.

140 3.6 Stock well.

Very small <1 Irrigation well.

45 1.3 Do.

96 3 Do.

43 1.3 Do.

East of Cedar City

Mud temperatures were reported as 

high as 43°C.

Eastern Utah

27

7

33

1.6

1.3

Sulphur SIC) Spring.

Milford-Minersville area

49 1.5 Stock well.

70 2 Irrigation well.

65 2 Do.

110 3.3 Stock well.

25 <1 Irrigation well.

65 1.5 Stock well.

69 2.1 Irrigation well.

Very small <1 Stock well.

69 2.1 Irrigation well. 

980 29 Near warm springs, east of 

	Minersvilie. Reflects 

	convective flow. 

100 3 Irrigation well.

Northwestern Utah

150

72

160

350

200

96

160

180

130

4 

<2

4

7

4

3

5

3.6

Near Salt Lake City airport.

Temperature data from Stephens

(1974, p. 44).

Warm Spring 

Black Butte !

No. 2. 

Spring.

Head Spring.
RECONNAISSANCE OF THE HYDROTHERMAL RESOURCES OF UTAH H49 

TABLE 18.—Selected subsurface temperature and heat-flow data not summarized on maps—Continued

Approximate

well or spring

location

Total 

depth

(m)

Temperature

Description

Average

Temperature

gradient

°C/km

Estimated

conductive

heat flow

(HFU)

Remarks

Northwestern Utah—Continued

(B-14-9)4bb ____________ 107 22 D 110 2.8

(B-14-9)9bb __________ 110 21 D 100 2.5

(B-14-10)33bcS_______ __ 43 D __ ____

(B-15-9)28cb____________ 122 24 D 110 2.9

(B-15-9)30ab__________ 124 21.5 D 90 2.8

(C-l-8)6ab__________ 20 26.5 D 790 20

(C-l-17)34ba___________ 1,298 67 M 44 <2

(C-l-19)lbb __________ 50 24 D 260 5

(C-l-19)3dc ___________ 53 24 D 240 5

(C-l-19)9db ____________ 27 24 D 480 10

(C-l-19)10ba_________ 33 31 D 610 12

(C-l-19)34cd____________ 351 32 D 60 1.2

(C-2-6)23cb _________ 64 20 D 140 4

(C-2-19)24c __________ 499 88 M 160 4

(C-4-19)7S___.______- —_ 29 D __ __

(C-5-l)23bd _________ 32 21 D 310 9

(C-5-l)24dc _________ 27 22 D 400 12

(C-5-l)25ab ____________ 30 24 D 430 13

(C-5-l)25ba __________ 30 23 D 390 12

(C-5-l)25cb ____________ 45 35 D 540 16

(C-5-l)25cc __________ 32 46 D 1,100 33

(C-5-l)26bd _________ 152 50 D 120 3.7

(C-6-l)18dc -________ 85 27 D 180 5

(C-10-2)15 and 22 ______ ____ __ M 104 __

(C-10-2)15 and 22 ______ ____ ____ M 140 __

(C-10-2)15dd___——___ .___ 54 __ __ ____

(D-2-5)32bb _________ 53 21 D 190 6

(D-7-3)28bd _________ 103 32 D 200 6

(D-8-2)28cc -__________ 84 33 D 260 8

(D-8-2)23dc __________ 174 59 D 280 8

	Southwestern Utah

(C-12-5)31._________ 114 29.5 D 135

(C-18-4)31db_________ 159 51.5 D 250

(C-41-15)32ac ________ 183 43.5 D 130

	Near Thermo Hot Springs

(C-29-ll)4ba—__—__ 17 13 M Very small <2

(C-29-ll)17aa _______ 18 12.5 M Very small <1

(C-39-ll)19db _._.__ 21 15.5 M 170 4

(C-30-13)34bb ________ 20 13 M Very small <1

(C-31-12)30cd ___-___„___ __ 17.5 D

(C-31-13)18aa _______ 28 15 D 100 <2

(C-31-13)23bb ________ __ 12.5 D __ <1

(C-32-12)6cb_________ 21 9 M Very small <1

Stock well. 

Irrigation well. 

Coyote Spring. 

Irrigation well.

Temperature data from Stephens 

(1974, p. 45). 

Do.

Do.

Temperature date from Turk

(1973, p. 9). - 

Blue Lake Spring.

Near Saratoga Springs.

Temperature gradient is average 

for 31 values (Lovering and 

Goode, 1963, table 11). 

Do.

Mine effluent.

4

8

3.8

Heylmun (1966, p. 21).

Martin well. 

Windmill.

Do.

Do. 

May indicate significant heat flow.

Windmill. 

Do.