Geology topics

David E. Prudic

Publications and source records attributed to David E. Prudic.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Evaluation of stream capture related to groundwater pumping, middle Humboldt River Basin, Nevada

Historical, future, and potential stream capture from groundwater pumping in the middle Humboldt River Basin (MHRB), Nevada, is estimated using a calibrated numerical groundwater flow model. The model was developed to estimate (1) stream capture, which is the change in flux between the groundwater system and the Humboldt River and tributaries, and (2) change in streamflow, which is the change in streamflow estimated for the Imlay gage on the Humboldt River (U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 10333000). Historical stream capture for water years (WYs) 1961–2015 is estimated using recorded and estimated groundwater pumping during that period. Future (predictive) stream capture was based on historical stresses (WYs 1961–2015) using a scenario that simulated non-mine pumping from WY 2015 at a uniform rate for 100 years into the future. Potential stream capture throughout the middle Humboldt River Basin from groundwater pumping during varying durations of time are presented in a series of capture maps. Maps also are presented that show the potential to capture from groundwater evapotranspiration, as well as the storage changes for pumping duration of 100 years. Estimates of historical stream capture from the mainstem Humboldt River during the early 1960s are less than 400 acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr) when groundwater withdrawals and pumping rates were relatively small compared to more recent times. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, groundwater withdrawals increased and estimated historical stream capture also increased from about 4,000 acre-ft/yr in the late 1980s and early 1990s to as much as 18,800 acre-feet (acre-ft) in WY 1998. In WY 2015, estimated historical stream capture declined to about 13,000 acre-ft because of decreasing groundwater withdrawals and lower streamflow during the drought of WYs 2012–15, resulting in less stream water available for capture. Stream capture was estimated for 100 years into the future based on WY 2015 non-mine pumping rates and mine-dewatering activity through WY 2015. Stream capture is forecast to increase to about 23,000 acre-ft/yr, and streamflow in the Humboldt River could decrease by as much as 19,000 acre-ft/yr. Pumping for mine-dewatering and the associated discharge of that water affects streamflow in the Humboldt River at Imlay, Nevada (U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 10333000). Historically, from WYs 1991 to 2015, streamflow was greater at Imlay gage during active mine-dewatering from mine-water discharge operations and increased by as much as 105,000 acre-ft in WY 1998. The increase was attributed mostly to the discharge of groundwater from mine-related dewatering operations directly into the mainstem Humboldt River or its tributaries, with some of this increase associated with return flows from discharge to rapid infiltration basins. Results indicate that streamflow at Imlay gage is expected to decrease by as much as 1,600 acre-ft/yr 30 years after mine-related pumping and discharge are discontinued. The streamflow reductions at the Imlay gage are expected to then decrease to around 500 acre-ft/yr, 100 years after mine-related pumping and discharge are discontinued. Potential capture maps were produced for pumping durations of 10, 25, 50, and 100 years. Capture map results indicate that areas of greater potential stream capture occur adjacent to the Humboldt River and for upstream tributaries areas north of the Humboldt River.

Nevada↗

USGS2015

Evaluating connection of aquifers to springs and streams, Great Basin National Park and vicinity, Nevada

Federal agencies that oversee land management for much of the Snake Range in eastern Nevada, including the management of Great Basin National Park by the National Park Service, need to understand the potential extent of adverse effects to federally managed lands from nearby groundwater development. As a result, this study was developed (1) to attain a better understanding of aquifers controlling groundwater flow on the eastern side of the southern part of the Snake Range and their connection with aquifers in the valleys, (2) to evaluate the relation between surface water and groundwater along the piedmont slopes, (3) to evaluate sources for Big Springs and Rowland Spring, and (4) to assess groundwater flow from southern Spring Valley into northern Hamlin Valley. The study focused on two areas—the first, a northern area along the east side of Great Basin National Park that included Baker, Lehman, and Snake Creeks, and a second southern area that is the potential source area for Big Springs. Data collected specifically for this study included the following: (1) geologic field mapping; (2) drilling, testing, and water quality sampling from 7 test wells; (3) measuring discharge and water chemistry of selected creeks and springs; (4) measuring streambed hydraulic gradients and seepage rates from 18 shallow piezometers installed into the creeks; and (5) monitoring stream temperature along selected reaches to identify places of groundwater inflow. The Snake Range was formed by a generally normal-faulted uplift, where late Proterozoic and Cambrian siliciclastic rocks and metamorphic rocks are present at the highest altitudes and younger Paleozoic carbonate rocks are exposed along the flanks. The consolidated rocks are intruded by Jurassic to Tertiary age plutons, which are most common between the Lehman and Snake Creek drainage basins. Older Cenozoic rocks, including Oligocene volcanic rocks and Miocene sedimentary rocks, crop out locally and fill the basins that underlie Snake, Spring, and Hamlin Valleys. Younger Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary (basin-fill) deposits overlie the older Cenozoic rocks. The rocks and deposits can be divided into three distinct aquifers. These aquifers include (1) basin-fill aquifers that consist of the permeable parts of the Cenozoic basin fill and some fractured or jointed Cenozoic volcanic rocks, (2) an upper carbonate-rock aquifer that consists of upper Paleozoic carbonate rocks overlying a regionally extensive middle Paleozoic siliciclastic confining unit, and (3) a lower carbonate-rock aquifer that consists of lower Paleozoic carbonate rocks. Secondary openings created by faults, shear zones, fractures, and, in the carbonate rocks, karst solution features, largely determine the water-transmitting properties of the volcanic- and carbonate-rock aquifers. The basin-fill aquifers are composed of a wide variety of rock types and have highly variable hydraulic properties. The three aquifers are stratigraphically and structurally heterogeneous, causing large variations in the ability to store and transmit water. The aquifers are separated by confining units in some areas and are in contact with each other in other areas, yet function as a single, composite aquifer system. Basin-fill aquifers most often overlie or adjoin the lower and upper carbonate-rock aquifers. Baker, Lehman and Snake Creek drainage basins were divided into five hydrologic zones on the basis of climate, geology, and topography. The five zones, from highest to lowest altitudes, are the mountain-upland, karst-limestone, upper-piedmont, lower-piedmont, and valley-lowland zones. The primary hydrologic connection between the mountain-upland and the valley-lowland zones is streamflow. Much of the streamflow from the mountain-upland zone is generated above tree line. Groundwater flow increases in the karst-limestone zone because of increased permeability caused by dissolution, which results in increased streamflow losses. Most of the increased groundwater flow is to springs near faults that form the boundary with the upper-piedmont zone. Thus, groundwater flow from the karst-limestone zone to the upper-piedmont zone was only 10 percent of the combined flow of streams and springs that exit the karst-limestone zone. About 60 percent of the water flowing from Rowland Spring in the Lehman Creek drainage basin was from streamflow losses along Baker Creek. The remaining flow from Rowland Spring comes from local recharge in the karst-limestone zone. In the upper-piedmont zone, the water table by Baker, Lehman and Snake Creeks was near the water level in the creeks for several hundred feet downstream from the karst-limestone zone. Water levels in piezometers along Snake Creek downstream from its confluence with Spring Creek were far below the streambed, indicating gravity drainage beneath this section of the creek. Estimated vertical hydraulic conductivity along a 3-mile reach of Snake Creek downstream of this confluence was 0.5 foot per day, which was an order of magnitude less than that estimated for Baker and Lehman Creeks. The low vertical hydraulic conductivity in the streambed along the lower reaches of Snake Creek results from chemical precipitation of calcite caused by off-gassing of carbon dioxide derived from springs at the end of the karst-limestone zone. The younger alluvial deposits thicken rapidly across faults that form the upper boundary of the lower-piedmont zone. The absence of springs or groundwater flow to the creeks upstream of these faults indicates they are not a complete barrier to groundwater flow. The water table was shallow in the valley-lowland zone in the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins, whereas the water table was more than 50 feet below land surface in the Snake Creek drainage basin. In contrast to thick basin fill in the valley-lowland zone in the Baker and Lehman Creek drainage basins, fractured and karst limestone underlie basin fill at relatively shallow depths in Snake Creek drainage basin. The underlying limestone acts as a drain for groundwater in the basin fill beneath Snake Creek. A groundwater divide in southern Spring Valley south of Baking Powder Flat separates groundwater flow to the flat from southeastward flow into northern Hamlin Valley. Groundwater flow from southern Spring Valley south of the groundwater divide into northern Hamlin Valley was estimated to range from 6,000 to 11,000 acre-feet per year. This groundwater does not flow to Big Springs in southern Snake Valley; rather, the source of water to Big Springs is groundwater recharge in the Big Spring Wash drainage basin and in nearby smaller drainage basins at the south end of the Snake Range. Groundwater flow from southern Spring Valley continues through the western side of Hamlin Valley before being directed northeast toward the south end of Snake Valley. This flow is constrained by southward-flowing groundwater from Big Spring Wash and northward-flowing groundwater beneath central Hamlin Valley. The redirection to the northeast corresponds to a narrowing of the width of flow in southern Snake Valley caused by a constriction formed by a steeply dipping middle Paleozoic siliciclastic confining unit exposed in the flanks of the mountains and hills on the east side of southern Snake Valley and shallowly buried beneath basin fill in the valley. The narrowing of groundwater flow could be responsible for the large area where groundwater flows to springs or is lost to evapotranspiration between Big Springs in Nevada and Pruess Lake in Utah.

Nevada↗

USGS2014

Preliminary geochemical assessment of water in selected streams, springs, and caves in the Upper Baker and Snake Creek drainages in Great Basin National Park, Nevada, 2009

Water in caves, discharging from springs, and flowing in streams in the upper Baker and Snake Creek drainages are important natural resources in Great Basin National Park, Nevada. Water and rock samples were collected from 15 sites during February 2009 as part of a series of investigations evaluating the potential for water resource depletion in the park resulting from the current and proposed groundwater withdrawals. This report summarizes general geochemical characteristics of water samples collected from the upper Baker and Snake Creek drainages for eventual use in evaluating possible hydrologic connections between the streams and selected caves and springs discharging in limestone terrain within each watershed. Generally, water discharging from selected springs in the upper Baker and Snake Creek watersheds is relatively young and, in some cases, has similar chemical characteristics to water collected from associated streams. In the upper Baker Creek drainage, geochemical data suggest possible hydrologic connections between Baker Creek and selected springs and caves along it. The analytical results for water samples collected from Wheelers Deep and Model Caves show characteristics similar to those from Baker Creek, suggesting a hydrologic connection between the creek and caves, a finding previously documented by other researchers. Generally, geochemical evidence does not support a connection between water flowing in Pole Canyon Creek to that in Model Cave, at least not to any appreciable extent. The water sample collected from Rosethorn Spring had relatively high concentrations of many of the constituents sampled as part of this study. This finding was expected as the water from the spring travelled through alluvium prior to being discharged at the surface and, as a result, was provided the opportunity to interact with soil minerals with which it came into contact. Isotopic evidence does not preclude a connection between Baker Creek and the water discharging from Rosethorn Spring. The residence time of water discharging into the caves and from selected springs sampled as part of this study ranged from 10 to 25 years. Within the upper Snake Creek drainage, the results of this study show geochemical similarities between Snake Creek and Outhouse Spring, Spring Creek Spring, and Squirrel Spring Cave. The strontium isotope ratio ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) for intrusive rock samples representative of the Snake Creek drainage were similar to carbonate rock samples. The water sample collected from Snake Creek at the pipeline discharge point had lower strontium concentrations than the sample downstream and a similar 87 Sr/ 86 Sr value as the carbonate and intrusive rocks. The chemistry of the water sample was considered representative of upstream conditions in Snake Creek and indicates minimal influence of rock dissolution. The results of this study suggest that water discharging from Outlet Spring is not hydrologically connected to Snake Creek but rather is recharged at high altitude(s) within the Snake Creek drainage. These findings for Outlet Spring largely stem from the relatively high specific conductance and chloride concentration, the lightest deuterium (δD) and oxygen-18 (δ 18 O) values, and the longest calculated residence time (60 to 90 years) relative to any other sample collected as part of this study. With the exception of water sampled from Outlet Spring, the residence time of water discharging into Squirrel Spring Cave and selected springs in the upper Snake Creek drainage was less than 30 years.

Nevada↗

USGS2012

A method for estimating spatially variable seepage and hydrualic conductivity in channels with very mild slopes

Infiltration along ephemeral channels plays an important role in groundwater recharge in arid regions. A model is presented for estimating spatial variability of seepage due to streambed heterogeneity along channels based on measurements of streamflow-front velocities in initially dry channels. The diffusion-wave approximation to the Saint-Venant equations, coupled with Philip's equation for infiltration, is connected to the groundwater model MODFLOW and is calibrated by adjusting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the channel bed. The model is applied to portions of two large water delivery canals, which serve as proxies for natural ephemeral streams. Estimated seepage rates compare well with previously published values. Possible sources of error stem from uncertainty in Manning's roughness coefficients, soil hydraulic properties and channel geometry. Model performance would be most improved through more frequent longitudinal estimates of channel geometry and thalweg elevation, and with measurements of stream stage over time to constrain wave timing and shape. This model is a potentially valuable tool for estimating spatial variability in longitudinal seepage along intermittent and ephemeral channels over a wide range of bed slopes and the influence of seepage rates on groundwater levels.

Hydrological Processes↗

USGS2011

Digitized generalized areas where surface-water resources likely or potentially are susceptible to groundwater withdrawals in adjacent valleys, Great Basin National Park area, Nevada

Abstract Polygons delineate generalized areas in and around Great Basin National Park where surface-water resources likely or potentially are susceptible to groundwater withdrawals in adjacent valleys. Purpose This data set was created as part of a U.S. Geological Survey study, done in cooperation with the National Park Service, to characterize surface-water resources in and around Great Basin National Park. The intended uses of this data set include, but are not limited to, natural resource modeling, mapping, and visualization applications. Source Information SIR 2006-5099, Plate 1: Generalized areas where surface-water resources likely or potentially are susceptible to ground-water withdrawals in adjacent valleys, Great Basin National Park area, Nevada.

Nevada↗

USGS2009

Comment on "Evaluating interactions between groundwater and vadose zone using the HYDRUS-based flow package for MODFLOW" by Navin Kumar C. Twarakavi, Jirka Šimůnek and Sophia Seo

Twarakavi et al (2008) compared four packages that can be used to estimate recharge for regional-scale groundwater flow simulations using MODFLOW (Harbaugh, 2005). This comment is focused on the comparisons made between two of these packages, namely, UZF1 (Niswonger et al., 2006) and a derivative of HYDRUS referred to herein as HYDRUS (Seo et al., 2007). In their paper, Twarakavi et al. (2008) stated that HYDRUS more accurately simulates unsaturated flow processes and groundwater recharge as compared to UZF1. However, Twarakavi et al. (2008) did not address several important differences between these models that undermine the advantages of HYDRUS as compared to UZF1 for simulating recharge. These differences were not revealed by the comparisons presented by Twarakavi et al. because the test simulations used to compare the models were too simple

Vadose Zone Journal↗

USGS2009

Geochemical Investigation of Source Water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National Park, White Pine County, Nevada

Cave Springs supply the water for the Lehman Caves Visitor Center at Great Basin National Park, which is about 60 miles east of Ely, Nevada, in White Pine County. The source of water to the springs was investigated to evaluate the potential depletion caused by ground-water pumping in areas east of the park and to consider means to protect the supply from contamination. Cave Springs are a collection of several small springs that discharge from alluvial and glacial deposits near the contact between quartzite and granite. Four of the largest springs are diverted into a water-collection system for the park. Water from Cave Springs had more dissolved strontium, calcium, and bicarbonate, and a heavier value of carbon-13 than water from Marmot Spring at the contact between quartzite and granite near Baker Creek campground indicating that limestone had dissolved into water at Cave Springs prior to discharging. The source of the limestone at Cave Springs was determined to be rounded gravels from a pit near Baker, Nevada, which was placed around the springs during the reconstruction of the water-collection system in 1996. Isotopic compositions of water at Cave Springs and Marmot Spring indicate that the source of water to these springs primarily is from winter precipitation. Mixing of water at Cave Springs between alluvial and glacial deposits along Lehman Creek and water from quartzite is unlikely because deuterium and oxygen-18 values from a spring discharging from the alluvial and glacial deposits near upper Lehman Creek campground were heavier than the deuterium and oxygen-18 values from Cave Springs. Additionally, the estimated mean age of water determined from chlorofluorocarbon concentrations indicates water discharging from the spring near upper Lehman Creek campground is younger than that discharging from either Cave Springs or Marmot Spring. The source of water at Cave Springs is from quartzite and water discharges from the springs on the upstream side of the contact between quartzite and granite where the alluvial and glacial deposits are thin. Consequently, the potential for depletion of discharge at Cave Springs from ground-water pumping in Snake Valley east of the park is less than if the source of water was from alluvial and glacial deposits or carbonate rocks, which would be more directly connected to downstream pumping sites in Snake Valley.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2008

Importance of unsaturated zone flow for simulating recharge in a humid climate

Transient recharge to the water table is often not well understood or quantified. Two approaches for simulating transient recharge in a ground water flow model were investigated using the Trout Lake watershed in north-central Wisconsin: (1) a traditional approach of adding recharge directly to the water table and (2) routing the same volume of water through an unsaturated zone column to the water table. Areas with thin (less than 1 m) unsaturated zones showed little difference in timing of recharge between the two approaches; when water was routed through the unsaturated zone, however, less recharge was delivered to the water table and more discharge occurred to the surface because recharge direction and magnitude changed when the water table rose to the land surface. Areas with a thick (15 to 26 m) unsaturated zone were characterized by multimonth lags between infiltration and recharge, and, in some cases, wetting fronts from precipitation events during the fall overtook and mixed with infiltration from the previous spring snowmelt. Thus, in thicker unsaturated zones, the volume of water infiltrated was properly simulated using the traditional approach, but the timing was different from simulations that included unsaturated zone flow. Routing of rejected recharge and ground water discharge at land surface to surface water features also provided a better simulation of the observed flow regime in a stream at the basin outlet. These results demonstrate that consideration of flow through the unsaturated zone may be important when simulating transient ground water flow in humid climates with shallow water tables.

Ground Water↗

USGS2008

Method for estimating spatially variable seepage loss and hydraulic conductivity in intermittent and ephemeral streams

A method is presented for estimating seepage loss and streambed hydraulic conductivity along intermittent and ephemeral streams using streamflow front velocities in initially dry channels. The method uses the kinematic wave equation for routing streamflow in channels coupled to Philip's equation for infiltration. The coupled model considers variations in seepage loss both across and along the channel. Water redistribution in the unsaturated zone is also represented in the model. Sensitivity of the streamflow front velocity to parameters used for calculating seepage loss and for routing streamflow shows that the streambed hydraulic conductivity has the greatest sensitivity for moderate to large seepage loss rates. Channel roughness, geometry, and slope are most important for low seepage loss rates; however, streambed hydraulic conductivity is still important for values greater than 0.008 m/d. Two example applications are presented to demonstrate the utility of the method.

Water Resources Research↗

USGS2008

GSFLOW - Coupled Ground-Water and Surface-Water Flow Model Based on the Integration of the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) and the Modular Ground-Water Flow Model (MODFLOW-2005)

The need to assess the effects of variability in climate, biota, geology, and human activities on water availability and flow requires the development of models that couple two or more components of the hydrologic cycle. An integrated hydrologic model called GSFLOW (Ground-water and Surface-water FLOW) was developed to simulate coupled ground-water and surface-water resources. The new model is based on the integration of the U.S. Geological Survey Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) and the U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water Flow Model (MODFLOW). Additional model components were developed, and existing components were modified, to facilitate integration of the models. Methods were developed to route flow among the PRMS Hydrologic Response Units (HRUs) and between the HRUs and the MODFLOW finite-difference cells. This report describes the organization, concepts, design, and mathematical formulation of all GSFLOW model components. An important aspect of the integrated model design is its ability to conserve water mass and to provide comprehensive water budgets for a location of interest. This report includes descriptions of how water budgets are calculated for the integrated model and for individual model components. GSFLOW provides a robust modeling system for simulating flow through the hydrologic cycle, while allowing for future enhancements to incorporate other simulation techniques.

Techniques and Methods↗

USGS2007

Focused ground-water recharge in the Amargosa Desert Basin

The Amargosa River is an approximately 300-kilometer long regional drainage connecting the northern highlands on the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nev., to the floor of Death Valley in Inyo County, Calif. Streamflow analysis indicates that the Amargosa Desert portion of the river is dry more than 98 percent of the time. Infiltration losses during ephemeral flows of the Amargosa River and Fortymile Wash provide the main sources of ground-water recharge on the desert-basin floor. The primary use of ground water is for irrigated agriculture. The current study examined ground-water recharge from ephemeral flows in the Amargosa River by using streamflow data and environmental tracers. The USGS streamflow-gaging station at Beatty, Nev., provided high-frequency data on base flow and storm runoff entering the basin during water years 1998–2001. Discharge into the basin during the four-year period totaled 3.03 million cubic meters, three quarters of which was base flow. Streambed temperature anomalies indicated the distribution of ephemeral flows and infiltration losses within the basin. Major storms that produced regional flow during the four-year period occurred in February 1998, during a strong El Niño that more than doubled annual precipitation, and in July 1999. The study also quantified recharge beneath undisturbed native vegetation and irrigation return flow beneath irrigated fields. Vertical profiles of water potential and environmental tracers in the unsaturated zone provided estimates of recharge beneath the river channel (0.04–0.09 meter per year) and irrigated fields (0.1–0.5 meter per year). Chloride mass-balance estimates indicate that 12–15 percent of channel infiltration becomes ground-water recharge, together with 9–22 percent of infiltrated irrigation. Profiles of potential and chloride beneath the dominant desert-shrub vegetation suggest that ground-water recharge has been negligible throughout most of the basin since at least the early Holocene. Surface-based electrical-resistivity imaging provided areal extension of borehole information from sampled profiles. These images indicate narrowly focused recharge beneath the Amargosa River channel, flanked by large tracts of recharge-free basin floor.

Nevada↗

USGS2007

Streambed infiltration and ground-water flow from the Trout Creek drainage, an intermittent tributary to the Humboldt River, north-central Nevada

Ground water is abundant in many alluvial basins of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province of the western United States. Water enters these basins by infiltration along intermittent and ephemeral channels, which originate in the mountainous regions before crossing alluvial fans and piedmont alluvial plains. Water also enters the basins as subsurface ground-water flow directly from the mountains, where infiltrated precipitation recharges water-bearing rocks and sediments at these higher elevations. Trout Creek, a typical intermittent stream in the Middle Humboldt River Basin in north-central Nevada, was chosen to develop methods of estimating and characterizing streambed infiltration and ground-water recharge in mountainous terrains. Trout Creek has a drainage area of about 4.8 × 10 7 square meters. Stream gradients range from more than 1 × 10 –1 meter per meter in the mountains to 5 × 10 –3 meter per meter at the foot of the piedmont alluvial plain. Trout Creek is perennial in short reaches upstream of a northeast-southwest trending normal fault, where perennial springs discharge to the channel. Downstream from the fault, the water table drops below the base of the channel and the stream becomes intermittent. Snowmelt generates streamflow during March and April, when streamflow extends onto the piedmont alluvial plain for several weeks in most years. Rates of streambed infiltration become highest in the lowest reaches, at the foot of the piedmont alluvial plain. The marked increases in infiltration are attributed to increases in streambed permeability together with decreases in channel-bed armoring, the latter which increases the effective area of the channel. Large quartzite cobbles cover the streambed in the upper reaches of the stream and are absent in the lowest reach. Such changes in channel deposits are common where alluvial fans join piedmont alluvial plains. Poorly sorted coarse and fine sediments are deposited near the head of the fan, while finer-grained but better sorted gravels and sands are deposited near the foot. All flow in Trout Creek is lost to infiltration in the upper and middle reaches of the channel during years of normal to below-normal precipitation. During years of above-normal precipitation, streamflow extends beyond the piedmont alluvial plain to the lower reaches of the channel, where high rates of infiltration result in rapid stream loss. The frequency and duration of streambed infiltration is sufficient to maintain high water contents and low chloride concentrations, compared with interchannel areas, to depths of at least 6 m beneath the channel. Streamflow, streambed infiltration, and unsaturated-zone thickness are all highly variable along intermittent streams, resulting in recharge that is highly variable as well. Average annual ground-water recharge in the mountainous part of the Trout Creek drainage upstream of Marigold Mine was estimated on the basis of chloride balance to be 5.2 × 10 5 cubic meters. Combined with an average annual surface runoff exiting the mountains of 3.4 × 10 5 cubic meters, the total annual volume of inflow to alluvial-basin sediments from the mountainous part of the Trout Creek is 8.6 × 10 5 cubic meters, assuming that all runoff infiltrates the stream channel. This equates to about 7 percent of average annual precipitation, which is about the same percentage estimated for ground-water recharge using the original Maxey-Eakin method.

Nevada↗

USGS2006

Response to memorandum by Rowley and Dixon regarding U.S. Geological Survey report titled "Characterization of Surface-Water Resources in the Great Basin National Park Area and Their Susceptibility to Ground-Water Withdrawals in Adjacent Valleys, White Pine County, Nevada"

Applications pending for permanent permits to pump large quantities of ground water in Spring and Snake Valleys adjacent to Great Basin National Park (the Park) prompted the National Park Service to request a study by the U.S. Geological Survey to evaluate the susceptibility of the Park's surface-water resources to pumping. The result of this study was published as U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5099 'Characterization of Surface-Water Resources in the Great Basin National Park Area and Their Susceptibility to Ground-Water Withdrawals in Adjacent Valleys, White Pine County, Nevada,' by P.E. Elliott, D.A. Beck, and D.E. Prudic. That report identified areas within the Park where surface-water resources are susceptible to ground-water pumping; results from the study showed that three streams and several springs near the eastern edge of the Park were susceptible. However, most of the Park's surface-water resources likely would not be affected by pumping because of either low-permeability rocks or because ground water is sufficiently deep as to not be directly in contact with the streambeds. A memorandum sent by Peter D. Rowley and Gary L. Dixon, Consulting Geologists, to the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) on June 29, 2006 was critical of the report. The memorandum by Rowley and Dixon was made available to the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the public during the Nevada State Engineer's 'Evidentiary Exchange' process for the recent hearing on applications for ground-water permits by SNWA in Spring Valley adjacent to Great Basin National Park. The U.S. Geological Survey was asked by the National Park Service to assess the validity of the concerns and comments contained in the Rowley and Dixon memorandum. An Administrative Letter Report responding to Rowley and Dixon's concerns and comments was released to the National Park Service on October 30, 2006. The National Park Service subsequently requested that the contents with three minor changes to the Administrative Letter Report be released to the public. The first paragraph was revised to better explain how the memorandum was brought to the attention of the National Park Service and the U.S. Geological Survey and the purpose of the Administrative Letter Report. The second and third changes were minor word changes to the end of the first sentence at the top of page 11 and in the Summary statement, respectively. The Administrative Letter Report with these minor changes is reproduced herein. Lastly, the National Park Service asked me to explain the difference between potentially and likely susceptible areas used in the report. Admittedly, the report did not clearly explain their usage. Potentially susceptible areas were used in the report to identify areas where (1) ground water interacts with water in the creeks but the connection between permeable rocks in the mountains with the basin fill is uncertain or where (2) ground-water interaction with water in the creeks is less certain but permeable rocks are connected with basin fill. Likely susceptible areas were used to identify areas in the mountains and valleys where ground-water interacts with water in the creeks or discharges as springs and permeable rocks are connected with basin fill. Likely susceptible areas are, therefore, more vulnerable to ground-water pumping.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2006

Trends in streamflow on the Humboldt River between Elko and Imlay, Nevada, 1950-99

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2006

Characterization of surface-water resources in the Great Basin National Park area and their susceptibility to ground-water withdrawals in adjacent valleys, White Pine County, Nevada

Eight drainage basins and one spring within the Great Basin National Park area were monitored continually from October 2002 to September 2004 to quantify stream discharge and assess the natural variability in flow. Mean annual discharge for the stream drainages ranged from 0 cubic feet per second at Decathon Canyon to 9.08 cubic feet per second at Baker Creek. Seasonal variability in streamflow generally was uniform throughout the network. Minimum and maximum mean monthly discharges occurred in February and June, respectively, at all but one of the perennial streamflow sites. Synoptic-discharge, specific-conductance, and water- and air-temperature measurements were collected during the spring, summer, and autumn of 2003 along selected reaches of Strawberry, Shingle, Lehman, Baker, and Snake Creeks, and Big Wash to determine areas where surface-water resources would be susceptible to ground-water withdrawals in adjacent valleys. Comparison of streamflow and water-property data to the geology along each stream indicated areas where surface-water resources likely or potentially would be susceptible to ground-water withdrawals. These areas consist of reaches where streams (1) are in contact with permeable rocks or sediments, or (2) receive water from either spring discharge or ground-water inflow.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2006

Documentation of the Unsaturated-Zone Flow (UZF1) Package for modeling Unsaturated Flow Between the Land Surface and the Water Table with MODFLOW-2005

Percolation of precipitation through unsaturated zones is important for recharge of ground water. Rain and snowmelt at land surface are partitioned into different pathways including runoff, infiltration, evapotranspiration, unsaturated-zone storage, and recharge. A new package for MODFLOW-2005 called the Unsaturated-Zone Flow (UZF1) Package was developed to simulate water flow and storage in the unsaturated zone and to partition flow into evapotranspiration and recharge. The package also accounts for land surface runoff to streams and lakes. A kinematic wave approximation to Richards? equation is solved by the method of characteristics to simulate vertical unsaturated flow. The approach assumes that unsaturated flow occurs in response to gravity potential gradients only and ignores negative potential gradients; the approach further assumes uniform hydraulic properties in the unsaturated zone for each vertical column of model cells. The Brooks-Corey function is used to define the relation between unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and water content. Variables used by the UZF1 Package include initial and saturated water contents, saturated vertical hydraulic conductivity, and an exponent in the Brooks-Corey function. Residual water content is calculated internally by the UZF1 Package on the basis of the difference between saturated water content and specific yield. The UZF1 Package is a substitution for the Recharge and Evapotranspiration Packages of MODFLOW-2005. The UZF1 Package differs from the Recharge Package in that an infiltration rate is applied at land surface instead of a specified recharge rate directly to ground water. The applied infiltration rate is further limited by the saturated vertical hydraulic conductivity. The UZF1 Package differs from the Evapotranspiration Package in that evapotranspiration losses are first removed from the unsaturated zone above the evapotranspiration extinction depth, and if the demand is not met, water can be removed directly from ground water whenever the depth to ground water is less than the extinction depth. The UZF1 Package also differs from the Evapotranspiration Package in that water is discharged directly to land surface whenever the altitude of the water table exceeds land surface. Water that is discharged to land surface, as well as applied infiltration in excess of the saturated vertical hydraulic conductivity, may be routed directly as inflow to specified streams or lakes if these packages are active; otherwise, this water is removed from the model. The UZF1 Package was tested against the U.S. Geological Survey's Variably-Saturated Two-Dimensional Flow and Transport Model for a vertical unsaturated flow problem that includes evapotranspiration losses. This report also includes an example in which MODFLOW-2005 with the UZF1 Package was used to simulate a realistic surface-water/ground-water flow problem that includes time and space variable infiltration, evapotranspiration, runoff, and ground-water discharge to land surface and to streams. Another simpler problem is presented so that the user may use the input files as templates for new problems and to verify proper code installation.

Techniques and Methods↗

USGS2005

Impact of land use and land cover change on groundwater recharge and quality in the southwestern US

Humans have exerted large‐scale changes on the terrestrial biosphere, primarily through agriculture; however, the impacts of such changes on the hydrologic cycle are poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that the conversion of natural rangeland ecosystems to agricultural ecosystems impacts the subsurface portion of the hydrologic cycle by changing groundwater recharge and flushing salts to underlying aquifers. The hypothesis was examined through point and areal studies investigating the effects of land use/land cover (LU/LC) changes on groundwater recharge and solute transport in the Amargosa Desert (AD) in Nevada and in the High Plains (HP) in Texas, US. Studies use the fact that matric (pore‐water‐pressure) potential and environmental‐tracer profiles in thick unsaturated zones archive past changes in recharging fluxes. Results show that recharge is related to LU/LC as follows: discharge through evapotranspiration (i.e., no recharge; upward fluxes <0.1 mm yr −1 ) in natural rangeland ecosystems (low matric potentials; high chloride and nitrate concentrations); moderate‐to‐high recharge in irrigated agricultural ecosystems (high matric potentials; low‐to‐moderate chloride and nitrate concentrations) (AD recharge: ∼130–640 mm yr −1 ); and moderate recharge in nonirrigated (dryland) agricultural ecosystems (high matric potentials; low chloride and nitrate concentrations, and increasing groundwater levels) (HP recharge: ∼9–32 mm yr −1 ). Replacement of rangeland with agriculture changed flow directions from upward (discharge) to downward (recharge). Recent replacement of rangeland with irrigated ecosystems was documented through downward displacement of chloride and nitrate fronts. Thick unsaturated zones contain a reservoir of salts that are readily mobilized under increased recharge related to LU/LC changes, potentially degrading groundwater quality. Sustainable land use requires quantitative knowledge of the linkages between ecosystem change, recharge, and groundwater quality.

Global Change Biology↗

USGS2005

Simulating reservoir leakage in ground-water models

Leakage to ground water resulting from the expansion and contraction of reservoirs cannot be easily simulated by most ground-water flow models. An algorithm, entitled the Reservoir Package, was developed for the United States Geological Survey (USGS) three-dimensional finite-difference modular ground-water flow model MODFLOW. The Reservoir Package automates the process of specifying head-dependent boundary cells, eliminating the need to divide a simulation into many stress periods while improving accuracy in simulating changes in ground-water levels resulting from transient reservoir stage. Leakage between the reservoir and the underlying aquifer is simulated for each model cell corrresponding to the inundated area by multiplying the head difference between the reservoir and the aquifer with the hydraulic conductance of the reservoir-bed sediments.

Groundwater↗