U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 

(200) 

WRi . ~ 

no. J.._ooO .. 'it/il~ 

c./ 

Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic 

Areas in the Middle Humboldt River Basin, 

North-Central Nevada . .. 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4168 

OEC 0 4: 2.00U 

Prepared in cooperation with the 

NEVADA DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 

EUSGS -

science for a changing world • < 

' ·, 

, '.J 

. •. 

"'\ " -

Water Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic 

Areas in the Middle Humboldt River Basin, 

North-Central Nevada 

By David L. Berger 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4168 

Prepared in cooperation with the 

NEVADA DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 

Carson City, Nevada 

2000 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BRUCE BABBITI, Secretary 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

CHARLES G. GROAT, Director 

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 

For additional information 

contact: 

District Chief 

U.S. Geological Survey 

333 West Nye Lane, Room 203 

Carson City, NV 89706-0866 

email: GS-W-NVpublic-info@ usgs.gov 

http://nevada.usgs.gov 

Copies of this report can be 

purchased from : 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Information Services 

Building 810 

Box 25286, Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225-Q286 
CONTENTS 

Abstract ..... ............ .... .. ........................................... ........ .......................... ....................... ................ ...................................... . 

Introduction ..... ........................... .................. .... .................... .................. ............. .................................................................. . 

Background ......... ................... ........ ....... ....... .............. ............................................................................... ...... ..... .. ... . 

Purpose and Scope .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. 3 

Location and General Features of Study Area.................................... .............................................. .. .. .......... ....... .... 3 

Previous Investigations . . ... . .. .. ............ .. ... ... ...... .. ...... ......... .. ..... .. . .. . . .. .. ......... ...... .... .. . . . ... .. ... . . .... ........ ...... .. .. .. ... ... .. . . ... 4 

Development of Annual Water Budgets................................................................................................................................ 4 

Conceptualization of a Hydrologic System............ ........... ........... ................................................... .. .. ....................... 5 

Summary of Methods for Estimating Water-Budget Components............................................ ................ .... ............ 7 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates. ...................................... .... .. ..... ............................................................................... 18 

Comparison of Previous Water Budgets .................................................. ............................................................. ..... 19 

Summary and Conclusions .......... ... .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. .... ..... ... ..... ... ... .. ..... ..... ... ..... .. .. ... .......... ....... .. ... .... .... .. .. .. .... .. .. . . ... ... .... ... .... .. . 52 

Glossary .................................. .. ....... .......................... .. .. ............................................ ................... ................ ......................... 53 

References Cited. .............. .. ........... ......... ............................................... ............. ................... .................... ... .. .... ................... 54 

FIGURES 

I. Map showing locations of middle Humboldt River Basin and the 14 hydrographic areas, north-central 

Nevada .. ... .... ....... ............... ............... ... ..... ...... ................................. .. .................... ...... ........... .... ........ .. ....... ...... .. .. 2 

2. Schematic cross sections of typical basins, showing landforms and general patterns of ground-water 

movement, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada......................................................................... 6 

3. Schematic diagram showing interrelations among water-budget components and landforms for simplified 

hydrologic-flow system, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada ............ ...... .. .......... ..................... 8 

4-17. Maps showing distribution of precipitation and landforms in: 

4. Pine Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada.... ..................... .. .... 37 

5. Crescent Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada................ .. ...... 38 

6. Carico Lake Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada .................. 39 

7. Upper Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada ....... 40 

8. Antelope Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada .............. ......... 41 

9. Middle Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada.. .... 42 

10. Lower Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada.... .. 43 

11 . Whirlwind Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada ........ ........... 44 

12. Boulder Flat Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada.. ........................... 45 

13 . Rock Creek Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada.............. .... 46 

14. Willow Creek Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada.............. 47 

15. Clovers Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada..................................................... ....... 48 

16. Pumpernickel Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada ............... 49 

17. Kelly Creek Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada................ ..................................... 50 

18 . Graph showing relations between inflow and outflow ....... .. .. ...... ........ .. ... .. ... .. .... ........................... .. .... .. ....... .. .... . 51 

CONTENTS Ill 
TABLES 

1. Hydrographic areas in middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada .................. .. ..... .............................. 4 

2. Equations of hydrologic equilibrium for average aruma! water budgets for landforms and a typical basin in 

middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada ........ .. .. .. .. ...... ................ .. .. .. .... .......... ............ ...... .. .. .... .. .. ... 7 

3. Area of landforms and distribution of simulated average annual precipitation on landforms in the 14 

hydrographic areas of middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada.............. ......... .. ................ .. ............. 10 

4. Simulated average annual precipitation and estimated average annual runoff, water yield, subsurface flow, 

and evapotranspiration in mountain-block areas in the 14 hydrographic areas of middle Humboldt River 

Basin, north-central Nevada............. ...................................................................................................................... 12 

5. Estimated average annual runoff, evapotranspiration, and subsurface flow from piedmont-slope areas in the 

14 hydrographic areas of middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada.................................... .. .... ...... ... 13 

6. Average annual evapotranspiration rates from areas of bare soil or phreatophyte vegetation, evaporation 

rates from open water, and annual volume of ground-water evapotranspiration from valley lowlands, 

1989 and 1995, in the 14 hydrographic areas of middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada ............... 15 

7-20. Average annual water budgets for: 

7. Pine Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada................................ 21 

8. Crescent Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada.......... ............... 22 

9. Carico Lake Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada ................... 23 

10. Upper Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada ........ 24 

11. Antelope Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada ........................ 25 

12. Middle Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada....... 26 

13. Lower Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada ........ 27 

14. Whirlwind Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada ..................... 28 

15 . Boulder Flat Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada .............. ............ .. .. 29 

16. Rock Creek Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada.. .... .. .. .......... 30 

17. Willow Creek Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada ................ 31 

18. Clovers Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada ............................................................. 32 

19. Pumpernickel Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada .. .............. 33 

20. Kelly Creek Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada .......... ........................ .. .. ............ .... 34 

21. Estimated average annual ground-water budgets for the 14 hydrographic areas, middle Humboldt River 

Basin, north-central Nevada............. .. ...................... .......................................... .. .................................................. 35 

IV Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
CONVERSION FACTORS and VERTICAL DATUM 

Multiply 

acre 

acre-foot(acre-ft) 

acre-foot per year (acre-ft!yr) 

cubic foot per second (tP/s) 

foot (ft) 

foot per day (ft!d) 

foot per foot ( ft!ft) 

foot per year (ft/yr) 

inch (in.) 

inch per year (in/yr) 

mile (mi) 

square foot (W) 

square mile (mi2

) 

By 

4,047 

0.001233 

0.001233 

0.02832 

0.3048 

0.3048 

I 

0.3048 

25.4 

25.4 

1.609 

0.09290 

2.590 

To obtain 

square meter 

cubic hectometer 

cubic hectometer per year 

cubic meter per second 

meter 

meter per day 

meter per meter 

meter per year 

millimeter 

millimeter per year 

kilometer 

square meter 

square kilometer 

Sea level: In this report, "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGYD of 1929, formerly called "Sea-Level 

Datum of 1929"), which is derived from a general adjustment of the first-order leveling networks of the United States and Canada. 

CONTENTS V 
• 
Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas in the 

Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 

by David L. Berger 

ABSTRACT 

Water budgets were developed for the 14 

hydrographic areas in the middle Humboldt River 

Basin of north-central Nevada. The water budgets 

include estimates of average annual precipitation, 

runoff, water yield, ground-water recharge and 

subsurface flow, and evapotranspiration (ET) 

determined from recently developed or revised 

methods. Ground-water pumping is not included 

in the budget estimates. The estimated budgets 

represent average annual volumes over a 30-year 

reference period ( 1961-90) and are compared to 

water budgets developed more than 30 years ago. 

Annual inflow to the middle Humboldt 

River basin is about 5 million acre-feet. An estimated 4.6 million is from precipitation in the 14 

hydrographic areas and about 350,000 acre-feet is 

inflow from the Humboldt River. Annual outflow 

is about 5.1 million acre-feet, of which ET 

accounts for 4.8 million acre-feet, and outflow of 

the Humboldt River is about 300,000 acre-feet. 

Average annual precipitation in the hydrographic areas for 1961-90 ranged from 105 to 128 

percent of that for the 1912-63 period. The annual 

volume ofET in the 14 areas was 102 to almost 

134 percent of that previously estimated, although 

the percentage of annual precipitation lost to ET is 

similar. About 15 percent of the annual precipitation in mountain-block areas becomes water yield 

(either ground water or runoff) as compared to previous estimates of 11 percent. On the basis of 

mass-balance calculations, ground-water recharge 

on average is about 145 percent of previous estimates. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Humboldt lliver Basin (fig. 1), in north-central Nevada, is the only major river basin whose drainage area lies entirely within the State. The area of the 

Humboldt River Basin covers 16,900 mi2 and encompasses about 15 percent of the State. Precipitation is the 

principal source of all the water that flows in the basin. 

Traditional water users in the basin rely heavily on surface water and to a lesser extent on ground water. However, ground-water withdrawals in the basin have 

increased over the last 10 to 15 years, mostly as a result 

of the development of large open-pit gold mines. 

Background 

In 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in 

cooperation with the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, began the Humboldt River 

Basin Assessment. The overall objectives of the assessment are to ( 1) provide scientific appraisals of surfacewater and ground-water resources of each hydrographic area in the Humboldt River Basin, (2) determine the interactions between surface water and 

ground water among contributing areas and the main 

stem of the Humboldt River, and (3) determine the 

effects of all major water uses in the basin on the quantity, quality, and beneficial use of the basin's water 

resources. The assessment has focused on the middle 

Humboldt River Basin, which consists of 14 hydrographic areas 1 and includes large land areas irrigated 

for agriculture as well as most of the large mining operations in northern Nevada. In general, the middle Humboldt River Basin is defmed by the hydrographic areas 

that are tributary to the Humboldt River from about 10 

mi downstream from Carlin to about 5 mi upstream 

from Golconda (fig. 1). 

1 Fonnal hydrographic areas in Nevada were delineated systematically by the USGS and Nevada Division of Water Resources in the late 

1960's for scientific and administrative purposes (Cardinalli and others, 

1968; Rush, 1968). The official hydrographic-area names, numbers, and 

geographic boundaries continue to be used in USGS scientific reports and 

Division of Water Resources administrative activities. 

ABSTRACT 
Area of 

figure 

NEVADA 

• Tooopah 

' ' 

36' 

HUMBOLDT 

,,C::Iock 

• 

11a• 

Rye Patch Dam 

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES 

I I t I ,' I 1

1 

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1977-88; 1:24,000, 196~90 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone t1 

D 

116° ·~ 

r. l \.~ • .. \,: ~ 

v. 

I 

f

Ruby 

Lak< 

-~­

.) 

e ELKO WHITE PI E 

}f·· :;z;"" 

UJ 

:::>\~ :r: 

3: 

EXPLANATION 

r 

Middle Humbold t River Basin howing study area 

(gray). 

AV Antelope Valley HA 

BF Boulder Flat HA 

CA Clovers Area 

CL Carico Lake Valley HA 

cv Cre cent Valley HA 

KC Kelly Creek Area 

LA Lower Reese River Valley HA 

MR Middle Reese River Valley HA 

PN Pine Valley HA 

PV Pumpernickel Valley HA 

RC Rock Creek Valley HA 

UR Upper Reese River Valley HA 

we Willow Creek Valley HA 

wv Whirlwind Valley HA 

- · · - Hydrogr aphic-area bounda ry 

X Active gold mine-Circled symbol indicates mine 

was being dewatered in 2000 

Figure 1. Locations of middle Humboldt River Basin and the 14 hydrographic areas, north-central Nevada. 

2 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
The Humboldt River Basin Assessment was 

planned as a series of phases. Activities of phase 1 

(completed in September 1998) were to ( 1) make 

hydrologic data for the Humboldt River Basin more 

easily accessible by publishing it on the web site, which 

has the URL <http://nevada.usgs.gov/humb>, (2) 

defme the hydrogeologic framework and shallow 

ground-water conditions in the middle Humboldt River 

Basin, (3) quantify ground-water withdrawals for agriculture, generation of electricity, industrial use, mining, and municipal use in the middle Humboldt River 

Basin, and (4) develop and revise methods for estimating water-budget components. Activities for phase 2, 

which began in October 1998, are to ( 1) continue quantifying ground-water withdrawals in the middle Humboldt River Basin, (2) estimate water budgets for the 14 

hydrographic areas in the middle Humboldt River 

Basin by methods developed in phase 1 and (3) develop 

a numerical model to simulate effects of water use and 

climate variability on the water resources of the middle 

Humboldt River Basin. 

Purpose and Scope 

The purpose of this report is to present estimated 

average annual water budgets for the 14 hydrographic 

areas within the middle Humboldt River Basin. The 

report describes the results of applying a systematic 

approach for estimating water budgets for individual 

hydrographic areas by recently developed or revised 

methods (Berger, 2000). The water budgets include 

estimates of precipitation, runoff, water yield, groundwater recharge and subsurface flow, and evapotranspiration that represent average annual volumes over a 

30-yr reference period, 1961- 90. The report also 

describes the relative distribution and movement of 

water among the major landforms within each hydrographic area. Budget estimates derived from this study 

are compared briefly to those developed in earlier studies (Zones, 1961; Crosthwaite, 1963; Eakin and others, 

1965; Rush and others, 1971; Olmsted and Rush, 1987; 

Maurer and others, 1996). 

Location and General Features of Study Area 

The areal extent of the middle Humboldt River 

Basin, which is in north-central Nevada, is nearly 7,500 

mi2 (fig. 1). The drainage basin is characterized by 

northwest-trending mountain ranges separated by 

broad alluvial valleys. Altitudes within the basin range 

from about 4,350 ft, where the Humboldt River leaves 

the basin near Golconda, to almost 11 ,800 ft, in the 

Toiyabe Range south of Austin (fig. 1). The basin is 

sparsely populated and includes portions of Pershing, 

Humboldt, Lander, Eureka, Nye, and Elko Counties. 

The geology of north-central Nevada is complex 

and is the major control on water movement through 

the hydrologic systems within the area. Consolidated 

rock ranging in age from Precambrian to late Tertiary 

makes up the mountainous regions. The intervening 

valleys are filled with unconsolidated deposits of Tertiary and Quaternary age that commonly are several 

thousand feet thick. The hydrogeologic framework of 

the Humboldt River Basin was summarized by Plume 

and Carlton ( 1988), Plume ( 1996), and Plume and 

Ponce ( 1999). 

The climate of the study area is arid in the valleys 

to subhumid in the mountains and is characterized by 

hot summers and cold winters. Average annual precipitation over the 30-yr reference period ( 1961- 90) is 

commonly less than 10 in. on the valley floors and as 

much as 30 in. at the higher altitudes in the mountains 

(Owenby and Ezell, 1992). Because of the large range 

in annual precipitation between valley floors and surrounding mountains, the vegetation in north-central 

Nevada is diverse. 

Each of the 14 hydrographic areas that make up 

the middle Humboldt River Basin (fig. 1 and table 1) is 

a single topographic basin. The boundaries of the 

hydrographic areas, initially delineated by Cardinalli 

and others (1968) and Rush (1968), were refined further by using topographic-drainage boundaries interpreted from 1 :24,000-scale maps. Of the 14 

hydrographic areas, 9 are south of the Humboldt River: 

Pine Valley, Carico Lake Valley, Crescent Valley, 

Whirlwind Valley, Upper Reese River Valley, Antelope Valley, Middle Reese River Valley, Lower Reese 

River Valley, and Pumpernickel Valley (fig. 1). These 

INTRODUCTION 3 
nine areas south of the river appear to function as separate ground-water systems, although four are hydraulically connected by streamflow and subsurface flow. 

Boulder Flat, Willow Creek Valley, Rock Creek Valley, the Clovers Area, and the Kelly Creek Area are 

north of the Humboldt River (fig. 1 and table 1). These 

five areas appear to function as a single, extensive 

ground-water flow system in which ground-water 

divides do not coincide with topographic divides (Maurer and others, 1996; Plume and Ponce, 1999). The 

Humboldt River and its associated flood plain hereafter 

is referred to as the Humboldt River valley. This valley 

comprises the seven hydrographic areas, Boulder Flat, 

Crescent Valley, Whirlwind Valley, Lower Reese 

River Valley, Clovers Area, Pumpernickel Valley, and 

Kelly Creek Area. 

Previous Investigations 

In 1959, the Nevada State Legislature authorized 

the Humboldt River Research Project (Statutes, Chapter 97, 1959). The purposes of the project, in part, were 

to identify available hydrologic data and information 

for the Humboldt River Basin, quantitatively describe 

the hydrologic processes in the basin, and develop 

techniques needed to evaluate the water resources of 

the Humboldt River Basin. Information from the period 

1912- 63 was used to analyze the hydrologic conditions 

Table 1. Hydrographic areas in middle 

Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada 

Figure 1 Name Area 

(square miles) 

PN Pine Valley 1,010 

cv Crescent Valley 750 

CL Carico Lake Valley 380 

UR Upper Reese River Valley 1,140 

AV Antelope Valley 450 

MR Middle Reese River Valley 320 

LR Lower Reese River Valley 600 

wv Whirlwind Valley 100 

BF Boulder Flat 540 

RL Rock Creek Vall ey 450 

WL Willow Creek Valley 41 0 

CA Clovers Area 720 

PV Pumpernickel Valley 310 

KC Kelly Creek Area 300 

Total... ..... .. ... 7,480 

within the Humboldt River Basin. Research results 

were published in a wide variety of reports; one of the 

resulting publications was a reconnaissance-level evaluation of the Humboldt River Basin by Eakin and 

Lamke (1966). 

Additionally, in 1960, the USGS began a cooperative study with the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to provide preliminary 

appraisals of Nevada 's water resources. These appraisals were published as a series of reconnaissance reports 

authorized by the Nevada State Legislature (Statutes, 

Chapter 181 , 1960). Published within that series were 

brief water-resources appraisals for Pine Valley (Eakin, 

1961), Antelope and Middle Reese River Valleys 

(Crosthwaite, 1963), Upper Reese River Valley (Eakin 

and others, 1965), and Grass and Carico Lake Valleys 

(Everett and Rush, 1966). 

Water budgets for other hydrographic areas were 

appraised for Crescent Valley (Zones, 1961 ); for parts 

of Whirlwind Valley and Crescent Valley (Olmsted 

and Rush, 1987); and for Willow Creek Valley, Rock 

Creek Valley, and Boulder Flat (Maurer and others, 

1996). Estimates of annual surface- and ground-water 

flows between hydrographic areas of Nevada and, 

where data were available, estimates of annual runoff, 

perennial yield, and water storage were summarized by 

Rush and others (1971). 

As a result of activities from phase 1 of the Humboldt River Basin Assessment, Plume and Ponce 

( 1999) described the hydrogeologic framework, 

ground-water levels, and water-level changes in the 

middle Humboldt River Basin. Also as a result of phase 

1, Berger (2000) described methods for developing 

annual water budgets and presented the results of 

applying those methods to three hydrographic areas in 

the middle Humboldt River Basin. 

Development of Annual Water Budgets 

The approach taken for the development of water 

budgets for the 14 hydrographic areas in the middle 

Humboldt River Basin was described in detail by 

Berger (2000). Each hydrographic area was subdivided 

on the basis of three general landforms and associated 

patterns of ground-water flow. A water budget for each 

landform was estimated and then combined to develop 

a water budget for the entire hydrographic area. 

4 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
Data management and processing procedures 

used to regionalize point measurements were facilitated by using geographic information systems (GIS). 

The spatial-data sets developed and used in this investigation include land-surface altitude, determined from 

1-degree digital elevation models (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 1987); land-use and land-cover digital data, 

derived from high-altitude photography collected in 

1980 and 1983, at a scale of 1:250,000 (U.S. Geological Survey, 1986); Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite data, collected in June 1989 and June 1995; 

hydrographic areas and watershed boundaries digitized 

from 1 :24,000-scale topographic maps; and distribution of geologic units, modified from Plume and Carlton (1988) and Hess and Johnson (1997). 

Conceptualization of a Hydrologic System 

Mountain blocks, piedmont slopes, and valley 

lowlands are three easily identifiable landforms in the 

hydrographic areas (Peterson, 1981 , p. 4). The landforms are interconnected in terms of water movement 

but differ in their relative positions in an area and in the 

characteristics of ground-water flow. Schematic diagrams and general patterns of ground-water flow for a 

typical hydrographic area underlain by permeable and 

poorly permeable bedrock are shown in figure 2. The 

diagrams depict ground-water movement perpendicular to the long axis of a hydrographic area. In the study 

area, ground water also moves parallel to the long axis 

and commonly supports subsurface outflow. 

Mountain-block areas represent the zone of 

recharge and were delineated by the topographic divide 

along the mountain crest and by the contact between 

bedrock of the mountain block and the alluvial sediments of the upper piedmont slopes. Patterns and characteristics of ground-water flow are controlled by the 

permeability of the hydrogeologic units and the aridity 

of the area. Poorly permeable bedrock enhances runoff 

to adjacent piedmont slopes. In the Humboldt River 

Basin, mountain blocks receive a large part of the 

annual precipitation and are the principal source areas 

of inflow. 

Piedmont slopes represent the zone oflateral flow 

and commonly form the largest part of a hydrographic 

area. Piedmont slopes typically make up the transition 

between the mountain block and the nearly level land 

of the valley lowlands (fig. 2). For most hydrographic 

areas, the zone of recharge extends to the upper parts of 

the piedmont slope, where runoff is concentrated and 

sediment permeability tends to be more favorable for 

infiltration. Textures of sediments that are on piedmont-slope surfaces typically grade from coarser 

grained near the mountain front to fmer grained downslope toward the valley lowlands. Because of the 

coarse grain size of the upslope sediments, runoff that 

issues from the mountain block commonly infiltrates 

before reaching the valley lowlands. Consequently, 

piedmont slopes are favorable areas for ground-water 

recharge. Basin-fill aquifers, which make up part of the 

principal hydrogeologic unit beneath piedmont slopes, 

consist of unconsolidated to semiconsolidated deposits 

of poorly sorted gravel, sand, and silt. 

In most hydrographic areas, the valley lowland is 

in the axial part and typically contains the principal 

tributary of the drainage basin. These tributaries are 

mostly ephemeral in the middle Humboldt River Basin. 

For this study, valley lowlands include the zone of discharge. However, in hydrographic areas where groundwater flow is part of a regional flow system and where 

depth to ground water is too great to sustain phreatophyte vegetation or large amounts of ground-water discharge by direct evaporation, valley lowlands may not 

correspond to the zone of ground-water discharge. In 

general, population and agricultural development are 

concentrated in the valley lowlands, where depth to 

ground water commonly is shallow. Because of the 

shallow water table in these generally undeveloped 

areas, ground-water discharge by bare-soil evaporation 

and phreatophytic transpiration are the dominant 

hydrologic processes. Unconsolidated deposits, which 

typically are several thousand feet thick, form the principal hydrogeologic unit beneath the valley lowlands. 

The basin-fill aquifers beneath piedmont-slope and valley-lowland areas are the primary aquifers developed 

in most hydrographic areas of the middle Humboldt 

River Basin. 

Development of Annual Water Budgets 5 
A 

' J, 

8 

c 

MOUNTAIN BLOCK PIEDMONT SLOPE VALLEY LOWLANDS 

Zone of ----->!+----- Zone of ---->t<>---- Zone of ~ Prec•pirarion recharge lateral flow discharge 

.!rJ,~~~J,J, 

MOUNTAIN BLOCK 

Precipitarion 

MOUNTAIN BLOCK 

Precipitation 

.J, .J, .J, .J, 

.J, .J, 

PIEDMONT SLOPE VALLEY LOWLANDS 

Zone of Zone of - ->t<-- Zone of 

recharge ------->it-lateral flow discharge 

Zone of 

recharge 

PIEDMONT SLOPE VALLEY LOWLANDS 

Figure 2. Typical basins, showing landforms and general patterns of ground-water movement, middle Humboldt 

River Basin, north-central Nevada. A. Arid basin having permeable bedrock. 8, Arid basin having poorly permeable bedrock. C, Semiarid basin having poorly permeable bedrock. 

6 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
Summary of Methods for Estimating WaterBudget Components 

The water budgets were developed assuming 

approximate equilibrium and no long-term average 

annual change in ground-water storage (steady-state 

conditions). However, stresses that include changing 

patterns of inflow and outflow would disrupt this 

hydrologic equilibrium and cause ground-water levels 

to fluctuate. In turn, such fluctuations would cause 

changes in ground-water storage. 

The general relation for a steady-state water budget equates inflow to outflow. This general assumption 

of equilibrium was used to develop relations between 

inflow and outflow for each landform. The equations 

used to estimate average annual water budgets for a 

typical hydrographic area in the middle Humboldt 

River Basin are presented in table 2. The equations for 

each landform are described in terms of inflows balanced by outflows, where an outflow from one landform commonly represents an inflow to another 

landform. Relations among the budget components are 

illustrated schematically in figure 3. 

By defmition, a method is a regular and systematic way of accomplishing a given task, and the 

assumption is that the set of procedures can be applied 

elsewhere and produce similar results. Thus, the methods applied to one hydrographic area should be applicable to other areas in the middle Humboldt River 

Basin without significant modification. Nonetheles , 

the procedures discussed herein are subject to refmement as more information about the identified waterbudget components becomes available. In addition, the 

use of these methods is limited by uncertainties inherent in measured or estimated values of the budget components and in the techniques used to areally distribute 

those values. Although the water budgets derived by 

these methods are subject to uncertainty, the overall 

estimates are believed to represent the proportional distribution of those components within each landform 

averaged over a selected reference period. 

For this investigation, the water budgets were 

considered on an average annual basis. Therefore, estimates of precipitation, runoff, water yield, groundwater recharge, and ET represent average quantities for 

a 12-month period. The water year, which begins on 

October 1 and ends on September 30 of the following 

calendar year, is used to represent an average year. The 

30-year period 1961- 90 is used as the reference period 

for analyses in this investigation. 

Table 2. Equations of hydrologic equilibrium for average annual water budgets for landforms and typical basin in middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada 

[Water-budget components (inflow equals outflow; see fig. 3 for hydrologic relations): Esw, evaporation from open-water bodies; 

ETgw, evapotranspiration of ground water by phreatophyte vegetation and through areas of bare soil in valley lowland; ETmb, evapotranspiration and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture and from riparian areas in mountain block; ETps, evapotranspiration 

and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture from piedmont slope; ETrps, evapotranspiration from vegetated flood plains of 

piedmont slope; ETv1, evapotranspiration of precipitation and soil moisture from valley lowland; Pmb, precipitation on mountain 

block; Pps, precipitation on piedmont slope; Pv1, precipitation on valley lowland; ROmb, runoff from mountain block; ROps, runoff 

from piedmont slope; ROv1, runoff from valley lowland; Sfln, subsurface now from adjacent hydrographic areas; SFmb, subsurface 

now from bedrock aquifer in mountain block; SFout. subsurface flow to adjacent hydrographic areas; SFps, subsurface flow from 

basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope; SFtot, total outflow as subsurface flow at hydrographic-area boundary; SFv1, subsurface 

now from basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland; SWln, surface-water now from adjacent hydrographic areas; Swtot, total outflow 

as surface water at hydrographic-area boundary (may include ground-water discharge as baseflow)] 

Average annual water-budget components 

Inflow Outflow 

Landforms: 

Mountain block Pmb + SFin ROmb + SFmb + SF out + ETmb 

Piedmont slope Pps + ROmb + SWln + SFmb + SFin ROps + SFps + SFout + ETps + ETrps 

Valley lowland Pv1 + ROps + SWln + SFps + SFin ROv1 + SFv1 + ETv1 + ETgw + Esw 

Hydrographic area... .... Pmb + Pps + Pv1 + SWln + SFin Swtot + SFtot + ETmb + ETps + ETrps + ETv1 + ETgw + Esw 

Development of Annual Water Budgets 7 
Cl) 

~ Ill 

iD 

";' 

al 

c 

Q, 

(Q 

a 

m 

~ 

3 

a 

~ 

Ul 

Q 

:T 

~ 

..... 

~ 

:I: 

'< Q, 

.. 

0 

(Q 

iil 

"'C 

-::r 

() 

> 

Cil 

Ill 

Ul 

5' 

--::r 

~ 

3: 

a: 

Q, 

Ci' 

:I: 

c 

3 

{T 

0 

~ 

:::c 

< 

~ 

.. 

al 

!» 

Ul 

? 

z 

0 

::1 

-::r 

0 

Ill 

:I 

-!. 

z 

Ill 

< Ill 

Q, 

Ill 

Mountain block I Piedmont slope 

mountain 

Precipitation 

block 

on 

piedmont 

Precipitation 

slope 

on r":~:~W'V~~~~T·····;,.·.;:··:::····:~. Pmb Pps 

,lr "'" ~ ,. 

r Evapotranspiration =:=.:: and sublimation of 

precipitation and soil mois!Ure from . fRIIII ~ 

..... piedmont slope ... kMiand 

Evapotranspiration 

and sublimlnation of ,... ,.... ETvl Evlpollanepiral ~ 

.... precipitation and soil I ,,.. ETps 

m

riparian 

oisture 

areas 

and from 

in 

...,-: 

through =~ .... ~ bani mountain block I Evapotranspiration EWipOIIlllon fl1llll 8011111 loWland 

ETmb .. from ~ed flood ..... opeii<Miar bodl8ll ETgw ,lr I ,.. plains piedmont 

I ,.. slope Eaw 

ETrps I 

"'"' ... I!. Runoll .oillt. 

fl1llll I Total out- =.cs Runoff from flow as Runoff from piedmont ... lllo.. ""' ..... . ... surface 

~ mountain ~ock ... '"" ... .. slope -lilo. .. water ,... .,/ ,... ,... 1''" .. ,.... ,.. t ROvl I ,.. r"' ,.. I ,.. 

ROmb "'" ... , ROps : 

I S W tot 

GIOIIJid,waler rec:halge 

Ground-water re· ... ~ as lnfllrnlllon ~ vallwi- ..4~ I lowland pqclpllalloil and Ground-water recharge Ground-water re· charge as infinration ..... r I\-runoll fD INI8Iil-fii ii(JIIIar (as infiltration of pre- Water yield charge as infihra· of mountairHlfock benealh valier lowland cipitatlon and runoff) lion of precipitation GWRps and pledmont·slope l 1!"'1 I to bedrock aquHer in to basin-fill aquHer runoff to basin-fill 

mountain block beneath piedmont aquifer beneath GWRvl I slope piedmont slope I ... ~ t I L - SIAIIurface GWRmb ftowfrom 

t r 

! biiiiiHIII 

Subsurface llow ... ,., 

... "' Subsurface flow ~~ ~ I Total outfrom bedrock from basin-fill llowas 

aquifer in moun- ... ... aquifer beneath ..... .._, 

~ =~~~ j _ .. subsurface 

GWR II ow tam block '"' ,... piedmont slope ,.... ,-/ I ,... SFmb Conceptual boundary SFps Totalgnou~srter SF vi 

- -- - - - ----- - -j - ---- r - recnarge- ...., - - :.J S F tot 

of hydrographic area .. ,. ... ... ... ..4~ 

... ~r ......., .. ......... Subsurface flow from mountain 

.. .. .. "" .. ""'\ block and piedmont slope to .. .. 

++ ,... ,... ,... t,...t adjacent hydrographic areas ,... ,... 

... ~ SFout 

Subsurface llow !rom adjacent Surface-water llow from Subsurface flow from Surface-water llow from 

hydrographic areas adjacent hydrographic adjacent hydrographic adjacent hydrographic 

areas areas areas 

Sfjn SWjn SF in SWin 

Figure 3. Interrelations among water-budget components and landforms for simplified hydrologic-flow system, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada. 

Modified from Eakin and Lamke (1966, p. 14). 
Precipitation, in the form of either rain or snow is 

the principal source of inflow to the Humboldt Riv~r 

Basin. A precipitation map derived from a statisticaltopographic model (Daly and others, 1994) was used to 

estimate average annual precipitation in the 14 hydrographic areas. The model, called a precipitation-elevation regressions on independent slopes model 

(PRISM), uses average annual precipitation over the 

30-year reference period 1961 - 90. Methods for estimating average annual runoff, water yield, and groundwater recharge were developed, in part, as functions of 

the distribution and quantity of annual precipitation 

simulated by PRISM. The methods were regionalized 

by using GIS techniques (Berger, 2000). A summary of 

the area and distribution of average annual precipitation simulated by PRISM for each landform in the 14 

hydrographic areas is presented in table 3. 

Runoff is defmed as that part of the precipitation 

that eventually appears in streams (Langbein and Iseri, 

1960, p. 17) and that can be divided, with respect to the 

water source, into direct runoff or baseflow runoff 

(Wilson and Moore, 1998, p. 172). The water yield 

from mountain-block areas consists of runoff generated 

in the watershed and of ground water that flows from 

the bedrock aquifer along the mountain front. The relation between runoff and water yield was used to 

develop estimates of subsurface flow from mountainblock areas (Berger, 2000). The difference between 

runoff and water yield was assumed equal to the subsurface-flow component from the mountain block. 

For selected watersheds in western Nevada, a 

regression analysis was developed for estimating 

annual runoff and water yield as a function of average 

annual precipitation (Maurer and Berger, 1997, p. 30). 

This analysis was modified by Berger (2000) to include 

six watersheds in north-central Nevada for application 

in the Humboldt River Basin Assessment. Average 

annual-runoff values for the six watersheds in northcentral Nevada were adjusted to represent a common 

31-year time period ( 1966-96) on the basis of available 

records from the South Twin River gaging station in 

north-central Nevada. Annual volumes of precipitation 

and estimates of average annual runoff and water yield 

were divided by the area of each watershed to account 

for differences in area. Simple least-squares regression 

analyses of average annual runoff and water yield 

(dependent variables) and average annual precipitation 

(independent variable) was done. The regression equation used to describe the relation between average 

annual runoff and average annual precipitation in the 

14 hydrographic areas of the middle Humboldt River 

Basin (Berger, 2000) can be written as 

ROmb = 0.0000228(? m)3.96 (I) 

where ROmb is estimated average annual runoff in 

mountain block, in inches per year; and 

P m is average annual precipitation in 

mountain block, in inches per year. 

On the basis of the coefficient of determination 

for equation 1 c? = 0.887), about 89 percent of the variance in annual runoff from the selected watersheds can 

be explained by the regression relation. In addition, the 

significance of probability (p = 0.0001) indicates a statistically significant relation between average annual 

precipitation simulated by PRISM and adjusted average annual runoff. 

The equation that best approximates the relation 

between average annual water yield and precipitation 

in the 14 hydrographic areas of the middle Humboldt 

River Basin (Berger, 2000) can be written as 

W = 0.00273(P m)2

·

56 (2) 

where W is average annual water yield in mountain 

block, in inches per year; 

and 

P m is average annual precipitation in mountain 

block, in inches per year. 

According to the coefficient of determination (? = 

0.863), about 86 percent of the variance in average 

annual water yield can be accounted for by this regression equation. The small p-value, 0.0008, indicates a 

strong predictive relation between average annual 

water yield and precipitation. Estimates of average 

annual runoff and water yield for mountain-block 

areas of the 14 hydrographic areas are presented in 

table 4. The coefficients derived for equations 1 and 2 

are applicable only to the distribution of precipitation 

simulated by PRISM and acquired from G.H. Taylor 

(Oregon Climate Service, Oregon State University, 

written commun., 1997). Relations represented by 

equations 1 and 2 are applicable for watersheds with 

PRISM-simulated average annual precipitation of not 

more than about 30 in. 

Development of Annual Water Budgets 9 
Table 3. Area of landforms and distribution of simulated average annual precipitation on landforms 

in the 14 hydrographic areas of middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada 

[Simulation based on 1961-90 data. Model simulated no annual precipitation of less than 8 inches or greater than 30 inches. Precipitation 

zones based on Nichols (2000). Data for individual landforms rounded to nearest 100 acres or acre-feet per year; totals, to nearest 1,000. 

PRJSM, precipitation-elevation regressions on independent slopes model (Daly and others, 1994). <,less than] 

PRISM-simulated average annual precipitation by precipitation zone 

(acre-feet per year) 

Landform Area 

Zone of Zone of Zone of Zone of (acres) at least 8 at least 12 at least 16 at least 20 Total 

but <12 but <16 but <20 but<34 

inches Inches inches inches 

Pine Valtey Hydrograp hic Area 

Mountain block 261,800 10,600 177,600 117,200 21,000 326,000 

Piedmont slope 350,100 174,700 151,400 7,700 0 334,000 

Valley lowland 32,800 26,300 1,500 0 0 28,000 

Total... ... 645,000 212,000 330,000 125,000 21,000 688,000 

Crescent Valley Hydrographic Area 

Mountain block 179,800 65,200 95,200 22,200 1,500 184,000 

Piedmont slope 224,000 161 ,000 31,400 4,300 0 197,000 

Valley lowland 78,100 65,100 0 0 0 65,000 

Total.. .... 482,000 291,000 127,000 26,000 2,000 446,000 

Carico Lake Valley Hydrographic Area 

Mountain block 111,400 20,200 77,300 22,100 3,400 123,000 

Piedmont slope 120,400 82,300 25,300 0 0 108,000 

Valley lowland 9,700 8,100 0 0 0 8,000 

Total. ..... 242,000 111,000 103,000 22,000 3,000 239,000 

Upper Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area 

Mountain block 339,200 32,600 200,600 135,400 45,300 414,000 

Piedmont slope 352,100 78,800 269,600 6,100 0 354,000 

Valley lowland 36,000 5,500 29,500 0 0 35,000 

Total... ... 727,000 117,000 500,000 142,000 45,000 803,000 

Antelope Valley Hydrographic Area 

Mountain block 114,000 26,700 86,500 7,000 0 120,000 

Piedmont slope 145,300 88,200 45,800 100 0 134,000 

Valley lowland 30,300 25,300 0 0 0 25,000 

Total... ... 290,000 140,000 132,000 7,000 0 279,000 

Middle Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area 

Mountain block 113,500 44,800 65,200 0 0 110,000 

Piedmont slope 54,200 42,100 4,300 0 0 46,000 

Valley lowland 36,200 30,100 0 0 0 30,000 

Total.. .... 204,000 117,000 70,000 0 0 186,000 

Lower Reese Rlver Valley Hydrographic Area 

Mountain block 151 ,200 66,000 80,900 0 0 147,000 

Piedmont slope 123,700 101 ,000 3,100 0 0 104,000 

Valley lowland 107,600 89,700 0 0 0 90,000 

Total. ... .. 382,000 257,000 84,000 0 0 341,000 

10 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-central Nevada 
Table 3. Area of landforms and distribution of simulated average annual precipitation on landforms 

in the 14 hydrographic areas of middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada-continued 

PRISM-simulated average annual precipitation by precipitation zone 

(acre-feet per year) 

Landform Area 

(acres) Zone of Zone of Zone of Zone of at least 8 at least 12 at least 16 at least 20 Total but <12 but <16 but<20 but <34 

inches Inches inches Inches 

Whirlwind Valley Hydrographic Area 

Mountain block 38,300 25,400 8,700 0 0 34,000 

Piedmont slope 12,800 10,000 900 0 0 11,000 

Valley lowland 11,500 9,600 0 0 0 10,000 

Total.. .... 63,000 45,000 10,000 0 0 55,000 

Boulder Flat Hydrographic Area 

Mountain block 150,400 80,000 54,700 7,200 0 142,000 

Piedmont slope 77,000 59,200 6,800 0 0 66,000 

Valley lowland 119,700 99,700 0 0 0 100,000 

Total. ... .. 347,000 239,000 62,000 7,000 0 308,000 

Rock Creek Valley Hydrographic Area 

Mountain block 221,500 141 ,300 53,800 4,200 0 199,000 

Piedmont slope 56,300 45,600 2,200 0 0 48,000 

Valley lowland 10,300 8,300 400 0 0 9,000 

Total... ... 288,000 195,000 56,000 4,000 0 256,000 

Willow Creek Valley Hydrographic Area 

Mountain block 196,200 37,300 137,600 33,800 7,800 2 16,000 

Piedmont slope 57,300 26,600 22,500 4,900 1,400 55,000 

Valley lowland 10,700 8,900 200 0 0 9,000 

Total... ... 264,000 73,000 160,000 39,000 9,000 280,000 

Cloven Area 

Mountain block 138,300 65,400 49,800 22,100 0 137,000 

Piedmont slope 193,400 151 ,600 7,900 400 0 160,000 

Valley lowland 130,300 103,600 0 0 0 104,000 

Total... ... 462,000 321,000 58,000 22,000 0 401,000 

Pumpernickel Valley Hydrographic Area 

Mountain block 78,900 35,300 37,600 1,200 0 74,000 

Piedmont slope 67,700 46,700 11 ,600 0 0 58,000 

Valley lowland 49,100 36,600 0 0 0 37,000 

Total. ..... 196,000 119,000 49,000 1,000 0 169,000 

Kelly Creek Area 

Mountain block 60,800 7,600 35,700 16,800 12,700 73,000 

Piedmont slope 81 ,000 59,700 9,800 200 0 70,000 

Valley lowland 51,000 37,600 0 0 0 38,000 

Total... ... 193,000 105,000 46,000 17,000 13,000 181,000 

Development of Annual Water Budgets 11 
Table 4. Simulated average annual precipitation and estimated average annual runoff, water yield, subsuriace 

flow, and evapotranspiration in mountain-block areas in the 14 hydrographic areas of middle Humboldt River 

Basin, north-central Nevada 

[PRISM, precipitation-elevation regressions on independent slopes model (Daly and olhers, 1994)] 

Ave rage a nnua l 

Average a nnual Average annual Average annual Avera ge a nnual 

precipitation 1 

runoff2 water yield3 s ubsurface fl ow" e vapotra nspirationS 

Hydrographic area Rate Volume (acre -feet (acre-feet (acre -fe et (ac re-feet (inches (ac re-feet 

per year) pe r year) pe r yea r) per year) per yea r) per year) 

Pine Va lley 14.96 326,400 22,400 60,600 38,200 265,800 

Crescent Va ll ey 12.29 184,100 7,000 25,200 18,200 158,900 

Carico Lake Va lley 13.25 123,000 5,900 18,900 13,000 104, 100 

Upper Reese River Va lley 14.64 41 3,900 26,600 74,300 47,700 339,600 

Antelope Valley 12.65 120,200 5,000 17,200 12,200 103,000 

M iddle Reese River Va lley 11.63 110,000 3,600 13,800 10,200 96,200 

Lower Reese River Va lley 11 .66 146,900 4,800 18,500 13,700 128,400 

Whirlwind Va lley 10.68 34,100 900 3,700 2,800 30,400 

Boulder Flat 11.32 14 1,900 4,300 17, 100 12,800 124,800 

Rock Creek Valley 10.80 199,300 5,200 22,300 17, 100 177,000 

Willow Creek Valley 13.24 2 16,500 10,300 33,200 22,900 183,300 

Clovers Area 11.9 1 137,300 4,800 17,900 13, 100 119,400 

Pumpernicke l Va ll ey 11 .27 74,100 2,200 8,800 6,600 65 ,300 

K e lly Creek Area 14.37 72,800 4,400 12,700 8,300 60,100 

1 PRISM simulation based on 1961- 90 data; rate rounded 10 nearest 0.0 1 inch per year, and volume, to nearest 100 acre-feet per year. 

2 ROmb, estimated from equation I (see text); rounded to nearest I 00 acre-feet per year. 3 Estimated from equation 2 (see text); rounded to nearest I 00 acre-feet per year. 4 From bedrock aquifers in mountain-block areas to basin fi ll underlying piedmont-slope areas and to adjacent hydrographic areas. SFmb, estimated as 

difference between average annual water yield and average annual runoff; rounded to nearest I 00 acre-feel per year. 5 ETmb, estimated as difference between average annual precipitation in mountain-block areas and average annual water yield; includes sublimated 

precipitation and soil moisture; rounded to nearest I 00 acre-feel per year. 

The portion of precipitation that falls on piedmont 

slopes and becomes runoff is largely unknown. Runoff 

generated in piedmont-slope areas from short periods 

of high-intensity storms or low-altitude snowmelts is 

erratic in occurrence and probably accounts for less 

than 10 percent of the total runoff but could be greater. 

Eakin and Lamke (1961 , p. 32) estimated that about 7 

percent of the total runoff occurs in valley-upland 

areas. To develop a generalized water budget, average 

annual runoff originating from precipitation on piedmont-slope areas was estimated to range from 0 to 10 

percent of the total runoff generated in the hydrographic area (table 5). The low end of this range reflects 

the possibility that all the annual precipitation on piedmont-slope areas is lost to either ET or ground-water 

recharge. Runoff generated in valley-lowland areas 

was assumed to be negligible; consequently, total surface-water outflow at the hydrographic-area boundary 

equaled the net sum of runoff generated in the mountain block and on the piedmont slope and the volume 

contributed by ground-water discharge. 

Ground-water recharge takes place by direct infiltration of precipitation in excess of ET and soil-moisture requirements and by indirect infiltration from 

channelized or nonchannelized runoff or ponded water. 

Although, in terms of total ground-water recharge, 

indirect processes of recharge tend to be seasonal, they 

are significant to the overall water budget of a basin. 

Two approaches were taken to estimate groundwater recharge. The first approach is based on an 

empirical relation between precipitation and groundwater recharge similar to that developed by Maxey and 

Eakin (1949) and Eakin and others (1951). For each 

basin, average annual precipitation was distributed into 

four zones. Multiple-regression analysis then was used 

to develop recharge coefficients to describe the relation 

between precipitation and ground-water recharge in 

each zone. The regression equation that best approximates this relation was derived by Nichols (2000) from 

16 basins in eastern Nevada where ground-water outflow by ET and interbasin flow had been estimated previoud y. The regression equation can be written as 

12 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
Table 5. Estimated average annual runoff, evapotranspiration, and subsurface flow from piedmont-slope 

areas in the 14 hydrographic areas of middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada 

[All values rounded to nearest 100 acre-feet per year. Bold symbols (in footnotes) correspond to those used in table 2 and fig. 3. PRJ M, precipitationelevation regressions on independent slopes model (Daly and others, I 994); RAWS. remote automatic weather station; TM. Thematic Mapper) 

Average annual 

Average annual Average annual evapotranspiration Average annual 

runoff1 evapotranspiration2 

Hydrog raphic area from vegetated subsurface flow-4 

(acre-feet (acre-feet floodplains3 (acre-feet 

per year) per year) (acre-feet per year) 

per year) 

Pine Valley 0- 2,500 306,300-333,800 3,200-4,100 52,500- 79,300 

Crescent Valley 0--800 196,000- 196,700 500- 1,900 25,500- 26,500 

Carico Lake Valley 0- 700 105,400-107,600 1, 100- 1,200 21,700-23,400 

Upper Reese River Valley 0- 3,000 308,100- 354,500 10,900- 11 ,700 71,400- 110,000 

Antelope Valley 0-QOO 127,100-134, 100 200-QOO 17,200-25,200 

Middle Reese River Valley 0-400 46,400 300--800 13,300- 13700 

Lower Reese River Valley 0- 500 104,100 100 18,500-19,000 

Whirlwind Valley 0- 100 10,900 0 3,700-3,800 

Boulder Flat 0-500 66,000 300- 700 19,100- 19,300 

Rock Creek Valley 0-QOO 47,800 600- 800 17,100 

Willow Creek Valley 0- 1, 100 50,100- 55,400 3,300-4,200 27,500 

Clovers Area 0- 500 159,900 4,400- 7,600 I 7,900- 18,400 

Pumpernickel Valley 0- 200 58,300 500- 700 8,800- 9,000 

Kelly Creek Area 0- 500 69,700 I ,600- 2,300 12,700- 13,200 

t ROps, estimated assuming runoff generated on piedmont-slope areas represents 0 to 10 percent of total annual runoff in hydrographic area. 2 ETps, evapotranspiration of precipitation and soil moisture estimated as ranging from I 0.5 inches per year, which is average rate derived by 

applying Penman- Monteith equation (Monteith, I 965) to I 987- 95 RAWS data, to total annual precipitation on piedmont slope as simulated by PRISM. 3 ETRps, estimated from Landsat TM data (Nichols, 2000). 4 From basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin fill in valley lowland (Sfps), estimated as sum of (I) subsurface now from bedrock 

aquifer in mountain block that remains in hydrographic area (SFmb), (2) difference between sum of mountain-block runoff(ROmb) plus piedmont-slope 

runoff(ROps) and surface-water outflow at hydrographic-area boundary (SWtot), (3) difference between precipitation on piedmont slope (Pps) and sum 

of average annual runoff(ROps) and average annual evapotranspiration, including that from vegetated flood plains (ETps and ETRps), and (4) subsurface 

inflow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFin). 

Rgw = 0.008(?8) + O.l30(Pb) + O.l44(Pc) + 0.158(? ct) (3) 

where Rgw is average annual ground-water recharge, 

in acre-feet per year; 

P8 is average annual volume of precipitation 

in hydrographic area in zone of at least 8 

but less than 12 in., in acre-feet per year; 

Pb is average annual volume of precipitation 

in hydrographic area in zone of at least 12 

but less than 16 in., in acre-feet per year; 

Pc is average annual volume of precipitation 

in hydrographic area in zone of at least 16 

but less than 20 in., in acre-feet per year; 

Pd is average annual volume of precipitation 

in hydrographic area in zone of at least 20 

but less than 34 in., in acre-feet per year. 

Similar to the original method developed by 

Maxey-Eakin (1949), this revised relation (eq. 3) provides a bulk estimate of recharge and assumes that 

ground-water recharge is negligible if annual precipitation is less than 8 in. The recharge coefficients derived 

by Nichols (2000) for estimating average annual 

ground-water recharge are applicable only to the distribution of precipitation simulated by PRISM and 

acquired from G.H. Taylor (Oregon Climate Service, 

Oregon State University, written commun., 1997). 

The second approach, based on mass-balance calculations among several budget components, provides 

an indication of the quantity of ground-water recharge 

contributed by individual processes (Berger, 2000). 

This approach was used to evaluate the ground-water 

budget for each hydrographic area and individual budget components, particularly subsurface flow between 

aquifers underlying adjacent landforms. 

Development of Annual Water Budgets 13 
Although the quantity of subsurface flow that 

moves across hydrographic-area boundaries is generally unknown, it could represent a significant component of the water budget. Results from a study by 

Plume and Ponce ( 1999) provided most of the information needed for estimating subsurface flow by using 

Darcy's law. As modified from Heath (1989, p. 12), 

Darcy's law can be expressed as 

Q = 0.0084 K A(dh/dl), (4) 

where Q is quantity of subsurface flow, in acre-feet 

per year; 

K is average hydraulic conductivity for cross 

section, in feet per day; 

A is saturated cross-sectional area through 

which flow occurs, perpendicular to 

the direction of flow, in square feet; 

( dh/dl) is hydraulic gradient, in feet per feet; and 

0.0084 is factor to convert cubic feet per day into 

acre-feet per year. 

Derived from Plume and Ponce ( 1999), a value of 

10 ft/d was used to represent an average hydraulic-conductivity value for basin-fill sediments. Cross-sectional areas of basin fill beneath hydrographic-area 

boundaries were estimated on the basis of interpretation of gravity data (D.A. Ponce, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 1997, 1999). Water-level data 

collected in the spring of 1996 (Plume and Ponce, 

1999) were used to estimate hydraulic gradients. 

Currently, no data to determine directly the loss 

of water by ET and sublimation are available for mountain-block areas of the Humboldt River Basin. For this 

investigation, ET was estimated as the difference 

between average annual precipitation that falls in 

mountain-block areas and the estimated average annual 

water yield (eq. 2). Average annual ET in piedmontslope areas was derived, in part, by applying the Penman- Monteith equation (Monteith, 1965) to available 

climatic data collected at remote automatic weather 

stations (Berger, 2000). An average value of 10.5 in/yr, 

derived from the Penman- Monteith equation, was used 

as a minimum rate, and the annual quantity of precipitation that falls on piedmont-slope areas was used as a 

maximum rate. 

In valley-lowland areas, total ET is assumed 

equal to the sum of average annual precipitation that 

falls within the area plus the consumptive use of ground 

water by phreatophyte vegetation. A method for estimating ground-water ET at regional scales by using 

Landsat TM satellite data was developed by Nichols 

(2000) and was applied to the valley lowlands to estimate average annual ground-water ET. The Landsat 

TM data were collected in June 1989 and June 1995. 

Estimates of ground-water discharge by phreatophyte 

vegetation in the 14 hydrographic areas is presented in 

table 6. The average annual ET determined for the valley lowlands in each basin was less in 1989 than in 

1995. Although the total area ofphreatophyte vegetation in each basin was essentially the same for the two 

periods, the greater ET in 1995 was due to an increase 

in plant cover in the at-least-1 0-but-less-than-20-percent zone and a corresponding decrease in plant cover 

in the less-than-10-percent zone (table 6; Berger, 2000, 

p. 22). 

ET from vegetated flood plains in piedmont-slope 

areas also was estimated from Landsat TM data. The 

methods using Landsat TM data may not be entirely 

appropriate for estimating ET in vegetated flood plains 

because of the smaller area covered by these areas 

compared to phreatophyte vegetation in the valley lowlands. However, the method does provide a lower ET 

limit for vegetated flood plains. The consumptive use 

of water in vegetated flood plains was assumed to represent ground-water discharge. 

Evaporation from open-water bodies (table 6) 

was estimated on the basis of pan-evaporation measurements collected at Beowawe and Rye Patch Dam in 

the Humboldt River Basin and at Ruby Lake in northeastern Nevada (fig. 1; Shevenell, 1996, p. 5). An average of 4.2 ft/yr was used for estimating average annual 

evaporation from open-water bodies and included in 

the water budget for the valley lowlands. Areas of 

open-water bodies in the study area were determined 

from Landsat TM data collected in June 1989 and 

June 1995. 

14 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
Table 6. Average annual evapotranspiration rates from areas of bare soil or phreatophyte vegetation, evaporation 

rates from open water, and annual volume of ground-water evapotranspiration from valley lowlands, 1989 and 1995, 

in the 14 hydrographic areas of middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada 

[ET, evapotranspiration; MSAVI, modified soil-adjusted vegelation index; TM, Thematic Mapper] 

Area1 

(acres) 

Average evapotransplration2 

Bare soil 

Plant cover: 

Zone 

Less than I 0 percent 

At least I 0 but less than 20 percent 

At least 20 but less than 35 percent 

At least 35 but less than 50 percent 

At least 50 percent 

1989 1995 

Pine Valley Hydrographic Area 

170 70 

15,360 5,500 

9,450 17,530 

3,610 5,190 

1,990 3,130 

2,320 1,470 

Rate 

(feet per year) 

1989 1995 

0. 15 0.15 

.50 .62 

1.35 1.36 

2.17 2.17 

2.55 2.55 

2.64 2.64 

Estimated total annual ground-water ET3 .. ........ ....... ..... ... .............. ..... .................................................... .. 

Open-water bodies 16 15 

Crescent Valley Hydrographic Area 

Bare soil 

Plant cover: 

Less than 1 0 percent 

At least 10 but less than 20 percent 

At least 20 but less than 35 percent 

7,690 

43,740 

4,090 

550 

5,190 

33,360 

15,660 

1,830 

4.2 

0.15 

.28 

1.22 

2.10 

4.2 

0.15 

.38 

1.24 

2.12 

At least 35 but less than 50 percent 60 80 2.50 2.47 

At least 50 percent 10 10 2.58 2.58 

Estimated total annual ground-water ET3 .......................................... ............................ .. ... ...................... .. 

Open-waterbodies 103 114 4.2 4.2 

Bare soil 

Plant cover: 

Less than I 0 percent 

At least 10 but less than 20 percent 

At least 20 but less than 35 percent 

Carico Lake Valley Hydrographic Area 

520 

7,870 

820 

260 

160 

4,680 

4,120 

430 

At least 35 but less than 50 percent 190 140 

At least 50 percent 80 190 

0.15 0.15 

.31 .57 

1.27 1.25 

2.19 2.14 

2.54 2.55 

2.64 2.64 

Estimated total annual ground-water ET3 ..................................................... .......... .. ............................... .. 

Open-water bodies 0 9 4.2 4.2 

Upper Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area 

Bare soil 

Plant cover: 

Less than I 0 percent 

At least I 0 but less than 20 percent 

At least 20 but less than 35 percent 

220 

14,890 

10,420 

6,420 

710 

9,900 

16,390 

5,870 

0.15 

.44 

1.40 

2.18 

0.15 

.47 

1.36 

2.17 

At least 35 but less than 50 percent 2,510 1,600 2.54 2.53 

At least 50 percent 830 690 2.64 2.64 

Estimated total annual ground-water ET3 .. .... ........................................................................................... . . 

Open-water bodies 4 150 4.2 4.2 

Volume 

(acre-feet per year) 

1989 1995 

30 10 

7,710 3,380 

12,720 23,810 

7,820 11,280 

5,080 7,980 

6 120 3 870 

39,500 50,300 

70 60 

1,150 780 

12,120 12,740 

5,000 19,500 

1,150 3,880 

150 200 

30 30 

19,600 37,100 

430 480 

80 20 

2,460 2,660 

1,040 5,150 

570 920 

480 360 

210 500 

4,800 9,600 

0 40 

30 110 

6,630 4,670 

14,600 22,340 

13,980 12,760 

6,380 4,050 

2,190 1,820 

43,800 45,800 

20 630 

Development of Annual Water Budgets 15 
Table 6. Average annual evapotranspiration rates from areas of bare soil or phreatophyte vegetation, evaporation 

rates from open water, and annual volume of ground-water evapotranspiration from valley lowlands, 1989 and 1995. 

in the 14 hydrographic areas of middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada-continued 

Area1 

(acres) 

Average evapotransplratlon2 

Bare soil 

Plant cover: 

Zone 

Less than I 0 percent 

At least 10 but less than 20 percent 

1989 1995 

Antelope Valley Hydrographic Area 

60 

6,970 

200 

0 

1,690 

5,460 

Rate 

(feet per year) 

1989 1995 

0.15 0.15 

.23 .69 

1.20 1.26 

At least 20 but less than 35 percent 10 140 2.09 2.08 

At least 35 but less than 50 percent 0 10 2.47 2.45 

At least 50 percent 0 0 0.00 0.00 

Estimated total annual ground-water ET3 ....................................................... .................................... .. ..... . 

Open-water bodies 0 0 4.2 4.2 

Middle Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area 

Bare soil 230 30 0.15 0.15 

Plant cover: 

Less than 10 percent 9,360 3,240 .17 .54 

At least 10 but less than 20 percent 370 5,530 1.34 1.39 

At least 20 but less than 35 percent 100 1,110 2.10 2.06 

At least 35 but less than 50 percent 20 110 2.51 2.5 1 

At least 50 percent 0 60 2.58 2.59 

Estimated total annual ground-water ET3 .. ... ................................................................................ ............. . 

Open-water bodies 2 8 4.2 · 4.2 

Lower Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area 

Bare soil 7,600 2,360 0.15 0.15 

Plant cover: 

Less than I 0 percent 76,020 44,720 .24 .45 

At least 10 but less than 20 percent 5,420 40,210 1.30 1.27 

At least 20 but less than 35 percent 1,230 2,990 2.15 2.15 

At least 35 but less than 50 percent 550 520 2.51 2.49 

At least 50 percent 210 160 2.58 2.59 

Estimated total annual ground-water ET3 ................................................. ................. ................... .. .......... .. 

Open-water bodies 129 185 4.2 4.2 

Bare soil 

Plant cover: 

Less than I 0 percent 

At least 10 but less than 20 percent 

At least 20 but less than 35 percent 

Whirlwind Valley Hydrographic Area 

730 

4,220 

3,220 

2,080 

740 

3,010 

3,510 

2,830 

0.15 

.35 

1.40 

2.18 

0.15 

.38 

1.44 

2.16 

At least 35 but less than 50 percent 870 940 2.50 2.50 

At least 50 percent 410 480 2.58 2.59 

Estimated total annual ground-water ET3 ................ ............... ...... .................. ... ... ..................................... . 

Open-water bodies 16 34 4.2 4.2 

Volume 

(acre-feet per year) 

1989 1995 

10 0 

1,620 1, 160 

310 6,890 

20 290 

0 20 

0 0 

2,000 8,400 

0 0 

30 0 

1,560 1,730 

500 7,751 

210 2,290 

50 280 

0 160 

2,400 12,200 

10 30 

1, 140 350 

17,940 20,300 

7,070 50,900 

2,650 6,420 

1,380 1,300 

540 410 

30,700 79,800 

540 780 

110 110 

1,470 1,160 

4,520 5,050 

4,540 6,120 

2,180 2,350 

1,060 1,240 

13,900 16,000 

70 140 

16 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas in the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
Table 6. Average annual evapotranspiration rates from areas of bare soil or phreatophyte vegetation, evaporation 

rates from open water, and annual volume of ground-water evapotranspiration from valley lowlands, 1989 and 1995, 

in the 14 hydrographic areas of middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada-Continued 

Area 1 

(acres) 

Average evapotransplration2 

Bare soil 

Plant cover: 

Zone 

Less than I 0 percent 

At least I 0 but less than 20 percent 

At least 20 but less than 35 percent 

At least 35 but less than 50 percent 

At least 50 percent 

1989 1995 

Boulder Flat Hydrographic Area 

670 890 

56,450 12,700 

24,570 56,240 

10,820 22,970 

2,950 2,870 

950 620 

Rate 

(feet per year) 

1989 1995 

0.15 0.15 

.44 .56 

1.38 1.47 

2.15 2. 11 

2.50 2.49 

2.59 2.59 

Estimated total annual ground-water ET3 .. .... ..... ... ... ....... ..... .. .. ........... ... ............ .. ......... ...... ...... .............. . . 

Open-water bodies 

Bare soil 

Plant cover: 

Less than I 0 percent 

At least I 0 but less than 20 percent 

At least 20 but less than 35 percent 

108 243 

Rock Creek Valley Hydrographic Area 

10 0 

6,830 670 

2,730 8,250 

200 880 

4.2 

0.15 

.59 

1.19 

2.18 

4.2 

0. 15 

.73 

1.40 

2.07 

At least 35 but less than 50 percent 40 50 2.51 2.49 

At least 50 percent 10 0 2.58 2.58 

Estimated total annual ground-water ET3 .... ... ... ..... .... ... ..... ...... ...... ....... .... ... .... ...... ...... ...... ... ... ... .......... ... . . 

Open-water bodies 0 0 4.2 4.2 

Willow Creek Valley Hydrographic Area 

Bare soil 30 20 0.15 0.15 

Plant cover: 

Less than I 0 percent 840 140 .68 .48 

At least I 0 but less than 20 percent 5,000 4,260 1.37 1.60 

At least 20 but less than 35 percent 2,130 3,290 2.20 2.14 

At least 35 but less th.an 50 percent 1,920 1,780 2.51 2.51 

At least 50 percent 880 1,3 10 2.58 2.59 

Estimated total annual ground-water ET3 ............. .. ... .... .. ... ...... ... ............ .. ... ............ ................................. . 

Open-water bodies 2 3 4.2 4.2 

Bare soil 

Plant cover: 

11 ,340 

Cloven Area 

4,670 0. 15 0.15 

Less than 10 percent 94,210 59, 120 .21 .50 

At least 10 but less than 20 percent 6,980 49,470 1.38 1.21 

At least 20 but less than 35 percent 6,110 7,070 2.21 2.14 

At least 35 but less than 50 percent 2,990 I ,050 2.50 2.49 

At least 50 percent 570 100 2.58 2.58 

Estimated total annual ground-water ET3 ....... ... .......... .. .. ... ... ... ..... .......... ... .. .... .. ...... ....... .. ...... ...... ... ... ...... . 

Open-water bodies 125 849 4.2 4.2 

Volume 

(acre-feet per year) 

1989 1995 

100 130 

25 ,060 7,100 

33,830 82,900 

23,240 48,510 

7,370 7,140 

2,460 1,600 

92,100 147,400 

450 1,000 

0 0 

4,020 490 

3,240 11 ,530 

440 1,820 

100 120 

30 0 

7,800 14,000 

0 0 

0 0 

570 70 

6,860 6,810 

4,680 7,060 

4,820 4,470 

2,270 3,390 

19,200 2 1,800 

10 10 

1,700 700 

20,160 29,500 

9,600 60,060 

13,480 15,100 

7,470 2,610 

1,470 260 

53,900 108,200 

520 3,570 

Development of Annual Water Budgets 17 
Table 6. Average annual evapotranspiration rates from areas of bare soil or phreatophyte vegetation, evaporation 

rates from open water, and annual volume of ground-water evapotranspiration from valley lowlands, 1989 and 1995, 

in the 14 hydrographic areas of middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada-Continued 

Zone 

1989 

Area 1 

(acres) 

1995 

Average evapotransplratlon2 

Rate 

(feet per yea r) 

1989 1995 

Volume 

(acre-feet per year) 

1989 1995 

Pumpernickel Valley Hydrographic Area 

Bare soil 6,820 3,140 

Plant cover: 

Less than I 0 percent 26,520 19,520 

At least I 0 but less than 20 percent 4,480 15,210 

At least 20 but less than 35 percent 3,680 3,830 

0.15 

. 13 

1.44 

2.18 

0.15 

.35 

1.34 . 

2.14 

1,020 470 

3,450 6,830 

6,450 20,380 

8,020 8,200 

At least 35 but less than 50 percent 780 490 2.49 2.48 1,940 1,220 

At least 50 percent 80 30 2.58 2.58 210 80 

Estimated total annual ground-water ET3 .. .. ................ ................................................................... .... ....... . 21 ,100 37,200 

Open-water bodies 99 242 4.2 4.2 420 1,020 

Kelly Creek Area 

Bare soil 2,200 780 0.15 0.15 330 120 

Plant cover: 

Less than I 0 percent 33,420 20,680 .17 .50 5,680 10,340 

At least 10 but less than 20 percent 2,2 10 16,180 1.39 1.23 3,070 19,900 

At least 20 but less than 35 percent 1,900 2,020 2. 18 2. 15 4,140 4,340 

At least 35 but less than 50 percent 400 450 2.49 2.49 1,000 1,120 

At least 50 percent 120 40 2.58 2.58 3 10 100 

Estimated total annual ground-water ET3 ................................................................ ... ................. .... .. ........ . 14,500 35,900 

Open-water bodies 2 93 4.2 4.2 10 390 

1 Derived from MSA VI from 1989 and 1995 Landsat TM images and from field measurements. Bare-soil and plant-cover values rounded to nearest I 0 acres. 2 Includes both ground-water ET (Nichols, 2000) and surface-water evaporation. Annual ET rates and volumes were deri ved from computer spreadsheet 

programs that display set number of digits after decimal point but retain number of digits originally in spreadsheet cell during calculations. Data values tabulated for each 

zone were rounded appropriately: ET rate, to nearest 0.0 1 feet; ET volume, to nearest 10 acre-feet. 

3 ETgw (table 2 and fig. 3 ). Rounded to nearest 1 00 acre-feet. 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates 

The preceding methods applied to the hydrographic areas resulted in water budgets that represent 

average annual conditions over the period 1961- 90 and 

do not account for ground-water pumping. Although 

the newly estimated water budgets are subject to a 

number of qualifications and uncertainties, they illustrate the relative distribution and movement of water in 

the hydrographic areas. Components of inflow and outflow estimated for the 14 hydrographic areas are presented in tables 7 through 20. Some budget 

components are presented as a range based on two sets 

of data collected at different times. The range in values 

illustrates the uncertainty in estimating water-budget 

components, some of which may be due to climatic 

variability. The distribution of estimated average 

annual precipitation and of landforms in the 14 hydrographic areas is presented in figures 4 through 17. 

On average, total annual inflow to the middle 

Humboldt River basin is estimated to be about 

5,000,000 acre-ft. Ofthetotal inflow, 4,600,000 acre-ft 

is from precipitation that fa lls in the 14 hydrographic 

areas, and about 350,000 acre-ft is inflow from the 

Humboldt River. Average annual outflow is estimated 

to be about 5,100,000 acre-ft, of which ETaccounts for 

about 4,800,000 acre-ft. Average annual outflow of 

the Humboldt River is about 300,000 acre-ft. The 

imbalance between estimates of inflow and outflow 

is about 100,000 acre-ft per year, a difference of about 

2 percent. 

18 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
Upper Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area 

has the largest water budget; the estimated annual 

inflow is 803,000 acre-ft, and outflow, is 744,000 to 

794,000 acre-ft (table 10). The smallest water budget is 

for Whirlwind Valley Hydrographic Area, where the 

estimated inflow is 55,000 acre-ft per year and outflow 

is 66,000 to 68,000 acre-ft per year, ifHumboldt River 

flow is ignored (table 14). The greatest water-budget 

imbalance among the 14 areas is for Boulder Flat 

Hydrographic Area (table 15). Estimated annual outflow is 55,000 to 112,000 acre-ft greater than inflow, 

due in part to the additional availability of Humboldt 

River water for ET. 

Generally, for hydrographic areas of the Humboldt River valley where the river makes up part of the 

area boundary or transverses the area (Boulder Flat, 

Crescent Valley, Whirlwind Valley, Lower Reese 

River Valley, Clovers Area, Pumpernickel Valley, and 

Kelly Creek Area) estimates of outflow are greater than 

estimates of inflow (fig. 18A); Total ET in these areas 

represents more than 97 percent of the total outflow. 

Due to insufficient data about surface- and groundwater flow at hydrographic-area boundaries, contribution to ET from the Humboldt River was not included 

in the water budgets. River water that has infiltrated 

upstream and moves parallel to the river is available to 

phreatophyte vegetation downstream. Regional analyses of ground-water ET based on Landsat TM data cannot be used to distinguish the source of ground water 

consumed by phreatophyte vegetation, particularly in 

areas where inflow components cannot be quantified. 

Because of the unaccounted river water consumed by 

phreatophyte vegetation in these seven areas, outflow 

is greater than inflow. Except for Rock Creek Valley 

and Willow Creek Valley Hydrographic Areas, the 

remaining areas whose boundaries do not include the 

Humboldt River valley have inflow estimates within 

range of estimated outflow or slightly greater (fig. 

18A). 

Surface-water outflow from Rock Creek Valley 

and Willow Creek Valley represent 12 and 6 percent of 

the total outflow, respectively, from these hydrographic areas. The mountain block makes up nearly 75 

percent of the total drainage area (table 3) and consequently receives the greatest proportion of annual precipitation. Both of these characteristics are conducive 

to runoff generation, which results in slightly greater 

outflow than inflow (fig. 18). 

Estimated ground-water budgets for the 14 hydrographic areas are summarized in table 21. Groundwater inflow to an area consists of ground-water 

recharge that originates within the hydrographic area as 

either precipitation or runoff and subsurface inflow 

from adjacent areas. Data necessary to estimate interbasin flow may not be available or may be insufficient. 

In areas where interbasin flow was estimated, the flow 

represents 3 to 47 percent of the total inflow (table 21). 

However, more detailed analysis in each hydrographic 

area is needed to evaluate this component of the water 

budget more completely. 

Estimates of ground-water recharge based on 

mass-balance calculations were simplified into three 

components on the basis of recharge processes and 

locations where recharge takes place (table 21 and fig. 

3). On average, about 70 percent of total ground-water 

recharge in the 14 hydrographic areas occurs in the 

mountain block. The remaining 25 to 30 percent occurs 

from infiltration of runoff on piedmont-slope areas. 

Ground-water recharge from direct precipitation on 

piedmont slopes is small and estimated to be negligible 

in eight of the hydrographic areas. Estimates of groundwater recharge based on the revised Maxey- Eakin 

coefficients (eq. 3) generally agree with the mass-balance calculations (table 21 ). 

For hydrographic areas not influenced by the 

Humboldt River ground-water ET estimates range 

from 1 to about 8 percent of the total annual precipitation. Ground-water inflow generally is greater than outflow for those areas (fig. 18). For the seven hydrographic areas that the river either bounds or transverses, 

ET estimates range from 9 to more than 48 percent of 

the total annual precipitation and ground-water outflow 

is greater than inflow (fig. 18). Consequently, the Humboldt River may provide as much as 40 percent of the 

water for ground-water ET. 

Comparison of Previous Water Budgets 

Eakin and Lamke ( 1966) provided the most comprehensive study for making comparisons of water 

budgets for the 14 hydrographic areas discussed in this 

report. The generalized budgets presented by Eakin and 

Lamke ( 1966, p. 11) represent average conditions for 

the 1912- 63 reference period, whereas budgets presented in this report represent average annual conditions for the 1961- 90 reference period. 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates 19 
Average annual precipitation for 1912- 63 was 6 

to 19 percent less than that for 1961- 90, based on data 

from four long-term weather stations in the Humboldt 

River Basin (at Austin, Battle Mountain, Elko, and 

Lovelock; fig. 1 ). The distribution of annual precipitation used in most of the earlier studies of the Humboldt 

River Basin, including the reconnaissance study by 

Eakin and Lamke ( 1966), was estimated by Hardman 

and Mason ( 1949). The Hardman and Mason precipitation map was developed from weather records and 

other data collected over several decades, through 1936 

(Hardman and Mason, 1949, p. 13) and correlated with 

data on altitude and topography, latitude, and vegetation type. The PRISM-simulated precipitation distribution was derived from 30 years of weather-station data 

( 1961- 90) collected throughout Nevada. Dettinger and 

Schaefer (1995, p. 195) suggested that since the 1960's 

north-central Nevada has experienced wetter-than-normal conditions due to greater variation in summertime 

precipitation. This wetter-than-normal period was preceded by drier-than-normal or near-normal conditions 

from the 1920's through the 1950's. 

Because the 14 hydrographic areas were grouped 

into only 8 areas (or subareas) by Eakin and Lamke 

( 1966, p. 32), direct comparison of water budgets 

between individual hydrographic areas is not entirely 

possible. For easier comparison, the budget estimates 

for the 14 hydrographic areas presented herein were 

grouped in the same manner: subarea 5 corresponds to 

Pine Valley; subarea 6, to Carico Lake Valley and 

Crescent Valley; subarea 7, to Rock Creek Valley and 

Willow Creek Valley; subarea 8, to Boulder Flat; subarea 9, to Upper Reese River Valley; subarea 10, to 

Antelope Valley and Middle Reese River Valley; subarea 11, the Lower Reese River Valley, Buffalo Valley, 

and Whirlwind Valley; and subarea 12, to Pumpernickel Valley, Clovers Area, and Kelly Creek Area. 

Subarea 11 also includes Buffalo Valley, but because it 

is not part of the middle Humboldt River Basin as 

defmed by the current study, subarea 12 is not considered in the comparison. 

Although whether the boundaries of the 14 hydrographic areas that make up the 8 subareas as defined by 

Eakin and Lamke ( 1966) are totally consistent with 

those used in this study, some general comparisons can 

be made. Average annual precipitation in each subarea 

for 1961- 90 was 5 to 28 percent greater than that estimated for 1912- 63 (Eakin and Lamke, 1966, p. 58). 

The greatest difference is in the valleys of each subarea. 

The term "valley areas," as used by Eakin and Lamke 

(1966, p. 58), was assumed to be similar to the combined areas of piedmont slope and valley lowland as 

described in this report. In all subareas except subarea 

7 (Rock Creek Valley and Willow Creek Valley), the 

valley areas receive as much as or more than the total 

annual precipitation of the mountain-block areas (table 

3). This precipitation pattern is due, in part, to the relatively large valley areas, which typically make up more 

than 50 percent of the total drainage area of a hydrographic area. 

The annual volume of ET estimated in each subarea is 2 to nearly 34 percent greater than estimated by 

Eakin and Lamke (1966, p. 59), although the percentage of annual precipitation lost to ET is similar. In general, less ET was estimated in mountain-block areas 

and considerably more in valley areas compared to the 

earlier study. Mountain-block ET was estimated indirectly as the residual between annual precipitation and 

water yield in both studies. In most subareas, water 

yields (table 4) were greater than the estimates made by 

Eakin and Lamke ( 1966, p. 58); the higher values 

resulted in lower estimated ET in the mountain block 

(table 4). About 15 percent of the total precipitation in 

mountain-block areas was assumed to become a component of water yield (either ground water or run oft), 

whereas Eakin and Lamke (1966, p. 58) had estimated 

this component to have been only 11 percent. The 

larger estimates of water yield from the mountain 

blocks resulted in greater ground-water recharge 

because runoff was nearly the same in both estimates. 

Mass-balance calculations of ground-water 

recharge (table 21) were on average about 45 percent 

greater than previous estimates (Eakin, 1961; Zones, 

1961; Crosthwaite, 1963; Eakin and others, 1965; 

Everett and Rush, 1966; Olmsted and Rush, 1987; and 

Maurer and others, 1996). For most areas, recharge 

estimates derived from the revised Maxey-Eakin 

method ( eq. 3); parenthetic value shown in table 21 is 

within the range of recharge estimated from mass-balance calculations. However, the two methods used to 

estimate ground-water recharge are not entirely independent because both methods are functions of the distribution and quantity of the same precipitation data 

set. Whether the estimated increase in ground-water 

recharge is the result of greater precipitation or the 

result caused by assumptions used in estimating 

recharge is uncertain. 

20 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In thf' Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
Table 7. Average annual water budgets for Pine Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada 

[Bold symbols in parentheses correspond to those used in table 2 and fig. 3. Values for separate flow components rounded to nearest 100 acre-feet per year; totals rounded to nearest 1,000 

acre-feet per year. ET, evapotranspiration. -, no data or not applicable] 

Water-budget components 

Mountain-block water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on mountain block (Pmb) 1 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas to bedrock aquifer (SFJn) 

Outflow: 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb)2 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)2 

Subsurface flow from mountain block to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture and ET from riparian areas (ETmb)2 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on piedmont slope (Pps) 1 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb)

2 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Total.. ... ... ......... ... ... ..... . 

Piedmont-slope water budget 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)2 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on piedmont slope (ROps)3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture (ETps)

3 

ET from vegetated flood plains (ETrps)

3 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on valley lowland (Pvt) 1 

Runoff from piedmont slope to valley lowland (ROps)

3 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWJn) 

Total.. .............. ......... ... . 

Valley-lowland water budget 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (Sfps)

3 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on valley lowland (ROvt) 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFvt) 

ET of precipitation and soil moisture (ETvt) 

ET of ground water from valley lowland (ETgw)5 

Evaporation from open-water bodies (Esw)

5 

Inflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

326,400 

326,000 

333,800 

22,300 

0 

38,300 

394,000 

27,800 

0- 2,500 

0 

52,500- 79,300 

Total............................. 80,000-110,000 

Pine Valley Hydrographic Area water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation in Pine Valley Hydrographic Area (Pmb, Pps, Pvt) 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFin) 

Outflow: 

Surface-water flow from Pine Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SWtot) 

Subsurface flow from Pine Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SFtot) 

ET and sublimation from Pine Valley Hydrographic Area (ETmb, ETps, ETrps, ETvt , ETgw, Esw) 

t See table 3. 

2 See table 4. 

3 See table 5. 4 Eakin (1961 , p. 24). 

5 See table 6. 

Total ............................ . 

688,000 

0 

0 

688,000 

6 Derived from continuous-stage-recording gage on Pine Creek (1947- 58) and adjusted to long-term record at Martin Creek (1922- 95). 

Outflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

22,400 

38,200 

265 800 

326,000 

0- 2,500 

52,500- 79,300 

306,300- 333,800 

3 200-4 100 

362,000-420,000 

0 

4

300 

27,800 

39,500- 50,300 

60- 70 

68,000- 78,000 

68, 100 7

9,300 

642.700-681,900 

660,000-699,000 

7 Combined values: 9,000 acre-feet per year estimated by Harrill ( 1968, p. 26) to exit from Garden Valley, subbasin in southeastern part of Pine Valley Hydrographic Area, and 

additional 300 acre-feet per year estimated by Eakin ( 1961, p. 24) to exit Pine Valley beneath north hydrographic-area boundary. Because assignment to landform is uncertain, this subsurface flow is accounted for only in overall hydrographic-area budget. 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates 21 
Table 8. Average annual water budgets for Crescent Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada 

[Bold symbols in parentheses correspond to those used in table 2 and fig. 3. Values for separate fl ow components rounded to nearest 100 acre-feet per year; totals rounded to nearest I ,000 

acre-feet per year. ET, evapotranspiration.-, no data or not applicable] 

Water-budget components 

Mountain-block water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on mountain block (Pmb) 1 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas to bedrock aquifer (SFin) 

Outflow: 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb)

2 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)

2 

Subsurface flow from mountain block to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture and ET from riparian areas (ETmb)

2 

Total ....... .. ........ .... .. ... .. . 

Piedmont-slope water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on piedmont slope (Pps)1 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb)

2 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)

2 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFin) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on piedmont slope (ROps)

5 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

5 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture (ETps)

5 

ET from vegetated flood plains (ETrps)

5 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on valley lowland (Pvl) 1 

Runoff from piedmont slope to valley lowland (ROps)

5 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Total. ........................... . 

Valley-lowland water budget 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

5 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFin) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on valley lowland (ROvf) 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFvl) 

ET of precipitation and soil moisture (ETvt) 

ET of ground water from valley lowland (ETgw) 7 

Evaporation from open-water bodies (Esw) 7 

Total ............. ............... . 

Crescent Valley Valley Hydrographic Area water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation in Crescent Valley Hydrographic Area (Pmb, Pps, Pvt) 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFin) 

Outflow: 

Surface-water flow from Crescent Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SWtot) 

Subsurface flow from Crescent Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SFtot) 

ET and sublimation from Crescent Valley Hydrographic Area (ETmb, ETps, ETrps, ETvt, ETgw, Esw) 

1 See table 3. 2 See table 4. 3 Zones (1961 , p. 20) 4 Everelt and Rush (1966, p. 17) 

5 See table 5. 6 Zones (1961, p. 23) 7 See table 6. 8 Zones (1961, p. 20). 

Total. ............. ....... ...... .. 

Inflow 

(acre -feet 

per year) 

184,100 

184,000 

196,700 

7,000 

3200-300 

18,200 

4300 

222,000 

65 ,100 

0- 800 

0 

25,500-26,500 

91,000-92,000 

446,000 

8200-300 

9700 

447,000 

Outflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

7,000 

18,200 

158 900 

184,000 

0-800 

25,500- 26,500 

196,000- 196,700 

500- 1 900 

222,000- 226,000 

0 

6<300 

65,100 

19,600-37, 100 

400-500 

85,000-103,000 

10 1 000 

~300 440,500-460,200 

442,000-461 ,000 

9 Combined values: 300 acre-feet per year estimated by Everelt and Rush (1966, p. 17) to enter from Carico Lake Valley Hydrographic Area and additional 400 acre-feet per year 

estimated by Olmsted and Rush ( 1987, p. 32) to enter from Whirlwind Valley Hydrographic Area. 10Eakin and Lamke ( 1966, p. 36). 

22 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In thl! Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
Table 9. Average annual water budgets for Carico Lake Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada 

[Bold symbols in parentheses correspond to those used in table 2 and fig. 3. Values for separate flow components rounded to nearest 100 acre-feet per year; totals rounded to nearest 1,000 acrefeet per year. ET, evapotn!nspiration. - , no data or not applicable; <, less than] 

Water-budget components 

Mountain-block water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on mountain block (Pmb) 1 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas to bedrock aquifer (SFln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROrnb)

2 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)2 

Subsurface flow from mountain block to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture and ET from riparian areas (ETmb)2 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on piedmont slope (Pps) 1 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROrnb)

2 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWln) 

Piedmont-dope water budget 

Total ................... ............. . 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)2 

Subsurface flow from Upper Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on piedmont slope (ROps)

4 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

4 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture (ETps)

4 

ET from vegetated flood plains (ETrps)

4 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on valley lowland (Pvt) 1 

Runoff from piedmont slope to valley lowland (ROps)

4 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWln) 

Total .. ......... ..................... . 

Valley-lowland water budget 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

4 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on valley lowland (ROv1) 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland to Crescent Valley Hydrographic Area (SFvt) 

ET of precipitation and soil moisture (ETvt) 

ET of ground water from valley lowland (ETgw)

5 

Evaporation from open-water bodies (Esw)5 

Total.. ... ......... .. ................ . 

Carico Lake Valley Hydrographic Area water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation in Carico Lake Valley Hydrographic Area (Pmb, Pps, Pvt) 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWln) 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SAn) 

Outflow: 

Surface-water flow from Carico Lake Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SWtot) 

Subsurface flow from Carico Lake Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SFtot) 

ET and sublimation from Carico Lake Valley Hydrographic Area (ETmb, ETps, ETrps, ETvt, ETgw, Esw) 

1 See table 3. 

2 See table 4. 

3 Estimated from equation 4 (see text). 4 See table 5. 

5 See table 6. 

6 Everett and Rush ( 1966, p. 17). 7 Zones (1961 , p. 20). 

Total... ........... ......... .. ....... . 

Inflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

123,000 

123,000 

107,600 

5,900 

0 

13,000 33,000 

130,000 

8,100 

0-700 

0 

21,700- 23,400 

30,000- 32,000 

239,000 

0 

33,000 

242,000 

Outflow 

(acre-feet 

per yea r) 

5,900 

13,000 

104 100 

123,000 

0- 700 

21 ,700- 23,400 

105,400- 107,600 

I 100- 1 200 

128,000- 133,000 

0 

6<300 

8,100 

4,800- 9,600 

0 

13,000- 18,000 

7200- 300 6<300 

223,500-230.600 

224,000-231,000 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates 23 
Table 10. Average annual water budgets for Upper Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central 

Nevada 

[Bold symbols in parentheses correspond to those used in table 1 and fig. 3. Values for separate flow components rounded to nearest 100 acre-feet per year; totals rounded to nearest 1,000 acrefeet per year. ET, evapotranspiration. - , no data or not applicable] 

Water-budget components 

Mountain-block water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on mountain block (Pmb)1 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas to bedrock aquifer (Sfln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb )

2 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)2 

Subsurface flow from mountain block to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture and ET from riparian areas (ETmb)2 

Total. ..... .. .................. . 

Piedmont-slope water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on piedmont slope (Pp1) 1 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb)2 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin} 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)2 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (Sfln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on piedmont slope (ROp~ 3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFp~}3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to Carico Lake Valley Hydrographic Area (SFout} 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture (ETps)3 

ET from vegetated flood plains (ETrps )

3 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on valley lowland (Pvl} 1 

Runoff from piedmont slope to valley lowland (R0p1)3 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin} 

Total. ......................... . 

Valley-lowland water budget 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)3 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (Sfln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on valley lowland (ROvl) 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland to Middle Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area 

ET of precipitation and soil moisture (ETvt) 

ET of ground water from valley lowland (ETgw)5 

Evaporation from open-water bodies (Eaw)5 

Total. ......................... . 

Upper Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation in Upper Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area (Pmb, Ppl, Pvl} 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin} 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (Sfln} 

Outflow: 

Surface-water flow from Upper Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SW!ot) 

Subsurface flow from Upper Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SFtot} 

ET and sublimation from Upper Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area (ETmb, ETp1, ETrps, ETv1, ETgw, Eaw) 

1 See table 3. 2 See table 4. 3 See table 5. 4 Estimated from equation 4 (see te~t) . 

s See table 6. 

6 Eakin and others (I 965, p. 24). 

Total. .............. ..... .... .. . 

Inflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

413,900 

0 

414,000 

354,500 

26,600 

0 

47,800 

0 

429,000 

35,000 

0- 3,000 

0 

71 ,400-110,000 

106,000-148,000 

803,000 

0 

0 

803,000 

Outflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

26,600 

47,700 

339 600 

414,000 

0- 3,000 

71 ,400-110,000 

43,000 

308,100- 354,500 

10 900-11 700 

393,000-482,000 

0 

6500 

35,000 

43,800-45,800 

0-600 

79,000-83,000 

63,000 

73,500 

737,300-787,100 

744,000-794,000 

7 Combined values: 3,000 acre-feet per year to Carico Lake Valley Hydrographic Area, estimated from equation 4 (see te~t), and less than 500 acre-feet per year to Middle Reese River 

Valley Hydrographic Area, estimated by Eakin and others ( 1965). 

24 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In t~e Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
Table 11. Average annual water budgets for Antelope Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada 

(Bold symbols in parentheses correspond to those used in table 2 and fig. 3. Values for separate flow components rounded to nearest 100 acre-feet per year; totals rounded to nearest 1.000 

acre-feet per year. ET, evapotranspiration.-, no data or not applicable] 

Water-budget components 

Mountain-block water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on mountain block (Pmb)1 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas to bedrock aquifer (SFln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb)2 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)

2 

Subsurface flow from mountain block to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture and ET from riparian areas (ETmb)2 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on piedmont slope (Pps) 1 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb)

2 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Piedmont-slope water budget 

Total... ......................... . 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)

2 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on piedmont slope (ROps)

3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture (ETps)

3 

ET from vegetated flood plains (ETrps )

3 

Total.. ........ .................. . 

Valley-lowland water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on valley lowland (Pvt) 1 

Runoff from piedmont slope to valley lowland (ROps)

3 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

3 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on valley lowland (ROvt) 

Subsurface fl ow from basi n-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland to Middle Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area (SFvl) 

ET of precipitation and soil moisture (ETYI) 

ET of ground water from valley lowland (ETgw)

5 

Evaporation from open-water bodies (Esw)

5 

Inflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

120,200 

120,000 

134,100 

5,006 

0 

12,200 

151 ,000 

25,300 

0-600 

0 

17,200- 25,200 

Total......... ................ .... 42,000- 51 ,000 

Antelope Valley Hydrographic Area water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation in Antelope Valley Hydrographic Area (Pmb, Pps, Pvt) 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFln) 

Outflow: 

Surface-water flow from Antelope Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SWtot) 

Subsurface flow from Antelope Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SFtot) 

ET and sublimation from Antelope Valley Hydrographic Area (ETmb, ETps, ETrps, ETYI, ETgw, Esw) 

1 See table 3. 

2 See table 4. 

3 See table 5. 

4 Crosthwaite (1963, p. 15). Estimate not supported by recent work (Plume and Ponce, 1999). 

s See table 6 

Total .. .. ... ..................... . 

279,000 

0 

279,000 

Outflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

5,000 

12,200 

103 000 

120,000 

0-600 

17,200- 25,200 

127, 100- 134, 100 

200-600 

144,000- 160,000 

0 

46,000 

25 ,300 

2,000- 8,400 

0 

33,000-40,000 

0 

46,000 

257,600- 271.400 

264,000-277,000 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates 25 
Table 12. Average annual water budgets for Middle Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, northcentral Nevada 

[Bold symbols in parentheses conespond to those used in table 2 and fig. 3. Values for separate flow components rounded to nearest 100 acre-feet per year; totals rounded to nearest 1,000 

acre-feet per year. ET, evapotranspiration.-. no data or not applicable] 

Water-budget components 

Mountain-block water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on mountain block (Pmb) 1 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas to bedrock aquifer (Sfln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb)

2 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (Sfmb)

2 

Subsurface flow from mountain block to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture and ET from riparian areas (ETmb)

2 

Total.. ...................... .... . 

Piedmont-slope water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on piedmont slope (Pps) 1 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb)2 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (Sfmb)2 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (Sfln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on piedmont slope (ROps)3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture (ETps)3 

ET from vegetated flood plains {ETrps )

3 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on valley lowland {Pvt) 1 

Runoff from piedmont slope to valley lowland (ROps)

3 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas {SWin) 

Total. ............. .............. . 

Valley-lowland water budget 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland {SFps)

3 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (Sfln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on valley lowland {ROvt) 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland to Lower Reese River Hydrographic Area {SFvt) 

ET of precipitation and soil moisture (ETvt) 

ET of ground water from valley lowland (ETgw) 7 

Evaporation from open-water bodies {Esw)7 

Inflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

110,000 

110,000 

46,400 

3,600 

0 

10,200 

60,000 

30,100 

0-400 

43,000 

13,300-13,700 

5

6,500 

Total... .................. ........ 53,000-54,000 

Middle Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation in Middle Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area {Pmb, Pps, Pvt) 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas {SWin) 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas {SFin) 

Outflow: 

Surface-water flow from Middle Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary {SWtot) 

Subsurface flow from Middle Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SFtot) 

ET and sublimation from Middle Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area {ETmb, ETps, ETrps, ETvt, ETgw, Eaw) 

t See table 3. 

2 See table 4. 

3 See table 5. 

4 Eakin and others ( 1965, p. 24). 

Total... ...... ............... ... . . 

186,000 

4

3 000 

5

6:500 

195,000 

Outflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

3,600 

10,200 

96 200 

110,000 

0-400 

13,300-13,700 

46,400 

300-800 

60,000-61,000 

0 

69,000 

30,100 

2, 400- 12,200 

0 

42,000- 51 ,000 

8 1,000 

69,000 

175,400-185,700 

185,000-196,000 

s Combined values: 6,000 acre-feet per year estimated by Crosthwaite (1963, p. 15) to enter from Antelope Valley Hydrographic Area and additional 500 acre-feet per year estimated 

by Eakin and others (1965, p. 24) to enter from Upper Reese River Hydrographic Area Estimate of6,000 acre-feet per year not supported by recent work (Plume and Ponce, 1999). 

6 Crosthwaite (1963, p. 15). 

7 See table 6. 

8 Eakin and Lamke ( 1966, p. 59). 

26 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
Table 13. Average annual water budgets for Lower Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, northcentral Nevada 

[Bold symbols in parentheses correspond to those used in table 2 and fig. 3. Values for separate flow components rounded to nearest 100 acre-feet per year, totals rounded to nearest I ,000 

acre-feet per year. ET, evapotranspiration. -, no data or not applicable] 

Water-budget components 

Mountain-block water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on mountain block (Pmb) 1 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas to bedrock aquifer (SAn) 

Outflow: 

Runoff from moun.tain block to piedmont slope (ROmb )

2 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (Sfmb)2 

Subsurface flow from mountain block to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture and ET from riparian areas (ETmb)2 

Total.. .......................... . 

Pledmont-1lope water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on piedmont slope (Pps)1 

Runoff from moun.tain block to piedmont slope (ROmb)

2 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (Sfmb)2 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SAn) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on piedmont slope (ROps)

3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFOU1) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture (ETps)

3 

ET from vegetated flood plains (ETrps )

3 

Total.. .......................... . 

Valley-lowland water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on valley lowland (Pvl) 1 

Runoff from piedmont slope to valley lowland (ROps)

3 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)3 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SAn) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on valley lowland (ROYI} 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland to adjacent hydrographic areas (Sfvf} 

ET of precipitation and soil moisture (ETvf) 

ET of ground water from valley lowland (ETgw)

5 

Evaporation from open-water bodies (Eiw)5 

Total. .. ........................ .. 

Lower Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation in Lower Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area (Pmb, Pps, Pvl) 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SAn) 

Outflow: 

Surface-water flow from Lower Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SWtot) 

Subsurface flow from Lower Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SFtot) 

ET and sublimation from Lower Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area (ETmb, ETps, ETrps, ETvf, ETgw, Elw) 

1 See table 3. 2 See table 4. 3 See table 5. 

Total. ...................... ..... . 

Inflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

146,900 

147,000 

104,100 

4,800 

0 

13,700 

123,000 

89,700 

0- 500 

18,500-19,000 

4 17,000 

125,000-126,000 

341,000 

4 17,000 

353,000 

Outflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

4,800 

13,700 

128 400 

147,000 

0-500 

18,500-19,000 

104,100 

100 

123,000- 124,000 

0 

89,700 

30,700-79,800 

500-800 

121,000-170,000 

6

5,000 

353,500-402,900 

358,000-408,000 

4 Combined values: 9,000 acre-feet per year estimated by Crosthwaite ( 1963, p. 15) to enter from Middle Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area and 8,000 acre-feet per year 

esitmated by Rush and others (1971) to enter from Buffalo Valley Hydrographic Area. Estimate of8,000 acre-feet per year not supported by recent work (Plume and Ponce, 1999). 5 Sec table 6. 6Ealcin and Lamke (1966, p. 36). 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates 27 
Table 14. Average annual water budgets for Whirlwind Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada 

[Bold symbols in parentheses correspond to those used in table 2 and fig. 3. Values for separate flow components rounded to nearest 100 acre-feet per year; totals rounded to nearest 1,000 acrefeet per year. ET, evapotranspiration.-, no data or not applicable] 

Water-budget components 

Mountain-block water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on mountain block (Pmb) 1 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas to bedrock aquifer (SFln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb)

2 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)

2 

Subsurface flow from mountain block to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture and ET from riparian areas (ETmb)

2 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on piedmont slope (Pps) 1 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb)

2 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SW1n) 

Total. ............. .............. . 

Piedmont-slope water budget 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)

2 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on piedmont slope (ROps)

3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture (ETps)3 

ET from vegetated flood plains (ETrps )

3 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on valley lowland (Pvt) 1 

Runoff from piedmont slope to valley lowland (ROps)3 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SW1n) 

Total.. ....... ................... . 

Valley-lowland water budget 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

3 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on valley lowland (ROvt) 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland to Crescent Valley Hydrographic Areas (SFvl) 

ET of precipitation and soil moisture (ETvl) 

ET of ground water from valley lowland (ETgw)

5 

Evaporation from open-water bodies (Esw)5 

Total. ........................... . 

Whirlwind Valley Hydrographic Area water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation in Whirlwind Valley Hydrographic Area (Pmb, Pps, Pvt) 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SW1n) 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFln) 

Outflow: 

Surface-water flow from Whirlwind Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SWtot) 

Subsurface flow from Whirlwind Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SFtot) 

ET and sublimation from Whirlwind Valley Hydrographic Area (ETmb, ETps, ETrps, ETvl, ETgw, Elw) 

1 See table 3. 

2 See table 4. 

3 See table 5. 

4 0tmsted and Rush (1987, p. 38) 

S See table 6. 

6 Olmsted and Rush ( 1987. p. 32). 

Total. ... ... ......... .. ........ .. . 

Inflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

34,100 

34,000 

10,900 

900 

0 

2,800 

15 ,000 

9,600 

0- 100 

0 

3,700-3,800 

13,000- 14,000 

55 ,000 

0 

55,000 

28 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas in the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 

Outflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

900 

2,800 

30 400 

34,000 

0-100 

3,700- 3,800 

10,900 

0 

15,000 

0 

48oo 

9,600 

13,900- 16,000 

100 

24,000- 26,000 

6o 

48oo 

64 900--67 000 

66,000--68,000 
Table 15. Average annual water budgets for Boulder Flat Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada 

[Bold symbols in parentheses correspond to those used in table 2 andl'ig. 3. Values for separate now components rounded to nearest 100 acre-feet per year; totals rounded to nearest 1,000 

acre-feet per year. ET, evapotranspiration.-, no data or not applicable] 

Water-budget components 

Mountain-block water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on mountain block (Pmb)1 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas to bedrock aquifer (Sfln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb )2 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)2 

Subsurface flow from mountain block to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture and ET from riparian areas (ETmb)2 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on piedmont slope (Pps) 1 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb)2 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Total. ..... ...................... . 

Piedmont-slope water budget 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (Sfmb)2 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (Sfln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on piedmont slope (ROps)3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture (ETps)3 

ET from vegetated flood plains (ETrps )

3 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on valley lowland (Pvt) 1 

Runoff from piedmont slope to valley lowland (ROps)

3 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Total. ........ ....... .. ......... . . 

Valley-lowland water budget 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

3 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (Sfln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on valley lowland (ROvt) 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland to adjacent hydrographic areas (Sfvt) 

ET of precipitation and soil moisture (ETvl) 

ET of ground water from valley lowland (ETgw)

6 

Evaporation from open-water bodies (Esw)6 

Total.. ................... ....... . 

Boulder Flat Hydrographic Area water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation in Boulder Flat Hydrographic Area (Pmb, Pps, Pvl) 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (Sfln) 

Outflow: 

Surface-water flow from Boulder Flat Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SWtot) 

Subsurface flow from Boulder Flat Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SFtot) 

ET and sublimation from Boulder Flat Hydrographic Area (ETmb, ETps, ETrps, ETvt, ETgw, Esw) 

1 See table 3. 

2 See table 4. 

3 See table 5. 

Total. ........................... . 

Inflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

141 ,900 

142,000 

66,000 

4,300 

12,800 

83,000 

99,700 

0- 500 

4

34,400 

19,100-19,300 

153,000-154,000 

308,000 

434,400 

342,000 

4 Average annual now of Rock Creek (1961 - 90) entering Boulder Flat Hydrograph ic Area from Rock Creek Valley Hydrographic Area. 

5 Maurer and others ( 1996, p. 46). 

6 See table 6. 

Outflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

4,300 

12,800 

124 800 

142,000 

0- 500 

19,100- 19,300 

66,000 

300- 700 

85,000-86,000 

0 

512,000 

99,700 

92,100- 147,400 

400-1 000 

204,000-260,000 

72,000 

512,000 

383,300-439.600 

397,000-454,000 

7 Based on Maurer and others (1996, p. 27) and on estimated average annual now of Humboldt River between Dunphy and Battle Mountain for the period of 1961 - 90. 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates 29 
Table 16. Average annual water budgets for Rock Creek Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central 

Nevada 

[Bold symbols in parentheses correspond to those used in table 2 and fig. 3. Values for separate now components rounded to nearest I 00 acre-feet per year; totals rounded to nearest I ,000 

acre-feet per year. ET, evapotranspiration. -, no data or not applicable] 

Water-budget components 

Mountain-block water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on mountain block {Pmb)1 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas to bedrock aquifer {SFin) 

Outflow: 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope {ROmb)

2 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope {Sfmb)

2 

Subsurface flow from mountain block to adjacent hydrographic areas {SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture and ET from riparian areas {ETmb)

2 

Total. ........................... . 

Piedmont-slope water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on piedmont slope {Pps) 1 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope {ROmb)2 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas {SWin) 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (Sfmb)

2 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas {SFin) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on piedmont slope {ROps)

3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath vall ey lowland {SFps)

3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to adjacent hydrographic areas {SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture (ETpa)3 

ET from vegetated flood plains (ETrpa)

3 

Total. .. ......................... . 

Valley-lowland water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on valley lowland {Pv1) 1 

Runoff from piedmont slope to valley lowland {ROps)

3 

Surface-water flow from adj acent hydrographic areas {SWin) 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland {SFps)

3 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas {SFin) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on valley lowland {ROvt) 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland to adjacent hydrographic areas {SFvt) 

ET of precipitation and soil moisture (ETvt) 

ET of ground water from valley lowland (ETgw)

4 

Evaporation from open-water bodies {Esw)

4 

Total. ........................... . 

Rock Creek Valley Hydrograph ic Area water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation in Rock Creek Valley Hydrographic Area (Pmb, Pps, Pv1 ) 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas {SWin) 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SAn) 

Outflow: 

Surface-water flow from Rock Creek Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SWtot) 

Subsurface flow from Rock Creek Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (Sftot) 

ET and sublimation from Rock Creek Valley Hydrographic Area (ETmb, ETps, ETrps, ETvt, ETgw, Esw) 

1 See table 3. 

2 See table 4. 

3 See table 5. 4 See table 6. 

Total. ............ .............. .. 

5 Estimated as 52 percent of estimated average annual now (1961 - 90) of Rock Creek in Boulder Flat Hydrographic Area. 

6 Derived from contineous-stage-recording gage on Rock Creek ( 1961 - 90) in Boulder Flat Hydrographic Area. 

7 Maurer and others ( 1996, p. 46). 

Inflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

199,300 

199,000 

47,800 

5,200 

17,100 

70,000 

8,700 

0-<iOO 

17,100 

26,000 

256,000 

517,800 

274,000 

Outflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

5,200 

17,100 

177 000 

199,000 

0-<iOO 

17,100 

47,800 

600- 800 

66,000 

8,700 

7,800- 14,000 

0 

16,000- 23,000 

634,300 72,800 

241,900- 248,300 

278,000- 285,000 

30 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
Table 17. Average annual water budgets for Willow Creek Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central 

Nevada 

[Bold symbols in parentheses correspond to those used in table 2 and fig. 3. Values for separate now components rounded to nearest 100 acre-feet per year; totals rounded to nearest I ,000 

acre-feet per year. ET, evapotranspiration.-, no data or not applicable] 

Water-budget components 

Mountain-block water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on mountain block {Pmb) 1 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas to bedrock aquifer {SAn) 

Outflow: 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope {ROmb)2 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (Sfmb)2 

Subsurface flow from mountain block to adjacent hydrographic areas {SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture and ET from riparian areas (ETmb)2 

Total. ....... .................... . 

Piedmont-slope water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on piedmont slope {Pps}1 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope {ROmb}2 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas {SWln) 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope {Sfmb}

2 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SAn} 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on piedmont slope (ROps}3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland {SFps)

3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to adjacent hydrographic areas {SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture (ETps)3 

ET from vegetated flood plains (ETrps )

3 

Total. .................. .. ... ... . . 

Valley-lowland water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on valley lowland {Pvl) 1 

Runoff from piedmont slope to valley lowland {ROps}

3 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas {SWln} 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland {SFps}

3 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas {Sfln) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on valley lowland {ROvl) 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath va lley lowland to adjacent hydrographic areas (Sfvt} 

ET of precipitation and soil moisture (ETvt) 

ET of ground water from valley lowland (ETgw)

4 

Evaporation from open-water bodies {Esw)4 

Total. .. ... ... ...... ... ... ....... . 

Wlttow Creek Valley Hydrographic Area water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation in Willow Creek Valley Hydrographic Area {Pmb, Pps, Pvl) 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWln} 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas {SAn) 

Outflow: 

Surface-water flow from Willow Creek Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary {SWtot) 

Subsurface flow from Willow Creek Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary {SFtot) 

ET and sublimation from Willow Creek Valley Hydrographic Area (ETmb, ETps, ETrps, ETvt, ETgw, Esw) 

1 See table 3. 

2 See table 4. 

3 See table 5. 

4 See table 6. 

Total. ..... ... ................... . 

$Estimated as 52 percent of average annual now (1961 - 90) of Rock Creek in Boulder Flat Hydrographic Area 

6 Maurer and others ( 1996, p. 46). 

Inflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

2 16,500 

2 16,000 

55,400 

10,300 

22,900 

89,000 

9,100 

0- 1,100 

27,500 

37,000-38,000 

280,000 

280,000 

Outflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

10,300 

22,900 

183 300 

2 16,000 

0-1,100 

27,500 

50, I 00-55 ,400 

3.300-4.200 

81 ,000-88,000 

9,100 

19,200- 21,800 

0 

28,000-31,000 

517,800 

64,300 

265.000- 273,800 

287,000- 296,000 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates 31 
Table 18. Average annual water budgets for Clovers Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada 

[Bold symbols in parentheses correspond to those used in table 2 and fig. 3. Values for separate flow components rounded to nearest I()() acre-feet per year; totals rounded to nearest 1,000 

acre-feet per year. ET, evapotranspiration.-, no data or not applicable] 

Water-budget components 

Mountain-block water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on mountain block {Pmb) 1 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas to bedrock aquifer {SAn) 

Outflow: 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope {ROmb)

2 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)

2 

Subsurface flow from mountain block to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soi l moisture and ET from riparian areas (ETmb)

2 

Total ............................ . 

Piedmont-slope water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on piedmont slope (Pps) 1 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope {ROmb)2 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas {SWin) 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)

2 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SAn) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on piedmont slope (ROps)

3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to adjacent hydrographic areas {SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture (ETps)

3 

ET from vegetated flood plains (ETrps)

3 

Total .. ............... ........... . 

Valley-lowland water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on valley lowland {Pvl) 1 

Runoff from piedmont slope to valley lowland (R0ps)

3 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWln) 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

3 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFin) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on valley lowland (ROvl) 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFv1) 

ET of precipitation and soil moisture (ETv1) 

ET of ground water from valley lowland (ETgw)

4 

Evaporation from open-water bodies (Esw)

4 

Inflow: 

Precipitation in Clovers Area (Pmb, Pps, Pvl) 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWln) 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SAn) 

Outflow: 

Clovers Area water budget 

Surface-water flow from Clovers Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SWtot) 

Subsurface flow from Clovers Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SFtot) 

ET and sublimation from Clovers Area (ETmb, ETps, ETrps, ETv1 , ETgw, Esw) 

1 See table 3. 2 See table 4. 

l See table 5. 4 See table 6. 5 Maurer and others ( 1996, p. 46). • 

Total.. .. .......... .............. . 

Total.. ................ .. ...... .. . 

Inflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

137,300 

137,000 

159,900 

4,800 

13,100 

178,000 

103,600 

0- 500 

17,900-18,400 

122,000 

401 ,000 

519,100 

420,000 

Outflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

4,800 

13,100 

119 400 

137,000 

0- 500 

17,900- 18,400 

159,900 

4 400- 7 600 

182,000- 186,000 

0 

103,600 

53,900- 108,200 

500- 3 600 

158,000- 216,000 

441.700- 502,300 

442,000- 502,000 

32 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
Table 19. Average annual water budgets for Pumpernickel Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central 

Nevada 

(Bold symbols in parentheses correspond to those used in table 2 and fig. 3. Values for separate now components rounded to nearest I 00 acre-feet per year; totals rounded to nearest 1,000 

acre-feet per year. ET, evapotranspiration.-, no data or not applicable] 

Water-budget components 

Mountain-block water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on mountain block (Pmb) 1 

Subswface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas to bedrock aquifer (SFin) 

Outflow: 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb)

2 

Subswface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)2 

Subswface flow from mountain block to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture and ET from riparian areas (ETmb)

2 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on piedmont slope (Pps) 1 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb)

2 

Swface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Total.. .......................... . 

Piedmont-slope water budget 

Subswface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)

2 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SAn) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on piedmont slope (ROps)

3 

Subswface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture (ETps)

3 

ET from vegetated flood plains (ETrps )

3 

Total. ... ............. ... ........ . 

Valley-lowland water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on valley lowland (Pvl) 1 

Runoff from piedmont slope to valley lowland (ROps)

3 

Swface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Subswface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

3 

Subswface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SAn) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on valley lowland (ROvt) 

Subswface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFv1) 

ET of precipitation and soil moisture (ETv1) 

ET of ground water from valley lowland (ETgw)

4 

Evaporation from open-water bodies (Esw)

4 

Inflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

74,100 

74,000 

58,300 

2,200 

6,600 

67,000 

36,600 

0-200 

8,800-9,000 

Total........... .................. 45,000-46,000 

Pumpernickel Valley Hydrographic Area water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation in Pumpernickel Valley Hydrographic Area (Pmb, Pps, Pvl) 

Swface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Subswface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFin) 

Outflow: 

Swface-water flow from Pumpernickel Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SWtot) 

Subsurface flow from Pumpernickel Valley Hydrographic Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SFtot) 

ET and sublimation from Pumpernickel Valley Hydrographic Area (ETmb, ETps, ETrps, ETv1, ETgw, Esw) 

1 See table 3. 2 See table 4. 

3 See table 5. 4 See table 6. 

Total. .... ...... .............. ... . 

169,000 

169,000 

Outflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

2,200 

6,600 

65 300 

74,000 

0-200 

8,800- 9,000 

58,300 

500- 700 

68 ,000 

0 

36,600 

21,100- 37,200 

400- 1 000 

58,000-75,000 

182.200- 199 ,I 00 

182,000- 199,000 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates 33 
Table 20. Average annual water budgets for Kelly Creek Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada 

[Bold symbols in parentheses correspond to those used in table 2 and fig. 3. Values for separate flow components rounded to nearest I 00 acre-feet per year; totals rounded to nearest I ,000 

acre-feet per year. ET, evapotranspiration.-, no data or not applicable] 

Water-budget components 

Mountain-block water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on mountain block (Pmb) 1 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas to bedrock aquifer (SAn) 

Outflow: 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb)2 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)2 

Subsurface flow from mountain block to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture and ET from riparian areas (ETmb)2 

Total... .. ....................... . 

Piedmont-slope water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on piedmont slope (Pps) 1 

Runoff from mountain block to piedmont slope (ROmb)2 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Subsurface flow from bedrock aquifer in mountain block to basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope (SFmb)2 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SAn) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on piedmont slope (ROps)

3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)3 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFout) 

ET and sublimation of precipitation and soil moisture (ETps)3 

ET from vegetated flood plains (ETrps)3 

Total. ............. .............. . 

Valley-lowland water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation on valley lowland (Pvt) 1 

Runoff from piedmont slope to valley lowland (ROps)3 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath piedmont slope to basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland (SFps)

3 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFin) 

Outflow: 

Runoff generated on valley lowland (ROvl) 

Subsurface flow from basin-fill aquifer beneath valley lowland to adjacent hydrographic areas (SFvt) 

ET of precipitation and soil moisture (ETvt) 

ET of ground water from valley lowland (ETgw)4 

Evaporation from open-water bodies (E.sw)4 

Total.. ............ ... ... .. ...... . 

Kelly Creek Area water budget 

Inflow: 

Precipitation in Kelly Creek Area (Pmb, Pps, Pvt) 

Surface-water flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SWin) 

Subsurface flow from adjacent hydrographic areas (SFin) 

Outflow: 

Surface-water flow from Kelly Creek Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SWtot) 

Subsurface flow from Kelly Creek Area at hydrographic-area boundary (SFtot) 

ET and sublimation from Kelly Creek Area (ETmb, ETps, ETrps, ETvt, ETgw, Esw) 

1 See table 3. 

2 See table 4. 

3 See lable 5. 

4 See table 6. 

Total ..... ... ... ... .. .. .. .. ... ... . 

Inflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

72,800 

73,000 

69,700 

4,400 

8,300 

82,000 

37,600 

0-500 

12,700- 13,200 

50,000-51,000 

181,000 

181 ,000 

Outflow 

(acre-feet 

per year) 

4,400 

8,300 

60 100 

73,000 

0-500 

12,700- 13,200 

69,700 

I 600- 2 300 

84,000-86,000 

0 

37,600 

14,500-35,900 

0-400 

52,000- 74,000 

I 83,500- 206,000 

I 84,000- 206,000 

34 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
0 

ia 

n 

c:: 

(jl 

(jl 

0 

:I 

2. 

~ 

!i 

Co 

c:: 

c. 

cc 

!!. 

m 

!a. 

3 

a 

C9 

(jl 

w 

(.II 

Table 21. Estimated average annual ground-water budget for the 14 hydrographic areas, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada 

[Values for separate now components and subtotals rounded to nearest 100 acre-feet per year. totals rounded to nearest 1,000 acre-feet per year. Bold symbols (in footnotes) correspond to those used in table 2 and fig. 3. 

- , no data or not applicable; <, less than] 

Ground-water-budget component 

Pine Valley 

Ground-water recharge: 

To mountain block1 38,200 

To piedmont slope, from runofF 14,200- 16,700 

To piedmont slope, from precipitation3 0- 24,300 

Subtotal ground-water recharge4 .................... 52,500-79,300 

(66,000) 

Subsurface inflow from adjacent hydrographic areas 0 

Total inflow .............................. .. ... ................. 52,000- 79,000 

Ground-water evapotranspiration in valley lowlands9 39,500-50,300 

Ground-water discharge from vegetated flood plains10 3,200-4,100 

Ground-water discharge as surface-water outflow at 11 5,ooo 

hydrographic-area boundary. 

Subsurface outflow to adjacent hydrographic areas 139,300 

Total outflow .............................. ... ................. 57,000-69,000 

Continued 

Crescent Valley Carico Lake 

Valley 

In now 

18,200 13,000 

7,000-7,800 5,700-6,300 

0- 200 0- 1,100 

25,200-26,200 18,700- 20,400 

(2 1,000) (18,000) 

5700 63,000 

26,000- 27,000 22,000-23,000 

Outflow 

19,600-37,100 4,800-9,600 

500- 1,900 I ,100- 1,200 

12

0 -

14 <300 15<300 

20,000- 39,000 6,000-11,000 

Estimated flow 

(acre-feet per year) 

Upper Reese 

River Valley 

47,700 

23,600- 26,600 

0- 35,600 

71,400-110,000 

(93,000) 

0 

71,000-110,000 

43,800-45 ,800 

10,900- 11 ,700 

11< 1,000 

163,500 

59,000-62,000 

Antelope Valley 

12,200 

5,000-6,000 

0- 7,000 

17,200- 25,200 

(19,000) 

0 

17,000- 25,000 

2,000- 8,400 

200-600 

176,000 

8,000-15,000 

Middle Reese 

River Valley 

10,200 

2,600- 3,000 

0 

12,800- 13,200 

(10,000) 

7

6,500 

19,000-20,000 

2,400- 12,200 

300-800 

179,000 

12,000-22,000 

Lower Reese · 

River Valley 

13,700 

4,800- 5,300 

0 

18,500- 19,000 

(13,000) 

8 17,000 

36,000 

30,700- 79,800 

100 

31 ,000- 80,000 
~ Table 21 . Estimated average annual ground-water budget for the 14 hydrographic areas, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada-Continued 

~ ~ 

a, 

c 

0. 

IQ 

!1 

m 

!a. 

3 

t» 

;-

Ill 

0 

... 

:T 

I» 

...... 

~ 

:X: 

'< 0. 

0 

IQ 

iil 

"'C 

':r 

0 

> 

iD 

t» 

Ill 

5" 

:T 

I» 

s:: 

a: 

0. 

Ci" 

:X: 

c 

3 

CT 

0 

~ 

:c 

< 

~ 

tD 

t» 

Ill 

? 

z 

0 

::I. 

':r 

0 

I» 

~ !!!. 

z 

CD 

< 

t» 

0. 

t» 

• 

Estimated flow 

(acre-feet per year) 

Ground-water-budget component 

Whirlwind Boulder Flat Rock Creek Willow Creek Clovers Area Pumpernickel 

Valley Valley Valley Valley 

Inflow 

Ground-water recharge: 

To mountain block1 2,800 12,800 17,100 22,900 13,100 6,600 

To piedmont slope, from runoW 900-1 ,000 6,300-6,500 0 0 4,800- 5,300 2,200- 2,400 

To piedmont slope, from precipitation3 0 0 0 4,600 0 0 

Subtotal ground-water recharge4 .... ...... .......... 3,700-3,800 19, I 00- 19,300 17,100 I 27,500 17,900- 18,400 8,800- 9,000 

(2,000) ( 11 ,000) (9,000) (28,000) (13,000) (7,500) 

Subsurface inflow from adjacent hydrographic areas 

Total inflow .... ..... ............... ... ... ...................... 4,000 --19,000 17,000 28,000 18,000 9,000 

Outflow 

Ground-water evapotranspiration in valley lowlands9 13,900-16,000 92,100- 147,400 7,800- 14,000 19,200- 21,800 53,900-108,300 21,200- 37,200 

Ground-water discharge from vegetated flood p lains 10 0 300- 700 600- 800 3,300-4,200 4,400- 7,600 500- 700 

Ground-water discharge as surface-water outflow at 

hydrographic-area boundary. 

Subsurface outflow to adjacent hydrographic areas Is8oo 19 12,000 192,800 194,300 

Total outflow ....... ......... ...... ... . .... ............... .. .. 15,000- 17,000 104,000- 160,000 11 ,000- 18,000 27,000- 30,000 58,000- 116,000 22,000- 38,000 

1 See table 4 . 

2 Eslimaled as difference becween sum of mountain-block runoff(ROmb; table 4) plus piedmonl-slope runoff(ROps; !able 5) and Iota! runoff a! hydrographic-area boundary (SWtot; tables 7- 20). 

3 Estimaled as difference becween piedmont-slope precipitation (Pps; table 3) and sum of piedmont-slope runoff(ROps; table 5) plus evapotranspiration components (ETps and ETRps; table 5). 

Kelly Creek 

Area 

8,300 

4,400-4,900 

0 

12,700- 13,200 

(11,000) 

13,000 

14,600-35,900 

1,600-2,300 

16,000- 38,000 

4 Estimated from mass-balance calculation. Values in parentheses estimaced from revised recharge Maxey- Eakin method (equation 3 in text; values shown for comparison only, nol used in ground-waler budget 

calculations). 

5 Combined values; 300 acre-feet per year estimated by Everen and Rush (1966, p. 17) to enter from Carico Lake Valley Hydrographic Area and additional 400 acre-feet per year estimated by Olmsled and Rush (1987, 

p. 32) to enter from Whirlwind Valley Hydrographic Area. 

6 Estimaled from equation 4 (see text). 

7 Combined values: 6,000 acre-feet per year estimaled by Crosthwaite ( 1963. p. 15) to enter from Antelope Valley Hydrographic Area and additional 500 acre-feet per year estimated by Eakin and others ( 1965, p. 24) to 

enter from Upper Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area. 

8 Combined values: 9,000 acre-feel per year estimated by Crosthwaite ( 1963. p. 15) to enter from Middle Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area and 8,000 acre-feet per year estimaced by Rush and others ( 1971) to enter 

from Buffalo Valley Hydrographic Area. 

9 See table 6. 

10 See table 5. 

11 Estimated by hydrograph-separation analysis (Rorabaugh, 1964) and from Eakin ( 1961, p. 10) 

12 Zones (1961, p.ll) and Olmsted and Rush ( 1987, p. 32). 

13 Combined values: 9,000 acre-feet per year estimated by Harrill (1968, p. 28) to exit from Garden Valley, subbasin in southeastern part of Pine Valley Hydrographic Area, and addicional300 acre-feet per year estimated 

by Eakin (1961, p. 26) to exit Pine Valley beneath north hydrographic-area boundary. 

14 Zones(l961, p. 23). 

15 Everett and Rush (1966, p. 17). 

l6 Combined values: 3,000 acre-feet per year to Carico Lake Valley Hydrographic Area estimated from equation 4 (see text) and less than 500 acre-feet per year to Middle Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area, estimated 

by Eakin and others ( 1965). 

17 Crosthwaite (1968, p. 15) 

18 Olmsted and Rush (1987, p. 38). 

19 Maurer and others (1996, p. 46). 
0 

I 

0 

~ 

~ 

CJ 

- 20 -

2 

I 

4 

I 

6 

I I 

EXPLANATION 

Landf9rms 

Valley lowland 

Piedmont slope 

M untain bloek 

Hyd rographic-area bounda ry 

Line of equa l ave rage annual 

preci pita tion- ontour 

il•terval varies: 2 inches for 

20 inches or lcs . 4 inches 

for greater than 20 inches 

8 10 MILES 

I I 

2 4 

I 

6 8 10 KILOMETERS 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey d•gital data, 1:100,000, 1977-88; 1:24,000. 1985-86 

Universal Transverse Mercator project1on 

Zone 11 

Figure 4. Distribution of precipitation ( 1961-90} and landforms in Pine Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, 

north-central Nevada. Average annual-precipitation data derived from precipitation-elevation regressions on independent slopes 

model, or PRISM (Daly and others, 1994}. 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates 37 
40° 15' 

0 

0 

..... ·· ·············· 

················ ············ ........... . 

CRESCENT VALLEY:::: 

3 

.. ······ ················ ... . . ... ················ ········ 

3 6 9 

6 9 12 KILOMETERS 

EXPLANATION 

Landforms 

Valley lowland 

Piedmont slope 

M ountain block 

Hydrographic-area boundary 

- 20 - Line of equal average annual precipitationContour interval varies: 2 inches for 20 inches 

12 MILES or les . 4 inche for greater than 20 inches 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1977-88 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11 

Figure 5. Distribution of precipitation (1961-90) and landforms in Crescent Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt 

River Basin, north-central Nevada. Average annual-precipitation data derived from precipitation-elevation regressions on 

independent slopes model, or PRISM (Daly and others, 1994). 

38 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
39' 52'30"/ 

EXPLANATION 

Landforms CJ Valley lowland 

C=:J Piedmont slope 

- Mountain block 

- • • - Hydrographic-a rea boundary 

- 20 - Line of equal average annual precipitation0 

I 

0 

I 

Contour interval 2 inche 

5 MILES 

I 

5 KILOMETERS 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1: t 00.000. 1977-88: 1:24,000. 1969-90 Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11 

Figure 6. Distribution of precipitation {1961- 90) and landforms in Carico Lake Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada. Average annual-precipitation data derived from precipitationelevation regressions on independent slopes model, or PRISM (Daly and others, 1994). 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates 39 
39' 

38' 45' 

EXPLANATION 

Landform 

Va lley lowland 

Piedmont lope 

Mountai n block 

Hydrogra phic-a rea bounda ry 

- 20 - Line of equal 8\'Crage annua l precipitation0 5 10 MILES I I I I I 

0 5 10 KILOMETERS 

Contour int.erval varies: 2 inche for 20 inches 

or less, 4 inches for greater than 20 inches 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000. 1977-88; 1:24,000, 1969-88 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11 

Figure 7. Distribution of precipitation (1961-90) and landforms in Upper Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada. Average annual-precipitation data 

derived from precipitation-elevation regressions on independent slopes model, or PRISM (Daly and 

others, 1994). 

40 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas in the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
40° 

39" 45' 

0 3 6 9 12 MILES 

0 3 6 9 12 KILOMETERS 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data. 1:100,000, 1977--88 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11 

EXPLANATION 

La ndforms 

Valley lowland 

Piedmont slo1x: 

Mountain block 

Hydrographic-a rea bou ndary 

- 20 - Line of equal average annunl prccipit.ationontour interval varies: 2 inchc for 20 inches 

or less. 4 inches for greater than 20 inchc. 

Figure 8. Distribution of precipitation (1961-90) and landforms in Antelope Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River 

Basin, north-central Nevada. Average annual-precipitation data derived from precipitation-elevation regressions on independent slopes model, or PRISM (Daly and others, 1994). 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates 41 
It?• 15' 

40° 15' 

0 2 4 6 8 

0 2 4 6 8 10 KILOMETERS 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, t :tOO,OOO, 1977-88 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11 

- 20 -

10 MILES 

EXPLANATION 

Landforms 

Valley lowland 

Piedmont slope 

M ountain block 

Hydrogr aphic-area boundar y 

Line of equal aver age annual precipitationContour interval varies: 2 inches for 20 inches 

or less, 4 inches for greater than 20 inches 

Figure 9. Distribution of precipitation (1961 - 90) and landforms in Middle Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt 

River Basin, north-central Nevada. Average annual-precipitation data derived from precipitation-elevation regressions on indepedent 

slopes model, or PRISM (Daly and others, 1994). 

42 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
40° 15' 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data , 1:1 00.000. 19n-88 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11 

0 

0 

3 

3 6 

t-.. :.-:·.:::·. 1 

CJ 

-- 20 -

6 

EXPLANATION 

Landforms 

Valley lowland 

Piedmont lope 

Mountain block 

Hydrographic-area boundary 

Line of equal average annual precipitationContour interval varies: 2 inches for 20 inches 

or lc s, 4 inches ~ r greater than 20 inches 

9 12 MILES 

9 12 KILOMETERS 

Figure 10. Distribution of precipitation (1961 - 90) and landforms in Lower Reese River Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt 

River Basin, north-central Nevada. Average annual-precipitation data derived from precipitation-elevation regressions on independent 

slopes model, or PRISM (Daly and others, 1994). 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates 43 
40° 37' 30" 

40" 30' 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, t :100,000. 1977-88 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11 

(._ ·. -~. :-:.: ·.·1 

CJ 

-- 20-

Landforms 

Valley lowland 

Piedmont slope 

Mountain block 

Hydrographic-area bounda ry 

Line of eq ua l average annual precipitationContour interval varies: 2 inches for 20 inches 

or less. 4 inches for greate r than 20 inches 

0 2 4 MILES 

0 2 4 KILOMETERS 

Figure 11 . Distribution of precipitation {1961-90) and landforms in Whirlwind Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt 

River Basin, north-central Nevada. Average annual-precipitation data derived from precipitation-elevation regressions on 

Independent slopes model, or PRISM (Daly and others, 1994). 

44 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas in the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
- 20 -

0 3 

0 3 6 

EXPLANATION 

Landforms 

Valley lowland 

Piedmont slope 

Mountain block 

Hydrographic-area bounda ry 

Line of eq ual average annual precipitationContour interval varies: 2 inches for 20 inche 

or less. 4 inches for greater than 20 inches 

6 9 12 MILES 

9 12 KILOMETERS 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data. t :tOO.OOO. t977-88 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 1t 

Figure 12. Distribution of precipitation (1961-90) and landforms in Boulder Flat Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada. Average annual-precipitation data derived from precipitation-elevation 

regressions on independent slopes model, or PRISM (Daly and others, 1994). 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates 45 
41 ° 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100.000. 19n-aa 

Universal Transverse Mercator prOJection 

Zone 11 

0 

0 

3 

3 6 

- 20 -

6 

EXPLANATION 

Landforms 

Valley lowland 

Piedmont slope 

Mountain block 

Hydrographic-a rea boundary 

Line of eq ual average an nual preci pitationContour interval varies: 2 inches for 20 inche 

or le s. 4 inches for greater than 20 inches 

9 12 MILES 

9 12 KILOMETERS 

Figure 13. Distribution of precipitation (1961 - 90) and landforms in Rock Creek Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River 

Basin, north-central Nevada. Average annual-precipitation data derived from precipitation-elevation regressions on independent slopes model, or PRISM (Daly and others, 1994). 

46 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
40" 07' 30" 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, t :100,000, 1977-88 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11 

0 2 4 6 8 10 MILES 

0 ~--~----~----~----~--~ 2 4 6 8 10 KILOMETERS 

EXPLANATION 

Landforms 

Valley lowland 

Piedmont slope 

Mountain block 

Hyclrograpllic-a rea boundary 

-- 20 -- Line of equal average annual precipita tionContour interval varies: 2 inchc for 20 inches 

or less. 4 inches for greater than 20 inches 

Figure 14. Distribution of precipitation (1961-90) and landforms in Willow Creek Valley Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River 

Basin, north-central Nevada. Average annual-precipitation data derived from precipitation-elevation regressions on independent 

slopes model, or PRISM (Daly and others, 1994). 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates 47 
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data. 1:100,000. 1977-88 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11 

0 

0 

EXPLANATION 

3 

La.ndJorms 

Valley lowland 

Piedmont slope 

Mountain block 

Hydrographic-area boundary 

Line of eq ual average annual precipilationConwur interval varies: 2 inches for 20 inches 

or less, 4 inches for greater Lhan 20 inches 

3 6 9 MILES 

6 9 KILOMETERS 

Figure 15. Distribution of precipitation (1961-90) and landforms in Clovers Area Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River 

Basin, north-central Nevada. Average annual-precipitation data derived from precipitation-elevation regressions on independent 

slopes model, or PRISM (Daly and others, 1994). 

48 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1977-88 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11 

0 

0 

- 20 -

2 

2 4 

EXPLANATION 

La ndforms 

Val ley lowland 

Piedmont lope 

Mountain block 

Hydrographic-a rea boundary 

Line of equal a verage annual preci pitationContour interval varies: 2 inches for 20 inches 

or less, 4 inches for greater than 20 inches 

4 6 8 MILES 

6 8 KILOMETERS 

Figure 16. Distribution of precipitation (1961 - 90) and landforms in Pumpernickel Valley Hydrographic 

Area, middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada. Average annual-precipitation data derived from 

precipitation-elevation regressions on independent slopes model, or PRISM (Daly and others, 1994). 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates 49 
41° :~ :;

Humbo!dr Rrver .._ 

Base !rom U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1977-88 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection 

Zone 11 

.. .. :::::::::::: ::./ ) flJ [> :· or---.-----'2__,.--.,..._4_--. __ 6.___ __ __,8 MILES 

0 2 4 6 8 KILOMETERS 

[· .. ::> .. :',! 

CJ 

-

EXPLANATION 

La ndforms 

Valley lowland 

Piedmont lope 

Mountain block 

Hydrogr aphic-area bounda ry 

- 20 - Line of eq ual average ann ua l preci pitationContour interval varies: 2 inches for 20 inches 

or less. 4 inches for greater than 20 inches 

Figure 17. Distribution of precipitation (1961-90) and landforms in Kelly Creek Area Hydrographic Area, middle Humboldt River 

Basin, north-central Nevada. Average annual-precipitation data derived from precipitation-elevation regressions on independent 

slopes model, or PRISM (Daly and others, 1994). 

50 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
Humboldt River Valley 

-

7 

Humboldt River Valley 

60 -

-

40 

20 T .!. = 

0 T T 

PN we RC CL UR MR AV BF cv wv LR CA PV 

HYDROGRAPHIC AREAS 

-: 

KC 

EXPLANATION 

= Range in outflow 

Range in inflow 

Hydrographic Area (table 1) 

Tributary to Humboldt River valley 

AV Antelope Valley HA 

CL Carico Lake Valley HA 

MR Middle Reese River Valley HA 

PN Pine Valley HA 

RC Rock Creek Valley HA 

we Willow Creek Valley HA 

UR Upper Reese River Valley HA 

In Humboldt River valley 

BF Boulder Rat HA 

CA Clovers Area 

cv Crescent Valley HA 

KC Kelly Creek Area 

LR Lower Reese River Valley HA 

PV Pumpernickel Valley HA 

wv Whirlwind Valley HA 

Figure 18. Estimated inflow and outflow for 14 hydrographic areas in middle Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada. 

A, Total water budget. B, Ground-water budget. 

Discussion of Water-Budget Estimates 51 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Traditional water users in the Humboldt River 

Basin in north-central Nevada rely mostly on surface 

water and to a lesser extent on ground water. However, 

ground-water withdrawals in the basin have increased 

over the last 10 to 15 years, mostly as a result of the 

development of large open-pit gold mines. In 1995, the 

U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, began the Humboldt River Basin Assessment. This study is part of the overall assessment 

designed to address concerns about regional and longterm effects of open-pit mine dewatering. Because 

most of the large mine-dewatering operations in northem Nevada are in the middle Humboldt River Basin, 

the assessment has focused on this part of the basin. 

The middle Humboldt River Basin is defined by the 14 

hydrographic areas tributary to the Humboldt River 

valley from about 10 miles downstream from Carlin to 

about 5 miles upstream from Golconda. 

Each hydrographic area was subdivided on the 

basis of three general landforms and ground-water flow 

patterns. Mountain blocks form the main zone of 

recharge, piedmont slopes the main zone of lateral 

flow, and valley lowlands the main zone of groundwater discharge. For many basins in the study area, the 

zone of recharge extends to the upper parts of the piedmont slope. Water budgets were developed assuming 

approximate equilibrium (steady-state conditions). The 

estimated budgets represent average annual volumes 

over a 30-year reference period ( 1961- 90). 

Runoff and water yield from mountain-block 

areas were estimated from regression analyses among 

average annual runoff, water yield, and precipitation. 

Ground-water recharge was estimated by a revised 

Maxey-Eakin method and by a mass-balance calculation. Water loss by evapotranspiration (ET) and sublimation in mountain-block areas was determined 

indirectly as the difference between average annual 

precipitation and average annual water yield. Average 

annual ET from piedmont slopes was derived, in part, 

by the Penman- Monteith equation using weather-station data. Ground-water ET in valley-lowland areas 

was estimated from a recently developed method using 

micrometeorological techniques and remotely sensed 

Landsat Thematic Mapper (satellite) data. 

On average, total annual inflow to the middle 

Humboldt River basin was estimated to be about 

5,000,000 acre-ft. Of the total inflow, 4,600,000 is 

from precipitation that falls in the 14 hydrographic 

areas, and about 350,000 acre-ft is inflow from the 

Humboldt River. Average annual outflow was estimated to be about 5,100,000 acre-ft, of which ET 

accounts for about 4,800,000 acre-ft of the total. 

Average annual outflow of the Humboldt River is 

about 300,000 acre-ft. 

Estimated total outflow from hydrographic areas 

where the Humboldt River either makes up part of the 

area boundary or transverses the area is greater than 

estimated total inflow. The contribution of Humboldt 

River water to the total estimate ofET could not be separated from ET of ground water that originated as precipitation within the boundary of the hydrographic 

area. Without additional information about flow of the 

Humboldt River at area boundaries, regional analysis 

of ET could not distinguish the source of ground water 

consumed by phreatophyte vegetation in these areas. 

However, for basins isolated from the effects of the 

Humboldt River, inflow estimates were either within 

range of estimated outflow or slightly greater. 

In mountain-block areas, about 15 percent of the 

total precipitation was estimated either to recharge 

ground water or to become runoff. Although mountain 

blocks are the source areas for the greatest proportion 

of ground-water recharge, about one-third of the total 

recharge was estimated to be from inflltration of runoff 

on piedmont slopes. However, ground-water recharge 

from direct precipitation on piedmont slopes is small. 

Comparison of the newly derived water budgets 

to those developed in earlier studies indicate that both 

precipitation and ground-water ET are greater than previously estimated. Estimated precipitation is 5 to 28 

percent greater, and estimated ET, 2 to 34 percent 

greater, although the proportion of the annual precipitation assumed to be lost to ET is similar in the current 

and earlier studies. Based on current mass-balance calculations, estimates of ground-water recharge are about 

45 percent greater than previously estimated. 

52 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
GLOSSARY 

Some of the technical terms and acronyms used in this report 

are defmed for the convenience of the reader. Most of 

the following definitions were modified from 

(1) Langbein and Iseri (1960), (2) Tomlinson (1994), 

(3) Horton (1998), and (4) Wilson and Moore (1998). 

Aquifer. Formation, group of formations, or part of formation that contains sufficient saturated permeable material to yield significant quantities of water to wells and 

springs ( 4). 

Average conditions. Conditions under which numerical 

value for hydrologic variable, such as precipitation or 

streamflow, is equal to arithmetic mean for selected 

time period. Also see defmition of"natural conditions." 

Baseflow. Sustained or fair-weather flow of stream, whether 

or not affected by works of man. That part of stream 

discharge that is not attributable to direct runoff from 

precipitation or melting snow (4). 

Coefficient of determination(?). Measure of proportion of 

total variance of dependent variable that is accounted 

for by independent variables in regression analyses. 

Dewatering (mining). Removal of ground water in conjunction with mining operations when excavation has penetrated below water table (3). 

Evaporation. Process by which water passes from liquid 

state to vapor state (4). 

Evapotranspiration (ET). Loss of water from land area 

through transpiration by plants and evaporation from 

soil and surface-water bodies (4). 

Geographic information system (GIS). Computer program 

and associated data bases that organize data in layers 

which can be integrated, queried, and analyzed (3, 4). 

Ground water. That part of subsurface water that is in saturated zone (4). 

Ground-water discharge. Release of water from saturated 

zone (4). 

Ground-water recharge. Process of downward movement 

of water to saturated zone and addition of water to 

ground-water reservoir (4). 

Ground-water storage. Quantity of water in saturated 

zone (4). 

Hydraulic conductivity. Volume of water that will move 

in porous medium in unit time under unit hydraulic 

gradient through unit area measured at right angles to 

direction of flow ( 4 ). 

Hydraulic gradient. In aquifer, rate of change of total head 

per unit of distance of flow at given point and in given 

direction (4). 

Hydrologic equilibrium. Expression oflaw of mass conservation for water budgets. State in which inflow equals 

outflow, corrected for changes in storage. 

Hydrologic processes. Physical operation or series of operations that result in movement of water within hydrologic system. 

Hydrologic system. Complex of related parts- physical, 

conceptual, or both- forming orderly working body of 

hydrologic units and interacting hydrologic processes 

(4). 

Inflow. Process of flowing in or into; includes all water that 

enters hydrologic system (4). 

Landsat. Series of United States satellites that collect multispectral images of Earth's surface in visible, reflected, 

and thermal-infrared bands (4). 

Natural conditions. Conditions under which hydrologic 

processes and variables are not affected by man. For 

water budgets, such conditions commonly are assumed 

to represent long-term steady state. 

Open-pit mining. Process of removing mineral deposits that 

are found sufficiently close to surface that tunnels are 

unnecessary. 

Outflow. Process of flowing out; includes all water that 

leaves hydrologic system (4). 

Permeability. Property or capacity of porous rock, sediment, or soil for transmitting water (4). 

Phreatophyte. Plant that obtains its water supply from saturated zone (4). 

Residual. Difference between measured station value and 

value predicted by regression equation. 

Runoff. That part of precipitation appearing in surface 

streams (4). 

Spring. Place where ground water flows naturally from rock 

or soil onto land surface or into body of surface water 

(4). 

Steady state. State of balance in hydrologic system where 

little or no change in hydraulic head occurs through 

time (4). 

Streamflow. Type of charmel flow; applies to that part of 

surface runoff traveling in stream whether or not it is 

affected by diversion or regulation (4). 

Surface water. All waters on surface of Earth (1). 

Transpiration. Process by which plants give off water vapor 

through their leaves (4). 

Water budget. Accounting of inflow to, outflow from, and 

storage in hydrologic unit such as drainage basin, aquifer, soil zone, lake, or reservoir (4). 

Watershed. Region drained by, or contributing water to, 

stream, lake, or other body of water ( 4 ). 

Water table. Upper surface of saturated zone (4). 

Water year. Period of 12 months from October 1 through 

September 30; term used by federal agencies in reference to surface-water supply (4). 

Water yield. Runoff from drainage basin; includes groundwater outflow that appears in stream plus ground-water 

outflow that bypasses gaging station and leaves basin 

underground. May be expressed as precipitation minus 

evapotranspiration (4, 1). 

GLOSSARY 53 
REFERENCES CITED 

Berger, D.L., 2000, Water budgets for Pine Valley, Carico 

Lake Valley, and Upper Reese River Valley Hydrographic Areas, middle Humboldt River Basin, northcentral Nevada-Methods for estimation and results: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation 

Report, 99-4272,40 p. 

Cardinalli, J.L., Roach, L.M., Rush, F.E., and Vasey, B.J., 

1968, State ofNevada hydrographic areas: Nevada 

Division of Water Resources map, scale 1:500,000. 

Crosthwaite, E.G., 1963, Ground-water appraisal of Antelope and Middle Reese River Valleys, Lander County, 

Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Ground-Water Resources-Reconnaissance Report 19, 33 p. 

Daly, Christopher, Neilson, RP., and Phillips, D.L., 1994, A 

statistical- topographic model for mapping climatological precipitation over mountainous terrain: Journal of 

Applied Meteorology, v. 33, no. 2, p. 140--158. 

Dettinger, M.D., and Schaefer, D.H., 1995, Decade-scale 

hydroclimatic forcing of ground-water levels in the central Great Basin, Eastern Nevada: Water Resources and 

Environmental Hazards: Emphasis on Hydrologic and 

Cultural Insight in the Pacific Rim, American Water 

Resources Association, June, 1995, pp. 195-204. 

Eakin, T.E., 1961, Ground-water appraisal ofPine Valley, 

Eureka and Elko Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, GroundWater Resources-Reconnaissance Report 2, 41 p. 

Eakin, T.E., and Lamke, R.D., 1966, Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Humboldt River Basin, Nevada, with a section on Quality of water, by D.E. Everett: Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Water Resources Bulletin 32, 107 p. 

Eakin, T.E., Maxey, G.B., Robinson, T.W., Fredericks, J.C., 

and Loeltz, O.J., 1951, Contributions to the hydrology 

of eastern Nevada: Nevada State Engineer, Water 

Resources Bulletin 12, 171 p. 

Eakin, T.E., Moore, D.O., and Everett, D.E., 1965, Waterresources appraisal of the Upper Reese River Valley, 

Lander and Nye Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department 

of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water 

Resources- Reconnaissance Report 31, 47 p. 

Everett, D.E., and Rush, F.E., 1966, A brief appraisal of the 

water resources of Grass and Carico Lake Valleys, 

Lander and Eureka Counties, Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Water 

Resources- Reconnaissance Report 37, 27 p. 

Hardman, George, and Mason, H. G., 1949, Irrigated lands in 

Nevada: University of Nevada, Reno, Agricultural 

Experiment Station Bulletin 183, 57 p. 

Harrill, J.R., 1968, Hydrologic response to irrigation pumping in Diamond Valley, Eureka and Elko Counties, 

Nevada, 1950-65: Nevada Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources, Water Resources Bulletin 35, 

85 p. 

Heath, R.C., 1989, Basic ground-water hydrology: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2220, 84 p. 

Hess, R.H., and Johnson, G.L., 1997, County digital geologic maps [CD-ROM]: Reno, Nevada Bureau of 

Mines and Geology Open-File Report 97- 1. 

Horton, G.A., 1998, Water words dictionary, Pt. 1, A compilation of technical water, water quality, environmental, 

and water-related terms (8th ed.): Nevada Division of 

Water Planning, 385 p. (accessed May 7, 1999, on 

World Wide Web at URL 

<http://www .state.nv .us/ndwp/dict-1 /ww-index. html>. 

Langbein, W.B., and Iseri, K.T., 1960, Manual ofhydrology, 

Pt. I, General surface-water techniques-General 

introduction and hydrologic definitions: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1541- A, 29 p. 

Maurer, D.K., Plume, R.W., Thomas, J.M., and Johnson, 

A. K., 1996, Water resources and effects of changes in 

ground-water use along the Carlin Trend, north-central 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report, 96-4134, 146 p. 

Maurer, D.K., and Berger, D.L., 1997, Subsurface flow and 

water yield from watersheds tributary to Eagle Valley 

Hydrographic Area, west-central Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

97- 4191,56 p. 

Maxey, G.B., and Eakin, T.E., 1949, Ground water in White 

River Valley, White Pine, Nye, and Lincoln Counties, 

Nevada: Nevada State Engineer, Water Resources Bulletin 8, 53 p. 

Monteith, J.L., 1965, Evaporation and environment, the state 

and movement of water in living organisms, in G.E. 

Fogg, ed., Proceedings, Symposium No. 19, Society for 

Experimental Biology: New York, Academic Press, p. 

205- 234. 

Nichols, W.D., 2000, Regional ground-water evapotranspiration and ground-water budgets, Great Basin, Nevada: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1628, 82 p. 

Olmsted, F.H., and Rush, F.E., 1987, Hydrogeologic reconnaissance of the Beowawe geysers geothermal area, 

Nevada: Geothermics, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 27-46. 

Owenby, J.H., and Ezell, D.S., 1992, Monthly station normals of temperature, precipitation, and heating and 

cooling degree days, 1961- 90, Nevada: National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Climatography of the United States no. 

81, [20] p. 

Peterson, F F., 1981, Landforms of the Basin and Range 

Province: University of Nevada, Reno, Agricultural 

Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin 28, 52 p. 

54 Water-Budget Estimates for the 14 Hydrographic Areas In the Middle Humboldt River Basin, North-Central Nevada 
Plume, R.W., 1996, Hydrogeologic framework of the Great 

Basin region ofNevada, Utah, and adjacent States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1409- B, 64 p. 

Plume, R.W., and Carlton, S.M., 1988, Hydrogeology of the 

Great Basin region of Nevada, Utah, and adjacent 

States: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas, HA-694-A, 1 sheet, scale I: 1,000,000. 

Plume, R.W., and Ponce, D.A., 1999, Hydrogeologic framework and ground-water levels, 1982 and 1996, middle 

Humboldt River Basin, north-central Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation 

Report 98-4209, 2 sheets. 

Rorabaugh, M.I., 1964, Estimating changes in bank storage 

and ground-water contribution to streamflow: International Association of Scientific Hydrology Publication 

63, p. 432-441 . 

Rush, F.E., 1968, Index of hydrographic areas in Nevada: 

Nevada Division of Water Resources, Information 

Report 6, 38 p. 

Rush, F.E., Scott, B.R., VanDenburgh, A.S., and Vasey, 

B.J., 1971, Water resources and inter-basin flow: 

Nevada Division of Water Resources, I sheet, scale 

1:750,000. 

Shevenell, Lisa, 1996, Statewide potential evapotranspiration maps for Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and 

Geology report 48, 32 p. 

Tomlinson, S.A., 1994, Instrumentation methods and preliminary evaluation of evapotranspiration for a grassland in the Arid Lands Ecology Reserve, Benton 

County, Washington, May-October 1990: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

93-4081' 32 p. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1986, U.S. GeoData land-u e and 

land-cover digital data from 1:250,000- and I : 100,000-

scale maps- Data users guide 4: U.S. Geological Survey National Mapping Program Technical Instructions, 

36 p. 

---1987, U.S. GeoData digital elevation models- Data 

users guide 5: U.S. Geological Survey National Mapping Program Technical Instructions, 38 p. 

Wilson, W.E. , and Moore, J.E., eds., 1998, Glossary of 

hydrology: Alexandria, Va., American Geological 

Institute, 248 p. 

Zones, CP ., 1961 , Ground-water potentialities in the Crescent Valley, Eureka and Lander Counties, Nevada: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1581 , 50 p. 

REFERENCES CITED 55 
1111111 ''''"m~~~ " ~~~~ [I~ ,,1, 1111r111 3 1818 00320040 7 

EUSGS 

science for a changing world 

Since 1879, the U.S. Geological SuNey has been providing maps, reports, and information to help others 

who manage, develop, and protect our Nation's water, energy, mineral, land, and biological resources. 

We help find natural resources, and we supply scientific understanding needed to help minimize or mitigate the effects of natural hazards and the environmental damage caused by human activities. The 

results of our efforts touch the daily lives of almost everyone. 

@>Printed on recycled paper 

OJ 

(!) 

cO 

(l) 

T 

;..; ~ 

m 

:D 

cD 

c 

0 

(j) 

m 

-i 

m 

(/) 

-i 

~ 

~ m 

(/) 

'Tl 

0 

:D 

.flo. 

:I: 

-< 

0 

:D 

0 

(j) 

:D 

~ :I: 

0 

:P 

:D 

m 

:P 

(/) 

s:: 

0 

0 

r 

m 

:I: 

c 

s:: 

OJ 

0 

r 

~ 

:D 

< m 

:D 

~ (/) 

z 

z 

0 

:D 

-i 

:I: 

0 

m 

z 

-i 

:D 

'f! 

z 

m 

~ 0 

t 

c 

(/) 

G) 

Sf> 

~ jj 

8 

I 

.flo. 

...... 

0') 

(X)