DOCSLIB.ORG

Ground Water

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ground Water Water Resources and Potential Effects of Ground-Water Development in Maggie, Marys, and Susie Creek Basins, Elko and Eureka Counties, Nevada By Russell W. Plume U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4222 Prepared in cooperation with the NEVADA DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Carson City, Nevada 1995 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GORDON P. EATON, Director Any use of trade names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Information Services 333 West Nye Lane, Room 203 Box 25286, MS 517 Carson City, NV 89706-0866 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225-0046 CONTENTS Abstract................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Background ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Study Approach.......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Data Collection and Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 4 Aquifer Tests .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Geophysical Data........................................................................................................................................... 6 Streamflow..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Observation-Well Network ............................................................................................................................ 7 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Physical Setting .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Geography ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Climate ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Hydrogeologic Units ................................................................................................................................................. 11 Bedrock.......................................................................................................................................................... 15 Carbonate Rocks and Clastic Sedimentary Rocks ............................................................................. 15 Volcanic Rocks ................................................................................................................................... 17 Intrusive Igneous Rocks ..................................................................................................................... 17 Basin-Fill Deposits ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Carlin Formation of Regnier (1960) .................................................................................................. 18 Alluvial-Fan Deposits ........................................................................................................................ 25 Rood-Plain Deposits .......................................................................................................................... 25 Subsurface Relations of Units ....................................................................................................................... 25 Hydrologic System ............................................................................................................................................................... 30 Surface Water ............................................................................................................................................................ 30 Maggie Creek ................................................................................................................................................ 30 Marys Creek .................................................................................................................................................. 34 Susie Creek .................................................................................................................................................... 35 Humboldt River ............................................................................................................................................. 36 Ground Water ............................................................................................................................................................ 37 Recharge ........................................................................................................................................................ 40 Discharge ....................................................................................................................................................... 41 Use ................................................................................................................................................................. 45 Chemical and Isotopic Composition of the Water .................................................................................................... 46 Chemical Composition of Ground Water ...................................................................................................... 46 Isotopic Composition of Ground Water and Surface Water .......................................................................... 46 Geochemical Interpretation of Hypothetical Flow Paths .............................................................................. 52 Water Budgets ....................................................................................................................................................................... 55 Water-Resources Budgets.......................................................................................................................................... 55 Ground-Water Budgets .............................................................................................................................................. 57 Conceptual Model of Hydrologic System in Lower Maggie Creek Area ............................................................................ 59 Measured and Potential Effects of Pumping ........................................................................................................................ 61 Potential for Artificial Recharge ........................................................................................................................................... 63 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................... 64 References Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 68 Basic Data ............................................................................................................................................................................. 71 CONTENTS III Figures 1-3. Maps showing: 1. Location, features, and basins of study area................................................................................................... 3 2. Features and basins of lower Maggie Creek area........................................................................................... 5 3. Locations of 14 weather stations in northeastern Nevada.............................................................................. 10 4. Graphs showing relation of mean annual precipitation to station altitude and relation of difference between predicted and measured precipitation to predicted mean annual precipitation ..................... 11 5. Hydrogeologic map of lower Maggie Creek area.................................................................................................. 12 6-11. Graphs showing analyses of aquifer tests: 6. Water-level recovery at production
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Late Cenozoic Paleogeographic Evolution of Northeastern Nevada: Evidence from the Sedimentary Basins
    Late Cenozoic paleogeographic evolution of northeastern Nevada: Evidence from the sedimentary basins Alan R. Wallace* U.S. Geological Survey, MS 176, Mackay School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557, USA Michael E. Perkins* Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA Robert J. Fleck* U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefi eld Road, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA ABSTRACT lier faults are more pronounced east of the hot-spring deposits formed at and near the Tuscarora Mountains, possibly refl ecting a paleosurface in the Chimney, Ivanhoe, and Field and geochronologic studies of Neo- hanging-wall infl uence related to uplift of the Carlin basins as those basins were forming. gene sedimentary basins in northeastern Ruby Mountains-East Humboldt core com- The Neogene geologic and landscape evolu- Nevada document the paleogeographic and plex on the east side of the Elko basin. The tion had variable effects on all of these depos- geologic evolution of this region and the later faults are concentrated along the north- its, including uplift, weathering, supergene effects on major mineral deposits. The broad northwest–trending northern Nevada rift enrichment, erosion, and burial, depending area that includes the four middle Miocene west of the Tuscarora Mountains. The area on the events at any particular deposit. As basins studied—Chimney, Ivanhoe, Car- west of the rift contains major tilted horsts such, this study documents the importance of lin, and Elko, from west to east—was an and alluvium-fi lled grabens, and differential evaluating post-mineralization processes at upland that underwent prolonged middle extension between this more highly extended both regional and local scales when exploring Tertiary exposure and moderate erosion.
    [Show full text]
  • Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Species Management Plan for the Upper Humboldt River Drainage Basin
    STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UPPER HUMBOLDT RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN Prepared by John Elliott SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN December 2004 LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UPPER HUMBOLDT RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN SUBMITTED BY: _______________________________________ __________ John Elliott, Supervising Fisheries Biologist Date Nevada Department of Wildlife, Eastern Region APPROVED BY: _______________________________________ __________ Richard L. Haskins II, Fisheries Bureau Chief Date Nevada Department of Wildlife _______________________________________ __________ Kenneth E. Mayer, Director Date Nevada Department of Wildlife REVIEWED BY: _______________________________________ __________ Robert Williams, Field Supervisor Date Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service _______________________________________ __________ Ron Wenker, State Director Date U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management _______________________________________ __________ Edward C. Monnig, Forest Supervisor Date Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest U.S.D.A. Forest Service TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………..1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………….…2 AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES……………………………………………………………….…4 CURRENT STATUS……………………………………………………………………………..6 RECOVERY OBJECTIVES……………………………………………………………………19 RECOVERY ACTIONS…………………………………………………………………………21 RECOVERY ACTION PRIORITIES BY SUBBASIN………………………………………….33 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE……………………………………………………………..47
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in Streamflow on the Humboldt River Between Elko and Imlay, Nevada, 1950–99
    Prepared in cooperation with the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Trends in Streamflow on the Humboldt River between Elko and Imlay, Nevada, 1950–99 Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5199 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey FRONT COVER: Photographs of Humboldt River at Blossom bridge near Valmy, Nevada, upstream of the streamflow gage at Comus. Top photograph is from the bridge looking downstream on June 9, 1999 during high flow. Bottom photograph is from the bridge looking downstream on October 18, 2001 during a period of no flow. Photographs taken by D.E. Prudic. Trends in Streamflow on the Humboldt River between Elko and Imlay, Nevada, 1950–99 By David E. Prudic, Richard G. Niswonger, and Russell W. Plume Prepared in cooperation with the NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5199 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Carson City, Nevada: 2006 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes in Ground-Water Levels in the Carlin Trend Area, North-Central Nevada, 1989–2003
    Prepared in cooperation with Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources Changes in Ground-Water Levels in the Carlin Trend Area, North-Central Nevada, 1989–2003 Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5075 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey (Back of Cover) Changes in Ground-Water Levels in the Carlin Trend Area, North-Central Nevada, 1989–2003 By Russell W. Plume Prepared in cooperation with the NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5075 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Carson City, Nevada: 2005 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. For additional information contact: Director USGS, Nevada Water Science Center 333 W. Nye Lane, Room 203 Carson City, NV 89706-0866 email: [email protected] http://nevada.usgs.gov iii Contents
    [Show full text]
  • Water and Related Land Resources, Humboldt River Basin, Nevada
    Historic, Archive Document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. Reserve ^ aTC424 •N3W38 .TER and RELATED LAND RESOURCES 1962 ' V . 6 UMBOLDT RIVER BASIN NEVADA *** ' ' * • *“««“**" 'V“'^'Cr=- -:r- * m ^ HI 1''*^ . ... REPORT NUMBER SIX MAGGIE CREEK SUB - BASIN OCTOBER, 1963 Based on a Cooperative Survey 1 THE NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES and THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE / Prepared by Economic Research Service • Forest Service - Soil Conservation Service United States L E G E I Department of Agriculture ^-«-ELKO CO. Maggie Creek — Sub-l Sub -Basin EUREKA CO. — Watei Court A )N MAP National Agricultural Library mounta TUSCARORA MAGGIE CREEK SUB -BASIN HUMBOLDT RIVER BASIN SURVEY ELKO a EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA AUGUST 1963 north Carlin, Nevada, looking COVER Photograph - Haying operations on Maggie Creek of southeast toward the Humboldt Valley. S.c.s. PH 0 TO - - 6 - 7 8 2 - 7 REGISTER REPORT NUMBER SIX MAGGIE CREEK SUB-BASIN OCTOBER 1963 Will you please defach and fill out this form; mail it to us, so that we may send you any additions, changes, or corrections. Humboldt River Basin Field Party P.O. Box 982 Elko, Nevada 89801 Name Address UJ5. OEPWTTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natiohal agricultural library DEC 22 199? CATALOGING PR£P. WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCES REPORT NUMBER SIX HUMBOLDT RIVER BASIN NEVADA MAGGIE CREEK SUB-BASIN Based on a Cooperative Survey by The Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and The United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service - Soil Conservation Service Economic Research Service October 1963 f II FOREWORD This Is a report for the people of Nevada, and particularly for the people of the Humboldt River Basin, concerning water and related land resources in the Maggie Creek Sub-Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Species Management Plan for the Upper Humboldt River Drainage Basin
    STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UPPER HUMBOLDT RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN Prepared by John Elliott Robert W. Layton SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN December 2004 LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UPPER HUMBOLDT RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN SUBMITTED BY: _______________________________________ __________ John Elliott, Fisheries Biologist Date Nevada Department of Wildlife _______________________________________ __________ Robert W. Layton, Supervising Fisheries Biologist Date Nevada Department of Wildlife, Eastern Region APPROVED BY: _______________________________________ __________ Richard L. Haskins II, Fisheries Bureau Chief Date Nevada Department of Wildlife _______________________________________ __________ Terry R. Crawforth, Director Date Nevada Department of Wildlife REVIEWED BY: _______________________________________ __________ Robert Williams, Field Supervisor Date Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service _______________________________________ __________ Robert V. Abbey, State Director Date U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management _______________________________________ __________ Robert Vaught, Forest Supervisor Date Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest U.S.D.A. Forest Service TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………..1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………….…2 AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES……………………………………………………………….…4 CURRENT STATUS……………………………………………………………………………..6 RECOVERY OBJECTIVES……………………………………………………………………19 RECOVERY
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt River Chronology Part II – Pre-Twentieth Century
    Humboldt River Chronology Part II – Pre-Twentieth Century 2,000,000 Years Ago to 10,000 Years Ago (Pleistocene Epoch) The prehistory of the Humboldt River Basin is marked by profound changes in climate and hydrology. Ancient lake shorelines have provided invaluable information into the scope of these changes. For example, shoreline altitudes of a number of pluvial lakes (e.g., ancient Lake Lahontan) in the northern and western Great Basin1 have indicated successively smaller lakes from the Early to the Late Pleistocene Epoch.2 This decrease in lake size suggests a long-term drying tend in the region’s climate over the last two million years. Calculations based on differences in lake areas suggest that the highest levels of these pluvial lakes would have required a regional effective moisture of up to three times greater than the effective moisture level estimated to have existed in the Late Pleistocene. These previously unknown peak lake elevations (highstands) reflect significant changes in climate, tectonics and/or drainage basin configurations that could have facilitated the migration of aquatic species throughout the Great Basin.3 Lake Lahontan’s Early Pleistocene surface level (4,590 feet MSL) was more recently estimated to have been over 200 feet above its Late Pleistocene shoreline (4,380 feet MSL), a surface elevation widely recognized as this lake’s highstand. At this higher elevation, the Early Pleistocene Lake Lahontan would have extended its reach further up the Humboldt River from the Late Pleistocene highstand, which had been estimated to have reached just above Red House (about five miles above Comus).
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Resources of Elko County, Nevada
    ': It' °] '. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERAL RESOURCES OF ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA By Roscoe M. Smith Prepared in cooperation with Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology JAN 9 1976 Open-file report $376-56 This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Geological Survey standards Contents Page Abstract : - 1 Introduction 2 Acknowledgment -- 2 Mining districts 3 Commodities - 3 Production 10 Descriptions of mining districts . 19 Alder district-- 19 Aura district -- - 21 Beaver district - 25 Black Mountain district - 27 Bootstrap district 27 Burner district 28 Burns Basin district-- - - -- 30 Carlin district 32 Cave Creek district --- --- - 35 Charleston district- - _--- 35 Coal Mine district- ~ 38 Contact district - 39 Cornucopia district - - -- 45 Corral Creek district - - - - - 48 Decoy district - 48 Delano district 49 Delker district- - - 53 Divide district - - - - - 54 Dolly Varden district --- 54 Edgemont district-- - -- -- 57 Elk Mountain district- - ------ 60 Elko district ' 62 Ferber district - - - -- 65 Ferguson Spring district - 67 Gilbert Canyon area--- -- - --- - 69 Gold Basin district 69 Gold Circle district 71 Good Hope district -- --- 77 Goose Creek -district - 79 Halleck district -- 80 .Harrison Pass district - - -- - 81 Hicks district . ' 83 Hot Creek district '-- 83 Huntington Creek district - 83 Island Mountain district- . 85 Ivanhoe district 90 Jarbidge district- - - - --- 93 Kinsley district - ---- - 99 Lafayette district" - 101 Larrabee district- 101 Lee district 102 Contents continued Page Descriptions of mining districts continued Lime Mountain district 104 Loray district 106 Lucin district 108 Merrimac district - 111 Montello phosphate area-- 115 Moor district- -: -- 115 Mountain City "district- 116 Mud Springs district - 128 Pequop phosphate area - - 130 Pilot Peak district - 133 Proctor district .
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources and Effects of Changes in Ground-Water Use Along the Carlin Trend, North-Central Nevada
    Water Resources and Effects of Changes in Ground-Water Use Along the Carlin Trend, North-Central Nevada By DOUGLAS K. MAURER, RUSSELL W. PLUME, JAMES M. THOMAS, and ANN K. JOHNSON U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4134 Prepared in cooperation with the NEVADA DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Carson City, Nevada 1996 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GORDON P. EATON, Director Any use of trade names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Information Services 333 West Nye Lane, Room 203 Box 25286, MS 517 Carson City, NV 89706-0866 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225-0046 CONTENTS Abstract................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Background ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt River Chronology an Overview and Chronological History of the Humboldt River and Related Water Issues
    Humboldt River Chronology An Overview and Chronological History of the Humboldt River and Related Water Issues The information contained in Volume 1, Part I – Overview of this Humboldt River Chronology provides a general overview and description of the Humboldt River Basin and Humboldt River and its physical, geologic, and hydrologic characteristics and attributes. Volume 2, Part II – Pre-Twentieth Century and Part III – Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries contain a detailed listing by date of some of the more important events associated with the Humboldt River Basin, the Humboldt River, sub-basins and various tributaries, storage reservoirs, water diversions, and related water supply, water use, water rights, water resources development, fisheries and habitat, and environmental and water quality issues. Part I – Overview Introduction The Humboldt River Basin is an extensive river drainage system located in north-central Nevada and extending in a generally east-to-west direction from its headwaters in the Jarbidge, Independence and Ruby Mountains in Elko County, to its terminus in the Humboldt Sink, approximately 225 miles away in the desert of northwest Churchill County. The basin encompasses an area of approximately 16,840 square miles and is the only major river system wholly contained within the State of Nevada. Connecting the Humboldt River’s lofty mountain sources of water to the basin’s terminus is the 310- mile long Humboldt River, which, by some claims, is actually about twice that in length accounting for its countless meanders.1 One particularly interesting observation in a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report’s background study dealt with the meandering flow of the Humboldt River.
    [Show full text]
  • Elko County Nevada Water Resource Management Plan 2017
    Elko County Nevada Water Resource Management Plan 2017 Echo Lake - Ruby Mountains Elko County Board of Commissioners Elko County Natural Resource Management Advisory Commission December 6, 2017 Executive Summary The Elko County Water Resource Management Plan has been prepared to guide the development, management and use of water resources in conjunction with land use management over the next twenty-five (25) years. Use by decision makers of information contained within this plan will help to ensure that the environment of the County is sustained while at the same time enabling the expansion and diversification of the local economy. Implementation of the Elko County Water Resource Management Plan will assist in maintaining the quality of life enjoyed by residents and visitors of Elko County now and in the future. Achievement of goals outlined in the plan will result in water resources found within Elko County being utilized in a manner beneficial to the residents of Elko County and the State of Nevada. The State of Nevada Water Plan represents that Elko County will endure a loss of population and agricultural lands over the next twenty-five years. Land use and development patterns prepared by Elko County do not agree with this estimated substantial loss of population and agricultural lands. The trends show that agricultural uses in Elko County are stable with minimal notable losses each year. Development patterns represent that private lands that are not currently utilized for agricultural are being developed in cooperation and conjunction with agricultural uses. In 2007, Elko County was the largest water user in the State of Nevada.
    [Show full text]