Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs

Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of 

Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and 

Adjacent Areas, Juab and Tooele Counties, Utah, and 

Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5097
Windmill over an abandoned stock well on the Goshute Indian Reservation 

looking east with the Deep Creek Range in the background.
Hydrogeologic and Geochemical 

Characterization of Groundwater Resources 

in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas, 

Juab and Tooele Counties, Utah, and Elko and 

White Pine Counties, Nevada 

By Philip M. Gardner and Melissa D. Masbruch 

Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs

Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5097

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Gardner, P.M., and Masbruch, M.D., 2015, Hydrogeologic and geochemical characterization of groundwater resources 

in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Juab and Tooele Counties, Utah, and Elko and White Pine Counties, 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5097, 53 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155097.

ISSN 2328-0328 (online) 
iii

Contents

Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1

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

Physical Characteristics of the Study Area .....................................................................................3

Population and Land Use ...........................................................................................................4

Precipitation .................................................................................................................................4

Streamflow ...................................................................................................................................4

Geology .........................................................................................................................................6

Groundwater Hydrology ...............................................................................................................................7

Hydrogeology ........................................................................................................................................8

Hydraulic Properties ..........................................................................................................................10

Occurrence and Movement of Groundwater.................................................................................10

Groundwater Budget .........................................................................................................................14

Recharge.....................................................................................................................................16

Precipitation ......................................................................................................................17

Unconsumed Irrigation from Well Withdrawals .........................................................19

Subsurface Inflow from Tippett Valley ..........................................................................21

Discharge....................................................................................................................................21

Evapotranspiration ..........................................................................................................21

Mountain Springs and Base Flow to Mountain Streams ...........................................23

Well Withdrawals .............................................................................................................23

Subsurface Outflow to Great Salt Lake Desert ...........................................................23

Water-Level Fluctuations ..................................................................................................................23

Groundwater Geochemistry ......................................................................................................................26

Sample Collection and Analysis ......................................................................................................26

Geochemical Methods ......................................................................................................................29

Oxygen-18 and Deuterium........................................................................................................29

Tritium and Helium ....................................................................................................................30

Carbon-14 ...................................................................................................................................31

Dissolved Noble Gases ............................................................................................................31

Results ..................................................................................................................................................32

Major Ions, Nutrients, and Selected Trace Metals .............................................................32

Oxygen-18 and Deuterium .......................................................................................................34

Tritium and Helium ....................................................................................................................34

Carbon-14 ...................................................................................................................................35

Noble-Gas Recharge Temperatures.......................................................................................36

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................41

Principal Aquifer Characteristics ....................................................................................................41

Potential Interbasin Connection ......................................................................................................41

Summary .......................................................................................................................................................45

References Cited .........................................................................................................................................46

Appendix 1. Data Tables .............................................................................................................................51

Appendix 2. Groundwater Budget Uncertainty ......................................................................................53
iv

Figures

1. Map showing location of Deep Creek Valley and adjacent hydrographic areas, 

Utah and Nevada .......................................................................................................................... 2

2. Map showing average annual precipitation, 1981–2010, in Deep Creek Valley, 

Utah and Nevada .......................................................................................................................... 5

3. Graph showing long-term annual precipitation recorded at four weather stations 

in or near Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada ..................................................................... 6

4. Graph showing streamflow measured in Fifteenmile, Sams, and Steves Creeks 

for 1964–1967, Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada ............................................................. 7

5. Graph showing average daily streamflow for 1964–1968 and peak streamflow 

for 1959–1968, measured in Deep Creek, Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada ............... 8

6. Map showing surficial extent of hydrogeologic units, major faults, and lines of 

cross sections, in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada ................... 9

7. Map showing hydrogeologic cross sections for selected locations in Deep Creek 

Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada ....................................................................... 11

8. Map showing regional water-level surface map and general direction of groundwater movement for Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada ............ 15

9. Conceptualization of groundwater budget components and budget calculation 

for Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada ............................................................................... 16

10. Map showing distribution of average annual in-place recharge estimated by 

the Basin Characterization Model for Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada................... 18

11. Graph showing annual average precipitation and Basin Characterization Model 

estimates of in-place recharge and runoff for Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada ... 19

12. Map showing distribution of average annual runoff estimated by the Basin 

Characterization Model for Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada .................................... 20

13. Map showing location and classification of evapotranspiration units used to 

calculate average annual groundwater evapotranspiration in Deep Creek 

Valley, Utah and Nevada ........................................................................................................... 22

14. Map showing location of selected wells with long-term and discrete water-level 

data, Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada ....................................... 24

15. Graph showing long-term water-level fluctuations in selected wells along the 

drainage axis of Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada ....................................................... 25

16. Graph showing discrete water-level data for selected wells in Deep Creek Valley 

and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada ................................................................................... 26

17. Map showing location of 10 wells and springs sampled during this study in Deep 

Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada ............................................................ 28

18. Map showing Stiff diagrams showing major-ion composition of groundwater from 

hydrogeologic units in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada ......... 33

19. Graph showing stable-isotope values for groundwater in Deep Creek Valley and

adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada, in reference to the global meteoric water line 

and an arid-zone meteoric water line ..................................................................................... 35

20. Map showing tritium concentrations in groundwater in Deep Creek Valley and 

adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada ........................................................................................... 37

21. Map showing carbon-14 activities in groundwater in Deep Creek Valley and 

adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada ........................................................................................... 38

22. Graph showing noble-gas recharge temperatures for groundwater in Deep 

Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada, compared to regional valley 

water-table temperatures ......................................................................................................... 40
v

23. Graph showing air and water-table temperatures versus altitude for selected 

wells and springs in the eastern Great Basin, Utah and Nevada ...................................... 40

24. Map showing interpreted age categories for groundwater sampled in Deep 

Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada ............................................................ 43

25. Map showing location of current and potential monitoring wells in Tippet and 

Deep Creek Valleys, Utah and Nevada ................................................................................... 44 

Tables

1. Average annual streamflow, 1971–2000, for perennial streams in Deep Creek 

Valley, Utah and Nevada .............................................................................................................. 4

2. Base-flow measurements and comparison to historical base flow for perennial 

streams in Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada .................................................................... 6

3. Hydraulic properties of hydrogeologic units from the Great Basin carbonate and 

alluvial aquifer system study area ........................................................................................... 10

4. Average annual groundwater budget for Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada ................ 14

5. Evapotranspiration unit rates and areas used to calculate average annual evapotranspiration of groundwater in Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada ............................. 23

6. Measured field parameters and dissolved concentrations of major ions, nutrients, 

and selected metals for groundwater sampled during May 2012 in Deep Creek 

Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada ........................................................................ 27

7. Stable- and radio-isotope data used to estimate ages of groundwater sampled 

during May 2012 in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada ............... 36

8. Dissolved-gas concentrations and related noble-gas temperature data for groundwater sampled in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada .................. 39

A1-1. Selected attributes of wells and water levels measured in wells used in 

constructing the water-level surface map for Deep Creek Valley and adjacent 

areas, Utah and Nevada ............................................................................................................ 51

A1-2. Selected attributes of groundwater sites sampled during the spring of 2012 in 

Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada .................................................. 52
vi

Conversion Factors, Datums, and Water-Quality Units 

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2

)

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3

) 

Flow rate

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr) 1,233 cubic meter per year (m3

/yr)

cubic foot per second (ft3

/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s) 

Hydraulic conductivity

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day (m/d)

foot per year (ft/y) 0.3048 meter per year (m/y)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NGVD29).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L), 

micrograms per liter (μg/L), and in milliequivalents per liter. Milligrams per liter and micrograms 

per liter are units expressing the concentration of chemical constituents in solution as weight 

(grams) of solute per unit volume (liter) of water. A liter of water is assumed to weigh 1 kilogram, 

except for brines or water at high temperatures because of changes in the density of the water. 

For concentrations less than 7,000 mg/L or 7,000,000 μg/L, the numerical value is the same as for 

concentrations in parts per million or parts per billion, respectively. Milliequivalents per liter are 

units expressing concentrations that are chemically equivalent in terms of atomic or molecular 

weight and electrical charge.

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at

25 °C).

Concentrations of dissolved gases are reported in cubic centimeters of gas at standard 

temperature and pressure per gram of water (ccSTP/g). Tritium concentration is reported 

in tritium units (TU) where one TU is equivalent to one molecule of tritiated water (3H1HO) in 

1018 molecules of non-tritiated water (1H2O).TU or 3.2 picocuries per liter. Carbon-14 activity 

is reported as percent modern carbon (pMC). Stable-isotope ratios are reported as delta (δ) 

values, which are parts per thousand or permil (‰) difference(s) from a standard. 
vii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

BARCAS Basin and Range carbonate-rock aquifer system 

BCM Basin Characterization Model 

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BP before present

DIC dissolved inorganic carbon

DRI Desert Research Institute

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ET evapotranspiration

GBCAAS Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system 

GIS geographic information systems

GMWL Global Meteoric Water Line

HA hydrographic area 

HGU hydrogeologic unit

LBFAU lower basin-fill aquifer unit 

LCAU lower carbonate aquifer unit

LMWL Local Meteoric Water Line

NAIP National Agricultural Imagery Program 

NCCU non-carbonate confining unit 

NWIS National Water Information System

PRISM Parameter-elevation Regression on Independent Slopes Model

SNWA Southern Nevada Water Authority 

TU tritium unit

UCAU upper carbonate aquifer unit

UGS Utah Geological Survey

USCU upper siliciclastic confining unit

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UTWSC Utah Water Science Center 

VSMOW Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water 

VU volcanic unit

Abbreviations related to modeling noble-gas recharge temperatures

A a parameter used in the CE model defined as the dimensionless ratio of the 

total volume of trapped (moist) air at the pressure and temperature of the free 

atmosphere to the volume of water beneath the water table

CE closed-system equilibration

F a parameter used in the CE model defined as a fractionation factor for partial 

dissolution of trapped air bubbles

Hr recharge altitude

Hrmax maximum recharge altitude 

Hrmin minimum recharge altitude

NGT noble-gas recharge temperature 

NGTavg average noble-gas recharge temperature

NGTmax maximum noble-gas recharge temperature

NGTmin minimum noble-gas recharge temperature

Tr recharge temperature 
viii
Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of 

Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and 

Adjacent Areas in Juab and Tooele Counties, Utah, and 

Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada 

By Philip M. Gardner and Melissa D. Masbruch

Abstract 

The water resources of Deep Creek Valley were assessed 

during 2012–13 with an emphasis on better understanding the groundwater flow system and groundwater budget. 

Surface-water resources are limited in Deep Creek Valley and 

are generally used for agriculture. Groundwater is the predominant water source for most other uses and to supplement 

irrigation. Most groundwater withdrawal in Deep Creek Valley 

occurs from the unconsolidated basin-fill deposits, in which 

conditions are generally unconfined near the mountain front 

and confined in the lower-altitude parts of the valley. Productive aquifers are also present in fractured bedrock that occurs 

along the valley margins and beneath the basin-fill deposits. 

The consolidated-rock and basin-fill aquifers are hydraulically 

connected in many areas with much of the recharge occurring 

in the consolidated-rock mountain blocks and most of the discharge occurring from the lower-altitude basin-fill deposits. 

Average annual recharge to the Deep Creek Valley 

hydrographic area was estimated to be between 19,000 and 

29,000 acre-feet. Groundwater recharge occurs mostly from 

the infiltration of precipitation and snowmelt at high altitudes. 

Additional, but limited recharge occurs from the infiltration 

of runoff from precipitation near the mountain front, infiltration along stream channels, and possible subsurface inflow 

from adjacent hydrographic areas. Groundwater moves from 

areas of recharge to springs and streams in the mountains, and 

to evapotranspiration areas, springs, streams, and wells in the 

basins. Discharge may also occur as subsurface groundwater outflow to adjacent hydrographic areas. Average annual 

discharge from the Deep Creek Valley hydrographic area was 

estimated to be between 21,000 and 22,000 acre-feet, with the 

largest portion of discharge occurring as evapotranspiration. 

Groundwater samples were collected from 10 sites for 

geochemical analysis. Dissolved-solids concentrations ranged 

from 126 to 475 milligrams per liter, and none of the sites 

sampled during this study had dissolved-solids concentrations 

that exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency secondary standard for drinking water of 500 milligrams per liter. 

Tritium concentrations from 1.6 to 10.1 tritium units at 3 of 

the 10 sample sites indicate the presence of modern (less than 

60 years old) groundwater, and apparent tritium/helium-3 

ages calculated for these sites ranged from 7 to 29 years. 

The other seven sample sites had tritium concentrations less 

than or equal to 0.4 tritium units and are assumed to be premodern. Adjusted minimum radiocarbon ages of these seven 

pre-modern water samples ranged from 1,000 to 8,000 years 

with the ages of at least four of the samples being more than 

3,000 years. Noble-gas recharge temperatures indicate that 

groundwater sampled along the valley axis recharged at both 

mountain and valley altitudes, providing evidence for both 

mountain-block and mountain-front recharge.

Water-level altitude contours and groundwater ages indicate 

the potential for a long flow path from southwest to northeast 

between northern Spring and Deep Creek Valleys through Tippett Valley. Although information gathered during this study 

is insufficient to conclude whether or not groundwater travels 

along this interbasin flow path, dissolved sulfate and chloride data indicate that a small fraction of the lower altitude, 

northern Deep Creek Valley discharge may be sourced from 

these areas. Despite the uncertainty due to limited data collection points, a hydraulic connection between northern Spring 

Valley, Tippett Valley, and Deep Creek Valley appears likely, 

and potential regional effects resulting from future groundwater withdrawals in northern Spring Valley warrant ongoing 

monitoring of groundwater levels across this area.

Introduction 

Deep Creek Valley is located in Tooele and Juab Counties, 

Utah, and Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada, along the 

state border about 120 miles (mi) southwest of Salt Lake City, 

Utah (fig. 1). The Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Indian 

Reservation encompasses about 112,900 acres in the southern 

end of the valley, including part of the headwaters of the Deep 

Creek watershed and lands on the divide between Deep Creek 

Valley and Tippett Valley to the west. Few perennial streams 

flow into the basin, and surface-water resources are limited. 

Groundwater resources that sustain streams, springs, wetlands, 

and the local agricultural economy are also limited. 
2 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

Figure 1. Location of Deep Creek Valley and adjacent hydrographic areas, Utah and Nevada.

ELKO

COUNTY

WHITE PINE

COUNTY

TOOELE

COUNTY

JUAB

COUNTY

MILLARD

COUNTY

UTAH

NEVADA UTAH

NEVADA

Spring

Valley

(HA 184)

Snake

Valley

(HA 254)

Tippett

Valley

(HA 185)

Antelope

Valley

South Part

(HA 186A)

Deep

Creek

Valley

(HA 253)

Great Salt Lake Desert

West Part

(HA 261A)

Goshute

Indian

Reservation

95

Spring Valley Creek

Spring Creek

Granite Creek

Sams Creek

Indian Farm Creek

Deep Creek

Swan Creek

Deep Creek

Deep Creek

Partoun

Ibapah

Goshute

Gold Hill

Callao Antelope Range

Spring Creek Flat

Deep Creek Range

Snake Range

Schell Creek Range

0 5 10 Miles

0 5 10 Kilometers

Base from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 11

North American Datum 1983

114°30’ 114°00’

40°00’

39°30’

Steves Creek

Fifteenmile Creek

EXPLANATION

Hydrographic area boundary

Location of site where stream base 

flow was measured in October 2012

Nevada Utah Reno

Las Vegas

St George

Cedar City

Salt Lake

City

Snake

Valley

Deep Creek

Valley

Spring

Valley

Tippett

Valley

Antelope Valley

South Part

Great Salt Lake Desert

West Part

Ferber Hills
Introduction 3

Minimal growth has occurred within Deep Creek Valley 

during the past 40 years; however, both Snake Valley to the 

east-southeast and Spring Valley to the southwest have been 

targeted for significant groundwater development. Present concerns include the Southern Nevada Water Authority 

(SNWA) groundwater project, which proposes withdrawals of more than 60,000 acre-feet (acre-ft) of groundwater 

from Spring Valley over the next two decades. Generalized 

hydrogeology in the study area indicates possible interbasin 

hydraulic connection from Spring Valley through Tippett 

Valley to Deep Creek Valley and warrants a better understanding of the groundwater resources of the region to assess the 

potential effect of the SNWA project on the Deep Creek Valley 

aquifer(s).

An initial hydrologic reconnaissance of Deep Creek Valley 

was completed by Hood and Waddell (1969). Results for this 

study were incorporated into a hydrologic reconnaissance of 

the southern Great Salt Lake Desert (Gates and Kruer, 1981). 

Since these studies, water levels have been measured annually in selected wells within Deep Creek Valley as part of the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Utah Water Science Center 

(UTWSC) annual groundwater monitoring program (Burden 

and others, 2013).

Cooperative efforts are improving the understanding of the 

groundwater resources through recent and ongoing investigations in east-central Nevada and western Utah. The Basin 

and Range carbonate-rock aquifer system (BARCAS) study 

(Welch and others, 2007), conducted by the USGS and the 

Desert Research Institute (DRI), provides a regional assessment of groundwater in 13 hydrographic areas adjacent to 

Deep Creek Valley and the Goshute Reservation, and includes 

revised estimates of interbasin groundwater flow. Prudic and 

Glancy (2009) completed a detailed assessment of the sources 

of water to Cave Springs, located in Great Basin National 

Park on the western side of Snake Valley. Heilweil and Brooks 

(2011) completed a groundwater availability study of the 

Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system, including 

the entire carbonate-rock terrain from Death Valley, California, 

in the southwest, to Cache Valley, Utah in the northeast. Halford and Plume (2011), in cooperation with the National Park 

Service, refined and recalibrated the Great Basin Regional 

Aquifer-System Analysis numerical model (Prudic and others, 

1995) to assess the hydrologic effects of developing groundwater in Snake Valley on the water resources of Great Basin 

National Park. Both the Utah Geological Survey (UGS) and 

the SNWA have drilled an extensive network of monitoring 

wells in western Utah and eastern Nevada, extending from 

near Fish Springs to southern Snake Valley (Hamlin Valley) 

and Spring Valley. In cooperation with the UGS, SNWA, and 

the DRI, the UTWSC has also collected and compiled a large 

geochemical dataset from wells and springs in the region 

(Hershey and others, 2007; Acheampong and others, 2009; 

Gardner and Heilweil, 2014; Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, 2014). In addition, with financial support from 

SNWA, the UTWSC maintained a water-level monitoring 

network of 76 wells in western Utah between the Snake Range 

in Snake Valley and Fish Springs National Wildlife refuge in 

Fish Springs Flat. Water levels in these wells were measured 

quarterly from September 2008 through September 2014 and 

are accessible from the USGS National Water Information 

System (NWIS) database at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to reassess the groundwater 

hydrology and refine the conceptual model of the groundwater 

flow system in the southern end of Deep Creek Valley and 

eastern Tippett Valley that encompasses the Goshute Reservation. A five-point approach was used to meet the objectives of 

this study including (1) development of a new potentiometric 

surface map to assess direction of groundwater movement; (2) 

compilation of historical information on groundwater withdrawals, water-level changes, and stream and spring discharge 

measurements to provide a baseline of conditions for interpretation of future changes; (3) estimation of updated recharge 

and discharge rates using the Basin Characterization Model 

(BCM), a geographic information systems (GIS) based evapotranspiration analysis, and information regarding water-related 

land use; (4) verification of the hydrogeologic framework and 

development of hydrogeologic cross sections through areas 

with potential interbasin flow; and (5) an assessment of geochemical and environmental tracers in groundwater from wells 

and springs to determine groundwater ages, flow paths, and 

recharge sources. Results of the study will provide hydrologic 

data intended to better quantify current hydrologic conditions 

in the Goshute Reservation area, and to assess potential effects 

of groundwater withdrawals on groundwater and surface-water 

resources. 

Physical Characteristics of the Study Area

Deep Creek Valley (fig. 1) is located in the Basin and 

Range physiographic province (Fenneman, 1931) and exhibits geologic and topographic characteristics typical of the 

region. The study area is part of the Great Basin carbonate 

and alluvial aquifer system (GBCAAS), which comprises 

aquifers and confining units in unconsolidated basin-fill and 

volcanic deposits in the basins, carbonate, and other bedrock 

units in the mountain ranges separating the basins (Heilweil 

and others, 2011). In some areas of the GBCAAS, aquifers 

are hydraulically connected between basins. Basins within the 

study area are divided on the basis of hydrographic area (HA) 

boundaries (Harrill and others, 1988), which generally coincide with topographic basin divides. This study was focused 

on Deep Creek Valley (HA 253) but also extends into Tippett 

Valley (HA 185), Antelope Valley South Part (HA 186A), 

and the northern part of Spring Valley (HA 184) (fig. 1). 

Deep Creek Valley is approximately 450 square miles (mi2

). 

The basin-fill occupies an area of about 315 mi2 at altitudes 

between about 5,000 and 8,000 feet (ft), surrounded by the 

contributing mountain watersheds that make up the remaining 
4 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

125 mi2. Deep Creek Valley is bounded by the Deep Creek 

Range to the east and south, an unnamed area of volcanic 

badlands and low hills to the west, and the Ferber Hills to the 

north (fig. 1).

Altitudes in Deep Creek Valley range from about 5,000 ft 

at the north end of the valley to over 12,000 ft in the highest 

parts of the Deep Creek Range. The highest points in the study 

area are found in the central part of the Deep Creek Range 

(fig. 1). The lowest point in the study area is at the northern 

end of the HA where Deep Creek drains out of the HA to the 

north. 

Population and Land Use

Deep Creek Valley is sparsely populated. The only town 

is Ibapah, which had a population of 128 in the 2000 census 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2000) and has declined since 1960 when 

the population was 213 (Hood and Waddell, 1969). The Goshute Reservation had a resident population of 105 in the 2000 

census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). 

Land use within Deep Creek Valley includes irrigated and 

nonirrigated farmland and pasture used for agriculture and 

livestock grazing, unincorporated residential areas, and mining. The adjacent mountain areas remain mostly undeveloped 

and are used primarily for recreation, mining, and grazing. 

Precipitation

The average annual precipitation (1981–2010) estimated 

from Parameter-elevation Regression on Independent Slopes 

Model (PRISM) data (Daly and others, 2008) in Deep Creek 

Valley ranges from about 9 inches (in.) in the basin to about 

30 in. at the higher altitudes of the Deep Creek Range (fig. 2). 

Most precipitation occurs during the winter and early spring 

months as snowfall and the least occurs during July and 

August. Four weather stations located in or near Deep Creek 

Valley with long-term records of precipitation illustrate the 

variation in annual precipitation (fig. 3). Although the Gold 

Hill station has a shorter period of record than the other stations (1966–1990), all four stations recorded extended periods 

(greater than about 5 years) of below average precipitation 

(1972–1976) and above average precipitation (1980–1986). 

The other three stations also recorded an extended period of 

below average precipitation from 1953–1962, which corresponds to the southwestern regional drought lasting from 

about 1953–1965 (U.S. Geological Survey, 1991). It is estimated that all of the precipitation that falls at valley altitudes 

(below about 6,000 ft) is consumed by evapotranspiration 

(ET). Precipitation falling at higher altitudes generally exceeds 

the amount consumed by ET and becomes either direct infiltration into the mountain block or runoff in streams draining 

the mountains.

Streamflow

Most streams in Deep Creek Valley are intermittent and 

flow only in response to periods of snowmelt or intense 

rainfall. Much of the water in these intermittent streams is lost 

to ET or infiltration on the alluvial slopes of the valley. Small 

amounts of streamflow occasionally reach Deep and Spring 

Creeks in the valley, where most of this water is diverted for 

irrigation. A small amount of water intermittently flows out 

of the valley in Deep Creek toward Great Salt Lake Desert 

(fig. 1). 

Four perennial streams, Spring, Fifteenmile, Sams, and 

Steves Creeks, drain the mountains on the southeast side of 

Deep Creek Valley. High flow in these streams occurs during 

the spring months when they collect runoff from the melting high-altitude snowpack in the Deep Creek Range. These 

streams are sustained year round by groundwater discharge 

either from mountain springs or as base flow directly to the 

stream.

There is limited historical measurement data to estimate 

streamflow. Fifteenmile, Sams, and Steves Creeks were 

measured on an almost monthly basis from April 1964 to 

September 1967 (Hood and Waddell, 1969; fig. 4). Additionally, average daily streamflow for Deep Creek near Goshute, 

Utah (USGS gage 10172893; data available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=10172893&agency_

cd=USGS&) was measured from April 1964 to September 1968, and annual peak streamflow for Deep Creek near 

Ibapah (USGS gage 10172895; data available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=10172895&agency_

cd=USGS&) was measured from 1959 to 1968 (fig. 5).

Average annual (1971–2000) streamflow was estimated 

for Fifteenmile, Sams, and Steves Creeks (table 1) using 

regional regression equations that were developed to predict 

mean annual streamflow at ungaged sites in Utah (Wilkowske 

and others, 2008). The regression equations used to calculate 

annual streamflow are based only on basin size and average 

annual precipitation, and some of these parameters for these 

creeks were outside of the suggested range used in the development of the regression equations. These estimates, therefore, 

are an extrapolation with unknown errors.

Table 1. Average annual streamflow, 1971–2000, for perennial 

streams in Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada.

[Streamflow estimated using the U.S. Geological Survey’s StreamStats program, available at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/. Estimates are extrapolations with unknown 

errors. Abbreviations: mi2

, square miles; ft3/s, cubic feet per second]

Stream name Drainage area

(mi2

)

Average annual 

streamflow (ft3/s)

Fifteenmile Creek 6.09 4.6

Sams Creek 2.50 2.5

Steves Creek 1.97 2.1
Introduction 5

Figure 2. Average annual precipitation, 1981–2010, in Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada.

TOOELE

COUNTY

ELKO

COUNTY

WHITE PINE

COUNTY

JUAB

COUNTY

UTAH

NEVADA

Snake

Valley

(HA 254)

Tippett

Valley

(HA 185)

Antelope

Valley

South Part

(HA 186A)

Deep

Creek

Valley

(HA 253)

Great Salt Lake Desert

West Part

(HA 261A)

Goshute

Indian

Reservation

Deep Creek

Deep Creek

Deep Creek

Fifteenmile Creek

Spring Creek

Steves Creek

Sams Creek

Ibapah

Gold Hill

Goshute

Base from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 11

North American Datum 1983

39°45'

40°00'

40°15'

114°15' 114°00' 113°45'

0 2.5 5 Miles

0 2.5 5 Kilometers

Deep Creek Range

EXPLANATION

Average annual precipitation, in inches

30

19.5

9

Hydrographic area boundary
6 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

Figure 3. Long-term annual precipitation recorded at four weather stations in or near Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada.

Historical climate information from Western Regional Climate Center

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu

Gold Hill 1981–2010 average

Ibapah 1981–2010 average

Partoun 1981–2010 average

Callao 1981–2010 average

Weather station name and number

Gold Hill (423260)

Ibapah (424174)

Partoun (426708)

Callao (421144)

0

5

10

15

20

25

190019051910191519201925193019351940194519501955196019651970197519801985199019952000200520102015

Annual precipitation, in inches

Base-flow measurements were made at Spring, Fifteenmile, 

and Steves Creeks in October 2012 (table 2 and fig. 1). Base 

flow measured in 2012 in Fifteenmile and Steves Creeks was 

approximately 50 percent of the base flow measured in the 

mid-1960s.

Geology

Deep Creek Valley is a large, north-south trending, internally drained basin that is defined by a series of narrow, 

normal-fault-bounded bedrock mountain ranges and adjoining low hills that surround a broad, gently sloping valley 

floor, typical of the Basin and Range physiographic province 

(Fenneman, 1931). Bedrock in the mountains and hills surrounding and within Deep Creek Valley is characterized by a 

thick section of complexly faulted and folded Precambrianthrough Permian-age metasedimentary and sedimentary rocks 

intersected by and capped with Tertiary- to Holocene-age 

igneous and sedimentary rocks (Hood and Waddell, 1969). 

The basin fill in Deep Creek Valley includes a range of semiconsolidated to unconsolidated sediments eroded from the 

surrounding mountains as a result of weathering processes, 

including glaciation during the Pleistocene Epoch (Hood and 

Waddell, 1969). The unconsolidated basin fill contains the 

principal aquifers in Deep Creek Valley (Hood and Waddell, 

1969). 

Table 2. Base-flow measurements and comparison to 

historical base flow for perennial streams in Deep Creek Valley, 

Utah and Nevada.

[Abbreviations: ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NA, not applicable]

Stream name Date 2012 base flow 

(ft3

/s)

1964–1966 base flow 

(ft3/s)1

Spring Creek 10/11/12 2.72 NA

Fifteenmile Creek 10/11/12 1.26 3.02

Steves Creek 10/11/12 0.90 1.59

Sams Creek NA NA 0.56

1

Average of October 1964, 1965, and 1966 measurements from Hood and 

Waddell (1969, table 11).
Groundwater Hydrology 7

Figure 4. Streamflow measured in Fifteenmile, Sams, and Steves Creeks for 1964–1967, Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada.

0

5

10

15

20

25

April 1964

June 1964

August 1964

October 1964

December 1964

February 1965

April 1965

June 1965

August 1965

October 1965

December 1965

February 1966

April 1966

June 1966

August 1966

October 1966

December 1966

February 1967

April 1967

June 1967

August 1967

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second

Fifteenmile Creek

Sams Creek

Steves Creek

The early tectonic history of Deep Creek Valley is recorded 

by exposed Precambrian- to Permian-age strata that were 

deposited initially across a broad subsiding marine platform 

and later within the rapidly subsiding Oquirrh Basin. Rocks 

deposited during this period include (1) Precambrian- to 

Early Cambrian-age quartzite, shale, and conglomerate; (2) 

a thick sequence of Middle Cambrian- to Mississippian-age 

limestone, dolomite, sandstone, shale, and quartzite; and (3) 

Pennsylvanian- to Early Permian-age limestone, sandstone, 

and quartzite. These rocks were folded and faulted by predominantly eastward thrust faulting and compression during 

the Late Jurassic- to Eocene-age Sevier orogenic event (Armstrong, 1968; DeCelles and Coogan, 2006).

During the Eocene Epoch, crustal shortening was replaced 

by roughly east-west extension and significant regional volcanism (Constenius, 1996; Constenius and others, 2003). Early 

extension, localized along north-south striking normal faults, 

controlled the formation of narrow, rapidly subsiding basins 

into which sediment from surrounding uplands and nearby 

volcanic centers was deposited. Basin-fill deposits include (1) 

Eocene- or Oligocene-age intrusive and extrusive volcanics 

and pyroclastics, (2) consolidated to semiconsolidated Eoceneto Pliocene-age tuffaceous sedimentary rocks and interbedded 

pyroclastics, and (3) unconsolidated latest Pleistocene- to 

Holocene-age alluvial, colluvial, and glacial outwash deposits 

(Hood and Waddell, 1969). Extension remains the predominant tectonic force in the area, but has varied in magnitude, 

style, and extent during Eocene to Holocene time. 

Groundwater Hydrology

The groundwater system in the study area consists of water 

in unconsolidated deposits in the basins and water in consolidated rock underlying the basins and in the adjacent mountain 

blocks. The consolidated-rock and basin-fill aquifers are well 

connected hydraulically (Sweetkind and others, 2011b), with 

most of the recharge occurring in the consolidated-rock mountain blocks and most of the discharge occurring from the lower 

altitude basin-fill deposits. Additionally, there is a possible 

interbasin hydraulic connection from Spring Valley through 

Tippett Valley to Deep Creek Valley.
8 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

Figure 5. Average daily streamflow for 1964–1968 and peak streamflow for 1959–1968, measured in Deep Creek, Deep Creek Valley, 

Utah and Nevada.

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

August 1959August 1960August 1961August 1962August 1963August 1964August 1965August 1966August 1967August 1968August 1969

Peak streamflow, in cubic feet per second

Average daily streamflow, in cubic feet per second

Daily streamflow, Deep Creek near Goshute, 

U.S. Geological Survey gage 10172893

Peak streamflow, Deep Creek near Ibapah, 

U.S. Geological Survey gage 10172895

Groundwater is the primary source of drinking water in 

Deep Creek Valley and also is used for irrigation and stock 

watering. Aquifers are present in both bedrock and unconsolidated basin-fill deposits. The majority of wells in the study 

area are completed within the basin-fill deposits because of 

the ease of drilling, accessibility, and proximity to populated 

areas. 

Hydrogeology

The geologic units in the study area both store and convey 

groundwater and place basic controls on regional groundwater 

movement. As part of the GBCAAS study, a three-dimensional 

hydrogeologic framework of the eastern Great Basin was constructed (Cederberg and others, 2011; Sweetkind and others, 

2011a). The GBCAAS study area is inclusive of the current 

study area; therefore, this same hydrogeologic framework 

was used in the current study. The framework was constructed 

using data from a variety of sources, including geologic maps 

and cross sections, drillhole data, geophysical models, and 

stratigraphic surfaces created for other three-dimensional 

hydrogeologic frameworks within the GBCAAS study area. 

The framework was developed using a 1-mi2

 grid cell size.

The geologic complexity, scale of the study area, and 

potential for groundwater to reside in and travel through multiple geologic units necessitate generalization of the aquifer 

system. In the hydrogeologic framework developed for the 

GBCAAS, the consolidated pre-Cenozoic-age rocks, Cenozoic 

sediments, and igneous rocks in the study area were subdivided into nine hydrogeologic units (HGUs) (Sweetkind and 

others, 2011a). An HGU has considerable lateral extent and 

reasonably distinct physical characteristics that may be used to 

infer the capacity of a sediment or rock to transmit water. The 

definition of HGUs is important for conceptualizing the hydrogeologic system and construction of a geologic framework for 

describing the groundwater flow system.

Of the nine HGUs defined in the hydrogeologic framework 

developed for the GBCAAS, seven exist in the current study 

area (figs. 6 and 7). The HGUs that exist in the current study 
Groundwater Hydrology 9

Figure 6. Surficial extent of hydrogeologic units, major faults, and lines of cross section, in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah 

and Nevada.

ELKO

COUNTY

WHITE PINE

COUNTY

JUAB

COUNTY

MILLARD

COUNTY

UTAH

NEVADA

Spring

Valley

(HA 184)

Snake

Valley

(HA 254)

Great Salt 

Lake Desert

West Part

(HA 261A)

95

Partoun

Ibapah

Goshute

Gold Hill

Callao

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

A’

B’

C’

D’

E’

F’

G’

Modified from Sweetkind and others, 2011a

Antelope

Valley

South Part

(HA 186A)

Deep

Creek

Valley

(HA 253)

Tippett

Valley

(HA 185)

TOOELE

COUNTY

Goshute

Indian

Reservation

114°30’ 114°00’

40°00’

39°30’

Base from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 11

North American Datum 1983

0 5 10 Miles

0 5 10 Kilometers

Upper basin-fill aquifer unit (UBFAU) and 

lower basin-fill aquifer unit (LBFAU)

Volcanic unit (VU)

Upper carbonate aquifer unit (UCAU)

Upper siliciclastic confining unit (USCU)

Lower carbonate aquifer unit (LCAU)

Non-carbonate confining unit (NCCU)

Hydrographic area boundary

Major fault

A A’ Line of cross section 

EXPLANATION
10 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

area are (1) a non-carbonate confining unit (NCCU) representing low- to moderate-permeability Precambrian-age siliciclastic formations as well as intrusive igneous rocks that are 

locally exposed in mountain ranges, and underlie parts of the 

study area; (2) a lower carbonate aquifer unit (LCAU) representing a thick succession of predominantly moderate- to highpermeability Cambrian through Devonian-age carbonate rocks 

that are locally exposed in the mountain ranges, and present 

beneath most of the valleys within the study area; (3) an upper 

siliciclastic confining unit (USCU) representing low-permeability Mississippian-age siliciclastic rocks, predominantly 

shales, that are limited in extent within the study area; (4) an 

upper carbonate aquifer unit (UCAU) representing a thick 

succession of low- to high-permeability Pennsylvanian- and 

Permian-age carbonate rocks that are locally exposed in the 

mountain ranges and exist beneath some of the valleys within 

the study area; (5) a volcanic unit (VU) representing large 

volumes of low- to high-permeability Cenozoic-age volcanic 

rocks that are locally exposed in the mountain ranges and exist 

beneath some of the valleys within the study area; (6) a lower 

basin-fill aquifer unit (LBFAU) representing the lower (deepest) one-third of the Cenozoic basin-fill sediments, including 

moderate- to high-permeability volcanic rocks buried within 

the basin fill and consolidated older basin-fill sediments; and 

(7) an upper basin-fill aquifer unit (UBFAU) representing the 

upper (shallowest) two-thirds of the Cenozoic basin-fill sediments, including a wide variety of low- to moderate-permeability basin-fill sediments (Sweetkind and others, 2011a). 

Hydraulic Properties

Hydraulic properties describe the ability of a groundwater 

system to transmit and store water. The distribution of these 

properties in the study area is variable and depends on the 

depositional environment of sediments in the basin-fill aquifer 

and confining units, and on the degree of structural deformation, fracturing, and (or) chemical dissolution in the bedrock 

aquifers and confining units. 

Sweetkind and others (2011a) estimated thickness and 

hydraulic properties of the HGUs in the GBCAAS study area 

(table 3). These were taken from studies by Belcher and others 

(2001, 2002) that analyzed and compiled estimates of transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, storage coefficients, and 

anisotropy ratios for HGUs within the Death Valley regional 

groundwater flow system. HGUs within the Death Valley area 

are similar in origin and analogous to those within the current 

study area.

Occurrence and Movement of Groundwater

Groundwater in Deep Creek Valley occurs in both unconsolidated basin-fill and in consolidated-rock aquifers under 

confined and unconfined conditions. Within the basin fill, 

unconfined or water-table conditions generally exist along the 

valley margins within alluvial fan and colluvial deposits, and 

confined conditions generally exist in the lowest parts of the 

valley. Groundwater moves under confined conditions where 

lacustrine and fluvial deposits have created zones of permeable material mixed with semicontinuous to continuous layers 

of low-permeability clay or silt. Although unconfined groundwater movement occurs within most bedrock mountain areas, 

structural geologic features and variations in lithology likely 

result in localized areas of confined conditions.

Groundwater recharge occurs mostly from the infiltration 

of precipitation at high altitudes (Welch and others, 2007; San 

Juan and others, 2010; Masbruch and others, 2011). Much of 

this recharge occurs in the form of snowmelt. Additional, but 

limited recharge occurs from the infiltration of runoff from 

precipitation near the mountain front, and infiltration along 

stream channels (Hevesi and others, 2003; Flint and Flint, 

2007a, b; Flint and others, 2011; Masbruch and others, 2011). 

There also may be recharge from applied irrigation; however, 

most of this applied water likely evaporates or is consumed 

by crops before reaching the water table. Groundwater moves 

from areas of recharge to springs and streams in the mountains, and to evapotranspiration areas, springs, streams, and 

wells in the basins.

Table 3. Hydraulic properties of hydrogeologic units from the Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system study area.

[Modified from Belcher and others, 2001, 2002; and Sweetkind and others, 2011a. Abbreviations: UBFAU, upper basin-fill aquifer unit; LBFAU, lower basin-fill aquifer unit; LCAU, 

lower carbonate aquifer unit; NCCU, non-carbonate confining unit; UCAU, upper carbonate aquifer unit; USCU, upper siliciclastic confining unit; VU, volcanic unit; >, greater than; 

NC, not calculated]

Major hydrogeologic unit Hydrogeologic unit abbreviation

Hydraulic conductivity (feet per day)

Arithmetic mean Geometric mean Minimum Maximum

Cenozoic basin-fill sediments UBFAU and LBFAU 31 4 0.0001 431

Cenozoic volcanic rock VU 20 3 0.04 179

Upper Paleozoic carbonate rock UCAU 62 0.4 0.0003 1,045

Upper Paleozoic siliciclastic confining rock USCU 0.4 0.06 0.0001 3

Lower Paleozoic carbonate rock LCAU 169 4 0.009 2,704

Non-carbonate confining rock NCCU 0.8 0.008 0.00000009 15
Groundwater Hydrology 11 Figure 7. Hydrogeologic cross sections (A-A’ to G-G’) for selected locations in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada.

Altitude, in feet

A

0

8,0006,0004,0002,000

Spring

Valley

Tippett

Valley

Deep Creek

Valley

Data from Sweetkind and others, 2011a

1

2

A’

Data from Sweetkind and others, 2011a

Altitude, in feet

0

8,0006,0004,0002,000

B B’

Deep Creek

Valley

Tippett

Valley

3

4

1

UBFAU, upper basin-fill aquifer unitLBFAU, lower basin-fill aquifer unitVU, volcanic unitUCAU, upper carbonate aquifer unitUSCU, upper siliclastic confining unitLCAU, lower carbonate aquifer unitNCCU, non-carbonate confining unitPotentiometric surface—Dashed where 

approximate

Fault—Arrows indicate direction of vertical movement on normal faultRefers to location discussed in text

0

0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10 Kilometers

2.5 5.0 7.5 10 Miles

EXPLANATION

See figure 6 for locations of cross sections
12 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

Figure 7. Hydrogeologic cross sections (A-A’ to G-G’) for selected locations in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and 

Nevada. —Continued 

C C’

Altitude, in feet

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

Spring

Valley

Data from Sweetkind and others, 2011a

D D’

Altitude, in feet

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000 Spring

Valley

Tippett

Valley

Data from Sweetkind and others, 2011a

E E’

Altitude, in feet

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Tippett

Valley

Spring

Valley

Data from Sweetkind and others, 2011a

0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10 Kilometers

0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10 Miles

1

UBFAU, upper basin-fill aquifer unit

LBFAU, lower basin-fill aquifer unit

VU, volcanic unit

UCAU, upper carbonate aquifer unit

USCU, upper siliclastic confining unit

LCAU, lower carbonate aquifer unit

NCCU, non-carbonate confining unit

Potentiometric surface—Dashed where 

approximate

Fault—Arrows indicate direction of vertical movement on normal fault

Refers to location discussed in text

EXPLANATION

See figure 6 for locations of cross sections
Groundwater Hydrology 13 Figure 7. Hydrogeologic cross sections (A-A’ to G-G’) for selected locations in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada. —Continued 

Altitude, in feet

0

8,0006,0004,0002,000

12,00010,000

Tippett

Valley

Deep Creek

Valley

Data from Sweetkind and others, 2011a

F F’

G G’

0

8,0006,0004,0002,000

10,000

Altitude, in feetAntelope Valley South Part Deep Creek Valley

Data from Sweetkind and others, 2011a

0

0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10 Kilometers

2.5 5.0 7.5 10 Miles

1

UBFAU, upper basin-fill aquifer unitLBFAU, lower basin-fill aquifer unitVU, volcanic unitUCAU, upper carbonate aquifer unitUSCU, upper siliclastic confining unitLCAU, lower carbonate aquifer unitNCCU, non-carbonate confining unitPotentiometric surface—Dashed where 

approximate

Fault—Arrows indicate direction of vertical movement on normal faultRefers to location discussed in text

EXPLANATION

See figure 6 for locations of cross sections
14 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

A water-level surface map was developed for the study area 

from (1) water-level measurements made at 28 wells during 

February and March of 2012, and (2) historical water levels at 

13 wells measured between 1960 and 2010, to show general 

directions of groundwater movement (fig. 8, table A1–1). 

Groundwater movement is generally from the mountains 

toward the center of the basins. Groundwater in Deep Creek 

Valley moves from the south and east toward Deep Creek 

along the central axis of the basin, and then flows northward. 

A groundwater divide is present in northern Spring Valley, 

indicating the potential for groundwater recharge in northern 

Spring Valley to either move south into the central part of the 

valley, or move north into Tippett Valley and toward Deep 

Creek Valley (fig. 8). The likelihood of hydraulic connection 

across these HA boundaries based on geology (Sweetkind and 

others, 2011b) is also illustrated on figure 8. 

Groundwater Budget

Development of a groundwater budget is important in 

understanding the occurrence and movement of groundwater 

in the flow system, and in evaluating the balance between flow 

into and out of the system. The primary components of the 

groundwater budget are recharge from precipitation (including 

direct infiltration and infiltration of runoff at lower altitudes), 

infiltration of mountain stream base flow, and infiltration of 

unconsumed water applied for irrigation. Discharge components of the budget include evapotranspiration of groundwater (ETg), springs, mountain streams, and well withdrawals. 

Recharge or discharge as subsurface (lateral) flow into or out 

of an HA or the study area also may be occurring.

The current study considers all forms of recharge to and 

discharge from the groundwater system, including the surrounding mountains. This is illustrated by considering the fate 

of recharge from direct infiltration of mountain precipitation 

and subsurface inflow from adjacent areas to permeable consolidated rock of the mountain block (fig. 9, R1 and R3). Part 

of this recharge moves directly through the subsurface from 

the mountain block into the adjacent unconsolidated basin fill. 

Another part of this recharge becomes groundwater discharge 

to mountain streams and springs (fig. 9, D1). A fraction of this 

mountain-block groundwater discharge is consumptively lost 

to evapotranspiration, both in the mountains and as this water 

enters the valley in streams, and a fraction of the remaining 

water in the streams, combined with surface-water runoff 

becomes recharge to the unconsolidated basin fill (fig. 9, R2). 

This water ultimately discharges in the valley lowlands as 

evapotranspiration or to basin-fill springs and streams (fig. 9, 

D2 and D3), wells (fig. 9, D4), or subsurface outflow (fig. 9, 

D5).

The groundwater budget for the current study is compiled 

from estimates of average annual recharge to and discharge 

from the Deep Creek Valley HA (table 4). Although records 

used to construct the individual budget components vary 

somewhat in their temporal length, the budget is intended to 

represent average conditions over approximately the last half 

century. Previous studies of western basins in Utah generally 

developed groundwater budgets that focused only on the basin 

fill (valley) part of the basin (Hood and Waddell, 1969) where 

groundwater was being developed as a resource. The groundwater budget compiled for Deep Creek Valley uses annual net 

recharge and discharge of the complete groundwater system, 

including the bedrock of the surrounding mountains and 

underlying the basin fill. 

Table 4. Average annual groundwater budget for Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada.

[Average annual volume in acre-feet per year. Abbreviations: NA, not applicable]

Recharge Utah Nevada Total Uncertainty (percent)1

Direct infiltration of precipitation (in-place recharge) 11,000 5,000 16,000 50

Infiltration of runoff (includes unconsumed surface-water irrigation) 870 280 1,100 50

Mountain stream base flow 390 NA 390 NA

Unconsumed irrigation from well withdrawals negligible negligible negligible NA

Subsurface inflow from Tippett Valley2 NA 2,000 to 12,000 2,000 to 12,000 unknown

Total: 19,000 to 29,000 50

Discharge

Groundwater evapotranspiration 12,500 1,500 14,000 30

Mountain springs and streams (base flow)3 3,900 0 3,900 8

Well withdrawals4 600 negligible 600 unknown

Subsurface outflow to Great Salt Lake Desert5 2,700 to 3,000 0 2,700 to 3,000 unknown

Total: 21,000 to 22,000 30

1

Uncertainty estimates are explained in appendix 2. 

2

Based on estimates from Scott and others (1971) and Welch and others (2007). 

3

Based on base-flow measurements made in October 2012 for Spring, Fifteenmile, and Steves Creeks, and average October 1964–1966 streamflow for Sams Creek. 

4

Based on 1966 estimates from Hood and Waddell (1969). 

5

Based on estimates from Scott and others (1971) and Harrill and others (1988). 
Groundwater Hydrology 15

Figure 8. Regional water-level (potentiometric) surface map and general direction of groundwater movement for Deep Creek Valley 

and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada.

ELKO

COUNTY

WHITE PINE

COUNTY

TOOELE

COUNTY

JUAB

COUNTY

MILLARD

COUNTY

UTAH

NEVADA

Snake

Valley

(HA 254)

Great Salt Lake Desert

West Part

(HA 261A)

95

Partoun

Goshute

Gold Hill

Callao

Goshute

Indian

Reservation

Spring

Valley

(HA 184)

Tippett

Valley

(HA 185)

Antelope

Valley

South Part

(HA 186A) Deep

Creek

Valley

(HA 253)

Ibapah

Base from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 11

North American Datum 1983

114°30’ 114°00’

40°00’

39°30’

0 5 10 Miles

0 5 10 Kilometers

6000

5900

5800

5700

5600

5600

5600

5550

5550

5500

5400

5300

5200

Water-level altitude contour—Shows 

altitude at which water level would have 

stood in tightly cased wells. Contour interval 

is 50 feet. Dashed where less certain

Hydrographic area boundary and relative 

likelihood of hydraulic connection across 

boundary, based on geology (Sweetkind 

and others, 2011b)

High

Low

Uncertain

General direction of groundwater 

movement—Dashed where less certain

Water-level altitude in wells, in feet

 5,142 to 5,250

 5,251 to 5,500

 5,501 to 5,750

 5,751 to 6,000

 6,001 to 6,049

EXPLANATION
16 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

Figure 9. Conceptualization of groundwater budget components and budget calculation for Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada.

R1

R2

D1

D3

D2 Playa

(fine-grained

deposits) D4

D1

R2

R3

R2

Permeable

consolidated rock

Unconsolidated

basin fill

D5

Surface runoff

of precipitation

Modified from Heilweil and Brooks, 2011, p. 77

Not to scale

EXPLANATION

Discharge

Recharge

Direction of groundwater movement

Contact between geologic units

Fault, arrows show relative direction of 

movement

Groundwater budget = R1 - D1 + R2 + R3 - D2 - D3 - D4 - D5

R1 = In-place recharge from precipitation

R2 = Recharge from perennial and ephemeral streams (includes infiltration of mountain stream base flow, runoff, and unconsumed surface-water 

irrigation) and recharge from unconsumed irrigation from well withdrawals

R3 = Recharge from subsurface inflow from an upgradient area

D1 = Discharge to mountain streams and springs

D2 = Discharge to evapotranspiration

D3 = Discharge to basin-fill springs and streams

D4 = Discharge to well withdrawals

D5 = Discharge to subsurface outflow to a downgradient area

The groundwater budget presented in table 4 lists the budget components for the Deep Creek Valley groundwater system by state and for the entire HA. Average annual recharge 

to and discharge from Deep Creek Valley are estimated to be 

19,000 to 29,000 and 21,000 to 22,000 acre-ft, respectively. 

The groundwater budget shows an imbalance because of 

uncertainty in the individual budget estimates, the largest of 

which is subsurface inflow from Tippett Valley. Groundwater 

budget uncertainty is discussed in more detail in appendix 2. 

Recharge

Precipitation within the study area is the primary source of 

groundwater recharge. The majority of precipitation comes as 

winter snowfall on the mountain ranges, with lesser amounts 

falling as rain. Infiltration of precipitation and snowmelt to the 

mountain block provides (1) discharge to mountain springs 

and base flow to mountain streams; (2) discharge to ETg, 

springs, streams, and wells in the adjacent basin; and (3) flow 
Groundwater Hydrology 17

that follows deeper and longer flow paths to regional discharge 

locations, including large springs and areas of ETg in basins 

not directly adjacent to the mountain block. The majority 

of groundwater recharge within the study area occurs in the 

higher altitude mountain ranges as direct infiltration of precipitation (in-place recharge).

During the 1960s and 1970s, the USGS, in cooperation 

with the states of Utah and Nevada, completed a series of 

reconnaissance studies to evaluate the groundwater resources 

in these states. Generally, these studies developed groundwater budgets focused on the basin-fill (valley) portion of each 

HA where groundwater was being developed as a resource. 

Estimates of recharge from precipitation in these reports were 

based on a method developed by Maxey and Eakin (1949) 

that was calibrated to estimated groundwater discharge in 

the valleys, and provided estimates of “net” recharge to the 

unconsolidated basin-fill aquifer based on precipitation zones. 

These earlier methods did not consider groundwater discharge 

within the mountain block such as stream base flow and spring 

discharge, nor the subsequent recharge of part of this water as 

infiltration of runoff to unconsolidated basin-fill deposits.

In recent years, a new class of spatially distributed recharge 

estimation techniques utilizing water-balance methods have 

been developed that provide estimates for “total” recharge 

from precipitation in a watershed or HA (Leavesley and others, 1983; Hevesi and others, 2003; Flint and Flint, 2007a, b; 

Flint and others, 2011; Masbruch and others, 2011). Because 

these newer estimates include the partial loss of in-place 

recharge as groundwater discharge in the mountains to streams 

and springs, not considered in the earlier Maxey-Eakin method 

of estimating recharge, these newer spatially distributed 

recharge methods often yield higher recharge estimates. Consequently, these newer spatially distributed recharge estimates 

may cause over-appropriations of water rights if the consumptive losses of groundwater discharge in the mountains are not 

also considered.

Recharge to the Deep Creek Valley groundwater system is 

almost entirely by direct infiltration of snowmelt and rainfall 

that occurs in the mountains surrounding Deep Creek Valley. 

The amount and distribution of recharge controls water levels 

and groundwater movement throughout much of the HA. A 

small but significant amount of recharge also occurs from 

the infiltration of unconsumed irrigation water sourced from 

mountain streams and springs, and possibly from subsurface 

groundwater inflow from Tippett Valley. 

Precipitation

A regional-scale water-balance method, known as the Basin 

Characterization Model (BCM; Flint and Flint, 2007a) developed for the GBCAAS study, was used to provide estimates 

of annual recharge from direct infiltration of precipitation (inplace recharge) and runoff. The BCM is a distributed-parameter water-balance accounting model used to identify areas 

having climatic and geologic conditions that allow for precipitation to become potential in-place recharge or runoff, and to 

provide estimates of each (Flint and others, 2011; Masbruch 

and others, 2011). The BCM in-place recharge is calculated 

as the volume of water per time that percolates through the 

soil zone past the root zone and becomes net infiltration to 

consolidated rock or unconsolidated deposits. Runoff is the 

volume of water per time that runs off the surface, and may 

(1) infiltrate the subsurface, (2) undergo evapotranspiration 

farther downslope, or (3) become streamflow that can, in turn, 

recharge the unconsolidated deposits from infiltration beneath 

the stream channels, irrigation canals, and (or) fields irrigated 

with surface water (Masbruch and others, 2011, p. 79). The 

BCM does not track or route runoff. The BCM calculations are 

made on a 270-m grid for each water year from 1940 to 2006. 

This 67-year period was selected because it encompassed the 

most up-to-date BCM recharge and runoff estimates available 

for this part of the Great Basin and because limited climatic 

data are available prior to the 1940s. Flint and others (2011) 

and Masbruch and others (2011) provide a more complete 

description of the BCM developed for the GBCAAS study. 

In-place recharge is calculated at the location as it occurs in 

the BCM (fig. 10). The highest amounts of in-place recharge 

occur in the Deep Creek Range, with lesser amounts occurring on the western side of the HA. The average annual 

(1940–2006) in-place recharge calculated by the BCM in Deep 

Creek Valley is 16,000 acre-ft (table 4).

During 1940–2006, annual BCM in-place recharge ranged 

from 82 acre-ft in 1972, to 42,000 acre-ft in 1941 (fig. 11). 

Compared to precipitation, in-place recharge has larger annual 

variations. It is higher during very wet years and greatly 

diminished during very dry years (Gates, 2007; Masbruch 

and others, 2011, fig. D–3), mainly due to evapotranspiration 

in the recharge areas (mountains). During wet periods more 

water is available than is needed by vegetation, and during dry 

periods vegetation tries to maintain its usual rate of evapotranspiration. As a result, there is more groundwater recharge 

during wet periods and less during dry periods than would be 

estimated from a simple ratio of annual average precipitation 

to average annual 1940–2006 precipitation (Masbruch and 

others, 2011).

The BCM calculates runoff where it originates (fig. 12). 

The highest amounts of runoff originate in the Deep Creek 

Range, especially in areas where the NCCU is at or near the 

surface (fig. 6). Because the BCM does not route runoff, runoff that originates at higher altitudes likely becomes streamflow and recharges areas along the mountain front that contain 

unconsolidated basin-fill deposits (alluvial fans) or farther 

down the valley where surface water is used for irrigation. 

The average annual (1940–2006) total runoff calculated by the 

BCM in Deep Creek Valley is 11,000 acre-ft. The amount of 

runoff that infiltrates the subsurface and recharges the groundwater system is typically calculated as a percentage of the total 

BCM runoff. For this study, it was assumed that 10 percent of 

the total runoff calculated by the BCM infiltrates the subsurface (Masbruch and others, 2011, p. 86); this includes recharge 

from the infiltration of unconsumed surface-water irrigation 

(table 4). Thus, the estimated average annual infiltration from 

runoff is 1,100 acre-ft.
18 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

Figure 10. Distribution of average annual (1940–2006) in-place recharge estimated by the Basin Characterization Model for Deep Creek 

Valley, Utah and Nevada.

TOOELE

COUNTY

ELKO

COUNTY

WHITE PINE

COUNTY

JUAB

COUNTY

UTAH

NEVADA

Tippett

Valley

(HA 185)

Antelope

Valley

South Part

(HA 186A)

Deep

Creek

Valley

(HA 253)

Great Salt Lake Desert

West Part

(HA 261A)

Snake

Valley

(HA 254)

Goshute

Indian

Reservation

Ibapah

Gold Hill

Goshute

0 2.5 5 Miles

0 2.5 5 Kilometers

Data from Buto, 2011

Base from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 11

North American Datum 1983

39°45'

40°00'

40°15'

114°15' 114°00' 113°45'

Deep Creek Range

Average annual in-place recharge, in 

inches—No recharge occurs outside 

color shaded areas

0.000039 to 0.99 

1.0 to 1.99 

2.0 to 2.99 

3.0 to 3.99 

4.0 to 4.99

Hydrographic area boundary

EXPLANATION

5.0 to 5.99

6.0 to 6.99

7.0 to 7.99

8.0 to 9.34
Groundwater Hydrology 19

Figure 11. Annual average precipitation (at Ibapah, Utah) and Basin Characterization Model estimates of in-place recharge and runoff 

(1940–2006) for Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

1940194219441946194819501952195419561958196019621964196619681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006

Precipitation, in inches per year

In-place recharge and runoff, in thousands of acre-feet per year

Basin Characterization Model in-place recharge (thousands of acre-feet per year)

Basin Characterization Model runoff (thousands of acre-feet per year)

Annual average precipitation (inches per year)

Streamflow at the mountain front also includes base flow. 

This water originates as in-place recharge in the mountains 

and then discharges to mountain streams. Similar to runoff, 

a portion of this base flow subsequently recharges the basinfill deposits as infiltration beneath stream channels, irrigation 

canals, or fields irrigated with surface water (Masbruch and 

others, 2011, p. 79). It was also assumed that 10 percent of 

the mountain stream base flow infiltrates the subsurface and 

becomes recharge (Masbruch and others, 2011, p. 92) (table 

4); this recharge is also likely to occur in areas along the 

mountain front that contain unconsolidated basin-fill deposits. The other 90 percent of runoff and mountain stream base 

flow is assumed to be consumptively lost to evapotranspiration before it can infiltrate into the aquifer (Hevesi and others, 

2003; San Juan and others, 2010; Masbruch and others, 2011). 

Estimates of recharge from mountain stream base flow for 

the Deep Creek Valley HA were calculated by using the 2012 

base-flow values for Spring, Fifteenmile, and Steves Creeks, 

and the average October 1964–1966 streamflow for Sams 

Creek (table 2). Total base flow is about 3,900 acre-ft/yr. 

Recharge from mountain stream base flow in Deep Creek Valley, therefore, is about 390 acre-ft/yr.

Unconsumed Irrigation from Well Withdrawals

Most well withdrawals in the study area are used for irrigation and it is assumed that part of these withdrawals recharges 

the aquifer system as infiltration of unconsumed irrigation 

water applied to fields. Irrigation return flow studies in the 

Amargosa Desert, CA (Stonestrom and others, 2003) and the 

Milford Area, UT (Susong, 1995) show that recharge from irrigation on sprinkler-irrigated fields ranges from 8 to 16 percent 

of the applied irrigation, and recharge on flood-irrigated fields 

can be as high as 50 percent of the applied irrigation (Susong, 

1995). 

In Deep Creek Valley, well withdrawals for irrigation have 

only been estimated for 1966 (Hood and Waddell, 1969), 

and were 600 acre-ft. It does not appear that there has been a 

substantial amount of development in Deep Creek Valley since 

the 1960s, so it was assumed that well withdrawals are not 

likely to be much larger than 600 acre-ft/yr. Additionally, most 

of the groundwater withdrawn for irrigation is applied in areas 

of groundwater discharge and is highly unlikely to recharge 

the groundwater system. Estimates of recharge from unconsumed irrigation water from well withdrawals in Deep Creek 

Valley, therefore, are assumed to be negligible.
20 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

Figure 12. Distribution of average annual (1940–2006) runoff estimated by the Basin Characterization Model for Deep Creek Valley, 

Utah and Nevada.

TOOELE

COUNTY

ELKO

COUNTY

WHITE PINE

COUNTY

JUAB

COUNTY

UTAH

NEVADA

Tippett

Valley

(HA 185)

Antelope

Valley

South Part

(HA 186A)

Deep

Creek

Valley

(HA 253)

Great Salt Lake Desert

West Part

(HA 261A)

Snake

Valley

(HA 254)

Goshute

Indian

Reservation

Goshute

Ibapah

Gold Hill

Data from Buto, 2011

Base from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 11

North American Datum 1983

0 2.5 5 Miles

0 2.5 5 Kilometers

39°45'

40°00'

40°15'

114°15' 114°00' 113°45'

Deep Creek Range

Average annual runoff, in inches—No 

runoff generated outside of colorshaded areas

0.000039 to 0.99 

1.0 to 1.99 

2.0 to 2.99 

3.0 to 3.99 

4.0 to 4.99

Hydrographic area boundary

5.0 to 5.99

6.0 to 7.99

8.0 to 9.99

10.0 to 10.63

EXPLANATION
Groundwater Hydrology 21

Subsurface Inflow from Tippett Valley

The water-level map developed for the study area indicates that groundwater may enter and leave the study area via 

subsurface inflow and outflow along segments of the Deep 

Creek Valley HA boundary. Cross sections from Spring Valley 

to Deep Creek Valley show possible connections between 

permeable units (LCAU, LBFAU, UBFAU, and possibly 

VU), allowing groundwater flow from northern Spring Valley 

through Tippett Valley to Deep Creek Valley (fig. 7, cross 

sections A-A′ and B-B′). Previous studies have estimated 

subsurface flow by a variety of methods, with little to no 

indication of the uncertainties associated with these estimates 

which can vary widely due to differences in the methods used 

to calculate them. Previous estimates of subsurface inflow into 

Deep Creek Valley from Tippett Valley ranged from 2,000 to 

12,000 acre-ft/yr (Scott and others, 1971; Welch and others, 

2007). More knowledge of groundwater discharge and groundwater levels in this area may reduce the uncertainty of these 

estimates. 

Discharge

Discharge from the groundwater system in Deep Creek 

Valley occurs by ETg, as discharge to springs, as discharge 

to mountain streams (base flow), as well withdrawals, and 

as subsurface outflow to Great Salt Lake Desert. All ETg is 

assumed to occur in the valley. Much of the groundwater that 

discharges from significant mountain springs or as base flow 

to mountain streams is captured and diverted to be used for 

public supply or irrigation. Groundwater that discharges from 

springs in the valley is eventually consumed by ETg and, 

therefore, is included in the estimate for that component of the 

groundwater budget. Groundwater withdrawn by wells is used 

for irrigation, public and domestic supply, and stock watering.

Evapotranspiration 

Discharge of groundwater by ETg is the combination 

of groundwater consumed (transpired) by plants with roots 

that extend to the shallow water table and direct evaporation 

from areas of open water or soils that are wetted by shallow 

groundwater. The total volume of water (both groundwater 

and surface water) discharged by evapotranspiration (total ET) 

can be calculated as the product of the rate at which water is 

transferred from the land to the atmosphere (ET rate, in feet 

per year) and the acreage of the vegetation, open water, and 

soils that transfer this water. ETg, the fraction of total ET 

made up of groundwater, is calculated by subtracting precipitation and delivered irrigation water from the total ET. Average annual ETg in Deep Creek Valley is estimated to be about 

14,000 acre-ft (table 4). 

As a first step in calculating ETg, total ET was calculated 

for the area where groundwater is shallow enough to be transmitted by ETg. This area was subdivided according to similar 

ET-related characteristics such as vegetation type, density, 

and land cover, and representative ET rates were applied to 

each zone. Average annual precipitation (1981–2010) was 

determined from PRISM model data (Daly and others, 2008) 

that was resampled to 10-m resolution. Precipitation was 

subtracted from the total ET to arrive at an annual estimate for 

ETg. 

The outer boundary of the ET area delineated in this study 

approximates the extent of the phreatophytic vegetation 

(including areas of moist bare soil) where groundwater may 

be transferred to the atmosphere by ET. Results of ET studies 

in areas of Nevada and California (Nichols, 2000; Berger and 

others, 2001) indicate that most ETg occurs when the water 

table is within 15 to 20 ft of land surface and that phreatophytes commonly grow in areas where the depth to water is 

within about 40 ft of land surface (DeMeo and others, 2008). 

The boundary used to calculate ETg in this study was modified from one delineated for large-scale ET areas in the Great 

Basin (Medina, 2005) to coincide with the area where groundwater is shallow according to the water-level surface maps 

developed during this study. After refinement using 1-m resolution National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) Digital 

Orthorectified Aerial Images from 2006 (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 2006) and field verification, the final ETg area 

boundary approximately corresponded to where groundwater 

is within about 25 ft of land surface.

Prior to assigning ET rates, the ET area boundary was 

subdivided into smaller zones (ET units) on the basis of 

vegetation and land-cover characteristics determined by using 

existing land-cover and land-use data. An ET unit is an area of 

similar vegetation or land-cover characteristics that is assigned 

one ET rate. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Program 

(SWReGAP) land-cover data (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2007) and Utah water-related land-use survey data 

from 1993 (Utah Department of Natural Resources, 2004) 

were used to identify subareas of common vegetation or land 

cover. These data provided subarea boundaries that could 

be verified or slightly modified using the NAIP imagery and 

grouped into ET units. The Utah water-related land-use survey 

boundaries, considered more accurate than the SWReGAP 

data because they are field mapped and updated approximately 

once per decade, were used preferentially in developed areas. 

Evapotranspiration rates reported in recent literature (Nichols, 

2000; Berger and others, 2001; Reiner and others, 2002; Cooper and others, 2006; Moreo and others, 2007; Welch and others, 2007) for vegetation types, land cover, and climate similar 

to those in the study area were assigned to seven ET units in 

Deep Creek Valley (fig. 13). Much of the area where ETg is 

occurring in Deep Creek Valley is undeveloped and covered 

by the ET units designated as moderately dense to dense desert 

shrubland. The ET unit that occupies most of the developed 

area is pasture/range. Table 5 contains the values used in the 

ET calculations.
22 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

Figure 13. Location and classification of evapotranspiration units used to calculate average annual groundwater evapotranspiration in 

Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada.

TOOELE

COUNTY

ELKO

COUNTY

WHITE PINE

COUNTY

JUAB

COUNTY

UTAH

NEVADA

Tippett

Valley

(HA 185)

Antelope

Valley

South Part

(HA 186A)

Deep

Creek

Valley

(HA 253)

Great Salt Lake Desert

West Part

(HA 261A)

Snake

Valley

(HA 254)

Goshute

Indian

Reservation

Deep Creek

Deep Creek

Deep Creek

Spring Creek

Steves Creek

Sams Creek

Fifteenmile Creek

Ibapah

Gold Hill

Goshute

Base from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 11

North American Datum 1983

0 2.5 5 Miles

0 2.5 5 Kilometers

39°45'

40°00'

40°15'

114°15' 114°00' 113°45'

Deep Creek Range

Evapotranspiration unit

Dense desert shrubland

Moderately dense desert shrubland

Pasture/Range

Grassland

Meadowland

Moist bare soil

Open water

Hydrographic area boundary

Approximate area of shallow groundwater 

(less than 25 feet below land surface)

EXPLANATION
Groundwater Hydrology 23

Agricultural fields exist within the ET area. Water used for 

irrigation in these areas is either surface water diverted from 

nearby mountain streams or groundwater withdrawn from 

wells. The contributions of both of these sources are accounted 

for elsewhere in the groundwater budget. Ten percent of 

surface water applied for irrigation becomes recharge and is 

added to the groundwater budget; the remainder is consumed 

as ET by crops. Groundwater from wells that is applied to 

crops is subtracted from the budget as the “well withdrawal” 

component of discharge. For these reasons, the ET estimated 

for these fields was omitted from the total calculated ET. Agricultural fields classified as “sub-irrigated” were not omitted 

from the ETg calculation.

Mountain Springs and Base Flow to Mountain Streams

Discharge from significant mountain springs enters stream 

channels in their respective drainages and is included (as part 

of the base-flow component) in the gaged or estimated annual 

streamflow for the individual streams listed in table 2. Estimates were made as described in the “Streamflow” subsection 

of this report. Estimates of discharge to mountain stream base 

flow for the Deep Creek Valley HA were calculated using 

the base-flow measured in 2012 for Spring, Fifteenmile, and 

Steves Creeks, and average October 1964–1966 streamflow 

for Sams Creek (table 2). Groundwater that discharges from 

mountain springs or as base flow to mountain streams is estimated to be about 3,900 acre-ft/yr (table 4). 

Well Withdrawals

In Deep Creek Valley, well withdrawals have only been 

estimated for 1966 (Hood and Waddell, 1969), and were 

600 acre-ft (table 4). It does not appear that there has been a 

substantial amount of development in Deep Creek Valley since 

the 1960s, so it was assumed that well withdrawals are not 

likely to be much larger than 600 acre-ft/yr.

Table 5. Evapotranspiration unit rates and areas used to calculate average annual evapotranspiration of groundwater in Deep Creek 

Valley, Utah and Nevada.

[Abbreviations: ET, evapotranspiration; ft/yr, feet per year; acre-ft/yr, acre-feet per year]

ET unit

ET rate, areaweighted 

average (ft/yr)

Range of 

ET rate 

(ft/yr)

Acres Total ET (acre-ft/yr)

Utah Nevada Total Utah Nevada Total

Dense desert shrubland1 1.24 1.0–1.8 6,969 586 7,555 8,641 727 9,368

Moderately dense desert shrubland1 1.07 0.7–1.5 4,612 387 4,999 4,935 414 5,349

Pasture/Range2 1.97 0.8–3.1 4,082 0 4,082 8,041 0 8,041

Grassland1 2.14 1.6–2.7 295 617 912 631 1,320 1,951

Meadowland1 2.59 2.2–3.3 87 75 162 225 194 419

Moist bare soil1 2.00 1.7–2.3 2,534 159 2,693 5,068 318 5,386

Open water1 5.10 4.6–5.6 90 0 90 459 0 459

Sum of total ET 28,000 2,973 30,973

-Precipitation over ET area 15,512 1,518 17,030

= ET from groundwater (rounded) 12,500 1,500 14,000

1

ET rates and ranges for these ET units are summarized in Welch and others (2007), p. 56. 

2

ET rates and ranges for this ET unit from Utah State University (1994), table 25. 

Subsurface Outflow to Great Salt Lake Desert

The water-level surface map (fig. 8) indicates that groundwater in Deep Creek Valley discharges northward toward the 

Great Salt Lake Desert. Previous estimates of subsurface outflow from Deep Creek Valley to Great Salt Lake Desert ranged 

from 2,700 to 3,000 acre-ft/yr (Scott and others, 1971; Harrill 

and others, 1988).

Water-Level Fluctuations 

Water levels in wells fluctuate in response to imbalances 

between groundwater recharge and discharge. Water levels 

rise when recharge exceeds discharge for a period of time and 

decline when the opposite occurs. Variations in recharge and 

discharge are driven by natural and anthropogenic (humaninduced) processes. Examples of natural processes are 

recharge from the infiltration of precipitation and evapotranspiration of groundwater in a marsh or wetland. The infiltration 

of unconsumed water applied to irrigate crops or groundwater 

withdrawn by wells are examples of anthropogenic processes. 

Long-term water-level changes were examined for selected 

wells within or adjacent to the Deep Creek Valley HA (fig. 14). 

Long-term water-level fluctuations are presented for six wells 

along the drainage axis of Deep Creek Valley, with depths 

ranging from 58 to 506 ft, where repeated measurements have 

been made for various periods of time to illustrate the groundwater system’s response to interannual variations in recharge 

and discharge (fig. 15). Long-term water-level data for these 

six wells were filtered to include only spring season waterlevel measurements for each year. Water levels in these wells 

fluctuate to varying degrees in response to climate-driven 

variations in recharge. Water levels in these wells do not show 

long-term water-level declines, indicating that past and current 

groundwater withdrawals have not adversely affected aquifer 

conditions to date in Deep Creek Valley. Water levels are 
24 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

Figure 14. Location of selected wells with long-term and discrete water-level data, Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and 

Nevada.

TOOELE

COUNTY

ELKO

COUNTY

WHITE PINE

COUNTY

JUAB

COUNTY

UTAH

NEVADA

Tippett

Valley

(HA 185)

Antelope

Valley

South Part

(HA 186A)

Deep

Creek

Valley

(HA 253)

Great Salt Lake Desert

West Part

(HA 261A)

Snake

Valley

(HA 254)

Goshute

Indian

Reservation

Fifteenmile Creek

Deep Creek

Deep Creek

Deep Creek

Spring Creek

Steves Creek

Sams Creek

Ibapah

Gold Hill

Goshute

Base from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 11

North American Datum 1983

0 2.5 5 Miles

0 2.5 5 Kilometers

39°45'

40°00'

40°15'

114°15' 114°00' 113°45'

Deep Creek Range

40083111591001

400220113591601

400210113585701

400201113583801

395633113584301

395608113583301

395750114112201

395608114123601 395606114094401

395245114125901

335608113584301

Hydrographic area boundary

U.S. Geological Survey site number

Well with associated hydrograph

EXPLANATION
Groundwater Hydrology 25

Figure 15. Long-term water-level fluctuations in selected wells along the drainage axis of Deep Creek Valley, Utah and Nevada.

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

U.S. Geological Survey site number: 400831113591001 

Well depth: 306 feet

All well locations shown on figure 14

Depth to water, in feet below or above (-) land surface 21

19

17

15

13

11

9

7

5

U.S. Geological Survey site number: 400210113585701 

Well depth: unknown

21

19

17

15

13

11

9

7

5

U.S. Geological Survey site number: 400201113583801 

Well depth: 100 feet

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

U.S. Geological Survey site number: 400220113591601 

Well depth: 58 feet

76

74

72

70

68

66

64

62

60

U.S. Geological Survey site number: 395633113584301 

Well depth: 130 feet

131

129

127

125

123

121

119

117

115 1960

19651970197519801985199019952000200520102015

U.S. Geological Survey site number: 395608113583301 

Well depth: 506 feet
26 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

also presented for four stock wells, with only a few discrete 

water-level measurements each, along the boundary between 

Deep Creek and Tippett Valleys (fig. 16). Water levels in three 

of these wells were between about 8 and 12 ft higher in 1984 

than in 1969, possibly due to a significant recharge event during the three consecutive wet years of 1982–1984 (fig. 11). 

Since that time, records generally indicate little net water-level 

change or slight water-level rises in these wells. The fourth 

well showed a water-level decline between 1969 and 1984 

with subsequent recovery by 2012. All water-level data are 

available through the USGS NWIS database (http://waterdata.

usgs.gov/nwis).

Groundwater Geochemistry

Water samples were collected from 10 sites in the Deep 

Creek Valley study area that included domestic, stock, and 

unused flowing wells and four perennial springs (tables 6 

and A1–2). The water samples were analyzed for major ions, 

nutrients, and selected trace metals to characterize general 

chemistry and patterns of water quality. Water samples 

also were analyzed for a suite of environmental tracers that 

included the stable isotopes of oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon, 

dissolved noble gases, and radioactive isotopes of carbon (14C) 

and hydrogen (tritium, 3H). These environmental tracers were 

used to investigate sources of recharge, groundwater flow 

paths, ages, and travel times, and to support the development 

of a conceptual model of the basin-wide groundwater system. 

All groundwater geochemical data are available through the 

USGS NWIS database (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis).

Sample Collection and Analysis

Field parameters and geochemical samples were collected 

from six wells and four springs (fig. 17; tables 6 and A1–2). 

Water samples were collected from most wells using either 

a portable submersible pump or a well’s dedicated pump. 

Samples were collected from springs and flowing wells under 

natural free-flowing conditions. Wells requiring pumping were 

purged of a minimum of three casing volumes of water prior 

to sample collection, and water was collected from an outlet as 

close to the wellhead as possible.

Figure 16. Discrete water-level data for selected wells in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada.

340

320

300

280

260

240

220

200

19651970197519801985199019952000200520102015

Depth to water, in feet below land surface

U.S. Geological Survey site number: 395750114112201 

Well depth: unknown

U.S. Geological Survey site number: 395245114125901 

Well depth: unknown

U.S. Geological Survey site number: 395606114094401 

Well depth: unknown

U.S. Geological Survey site number: 395608114123601 

Well depth: 252 feet

All well locations shown on figure 14
Groundwater Geochemistry 27

Table 6. Measured field parameters and dissolved concentrations of major ions, nutrients, and selected metals for groundwater 

sampled during May 2012 in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada.

[Site ID: see figure 17 for locations and table A1-2 for additional information. Value shown in red exceeds the Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level or 

secondary standard. Abbreviations: USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; °C, degrees Celsius; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μg/L, 

micrograms per liter; <, less than; —, no data]

Site 

ID USGS site number

Water 

temperature, 

°C

Specific 

conductance, 

μS/cm

pH, 

standard 

units

Dissolved 

oxygen, 

mg/L

Dissolved 

solids, 

mg/L

Alkalinity, 

mg/L as 

CaCO3

Bicarbonate, 

mg/L as 

HCO3

Bromide, 

mg/L as Br

Calcium, 

mg/L as Ca

Chloride, 

mg/L as Cl

Fluoride, 

mg/L as F

Iron, μg/L 

as Fe

1 400543114145101 23.1 614 7.5 5.7 370 115 141 0.283 39.2 64.3 0.29 <3.2

2 400216113591701 11.6 258 7.5 4.3 193 97 141 0.043 19.5 11.6 0.36 13.1

3 394554114003501 6.2 216 6.9 8.1 135 105 128 0.021 35.5 3.98 0.09 34.2

4 395112114014501 11.1 313 7.0 8.3 185 156 190 0.029 47.5 5.10 0.07 11.8

5 400024113582701 12.7 178 7.2 7.8 126 76 92 0.029 19.9 7.10 0.19 10.6

6 394149114302201 10.1 419 6.9 2.0 267 179 218 0.108 54.7 17.3 0.13 38.4

7 395815114043401 13.2 693 6.9 7.6 475 165 201 0.060 98.7 18.2 0.13 4.9

8 395237114222501 21.1 503 7.0 3.4 285 238 290 0.052 55.1 6.74 0.07 3.6

9 400831113591001 12.0 542 7.2 5.9 319 191 232 0.101 49.2 45.1 0.12 <3.2

10 394422114205201 14.5 382 7.7 5.6 255 126 154 0.098 29.3 17.9 0.53 10.4

1

11 395935113584501 20.2 205 8.0 5.4 — 103 106 0.03 28.3 9.00 0.20 330

1

12 — 16.6 248 7.9 6.4 — 100 117 0.03 30.6 10.4 0.22 <50

Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level (MCL)

Environmental Protection Agency secondary standard 500 250 2 300

1

Data for Sample IDs 11 (Goshute Lower Community Well) and 12 (Goshute #2 Well) from Hershey and others, 2007, http://www.dri.edu/images/stories/research/projects/BARCAS/barcas.pdf.

Table 6. Measured field parameters and dissolved concentrations of major ions, nutrients, and selected metals for groundwater 

sampled during May 2012 in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada.—Continued

[Site ID: see figure 17 for locations and table A1-2 for additional information. Value shown in red exceeds the Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level or 

secondary standard. Abbreviations: USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; °C, degrees Celsius; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μg/L, 

micrograms per liter; <, less than; —, no data]

Site 

ID USGS site number Magnesium, 

mg/L as Mg

Manganese, 

μg/L as Mn

Potassium, 

mg/L as K

Silica, 

mg/L as 

SiO2

Sodium, 

mg/L as Na

Sulfate, 

mg/L as SO4

Nitrate plus 

nitrite, mg/L 

as N

Orthophosphate, 

mg/L as P

Arsenic, 

μg/L as As

Molybdenum, μg/L 

as Mo

Selenium, 

μg/L as Se

Uranium, 

μg/L as U

1 400543114145101 9.27 1.64 4.04 27.9 74.2 73.0 1.96 0.018 11.5 5.38 1.3 3.06

2 400216113591701 11.0 4.20 2.89 47.7 18.1 10.5 0.415 0.020 4.7 1.11 0.23 6.47

3 394554114003501 5.35 0.56 0.51 13.8 5.93 5.62 0.186 0.010 0.23 0.080 0.07 0.244

4 395112114014501 11.7 0.19 0.64 12.3 6.60 5.60 0.447 0.014 0.67 0.131 0.12 0.391

5 400024113582701 4.26 <0.16 0.95 29.1 12.0 5.59 0.366 0.028 0.70 0.822 0.18 6.33

6 394149114302201 13.6 20.9 2.81 28.1 20.8 21.6 0.072 0.011 3.8 2.27 0.29 2.34

7 395815114043401 26.5 0.30 2.44 28.2 14.5 187.0 0.169 0.013 2.1 0.370 0.37 1.02

8 395237114222501 30.7 <0.16 0.99 12.5 7.90 25.2 0.624 0.008 1.4 1.27 0.54 3.33

9 400831113591001 26.7 <0.16 1.63 23.1 29.3 26.5 0.805 0.013 3.0 0.812 1.1 2.89

10 394422114205201 17.7 4.65 3.32 39.6 26.4 41.4 0.562 0.019 8.8 3.60 0.98 1.08

1

11 395935113584501 7.41 2.20 1.41 29.9 16.2 9.1 — — 1 <2 <1 9.93

1

12 — 9.93 0.4 1.73 32.4 18.5 10.6 — — <1 <2 <1 10.9

Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level (MCL) 10 50 30

Environmental Protection Agency secondary 

standard 50 250 10

1

Data for Sample IDs 11 (Goshute Lower Community Well) and 12 (Goshute #2 Well) from Hershey and others, 2007, http://www.dri.edu/images/stories/research/projects/BARCAS/barcas.pdf.
28 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

Figure 17. Location of 10 wells and springs sampled during this study in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada.

ELKO

COUNTY

WHITE PINE

COUNTY

TOOELE

COUNTY

JUAB

COUNTY

MILLARD

COUNTY

UTAH

NEVADA

Snake

Valley

(HA 254)

Great Salt Lake Desert

West Part

(HA 261A)

Goshute

Indian

Reservation

95

Partoun

Goshute

Gold Hill

Callao

Base from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 11

North American Datum 1983

Spring

Valley

(HA 184)

Tippett

Valley

(HA 185)

Antelope

Valley

South Part

(HA 186A) Deep

Creek

Valley

(HA 253)

Ibapah

0 5 10 Miles

0 5 10 Kilometers

114°30’ 114°00’

40°00’

39°30’

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

1

3

Hydrographic area boundary

Sample from well—Number is site 

identifier

Sample from spring—Number is site 

identifier

EXPLANATION
Groundwater Geochemistry 29

Field parameters measured during water-sample collection 

included temperature, specific conductance, pH, dissolved 

oxygen, and total dissolved-gas pressure. These parameters 

were measured using a calibrated multimeter probe following USGS protocols (Wilde and Radtke, 1998). Samples 

for dissolved major ions and nutrients were filtered with a 

0.45-micrometer (μm) filter and the cation subsample was 

preserved with nitric acid. Dissolved major-ion and nutrient analyses were done by the USGS National Water Quality 

Laboratory in Denver, Colorado.

Unfiltered samples for stable isotopes of oxygen and 

hydrogen were collected in 60-milliliter (mL) glass containers, 

sealed with polyseal caps to leave no air space, and analyzed 

by the USGS Stable Isotope Laboratory in Reston, Virginia. 

The 2-standard deviation uncertainty of oxygen and hydrogen isotopic measurements is 0.2 and 2 permil, respectively. 

Unfiltered samples for tritium (3H) were collected in 500-mL 

or 1-liter (L) polyethylene bottles, capped with no air space, 

and analyzed by the University of Utah Dissolved Gas Service 

Center in Salt Lake City. The detection limit of 3H is reported 

to be 0.1 tritium units (TU), and the analytical precision was 

generally 0.1 TU but as high as 0.8 TU. Samples for carbon-14 (14C) and stable isotopes of carbon (δ13C) were filtered 

(0.45 μm) and collected in 500-mL or 1-L glass bottles. The 

bottles were filled from the bottom and allowed to overflow 

for several volumes in order to rinse the bottles while minimizing contact with the air, sealed with polyseal caps, and 

analyzed by the National Ocean Sciences Accelerator Mass 

Spectrometry (NOSAMS) facility at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Analytical 

error for 14C was less than 0.5 percent modern carbon (pMC) 

and for δ13C was 0.3 permil or better.

Dissolved noble-gas samples were collected either as 

water samples sealed in copper tubes as described by Stute 

and Schlosser (2000) or as gas samples collected with diffusion samplers similar to those described by Sanford and 

others (1996) and Gardner and Solomon (2009). The copper 

tube method consists of attaching a 76-centimeter (cm) long 

section of 1-cm diameter copper tubing to a sampling port 

at the wellhead, allowing the tube to flush with well water 

until all air bubbles have been evacuated, then sealing both 

ends with clamps. The diffusion sampler method was used at 

wells and springs where either in-situ placement or uninterrupted flow using a flow-through chamber was possible for a 

minimum of 24 hours. The diffusion sampler is constructed of 

30-millimeter (mm) diameter copper tubing and a semipermeable gas diffusion membrane. The flow-through chamber is an 

airtight chamber connected to a discharge point at the wellhead, allowing water to flow through the chamber and past 

the membrane. After 24 hours, when the gases in the diffusion 

sampler are assumed to be in equilibration with the dissolved 

gases in the sample water, the sampler is removed from the 

well or spring and immediately sealed. All dissolved-gas 

samples were analyzed by the University of Utah Dissolved 

Gas Service Center using both quadrupole and sector-field 

mass spectrometers. Analytical uncertainties (1-standard 

deviation) for 3

He, helium-4 (4He), neon-20 (20Ne), argon-40 

(

40Ar), krypton-84 (84Kr), and xenon-129 (129Xe) were 2, 2, 3, 

3, 5, and 5 percent, respectively.

Geochemical Methods 

Environmental tracers can be used in developing and refining conceptual models of groundwater flow systems, and in 

determining sources of recharge, rates of movement, and ages 

of groundwater. They also help to refine groundwater flow 

paths originally delineated using water-level surface maps.

Oxygen-18 and Deuterium

The stable isotopes of water were used to better understand recharge sources to the groundwater basin. Most water 

molecules are made up of hydrogen (1H) and oxygen-16 (16O). 

However, some water molecules (less than 1 percent) contain 

the heavier isotopes of deuterium (2H or D) and oxygen-18 

(18O). “Heavier” refers to the condition when there are additional neutrons in the nucleus of the hydrogen or oxygen atom, 

thereby increasing the mass or atomic weight of the water 

molecule.

Stable isotopes are analyzed by measuring the ratio of the 

heavier, less abundant isotope to the lighter, more abundant 

isotope and are reported as differences relative to a known 

standard. The isotope ratios are reported as delta (δ) values 

expressed as parts per thousand (permil). The δ value for an 

isotope ratio, R, is determined by 

δR = (Rsample/Rstandard – 1) × 1,000 (1)

where 

δR is the δ value for a specific isotope in the 

sample (2H or 18O), 

Rsample is the ratio of the less abundant isotope to the 

common isotope for a specific element in the 

sample, and 

Rstandard is the ratio of the less abundant isotope to the 

common isotope for the same element in the 

reference standard. The reference standard 

used in this report is Vienna Standard Mean 

Ocean Water (VSMOW) (Craig, 1961b; 

Coplen, 1994). 

A positive δR value indicates that the sample is enriched 

in the heavier isotope with respect to the standard. A negative 

δR value indicates that the sample is depleted in the heavier 

isotope with respect to the standard. Heavier isotopes are more 

difficult to evaporate and easier to condense; for example, 

water in a lake or stream contains more heavy isotopes than 

the water vapor evaporated from the lake or stream. Because 

of this effect, water vapor in the atmosphere that condenses 

and falls out as precipitation will become progressively more 

depleted in the heavier isotopes at cooler temperatures and 

at higher altitudes. The proportional depletion of 2

H and 18O 
30 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

results in isotopic compositions of precipitation (and groundwater sourced from precipitation) that plot along a trend 

referred to as a meteoric water line when the δD is plotted 

against the δ18O. Because isotopic composition is affected 

by temperature, cooler (or high-altitude) precipitation values 

generally plot lower on the trend line and warmer (or lowaltitude) precipitation values generally plot higher on the trend 

line (Mazor, 1991). 

The trend line for worldwide precipitation defines the 

Global Meteoric Water Line (GMWL) and is described by the 

equation: 

δD = 8(δ18O) + d (2)

where 

d is defined as the D excess (Dansgaard, 1964). 

The mean global value for d in freshwater is 

10 (Craig, 1961a).

Depending on conditions and sources of precipitation, 

isotopic data from specific areas may plot along a trend line 

that is above or below the GMWL referred to as a local meteoric water line (LMWL). In addition to temperature, isotopic 

composition is also affected by evaporation, particularly 

during irrigation or from open-water bodies. Evaporation creates preferential enrichment in 18O relative to D, resulting in 

a shift from, and a slope less than, the LMWL or the GMWL. 

Groundwater with “evaporated” stable isotope compositions 

can often be identified as containing recharge from distinct 

sources such as lakes and irrigation canals.

Tritium and Helium

Tritium and helium isotopes were used in this study to 

examine the age of groundwater samples. Tritium (3H) is a 

radioactive isotope of hydrogen with a half-life of 12.32 years 

that decays to tritiogenic helium-3 (3Hetrit). Tritium is present in water as part of the water molecule, whereas its decay 

product, 3Hetrit, exists as a noble gas dissolved in water. 

Concentrations of 3H and 3Hetrit can be used to determine the 

apparent age of groundwater that is less than about 60 years 

old. During the 1950s and 1960s, large amounts of 3H were 

released into the atmosphere and introduced into the hydrologic cycle by above-ground thermonuclear weapons testing. 

As a result, 3H concentrations in precipitation in the northern 

hemisphere during 1963–64 peaked at three orders of magnitude above natural concentrations (Michel, 1989). Comparison 

of reconstructed initial 3H concentrations with atmospheric 

concentration data is a tool that can distinguish between 

groundwater recharged before or after the beginning of weapons testing in the mid-1950s. By using the concentrations of 

both 3

H and its decay product, 3Hetrit, the age of groundwater 

(time elapsed since recharge) can be refined to an apparent 

recharge year. These ages are referred to as “apparent” because 

they can differ from the true mean age of the sample if it contains a mixture of water of different ages. Mixtures of modern 

(post-mid-1950s recharge) and pre-modern (pre-mid-1950s 

recharge) water typically have apparent 3H/3Hetrit ages that 

represent the age of the young fraction of the sample because 

dilution with pre-modern water will leave the ratio of 3H to 3

Hetrit virtually unchanged. Details of this groundwater dating 

method are presented in Solomon and Cook (2000).

Tritium concentrations typically are reported in tritium 

units (TU), where one TU is equivalent to one molecule of 

tritiated water (3H1HO) in 1018 molecules of non-tritiated water 

(1H2O). In a sample of pre-modern groundwater, 3H will have 

decayed from background “pre-bomb” concentrations of about 

6 to 8 TU to less than 0.3 TU, which is approaching the analytical detection limit. Samples collected during this study having 

concentrations of 0.4 TU or less (accounting for a typical 

analytical uncertainty of 0.1 TU) are interpreted to contain no 

modern water, whereas samples having concentrations more 

than 1 TU are interpreted to contain more than a small fraction 

of modern water. Apparent 3H/3Hetrit ages were computed for 

samples having concentrations of more than 0.4 TU.

In addition to 3He derived from 3H decay, groundwater also 

accumulates dissolved helium as it is produced from the radioactive decay of naturally occurring uranium- and thoriumseries elements in aquifer solids (“crustal He”) and from the 

upward advection and (or) diffusion of primordial helium from 

the mantle (“mantle He”). Crustal- and mantle-sourced He are 

collectively referred to as “terrigenic He” (Heterr) (Solomon, 

2000). Crustal- and mantle-sourced He are distinguishable 

by their relative abundance of 3He and 4He isotopes. These 

values are generally expressed as a 3He/4He ratio (R) relative 

to the atmospheric 3He/4He ratio (Ra). Because crustal He has 

an R/Ra value of approximately 0.02 and mantle He has an R/

Ra value of approximately 10–30, the R/Ra of a water sample 

provides information on the relative amount of crustal versus 

mantle sources of Heterr. Modern groundwater has an R/Ra

value approximately equal to 1, indicating that it contains 

atmospheric solubility concentrations of He. In most aquifers, 

crustal He makes up the majority of the Heterr. Where this is 

the case, the R/Ra value of groundwater will fall below 1 as it 

acquires Heterr from time spent in contact with aquifer materials. Because Heterr concentrations generally increase with 

increasing residence time, dissolved 4Heterr concentrations have 

been used as a semiquantitative tool for dating groundwater 

with ages from 103 to more than 106 years (Mazor and Bosch, 

1992; Solomon, 2000). No attempts were made to accurately 

date groundwater in this study using 4Heterr, because crustal 

Heterr production rates are highly variable and substantial 

additional data would have been required to constrain these 

rates within the study area. Solomon (2000) reported average 

crustal 4He production rates ranging from 0.28 to 2.4 micro 

cubic centimeters per cubic meters per year at standard temperature and pressure (μccSTP m-3yr-1). At these rates, groundwater should not acquire significant concentrations of 4

Heterr

(more than about 2x10-8 ccSTP/g) until it has been in contact 

with aquifer materials for more than about 1,000 years. Even 

without precise knowledge of local 4He production rates, 4He 

concentrations in excess of atmospheric solubility are useful 

as qualitative measures of groundwater age.
Groundwater Geochemistry 31

Carbon-14

Carbon-14 (14C) is a naturally occurring radioactive isotope 

of carbon that can be used to determine the apparent age of 

groundwater on time scales ranging from several hundred to 

more than 30,000 years. The method of radiocarbon dating 

is based on the radioactive decay of 14C. In this study, the 14C 

activity (its effective concentration) of dissolved inorganic 

carbon (DIC) was used to estimate the age of groundwater 

determined to be “pre-modern” by 3H and 3Hetrit. Unadjusted 

ages were calculated from non-normalized 14C activities of 

DIC using the Libby half-life (5,568 years), assuming an 

initial 14C activity of 100 percent modern carbon (pMC). Kalin 

(2000) provides a comprehensive review of the radiocarbon 

groundwater dating method. 

Carbon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere and is rapidly oxidized to carbon-14 dioxide (14CO2). Materials such as 

plants and water that utilize or react with atmospheric carbon 

dioxide (CO2) will have a 14C activity (Ao) equal to that in the 

atmosphere (Pearson and White, 1967). By convention, the 

modern pre-1950 (before nuclear weapons testing) activity of 

atmospheric 14C is 100 pMC. Carbon-14 generally enters the 

hydrologic cycle through any of four predominant pathways: 

(1) dissolution of atmospheric CO2 into rain water and surface 

water, (2) plant respired CO2 in the soil zone that dissolves 

into water, (3) oxidation of organic material in soil that dissolves into water, and (4) dissolution of minerals containing 

geologically young carbon.

The DIC in precipitation presumably has a 14C activity in 

equilibrium with atmospheric CO2. As precipitation infiltrates 

the subsurface, its 14C activity is modified by carbon exchange 

with soil-zone CO2 and minerals in the unsaturated zone until 

it enters the saturated zone. After entering the saturated zone, 

interaction with soil-zone carbon ceases and the 14C in the DIC 

decays with time. The radiocarbon age of groundwater refers 

to the time that has elapsed since this water was isolated from 

carbon in the unsaturated zone. 

In addition to radioactive decay, the 14C activity of groundwater in the saturated zone can be affected by additions of 

and (or) reactions with carbon-bearing minerals and organic 

phases. Four processes are of particular interest with respect to 

14C dating of groundwater: (1) dissolution of carbonate minerals such as limestone can increase the concentration of DIC 

having 0 pMC, thus decreasing the 14C activity (Plummer and 

Sprinkle, 2001), (2) oxidation with older organic matter having 0 pMC can increase the concentration of DIC having low 

pMC, also decreasing the 14C activity (Aravena and others, 

1995), (3) sorption of calcium and magnesium ions to mineral 

surfaces may cause dissolution of carbonate minerals having 

0 pMC, thus decreasing the 14C activity (Plummer and others, 

1990), and (4) carbonate mineral recrystallization (dissolution 

and subsequent precipitation of the same mass of carbonate mineral), which results in an isotope effect (Kendall and 

Caldwell, 1998), causing groundwater DIC to have a higher 

stable carbon isotope ratio (δ13C) and a lower 14C activity 

(Parkhurst and Plummer, 1983).

These processes can greatly decrease the 14C activity of 

groundwater. For example, in carbonate terrains such as the 

mountains surrounding Deep Creek Valley, modern carbon in 

groundwater may be diluted with dissolved 14C-free carbonate 

minerals to the extent that very young groundwater may have 

14C activities as low as 50 pMC (Clark and Fritz, 1997). Thus, 

a correction is required to account for reaction effects on 14C 

activity and obtain accurate radiocarbon ages. This is accomplished through a variety of models that attempt to quantify 

the processes described above to determine the 14C activity of 

DIC derived from atmospheric CO2 at the point of recharge—

after the water passes through the unsaturated zone and prior 

to any reactions occurring within the aquifer. Several models 

exist to correct 14C activity for the effects of the processes 

listed above. The most widely used formula-based models of 

this type are the Ingerson and Pearson (1964), Tamers (1975), 

and Fontes and Garnier (1979) models. 

Ingerson and Pearson (1964) use a carbonate dissolution 

model to estimate initial 14C activity (Ao) of groundwater DIC 

from δ13C data for the inorganic carbon system, assuming that 

all DIC is derived from soil zone CO2 and solid carbonates 

(Plummer and others, 1994). Disadvantages of the model are 

that it requires input that can be difficult to obtain and must 

often be assumed, such as the δ13C of soil CO2, and that it does 

not consider the effects of geochemical reactions other than 

mineral dissolution, particularly isotope exchange reactions. 

The Tamers (1975) model is a mass-balance model that considers only carbonate reaction with CO2 gas and is based on 

chemical concentrations rather than δ13C (Plummer and others, 

1994). The dissolution of carbonate minerals dilutes 14C activity by the reaction of dissolved CO2 with solid carbonate to 

form bicarbonate (HCO3

-

). This model does not correct for the 

effects of isotope exchange. The Fontes and Garnier (1979) 

model is a hybrid of the Ingerson and Pearson (1964) and 

Tamers (1975) models, combining both chemical and isotopic 

data to correct for reaction effects on 14C activity. 

Dissolved Noble Gases

Dissolved noble-gas samples (20Ne, 40Ar, 84Kr, and 129Xe) 

were used to determine noble-gas recharge temperatures 

(NGTs, assumed to equal the temperature of groundwater recharge as it crosses the water table) as an indicator of 

mountain versus valley recharge. Noble gases dissolved in 

groundwater are primarily of atmospheric origin, and their 

concentrations are a function of their solubility (with the possible addition of excess air) at the temperature, pressure, and 

salinity conditions present as recharge crosses the water table. 

Most noble gases are geochemically inert and, unlike physical 

temperatures and age tracers (14C, 4

Heterr, 3H/3Hetrit) that change 

with time, noble-gas concentrations and, therefore, groundwater NGTs, should be preserved along the length of a groundwater flow path. A complete review of how these gases are 

used as groundwater tracers is included in Stute and Schlosser 

(2000). 
32 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

For this study, the noble-gas concentrations were interpreted using the closed-system equilibration (CE) model 

(Aeschbach-Hertig and others, 2000; Kipfer and others, 

2002). In addition to recharge temperature, the CE model 

also calculates the dimensionless ratio of the total volume of 

trapped (moist) air at the pressure and temperature of the free 

atmosphere to the volume of water beneath the water table (A) 

and a fractionation factor for partial dissolution of trapped air 

bubbles (F). Recharge altitude (the proxy for barometric pressure) is an unknown parameter, a typical situation in locations 

with a high topographic gradient. Because recharge temperature (Tr

) and recharge altitude (Hr) are correlated, a range of 

NGTs (assumed to equal Tr) was estimated for each sample, 

as described by Manning and Solomon (2003) and Manning 

(2011). This method uses a minimum recharge altitude (Hrmin), 

typically that of the sample site, to calculate a maximum 

noble-gas recharge temperature (NGTmax). Conversely, the 

maximum possible recharge (water-table) altitude (Hrmax) is 

used to calculate a minimum noble-gas recharge temperature 

(NGTmin). For this study, Hrmax was estimated to be 10,500 ft 

based on the altitude of the highest observed springs within 

the study area. The recharge parameters (NGT, A, F) were 

evaluated using this range of recharge altitudes with a standard 

Newton inversion technique to minimize the error-weighted 

misfit (χ2) between measured and modeled dissolved-gas concentrations (Aeschbach-Hertig and others, 1999; Manning and 

Solomon, 2003). A χ2 probability threshold of 3.84, based on 

four measured gases and three recharge parameters (P > 0.05), 

was used to define good model fits for NGT, A, and F. Uncertainty in NGTs due to noble-gas measurement precision is generally 0.5 to 1.5 °C (Manning and Solomon, 2003; Manning, 

2009; Masbruch and others, 2012). This method also uses a 

local Hr-Tr relationship (solution zone), derived using shallow 

groundwater temperatures and mountain-block NGTs for a 

large part of the eastern Great Basin, to further constrain the 

range of the NGT-Hr pairs and to define an average noble-gas 

recharge temperature (NGTavg). Derivation of the Hr-Tr solution zone for the study area and additional details related to 

reported NGTs are described by Gardner and Heilweil (2014).

Results

Major Ions, Nutrients, and Selected 

Trace Metals

Dissolved major-ion, nutrient, and selected trace metal 

concentrations in groundwater samples from six wells and 

four springs (table 6 and fig. 18) were used to evaluate 

groundwater source areas and flow paths and to describe 

general water-quality conditions within and near Deep Creek 

Valley. Groundwater quality is very good throughout the 

study area. The concentration of dissolved solids for the 10 

groundwater sites sampled during this study ranged from 

126 to 475 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (table 6), and none 

of the sites sampled during this study had dissolved-solids 

concentrations that exceeded the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) secondary standard of 500 mg/L for drinking water (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). 

With the exception of slightly elevated arsenic in a stock well 

located west of northern Deep Creek Valley in Antelope Valley 

(site 1), none of the sampled wells or springs contained concentrations of dissolved solids that exceeded EPA maximum 

contaminant levels (MCLs) or secondary standards (table 6).

Groundwater with less than 200 mg/L dissolved-solids 

concentrations (sites 2, 3, 4, and 5) is found both in and near 

headwater recharge areas and discharge areas along the drainage axis of Deep Creek Valley (fig. 18). Groundwater sampled 

by the USGS and DRI in 2005 from two municipal wells on 

the Goshute Reservation (Goshute Lower Community Well 

and Goshute #2 Well) as part of the BARCAS study (Hershey 

and others, 2007) shows similar chemical characteristics and 

general high quality as other waters (sites 2, 3, 4, and 5) sampled along the drainage axis of Deep Creek Valley (table 6). 

Samples from sites 1 and 7 have the highest dissolved-solids 

concentrations (370 and 475 mg/L, respectively) and contain 

considerably more magnesium and sulfate combined than 

upgradient samples in the study area (table 6). Both of these 

samples were collected from sites in areas west of central 

Deep Creek Valley, with exposures of volcanic bedrock that 

could provide the source of these constituents. Groundwater 

from site 1 also contains considerably more sodium than any 

of the other samples. 

The principal dissolved constituents in most samples 

within the study area are calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate, all of which are directly derived from dissolution of the 

carbonate rocks and alluvium of eroded carbonate rocks that 

are abundant throughout the region. Stiff diagrams illustrate 

the subtle differences in water types across the study area 

(fig. 18). Groundwater sampled from wells on the east side of 

Deep Creek Valley (for example, sites 2 and 5 and one previous sample reported in Hood and Waddell (1969) shown on 

fig. 18) appears distinct from groundwater in upgradient areas 

to the south and west (sites 1, 7, 8, and 10) where groundwater contains more dissolved solids, particularly sulfate, 

magnesium, and sodium. Groundwater from sites 2 and 5 is 

recharged directly from the adjacent high-altitude portion 

of the Deep Creek Range, either as in-place mountain-block 

recharge or as recharge from runoff. Groundwater sampled 

from a flowing well at the northern end of Deep Creek Valley 

(site 9) had approximately twice the dissolved-solids concentrations as groundwater from sites 2 and 5. This could be 

the result of greater mineral dissolution because of a longer 

travel time through the aquifer or a mixture of upgradient low 

dissolved-solids waters from the south and east with higher 

dissolved-solids waters from the west. Two surface-water 

samples in northern Deep Creek Valley (fig. 18) have higher 

dissolved-solids concentrations and notably higher magnesium and sulfate concentrations than in nearby and upgradient 

groundwater samples, indicating that they contain a significant 

fraction of groundwater from the western part of the valley (or 

HA).
Groundwater Geochemistry 33

Figure 18. Stiff diagrams showing major-ion composition of groundwater from hydrogeologic units in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent 

areas, Utah and Nevada.

ELKO

COUNTY

WHITE PINE

COUNTY

JUAB

COUNTY

MILLARD

COUNTY

UTAH

NEVADA

Snake

Valley

(HA 254)

Great Salt 

Lake Desert

West Part

(HA 261A)

95

Partoun

Goshute

Gold Hill

Callao

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Base from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 11 

North American Datum 1983

Modified from Sweetkind and others, 2011a

Goshute

Indian

Reservation

Spring

Valley

(HA 184)

Tippett

Valley

(HA 185)

Antelope

Valley

South Part

(HA 186A) Deep

Creek

Valley

(HA 253)

Ibapah

TOOELE

COUNTY

114°30’ 114°00’

40°00’

39°30’

0 5 10 Miles

0 5 10 Kilometers

6000

5900

5800

5700

5600

5600

5600

5550

5550

5500

5400

5300

5200

Sodium+Potassium

Magnesium

Calcium Bicarbonate

Sulfate

Chloride+Fluoride+Nitrate

6

Overall size of symbol indicates relative magnitude of dissolved-solids concentration

Upper basin-fill aquifer unit (UBFAU) and lower basin-fill 

aquifer unit (LBFAU)

Volcanic unit (VU)

Upper carbonate aquifer unit (UCAU)

Upper siliciclastic confining unit (USCU)

Lower carbonate aquifer unit (LCAU)

Non-carbonate confining unit (NCCU)

Hydrographic area boundary

Major fault

Water-level altitude contour—Shows altitude at which 

water level would have stood in tightly cased wells. 

Contour interval is 50 feet. Dashed where less certain

General direction of groundwater movement—Dashed 

where less certain

Stiff diagram—Number is site identifier; symbols in black 

were sampled during this study; symbols in blue are from 

surface water (data from Hood and Waddell,1969); 

symbols in gray are from groundwater (data from Hershey 

and others, 2007)

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Milliequivalents per liter

EXPLANATION
34 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

The spatial patterns of major-ion chemistry can be 

explained when the directions of groundwater movement 

shown by the water-level contour map are considered. For 

example, groundwater recharging the carbonate mountain 

block to the south and west of Spring Creek (site 4) moves 

northwest through the Spring Creek Flat area and then flows 

toward the northeast, acquiring solutes as it moves through 

volcanic bedrock, before re-joining and possibly mixing with 

low dissolved-solids groundwater (for example, sites 2 and 5) 

along Deep Creek in the northern end of Deep Creek Valley. 

Calcium-bicarbonate-type groundwaters from northern Spring 

Valley (site 6 and the two previous samples reported in Hood 

and Waddell, 1969) are not likely to move northward through 

Tippett Valley into Deep Creek Valley. Instead, water-level 

contours indicate these waters move toward the south side of 

the groundwater divide in northern Spring Valley.

Oxygen-18 and Deuterium

The stable-isotope composition of samples collected as part 

of this study are plotted along with those from 129 groundwater samples collected throughout the eastern Great Basin 

(Gardner and Heilweil, 2014, supplementary material) near the 

Utah-Nevada border for comparison (fig. 19). Stable-isotope 

compositions of all groundwater samples collected during this 

study plot between the GMWL (Craig, 1961a) and a regional 

arid-zone meteoric water line (Welch and Preissler, 1986), 

indicating that they are waters of meteoric origin (table 7 and 

fig. 19). Stable-isotope compositions for the greater eastern 

Great Basin samples range from -98 to -126 permil and from 

-12.3 to -16.8 permil for δD and δ18O, respectively. In general, 

samples sourced from precipitation falling at higher altitudes 

and (or) during the winter should be isotopically lighter (more 

negative values) and plot lower and farther to the left along the 

global and arid-zone meteoric water lines, whereas samples 

sourced from precipitation falling at lower altitudes and (or) 

during the summer should be isotopically heavier (less negative values) and plot higher and farther to the right (fig. 19). 

Waters with more negative values (isotopically lighter) are 

said to be more “depleted” because they contain fewer of the 

heavy stable isotopes. Stable-isotope compositions for sites 

2–10 are tightly grouped with values ranging from -122 to 

-125 permil and from -15.8 to -16.6 permil for δD and δ18O, 

respectively (table 7). These samples are comparable to the 

isotopically lightest (most depleted) samples from the greater 

eastern Great Basin sample set and represent groundwater 

sourced mostly from nearby high-altitude winter precipitation. 

Samples from two municipal wells located on the Goshute 

Reservation (Goshute Lower Community Well and Goshute 

#2 Well) and sampled by the USGS and DRI in 2005 as part of 

the BARCAS study (Hershey and others, 2007), have stableisotope values of -122 and -16.0 permil for δD and δ18O, 

respectively, indicating that they also are likely sourced from 

the same nearby high-altitude winter precipitation (table 7).

The stable-isotope composition for water from site 1 plots 

alone, with δD and δ18O values of -134 and -17.1, respectively 

(fig. 19 and table 7). In addition to altitude and seasonal controls, there is a latitudinal effect on the stable-isotope composition of precipitation as well. Smith and others (2002) showed 

the gradational depletion of heavy stable-isotope compositions in modern winter recharge from south to north across 

the interior Great Basin. Their findings showed that modern 

recharge with values similar to the sample from site 1 are 

likely to originate from less than about 30 mi to the north and 

west of the current study area, agreeing with the general direction of groundwater flow indicated by potentiometric contours (fig. 8). It is also possible that groundwater in this area 

is Pleistocene in age and recharged during a cooler climate, 

resulting in more depleted isotope values.

The light (depleted) stable-isotope compositions in 

groundwater samples do not distinguish between recharge 

that occurred within the mountains (in-place mountain block 

recharge) and recharge of high-altitude mountain precipitation 

that occurs as infiltration of runoff at lower valley altitudes 

(mountain-front recharge). It is possible that the heaviest 

(isotopically) of these samples (for example, site 10) might 

contain a fraction of recharge derived from low altitude, likely 

monsoonal, precipitation. The generally light (depleted) stable-isotope compositions in the 10 Deep Creek study samples, 

however, are a strong indicator that most groundwater in Deep 

Creek Valley and the surrounding areas is sourced from highaltitude winter precipitation.

Tritium and Helium

Groundwater 3H concentrations range from below detection (about 0.1 TU) to 10.1 TU and clearly identifiy “modern” 

water at 3 of the 10 sample sites (table 7). Terrigenic helium-4 

(

4

Heterr) concentrations range from 5.91×10-10 to 1.18×10-7

ccSTP/g and R/Ra values range from 0.24 to 1.14. The high 

end of the 4Heterr concentrations and low end of the R/Ra

values clearly indicate that some of the samples contain water 

that is far too old to be accurately dated using 3H. 

The three samples with 3H values greater than 1 TU (sites 

3, 4, and 8) are from springs located either within mountain 

recharge areas or along the mountain front of these recharge 

areas (fig. 20). Samples from sites 3 and 4, containing 10.1 

and 8.1 TU of 3H, respectively, represent groundwater from 

springs with short subsurface residence times in the Deep 

Creek Range. These samples have relatively low 4Heterr

concentrations and R/Ra values greater than 1, indicating that 

they are modern water. Site 8 is a spring discharging at the 

eastern foot of the Antelope Range near the western boundary of Tippett Valley. This sample has a 3

H concentration of 

1.6 TU, a 4Heterr concentration of 2.09×10-8 ccSTP/g, and an 

R/Ra value of 0.84. This combination of 3H greater than 1 TU 

with relatively elevated 4Heterr and an R/Ra significantly below 

1 identifies this spring as a mixture of modern and pre-modern 

groundwater. 
Groundwater Geochemistry 35

Figure 19. Stable-isotope values for groundwater in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada, in reference to the 

global meteoric water line and an arid-zone meteoric water line.

Deep Creek study groundwater sample

Eastern Great Basin groundwater sample (Data from 

Gardner and Heilweil, 2014, supplementary material)

-135

-130

-125

-120

-115

-110

-105

-100

-95

-90

-85

-18 -17 -16 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10

δD, in permil

δ18O, in permil

Global meteoric water line

(Craig, 1961a)

Arid-zone meteoric water line

(Welch and Preissler, 1986)

Site 1

Sites 2–10

Ratios of 3H to 3Hetrit were used to further refine modern 

groundwater ages (table 7). Samples from sites 3 and 4 have 

apparent 3H/3Hetrit ages of 7 and 8 years, respectively. The 

modern component of the mixed water from site 8 has an 

apparent 3H/3Hetrit age of 29 years. The remaining groundwater 

samples were collected from valley-altitude wells and springs, 

contain 0.4 TU or less of 3H, and clearly consist of pre-modern 

water. 

Carbon-14

Carbon-14 activity measured from DIC in groundwater 

samples from the 10 sites within and surrounding Deep Creek 

Valley ranged from 15 to 82 pMC (table 7 and fig. 21). Samples from two springs (sites 3 and 4) that had been determined 

to discharge only modern water, on the basis of 3H and 3Hetrit

values, had 14C activities of 82 and 72 pMC, respectively. 

These springs are in southern Deep Creek Valley and represent groundwater with short subsurface residence times in the 

Deep Creek Range. Water from a spring discharging at the 

eastern foot of the Antelope Range near the western boundary 

of Tippett Valley (site 8) had a 14C activity of 44 pMC that is 

interpreted to be a mixture of modern and pre-modern water 

based on 3

H and 3Hetrit concentrations. Samples from one flowing well in Deep Creek Valley (site 5) and a valley-altitude 

spring in northern Spring Valley (site 6), were determined to 

be pre-modern with respect to 3H, and had 14C activities of 

65 and 70 pMC, respectively, indicating that they may not be 

significantly older than pre-1950s water. The remaining five 

samples had 14C activities ranging from 15 to 29 pMC, indicating that groundwater throughout much of the study area may 

be thousands of years old or more.

Radiocarbon ages were calculated for the eight samples 

(sites 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) that were determined to be premodern or contain pre-modern water based on 3

H and 4He concentrations. Table 7 lists unadjusted and adjusted radiocarbon 

ages for these samples. Adjusted ages were determined using 

the formula-based adjustment models of Ingerson and Pearson 

(1964), Tamers (1975), and Fontes and Garnier (1979). The 

adjusted ages were converted to calendar years before present 

(BP) using the Fairbanks 0107 calibration curve (Fairbanks 

and others, 2005). In the event that a particular model resulted 

in an unreasonable (negative) age, the adjusted age was 

designated as either modern (recharged after the mid-1950s), 

pre-modern (recharged prior to the mid-1950s), or a mixture 

of modern and pre-modern water with respect to 14C based 

on evaluating other age-related tracers. Because the Tamers 

model does not rely on isotopic data to correct for reaction 

effects on 14C activity, the younger Ingerson and Pearson 

(I&P) and Fontes and Garnier (F&G) (table 7) adjusted ages 

are considered conservative and likely more representative of 

the true age. Sensitivity analysis using the adjustment models 

indicates that the uncertainty in adjusted radiocarbon ages is 

on the order of several thousand years, making pre-modern 

waters with adjusted 14C ages of less than 2,000 years difficult 

to categorize. Adjusted radiocarbon ages for each of these 

models are compared to unadjusted ages in table 7. The radiocarbon-age adjustment models require 14C and δ13C values of 
36 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas Table 7. Stable- and radio-isotope data used to estimate ages of groundwater sampled during May 2012 in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada. [Site ID: see figure 17 for locations and table A1-2 for additional information. Pre-modern, groundwater that recharged prior to the mid-1950s; Modern, groundwater that recharged after the mid-1950s; Modern mixture, sample that contains a mixture of pre-modern and modern groundwater. Abbreviations: USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; 18O, oxygen-18; D, deuterium (hydrogen-2); TU, tritium units; ccSTP/g, cubic centimeters per gram of water at standard temperature and pressure; BP, before present; pMC, percent modern carbon; 13C, carbon-13; I&P, Ingerson and Pearson (1964) model; F&G, Fontes and Garnier (1979) model; —, no data] Site ID USGS site number δ18O1, permil

δD1, 

permil

Tritium (3H) and 

precision, TU R/Ra

2

Measured 

Helium-4 

(

4He), ccSTP/g

3Terrigenic 

Helium-4 

(

4Heterr), ccSTP/g

3Tritiogenic 

Helium-3 

(

3Hetrit), TU

Apparent 

3H/3Hetrit age, 

years BP

Carbon-14 

(14C), pMC

1

δ13C, 

permil

Unadjusted 14C 

age, thousands of 

years BP

14C age I&P, 

thousands of years 

BP

14C age Tamers, 

thousands of years 

BP

14C age F&G, 

thousands of years 

BP

1 400543114145101 -17.1 -134 0.0 +/- 0.1 0.24 1.56×10-7 1.18×10-7 — Pre-modern 17 -7.7 14 7 10 62 400216113591701 -16.6 -124 0.4 +/- 0.1 0.34 1.46×10-7 1.01×10-7 — Pre-modern 29 -9.4 10 3 6 33 394554114003501 -16.5 -124 10.1 +/- 0.8 1.14 4.57×10-8 1.27×10-9 4.3 7.0 82 -10 Modern Modern Modern Modern4 395112114014501 -16.2 -124 8.1 +/- 0.6 1.14 3.57×10-8 3.20×10-9 4.6 8.0 72 -9.7 Modern Modern Modern Modern5 400024113582701 -16.2 -122 0.0 +/- 0.1 0.91 4.93×10-8 8.99×10-9 2.5 Pre-modern 65 -12 3 Pre-modern Pre-modern Pre-modern6 394149114302201 -16.2 -123 0.1 +/- 0.1 0.88 5.15×10-8 1.07×10-8 2.4 Pre-modern 70 -9.9 3 Pre-modern Pre-modern Pre-modern7 395815114043401 -16.2 -125 0.1+/- 0.1 0.58 8.79×10-8 4.10×10-8 1.7 Pre-modern 24 -6.6 11 2 8 18 395237114222501 -16.1 -122 1.6 +/- 0.1 0.84 5.83×10-8 2.09×10-8 6.3 29.0 44 -8.4 7 Modern mixture 3 Modern mixture9 400831113591001 -16.0 -123 0.0 +/- 0.1 0.80 4.93×10-8 6.65×10-9 — Pre-modern 15 -7.6 15 8 13 8

10 394422114205201 -15.8 -123 0.0 +/- 0.1 1.00 4.22×10-8 5.91×10-10

— Pre-modern 20 -6.1 13 3 9 3

411 395935113584501 -16.0 -122

—

—

—

—

—

— 63 -9.1

—

—

—

—

412

— -16.0 -122

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1Delta values (δ) are defined in equation 1.2R is the 3He/4He ratio of the sample, and Ra is the 3He/4He ratio of air (1.384×10-6). 3Interpreted value derived using the Closed-Equilibrium dissolved-gas model (Aeschbach-Hertig and others, 2000; Kipfer and others, 2002). 4

Data for Site IDs 11 (Goshute Lower Community Well) and 12 (Goshute #2 Well) from Hershey and others, 2007, http://www.dri.edu/images/stories/research/projects/BARCAS/barcas.pdf.

soil zone CO2 and carbonate minerals that are available 

to react with or add to the DIC of the groundwater. In all 

cases, 14C activity was assumed to be 100 pMC and soil 

zone CO2 was assumed to have a δ13C value of -22 permil, 

the average value for C3 plant-dominated terranes in Utah 

(Hart and others, 2010). Carbonate minerals were assumed 

to have 0 pMC because of their age (middle Cambrian 

to Permian) and a δ13C value of 0 permil, approximately 

the worldwide average for marine limestones (Keith and 

Weber, 1964).

Unadjusted radiocarbon ages range from 3,000 to 

15,000 years for water determined to be pre-modern based 

on tritium (table 7). The largest age adjustments (difference between unadjusted and adjusted radiocarbon ages 

using the various adjustment models) ranged from 3,000 

to 10,000 years, yielding minimum adjusted radiocarbon 

age estimates of less than 1,000 to 8,000 years. None of the 

I&P and F&G adjusted ages are older than 8,000 years, and 

only one of the Tamers adjusted ages is older than 10,000 

years, indicating that all of the samples are likely Holocene in age, and that these waters recharged during similar 

climatic conditions (temperature and precipitation) to those 

that exist today. Sites 5 and 6 are a flowing well in Deep 

Creek Valley and a spring in northern Spring Valley that 

clearly discharge pre-modern groundwater as determined 

by their lack of 3

H, elevated 4Heterr, and an R/Ra of less than 

1. Radiocarbon age-adjustment models, however, resulted 

in negative ages indicating that these pre-modern waters 

are late Holocene in age (between about 50 and 2,000 years 

old), a range difficult to date with either 3H or 14C methods. 

Carbon-14 ages support the 3H and He isotope data that 

identifies site 8 as a spring containing a mixture of modern 

and pre-modern groundwater.

Noble-Gas Recharge Temperatures

Dissolved noble-gas concentrations and NGTs are 

presented for the 10 sample sites in table 8. The range of 

possible NGT values calculated for each of the 10 sites is 

shown on figure 22, in which the left and right points for 

each sample represent NGTmin and NGTmax, respectively. 

Because NGTs represent estimates of recharge temperature 

(the water table temperature at the location of recharge), 

they are compared to valley water-table temperatures to 

identify areas where groundwater consists of mountain 

rather than valley recharge. Domenico and Schwartz 

(1998) noted that shallow water-table temperatures (and 

thus, recharge temperatures, Tr) are generally close to, but 

slightly warmer (about 1 to 2 °C) than, the mean annual 

air temperature at the land surface for typical water-table 

depths of less than 65 ft. Because air temperatures and thus, 

water-table temperatures, decrease with increasing altitude, 

modern (or Holocene) mountain recharge should have Tr

values that are cooler than the temperature of the water 

table in adjacent valleys. Groundwater temperatures ranging from 11.2 to 15.4 °C from 30 valley wells with water 
Groundwater Geochemistry 37

Figure 20. Tritium concentrations in groundwater in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada.

ELKO

COUNTY

WHITE PINE

COUNTY

TOOELE

COUNTY

JUAB

COUNTY

MILLARD

COUNTY

UTAH

NEVADA

Snake

Valley

(HA 254)

Great Salt Lake Desert

West Part

(HA 261A)

Goshute

Indian

Reservation

95

Partoun

Goshute

Gold Hill

Callao

Base from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 11

North American Datum 1983

Spring

Valley

(HA 184)

Tippett

Valley

(HA 185)

Antelope

Valley

South Part

(HA 186A) Deep

Creek

Valley

(HA 253)

Ibapah

0 5 10 Miles

0 5 10 Kilometers

114°30’ 114°00’

40°00’

39°30’

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 <0.1

0.4

10.1

8.1

<0.1

0.1

0.1

1.6

<0.1

<0.1

1

3

10.1

Hydrographic area boundary

Sample from well—Number is site 

identifier

Sample from spring—Number is site 

identifier

Tritium concentration, in tritium units (TU)

EXPLANATION
38 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

Figure 21. Carbon-14 activities in groundwater in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada.

ELKO

COUNTY

WHITE PINE

COUNTY

TOOELE

COUNTY

JUAB

COUNTY

MILLARD

COUNTY

UTAH

NEVADA

Snake

Valley

(HA 254)

Great Salt Lake Desert

West Part

(HA 261A)

Goshute

Indian

Reservation

95

Partoun

Goshute

Gold Hill

Callao

Base from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 11

North American Datum 1983

Spring

Valley

(HA 184)

Tippett

Valley

(HA 185)

Antelope

Valley

South Part

(HA 186A) Deep

Creek

Valley

(HA 253)

Ibapah

0 5 10 Miles

0 5 10 Kilometers

114°30’ 114°00’

40°00’

39°30’

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 17

29

82

72

65

70

24

44

15

20

1

3

20

Hydrographic area boundary

Sample from well—Number is site 

identifier

Sample from spring—Number is site 

identifier

Carbon-14 activity, in percent modern 

carbon (pMC)

EXPLANATION
Groundwater Geochemistry 39

depths less than 230 ft, and temperatures ranging from 4.3 

to 14.6 °C of 65 springs at all altitudes in nearby parts of the 

eastern Great Basin, verify that water-table temperatures on 

average are about 3 °C warmer than mean annual air temperatures in this region (fig. 23). 

Values of NGTmin and NGTmax for the study area range from 

1.4 to 12.9 °C and from 4.0 to 17.8 °C, respectively (fig. 22 

and table 8). Average dissolved-gas recharge temperatures 

(NGTavg) are cooler than valley recharge temperatures for 

six of the samples (sites 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9) and within the 

range of valley recharge temperatures for four of the samples 

(sites 1, 5, 7, and 10) (fig. 22). NGTavg, the mid-point for each 

sample displayed on fig. 22, is calculated by assuming that the 

recharge altitude (Hr) is equal to the median altitude within the 

watershed. The NGTavg values are less than measured watertable temperatures for all but two samples (sites 6 and 7), 

which was expected because recharge should have occurred 

at a higher altitude than sample collection. The NGTavg values 

from sites 2, 3, and 4 are all less than 4.5 °C, indicating that 

these waters all originated as mountain recharge. This is 

expected for sites 3 and 4, springs located within or at the 

mountain front in the southern Deep Creek Range. Site 2 is 

a 216-ft deep alluvial well along the drainage axis of Deep 

Creek Valley near areas of groundwater discharge by springs 

and ET. The low NGTavg from site 2 is evidence that direct 

infiltration to mountain bedrock in parts of the Deep Creek 

Range moves into the adjacent basin-fill aquifer through the 

subsurface. Samples from sites 6, 8, and 9 have somewhat 

warmer NGTavg. Groundwater from these sites might represent 

integrated mixtures of groundwater flow paths with a range 

of recharge temperatures or simply reflect the fact that they 

are located downgradient of lower-altitude mountain recharge 

areas. Samples from sites 1, 7, and 10 have NGTavg values of 

14.6, 15.4, and 13.5 °C, respectively, which clearly indicate 

recharge at valley altitudes. Groundwater from these sites 

likely recharged as infiltration of runoff through coarse streambed or alluvial fan material upgradient of each of the sample 

sites. Site 5, a flowing well along the drainage axis of Deep 

Creek Valley on a part of the Goshute Indian Reservation, has 

an NGTavg of only 11.5 °C, which is very close to the transition 

between mountain and valley recharge (fig. 22). Discharge 

from this flowing well may represent mountain front recharge 

originating at the foot of the Deep Creek Range or a mixture 

of mountain front recharge and direct mountain block recharge 

originating higher in the Deep Creek Range.

Dissolved-gas data and associated NGTs support a conceptual model where most groundwater in the alluvial aquifer of 

eastern Deep Creek Valley, and along Deep Creek, consists of 

modern or Holocene recharge that originated as infiltration of 

precipitation in the Deep Creek Range or of runoff along the 

mountain front. Furthermore, these data also agree well with 

previous studies (Hood and Waddell, 1969) showing recharge 

in the mountains as the largest source of water to the basin-fill 

aquifers adjacent to the Deep Creek Range.

Table 8. Dissolved-gas concentrations and related noble-gas temperature data for groundwater sampled in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada.[Site ID: see figure 17 for locations and table A1-2 for additional information. Dissolved-gas sample collection method: CT, copper tube; DS, diffusion sampler. Abbreviations: USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mmHg, millimeters of mercury; ccSTP/g, cubic centimeters at standard temperature and pressure per gram of water; Hrs, standard recharge altitude, which is the altitude at which the sample was collected; NGTrs, standard noble-gas temperature calculated using Hrs; 

A, dimensionless ratio of the total volume of trapped (moist) air at the pressure and temperature of the free atmosphere to the volume of water; F, fractionation factor for partial dissolution of trapped air bubbles; Σχ2, sum of error-weighted 

misfit for each of the noble gases; Hrmin, minimum recharge altitude; NGTmax, maximum noble-gas recharge temperature; Hravg, average recharge altitude; NGTavg, average noble-gas recharge temperature; Hrmax, maximum recharge altitude; 

NGTmin, minimum noble-gas recharge temperature; °C, degrees Celsius]

Site 

ID USGS site number Sample method

Dissolvedgas 

pressure, 

mmHg

Dissolved noble-gas concentrations Modeled recharge parameters

Helium-4 

(

4He), 

ccSTP/g

Neon-20 

(20Ne), 

ccSTP/g

Argon-40 

(40Ar), 

ccSTP/g

Krypton-84 

(84Kr), 

ccSTP/g

Xenon-129 

(129Xe), 

ccSTP/g

Hrs, 

feet

NGTrs, 

°C A F Σχ2 Hrmin, feet NGTmax, 

°C

Hravg, 

feet

NGTavg, 

°C

Hrmax, 

feet

NGTmin, 

°C

1 400543114145101 CT 657 1.56×10-7 3.32×10-8 2.75×10-4 1.43×10-7 2.28×10-9 5,988 16.8 0.017 0.93 1.20 5,988 16.8 8,243 14.6 10,500 12.32 400216113591701 CT 623 1.46×10-7 4.40×10-8 3.49×10-4 1.75×10-7 3.32×10-9 5,280 7.4 0.001 0.00 2.28 5,280 7.4 7,889 4.4 10,500 2.03 394554114003501 DS 625 4.57×10-8 1.72×10-7 3.52×10-4 4.74×10-8 3.32×10-9 7,560 4.0 0.003 0.33 0.03 7,560 4.0 9,029 2.7 10,500 1.44 395112114014501 DS 613 3.57×10-8 1.33×10-7 3.14×10-4 4.39×10-8 3.10×10-9 6,335 6.0 0.020 1.19 0.01 6,335 6.0 8,417 4.2 10,500 2.35 400024113582701 DS 656 4.93×10-8 1.59×10-7 3.14×10-4 3.39×10-8 2.59×10-9 5,380 12.4 0.100 0.94 0.04 5,380 12.4 6,790 11.5 8,200 9.56 394149114302201 DS 613 5.15×10-8 1.73×10-7 3.55×10-4 4.50×10-8 2.88×10-9 5,980 11.0 0.100 0.82 0.49 5,980 11.0 7,091 10.3 8,200 9.67 395815114043401 DS 662 8.79×10-8 1.76×10-7 2.98×10-4 3.72×10-8 2.27×10-9 5,540 17.8 0.016 0.67 0.17 5,540 17.8 8,020 15.4 10,500 12.98 395237114222501 DS 653 5.83×10-8 1.45×10-7 2.91×10-4 4.06×10-8 2.54×10-9 6,240 11.7 0.000 0.00 1.35 6,240 11.7 8,369 10.5 8,150 9.59 400831113591001 CT 591 4.93×10-8 6.05×10-8 3.18×10-4 1.67×10-7 4.17×10-9 5,134 11.6 0.001 0.00 1.30 5,134 11.6 7,817 8.9 9,800 6.2

10 394422114205201 CT 624 4.22×10-8 3.55×10-8 3.08×10-4 1.64×10-7 2.61×10-9 5,775 15.9 0.017 0.82 3.80 5,775 15.9 8,136 13.5 10,500 11.2
40 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

Figure 22. Noble-gas recharge temperatures for groundwater in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada, compared 

to regional valley water-table temperatures.

1

2

3

4 5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

NGTmin NGTavg NGTmax

Temperature, in degrees Celsius

Average and range of 

measured groundwater 

temperatures that 

represent valley 

water-table 

temperatures

NGTmin—minimum noble-gas recharge temperature

NGTavg—average noble-gas recharge temperature

NGTmax—maximum noble-gas recharge temperature

Number represents site identifier

Figure 23. Air and water-table temperatures versus altitude for selected wells and springs in the eastern Great Basin, Utah and 

Nevada.

Water-table temperature from selected wells

Spring discharge temperature

Average air temperature

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000

Air temperature trendline

-1.6 °C/1,000 feet

Water-table trendline

-1.7 °C/1,000 feet

Data from Gardner and Heilweil (2014, supplementary material)

Temperature, in degrees Celsius (°C)

Altitude, in feet above sea level
Discussion 41

Discussion

The principal basin-fill aquifer in Deep Creek Valley is 

similar to basin-fill aquifers throughout the eastern Great 

Basin in many ways. Precipitation rates are generally too low 

to provide groundwater recharge at low altitudes. Instead, 

recharge originates as infiltration of precipitation that falls on 

mountains surrounding the valley. Where the mountains are 

composed of permeable bedrock, recharge enters the aquifer 

system as direct infiltration of precipitation. In mountain areas 

with less permeable bedrock, precipitation and snowmelt form 

runoff that gathers in stream channels and infiltrates permeable basin-fill deposits near the mountain front. Both forms 

of infiltration become groundwater recharge that then moves 

downgradient toward the valley axis where continuous discharge occurs by evapotranspiration and springs. The principal 

basin-fill aquifer in Deep Creek Valley is the source of water 

to all valley springs, wells, and wetlands. The sustainability 

(or resilience) of these resources is a primary concern to the 

Goshute Tribe. Water-level altitudes and geochemical and 

hydrogeologic data were evaluated during this study to provide a more detailed understanding of the sources of recharge, 

groundwater flow paths and travel times, and areas of potential 

hydraulic connection within Deep Creek Valley and between 

neighboring basins.

Principal Aquifer Characteristics

Water-level altitude (or potentiometric) contours indicate 

that groundwater moves into the principal basin-fill aquifer 

in Deep Creek Valley from the east and south, and into the 

northern part of Deep Creek Valley, from the southwest and 

west (figs. 8 and 18). Groundwater moving from the east and 

south originates as mountain-block or mountain-front recharge 

from the Deep Creek Range. Samples collected during this 

study (sites 2 and 5) and by Hood and Waddell (1969) show 

that portions of the aquifer to the south and east of Deep 

Creek contain calcium-bicarbonate type groundwater with 

low dissolved solids, a chemical signature obtained from the 

mineral dissolution of the carbonate rocks that are abundant 

in the Deep Creek Range and beneath Deep Creek Valley as 

the UCAU and LCAU. Also, NGTs indicate that groundwater 

sampled along the valley axis recharged at both mountain and 

valley altitudes, providing evidence for both mountain-block 

and mountain-front recharge. 

Potentiometric contours imply groundwater flow from 

western Spring Creek Flat (near site 7), and from the directions of Antelope Valley (near site 1) and Tippett Valley (near 

sites 8 and 10) towards the valley axis of Deep Creek Valley. 

It is not likely that significant recharge occurs from precipitation falling directly on the low hills to the west of Deep Creek 

because all of the stable isotope samples are depleted in heavy 

isotopes, indicating that all groundwater in the study area 

originates as high-altitude precipitation. Although information gathered during this study is insufficient to conclude 

whether or not groundwater does travel along these extended 

and possibly interbasin flow paths, it does suggest that a small 

fraction of the lower altitude, northern Deep Creek Valley 

discharge may be sourced from these areas. 

Groundwater originating from either Spring Creek Flat or 

from southwest and west of Deep Creek Valley is likely to 

contact volcanic rocks or sediments derived from volcanic 

rocks of the VU that are prevalent across the area of low hills 

and badlands within the northwestern quarter of the Deep 

Creek Valley HA. Dissolution of minerals sourced from these 

rocks can explain the increase in dissolved sulfate and chloride 

in groundwater sampled at sites 7 and 9 and in surface water 

sampled by Hood and Waddell (1969) (fig. 18), indicating that 

some Deep Creek Valley groundwater is sourced from these 

areas. The NGTs for Deep Creek discharge-area groundwater 

(sites 2, 5, and 9), however, are significantly cooler than most 

water sampled from upgradient areas to the southwest and 

west (sites 1, 7, and 10) (table 8), indicating that Deep Creek 

discharge-area groundwater can contain no more than a small 

fraction of groundwater sourced from these distant areas. Furthermore, flow-weighted average groundwater age estimates at 

several flowing wells (sites 5, 7, and 9) in Deep Creek Valley 

indicate that travel times of groundwater discharging from the 

Deep Creek principal basin-fill aquifer are between 1,000 and 

8,000 years. If substantial amounts of the Deep Creek basinfill groundwater were sourced from the basins to the west and 

southwest, where recharge rates are lower and flow paths are 

longer, travel times would likely be longer, similar to that 

in basins to the south and east of Deep Creek Valley, where 

groundwater is Pleistocene (greater than 10,000 years) in age. 

Potential Interbasin Connection

Potentiometric contours and geologic data indicate a clear 

hydraulic separation between Deep Creek Valley and Snake 

Valley to the east and south; as a result, future withdrawals in Snake Valley are not likely to affect water resources 

in Deep Creek Valley. Rates of recharge and runoff over the 

Deep Creek Range are high relative to the valleys on either 

side (figs. 10 and 12) of the range, causing the groundwater 

level beneath or immediately adjacent to the range to remain 

higher than the groundwater level beneath the valleys on both 

sides; this results in a groundwater divide between Snake 

and Deep Creek Valleys. Additionally, a thick sequence of 

low-permeability bedrock (NCCU along the east and USCU 

in the south) exists at or below the surface along most of the 

boundary between Deep Creek Valley and Snake Valley, acting 

as a hydraulic barrier between the basins (figs. 6 and 7, cross 

sections B-B′, E-E′, F-F′, and G-G′). 

Hydraulic connectivity between Spring Valley, Tippett 

Valley, and Deep Creek Valley is a pre-requisite for pumping in Spring Valley to have an effect on groundwater conditions in Deep Creek Valley more than 20 mi to the northeast. 

The hydrogeologic framework of the GBCAAS as described 

by Sweetkind and others (2011a) and Cederberg and others (2011), was used to construct cross sections through the 

current study area and to evaluate the potential for hydraulic 
42 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

connectivity between these basins. Hydraulic connection is 

possible wherever permeable units are adjacent to one another 

and not interrupted by relatively impermeable units or geologic structures. The UBFAU, LBFAU, UCAU, and LCAU are 

generally permeable enough to transmit groundwater whereas 

the USCU and NCCU generally act as confining units, hydraulically separating portions of local and regional aquifers where 

they are present. The VU is reported to have a highly variable 

permeability (Sweetkind and others, 2011a), functioning as an 

aquifer in parts of the Great Basin and as a confining unit in 

others. Only discontinuous Quaternary faults occur between 

Spring Valley and Deep Creek Valley. 

Cross sections A-A′ and B-B′ (fig. 7) show the regional 

HGUs at depth along the line for which a hydraulic connection 

between Spring Valley, Tippett Valley, and Deep Creek Valley 

is assessed. In section A-A′, saturated conditions in basin-fill 

aquifers exist at an altitude of over 5,750 ft in northern Spring 

Valley, slope down to around 5,450 ft in northeastern Tippett Valley, and are as low as about 5,150 ft in northern Deep 

Creek Valley. Saturated basin-fill deposits between Spring and 

Tippett Valleys are separated by only a short section of VU 

overlying USCU between the basins (fig. 7, point 1). Saturated 

basin-fill deposits between Tippett and Deep Creek Valleys 

along this section are separated by USCU at depths up to 

2,000 ft below the potentiometric surface with a small break 

in the USCU at this depth (fig. 7, point 2) providing a potential hydraulic connection through the VU. In both cases, the 

hydraulic connection depends on the uncertain permeability of 

the VU. Furthermore, a connection between Tippett and Deep 

Creek Valleys depends on the accuracy of the USCU thickness 

at depth. 

In cross section B-B′, saturated conditions in basin-fill aquifers exist at an altitude of about 5,600 ft in northern Spring 

Valley, slope down to about 5,525 ft in eastern Tippett Valley, 

and are as low as about 5,300 ft in central Deep Creek Valley. Saturated basin-fill deposits between Spring and Tippett 

Valleys are separated by only the relatively permeable LCAU 

(fig. 7, point 3). Saturated basin-fill deposits between Tippett 

and Deep Creek Valleys along this section are separated by 

VU at depths of up to about 2,000 ft below the potentiometric 

surface. Below 2,000 ft, the saturated basin-fill deposits in 

Tippett and Deep Creek Valleys are separated by a thick section of LCAU (fig. 7, point 4). Water-level records from monitoring wells with multiple depth completions and monitoring 

wells screened at various depths located near one another in 

Snake Valley indicate that basin-fill and underlying carbonate aquifers are in good hydraulic connection (Gardner and 

others, 2011; Utah Department of Natural Resources, 2014). If 

the same is true in the current study area, the relation between 

aquifer units in section B-B′ indicates that a hydraulic connection between northern Spring and Deep Creek Valleys through 

Tippett Valley is likely.

Potentiometric contours and groundwater ages also indicate 

the potential for a long flow path between northern Spring 

and Deep Creek Valleys through Tippett Valley (fig. 24). 

Potentiometric contours indicate a groundwater divide near 

the central axis of northern Spring Valley and a continuous 

gradient in a northeastward direction from this point to the 

northernmost part of Deep Creek Valley. Furthermore, north 

of the Spring Valley-Tippett Valley divide a 20-mi long area 

of very low hydraulic gradient (3x10-4 ft/ft, from southeast to 

northwest along the central axis of Tippett Valley) exists that 

may indicate high permeability associated with a thick section 

of basin-fill deposits along the central axis of the valley (fig. 7, 

A-A′ and E-E′).

Geochemical data are generally inconclusive with regard to 

delineating interbasin flow paths in the study area. The number 

of sites sampled is limited, especially given the large multiplebasin area, and samples collected from the Deep Creek Valley 

discharge area must be interpreted as mixtures of groundwater 

from varying recharge sources with unknown mixing ratios. 

Groundwater ages interpreted from multiple age-related geochemical tracers, however, do generally increase in a downgradient direction from pre-modern to late Holocene (sites 

6, 8, and 10) to early Holocene (site 9) (fig. 24). Despite the 

uncertainty because of limited data collection points, especially across much of Tippett and western Deep Creek Valleys, 

a hydraulic connection between northern Spring Valley and 

Deep Creek Valley, through Tippett Valley, appears likely, and 

potential regional effects resulting from future groundwater 

withdrawals in northern Spring Valley warrant ongoing monitoring of groundwater levels in appropriate areas.

Deep Creek Valley aquifer conditions have remained 

unaffected for the most part over approximately the past 

half-century under current (2014) and past levels of groundwater withdrawal. Annual water levels are currently being 

monitored at three wells in Deep Creek Valley: USGS sites 

400219113591901, 400201113583801, and 395608113583301 

(fig. 25 and table A1-1). Continued annual water-level 

monitoring of these wells in eastern Deep Creek Valley 

should be sufficient to indicate if water levels decline as a 

result of increased groundwater withdrawals within the HA 

in the future. Water-level records for these wells and all 

wells and springs in the Utah active water-level network can 

be accessed at http://groundwaterwatch.usgs.gov/statemap.

asp?sc=49&sa=UT. 

Effects on Deep Creek Valley groundwater resources resulting from future groundwater withdrawals in Spring Valley 

(by SNWA or other large-scale future development) will take 

substantially longer to occur than effects from nearby groundwater withdrawals. It is not possible with current information 

and existing (steady-state) numerical models to estimate the 

time required after the onset of withdrawals for water-level 

declines to be observed in Deep Creek Valley resulting from 

a lowering of the water table in Spring Valley. By the time an 

effect is observed over this distance (greater than 30 mi), the 

volume of water removed from the groundwater system would 

be so large that an immediate reduction in withdrawals would 

not prevent further decline in water levels or spring discharge. 

For this reason, it is recommended that a water-level monitoring network be established between Deep Creek Valley and 

northern Spring Valley to provide early indications of potential 

effects.
Discussion 43

Figure 24. Interpreted age categories for groundwater sampled in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada.

ELKO

COUNTY

WHITE PINE

COUNTY

TOOELE

COUNTY

JUAB

COUNTY

MILLARD

COUNTY

UTAH

NEVADA

Snake

Valley

(HA 254)

Great Salt Lake Desert

West Part

(HA 261A)

95

Partoun

Goshute

Gold Hill

Callao

Base from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 11 

North American Datum 1983

Goshute

Indian

Reservation

Spring

Valley

(HA 184)

Tippett

Valley

(HA 185)

Antelope

Valley

South Part

(HA 186A) Deep

Creek

Valley

(HA 253)

Ibapah

0 5 10 Miles

0 5 10 Kilometers

114°30’ 114°00’

40°00’

39°30’

6000

5900

5800

5700

5600

5600

5600

5550

5550

5500

5400

5300

5200

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

EXPLANATION

1

Water-level altitude contour—Shows 

altitude at which water level would have 

stood in tightly cased wells. Contour interval 

is 50 feet. Dashed where less certain

Hydrographic area boundary and relative 

likelihood of hydraulic connection across 

boundary, based on geology (Sweetkind 

and others, 2011b)

High

Low

Uncertain

General direction of groundwater 

movement—Dashed where less certain

Sample location—Number is site identifier

Interpreted age categories

 Modern (less than 60 years)

 Late Holocene (60–3,000 years)

 Middle Holocene (3,001–7,000 years)

 Early Holocene (7,001–10,000 years)

 Modern/Late Holocene mixture
44 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

Figure 25. Location of current and potential monitoring wells in Tippet and Deep Creek Valleys, Utah and Nevada.

ELKO

COUNTY

WHITE PINE

COUNTY

TOOELE

COUNTY

JUAB

COUNTY

MILLARD

COUNTY

UTAH

NEVADA

Snake

Valley

(HA 254)

Great Salt Lake Desert

West Part

(HA 261A)

Goshute

Indian

Reservation

95

Partoun

Goshute

Gold Hill

Callao

Base from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 11

North American Datum 1983

Spring

Valley

(HA 184)

Tippett

Valley

(HA 185)

Antelope

Valley

South Part

(HA 186A) Deep

Creek

Valley

(HA 253)

Ibapah

0 5 10 Miles

0 5 10 Kilometers

114°30’ 114°00’

40°00’

39°30’

394422114205201

395302114084401

395606114094401

395750114112201

400201113583801

395608113583301

400219113591901

395608114123601

395245114125901

EXPLANATION

335608113584301

Hydrographic area boundary

U.S. Geological Survey site number

Well with associated hydrograph

Potential monitoring well
Summary 45

During this study, six existing wells were identified 

that could serve as an effective water-level monitoring 

network (fig. 25) to provide early indications of future 

Spring Valley groundwater withdrawals having farreaching effects. One of these wells (USGS site number 

394422114205201) is an active, 350-ft deep Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) stock well in southern Tippett Valley 

less than 4 mi north of Spring Valley, with water levels in 

the basin-fill aquifer more than 290 ft below land surface. 

The other five wells (USGS site numbers 395608114123601, 

395245114125901, 395750114112201, 395606114094401, 

and 395302114084401), known locally as the Goshute 

Windmill wells, are abandoned stock wells with undetermined 

depths and water levels in basin-fill deposits between 210 and 

400 ft below land surface. These wells are located along the 

low drainage divide between Tippett Valley and Deep Creek 

Valley between about 16 and 33 mi northeast of Spring Valley. 

If a minimum of three of the Goshute Windmill wells were 

reconditioned and paired with the BLM stock well in southern Tippett Valley, they could provide an optimal network of 

wells to monitor for long-term groundwater withdrawal related 

water-level declines. Additionally, groundwater sampled from 

the Goshute Windmill wells for the same suite of environmental tracers collected at the 10 other sites during this study 

would fill an important spatial data gap that currently exists 

between sites sampled during May 2012. 

Summary 

The water resources of Deep Creek Valley in eastern 

Nevada and western Utah, were assessed during 2012–13 with 

an emphasis on better understanding the groundwater flow 

system and groundwater budget. Water resources are limited 

in Deep Creek Valley, with few perennial streams entering the 

valley from the mountains and one stream, Deep Creek, flowing through and exiting the valley. The limited surface-water 

resources generally are used for agriculture, leaving groundwater to supplement irrigation and as the predominant water 

source for most other uses. The principal source of groundwater in Deep Creek Valley is from the unconsolidated basin-fill 

deposits, in which conditions are generally unconfined near 

the mountain front and confined in the lower-altitude parts of 

the valley. Productive aquifers are also present in bedrock. 

The consolidated-rock and basin-fill aquifers are hydraulically 

connected in many areas, with much of the recharge occurring 

in the consolidated-rock mountain blocks and most of the discharge occurring within the lower-altitude basin-fill deposits. 

Additionally, there is a possible interbasin hydraulic connection from Spring Valley through Tippett Valley to Deep Creek 

Valley. Although the majority of wells in the study area are 

completed within the basin-fill deposits, bedrock wells within 

the study area are increasingly being developed.

Groundwater recharge in the study area occurs mostly from 

the infiltration of precipitation at high altitudes. Much of this 

recharge occurs as snowmelt. Additional, but limited recharge 

occurs from the infiltration of runoff from precipitation 

near the mountain front, infiltration along stream channels, 

and possible subsurface inflow from adjacent hydrographic 

areas. Average annual recharge to the Deep Creek Valley 

hydrographic area was estimated to be between 19,000 and 

29,000 acre-ft. Groundwater moves from areas of recharge to 

springs and streams in the mountains, and to evapotranspiration areas, springs, streams, and wells in the basins. Discharge 

may also occur as subsurface groundwater outflow to adjacent hydrographic areas. Average annual discharge from the 

Deep Creek Valley hydrographic area was estimated to be 

between 21,000 and 22,000 acre-ft, with the largest portion 

of discharge occurring as evapotranspiration. The groundwater budget shows an imbalance because of uncertainty in the 

individual budget estimates, the largest of which is subsurface 

inflow from Tippett Valley.

Groundwater samples were collected from 10 sites and 

analyzed for major ions, nutrients, and selected trace metals 

to characterize general geochemistry and patterns of water 

quality. Dissolved-solids concentrations ranged from 126 to 

475 mg/L. With the exception of the slightly elevated arsenic 

in a stock well located west of northern Deep Creek Valley in 

Antelope Valley, none of the sampled wells or springs contained concentrations of dissolved solutes that exceeded Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant levels or 

secondary standards. 

The groundwater samples were also analyzed for a suite 

of environmental tracers that included the stable isotopes of 

oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon, dissolved noble gases, and the 

radioactive isotopes of carbon (14C) and hydrogen (tritium, 3

H) 

to investigate sources of recharge, groundwater flow paths, 

ages, and travel times. Stable-isotope ratios of oxygen and 

deuterium and noble-gas recharge temperature data indicate 

that most groundwater in the basin-fill aquifer of eastern Deep 

Creek Valley, and along Deep Creek, consists of recharge 

that originated as infiltration of precipitation within the Deep 

Creek Range or of runoff along the mountain front. Concentrations of 3

H between 1.6 and 10 TU indicate the presence of 

modern (less than 60 years old) groundwater in samples from 

3 of the 10 sample sites. Apparent 3H/3He ages, calculated for 

these three sites, ranged from 7 to 29 years. Adjusted minimum radiocarbon ages of pre-modern water samples ranged 

from 1,000 to 8,000 years with the ages of at least four of the 

samples being more than 3,000 years. 

Potentiometric contours indicate groundwater flow from 

western Spring Creek Flat, and from the directions of Antelope and Tippett Valleys into Deep Creek Valley. Noble-gas 

recharge temperatures for groundwater discharging in Deep 

Creek Valley, however, are substantially cooler than most 

water sampled from upgradient areas to the southwest and 

west, indicating that recharge to the basin-fill aquifer is 

predominantly from the Deep Creek Range. Furthermore, 

flow-weighted average groundwater age estimates at several flowing wells in Deep Creek Valley indicate subsurface 

travel times between 1,000 and 8,000 years. If significant 
46 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

fractions of Deep Creek basin-fill groundwater were sourced 

from the basins to the west and southwest, where recharge 

rates are lower and flow paths are longer, travel times would 

likely be longer. Although information gathered during this 

study is insufficient to conclude whether or not groundwater 

does travel along these extended and possibly interbasin flow 

paths, dissolved sulfate and chloride data indicate that a small 

fraction of the lower-altitude, northern Deep Creek Valley 

discharge may be sourced from these areas.

Water-level altitude (potentiometric) contours and groundwater ages indicate the potential for a long flow path between 

northern Spring and Deep Creek Valleys through Tippett 

Valley. Potentiometric contours indicate a groundwater divide 

near the central axis of northern Spring Valley and a continuous gradient in a northeastward direction from this point to 

northernmost Deep Creek Valley. Groundwater ages generally 

increase in a downgradient direction from pre-modern to late 

Holocene to early Holocene. A hydraulic connection between 

northern Spring Valley, Tippett Valley, and Deep Creek Valley 

appears likely, and potential regional effects resulting from 

future groundwater withdrawals in northern Spring Valley 

warrant ongoing monitoring of groundwater levels in appropriate areas.

References Cited

Acheampong, S.Y., Farnham, I.M., Watrus, J.M., 2009, Geochemical characterization of ground water and surface water 

of Snake Valley and the surrounding areas in Utah, in Tripp, 

B.T., Krahulec, K., Jordan, J.L., eds., Geology and geologic 

resources and issues of western Utah: Utah Geological 

Association Publication 38, p. 325–344.

Aeschbach-Hertig, Werner, Peeters, Frank, Beyerle, U., and 

Kipfer, Rolf, 1999, Interpretation of dissolved atmospheric 

noble gases in natural waters: Water Resources Research, 

v. 35, p. 2779–2792.

Aeschbach-Hertig, Werner, Peeters, Frank, Beyerle, U., and 

Kipfer, Rolf, 2000, Paleotemperature reconstruction from 

noble gases in ground water taking into account equilibration with entrapped air: Nature, v. 405, p. 1040–1043.

Aravena, Ramon, Wassenaar, L.I., and Plummer, L.N., 1995, 

Estimating 14C groundwater ages in a methanogenic aquifer: 

Water Resources Research, v. 31, p. 2307–2317.

Armstrong, R.L., 1968, Sevier orogenic belt in Nevada and 

Utah: Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists, v. 79, p. 429–458.

Belcher, W.R., Elliott, P.E., and Geldon, A.L., 2001, Hydraulic-property estimates for use with a transient ground-water 

flow model of the Death Valley regional ground-water flow 

system, Nevada and California: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4210, 28 p.

Belcher, W.R., Sweetkind, D.S., and Elliott, P.E., 2002, 

Probability distributions of hydraulic conductivity for the 

hydrogeologic units of the Death Valley regional groundwater flow system, Nevada and California: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4212, 

24 p.

Berger, D.L., Johnson, M.J., Tumbusch, M.L., and Mackay, 

Jeffrey, 2001, Estimates of evapotranspiration from the 

Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge area, Ruby Valley, 

northeastern Nevada, May 1999–October 2000: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

01-4234, 38 p.

Burden, C.B., and others, 2013, Groundwater conditions 

in Utah, spring of 2013: Utah Department of Natural 

Resources Cooperative Investigations Report No. 54, 118 p.

Buto, S.G., 2011, Description of spatial datasets accompanying the conceptual model of the Great Basin carbonate and 

alluvial aquifer system, appendix 6 of Heilweil, V.M., and 

Brooks, L.E., eds., Conceptual model of the Great Basin 

carbonate and alluvial aquifer system: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5193, p. 177–179.

Cederberg, J.R., Sweetkind, D.S., Buto, S.G., and Masbruch, 

M.D., 2011, Three-dimensional hydrogeologic framework, 

appendix 1 of Heilweil, V.M., and Brooks, L.E., eds., 

Conceptual model of the Great Basin carbonate and alluvial 

aquifer system: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5193, p. 127–141.

Clark, I., and Fritz, P., 1997, Environmental isotopes in hydrogeology: Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press LLC, 328 p.

Constenius, K.N., 1996, Late Paleogene extensional collapse 

of the Cordilleran foreland fold and thrust belt: Geological 

Society of America Bulletin, v. 108, p. 20–39.

Constenius, K.N., Esser, R.P., and Layer, P.W., 2003, Extensional collapse of the Charleston-Nebo salient and its 

relationship to space-time variations in Cordilleran orogenic 

belt tectonism and continental stratigraphy, in Raynolds, 

R.G., and Flores, R.M., eds., Cenozoic systems of the 

Rocky Mountain region: Denver, Rocky Mountain Section, 

Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, p. 

303–353.

Cooper, D.J., Sanderson, J.S., Stannard, D.I., and Groeneveld, 

D.P., 2006, Effects of long-term water table drawdown on 

evapotranspiration and vegetation in an arid region phreatophyte community: Journal of Hydrology, v. 325, p. 21–34.

Coplen, T.B., 1994, Reporting of stable hydrogen, carbon, and 

oxygen isotopic abundances: Pure and Applied Chemistry, 

v. 66, p. 273–276.

Craig, Harmon, 1961a, Isotopic variations in meteoric waters: 

Science, v. 133, p. 1702–1703.
References Cited 47

Craig, Harmon, 1961b, Standard for reporting concentrations 

of deuterium and oxygen-18 in natural waters: Science, v. 

133, p. 1833–1834.

Daly, Christopher, Halbleib, Michael, Smith, J.I., Gibson, 

W.P., Doggett, M.K., Taylor, G.H., Curtis, Jan, and Pasteris, 

P.A., 2008, Physiographically-sensitive mapping of temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United 

States: International Journal of Climatology, v. 28, no. 15, p. 

2031–2064, accessed on June 9, 2014 at http://www.prism.

oregonstate.edu/normals/.

Dansgaard, Willi, 1964, Stable isotopes in precipitation: Tellus, v. 16, p. 436–468.

DeCelles, P.G., and Coogan, J.C., 2006, Regional structure 

and kinematic history of the Sevier fold-and-thrust belt, 

central Utah: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 

118, p. 841–864.

DeMeo, G.A., Smith, J.L., Damar, N.A., and Darnell, Jon, 

2008, Quantifying ground-water and surface-water discharge from evapotranspiration processes in 12 hydrographic areas of the Colorado regional ground-water flow 

system, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5116, 22 p.

Domenico, P.A., and Schwartz, F.W., 1998, Heat transport in 

ground-water flow, chap. 9 of Physical and chemical hydrogeology: New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., p. 191–214.

Fairbanks, R.G., Mortlock, R.A., Chiu, Tzu-Chien, Cao, Li, 

Kaplan, Alexey, Guilderson, T.P., Fairbanks, T.W., Bloom, 

A.L., Grootes, P.M., and Nadeau, M.J., 2005, Radiocarbon 

calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on 

paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine corals: 

Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 24, p. 1781–1796.

Fenneman, N.M., 1931, Physiography of western United 

States: New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 534 p.

Flint, A.L., and Flint, L.E., 2007a, Application of the Basin 

Characterization Model to estimate in-place recharge and 

runoff potential in the Basin and Range carbonate-rock 

aquifer system, White Pine County, Nevada, and adjacent 

areas in Nevada and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5099, 20 p.

Flint, A.L., Flint, L.E., and Masbruch, M.D., 2011, Input, 

calibration, uncertainty, and limitations of the Basin Characterization Model, appendix 3 of Heilweil, V.M., and Brooks, 

L.E., eds., Conceptual model of the Great Basin carbonate 

and alluvial aquifer system: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5193, p. 149–163.

Flint, L.E., and Flint, A.L., 2007b, Regional analysis of 

ground-water recharge, in Stonestrom, D.A., Constantz, J., 

Ferré, T.P.A., and Leake, S.A., eds., Ground-water recharge 

in the arid and semiarid southwestern United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1703, p. 29–59.

Fontes, J.C., and Garnier, J.M., 1979, Determination of initial 14C activity of the total dissolved carbon: A review of existing models and a new approach: Water Resources Research, 

v. 5, p. 399–413.

Gardner, P.M., and Heilweil, V.M., 2014, A multiple-tracer 

approach to understanding regional groundwater flow in the 

Snake Valley area of the eastern Great Basin, USA: Applied 

Geochemistry, v. 45, p. 33–49.

Gardner, P.M., Masbruch, M.D., Plume, R.W., and Buto, S.G., 

2011, Regional potentiometric-surface map of the Great 

Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system in Snake Valley 

and surrounding areas, Juab, Millard, and Beaver Counties, Utah, and White Pine and Lincoln Counties, Nevada: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3193, 

2 sheets.

Gardner, P., and Solomon, D.K., 2009, An advanced passive 

diffusion sampler for the determination of dissolved gas 

concentrations: Water Resources Research, v. 45, W06423, 

doi:10.1029/2008WR007399.

Gates, J.S., 2007, Effects of climatic extremes on ground 

water in western Utah, 1930–2005: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5045, 10 p.

Gates, J.S., and Kruer, S.A., 1981, Hydrologic reconnaissance 

of the southern Great Salt Lake Desert and summary of the 

hydrology of west-central Utah: Utah Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication No. 71, 55 p.

Halford, K.J., and Plume, R.W., 2011, Potential effects of 

groundwater pumping on water levels, phreatophytes, and 

spring discharges in Spring and Snake Valleys, White Pine 

County, Nevada, and adjacent areas in Nevada and Utah: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2011-5032, 52 p.

Harrill, J.R., Gates, J.S., and Thomas, J.M., 1988, Major 

ground-water flow systems in the Great Basin region of 

Nevada, Utah, and adjacent states: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-694-C, 2 sheets, 

scale 1:1,000,000.

Hart, Rachelle, Nelson, S.T., and Eggett, D., 2010, Uncertainty 

in 14C model ages of saturated zone waters—The influence 

of soil gas in terranes dominated by C3 plants: Journal of 

Hydrology, v. 392, p. 83–95.
48 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

Heilweil, V.M., and Brooks, L.E., eds., 2011, Conceptual 

model of the Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer 

system: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2010-5193, 191 p.

Heilweil, V.M., Sweetkind, D.S., and Susong, D.D., 2011, 

Introduction, chap. A of Heilweil, V.M., and Brooks, L.E., 

eds., Conceptual model of the Great Basin carbonate and 

alluvial aquifer system: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2010-5193, p. 3–14.

Hershey, R.L., Heilweil, V.M., Gardner, P.M., Lyles, B.F., Earman, S.B., Thomas, J.M., Lundmark, K.W., 2007, Groundwater chemistry interpretations supporting the Basin and 

Range regional carbonate-rock aquifer system (BARCAS) 

study, eastern Nevada and western Utah: Desert Research 

Institute Publication No. 41230, Nevada, 106 p.

Hevesi, J.A., Flint, A.L., and Flint, L.E., 2003, Simulation of 

net infiltration and potential recharge using a distributedparameter watershed model of the Death Valley region, 

Nevada and California: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 03-4090, 161 p.

Hood, J.W., and Waddell, K.M., 1969, Hydrologic reconnaissance of Deep Creek Valley, Tooele and Juab Counties, 

Utah, and Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada: Utah 

Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication 24, 

54 p.

Ingerson, R., and Pearson, F.J., 1964, Estimation of age and 

rate of motion of groundwater by the 14C method, in

Miyake, Y., and Koyama, T., eds., Recent research in the 

field of hydrosphere, atmosphere, and nuclear geochemistry: 

Tokyo, Maruzen, p. 263–268.

Jeton, A.E., Watkins, S.A., Lopes, T.J., and Huntington, J., 

2006, Evaluation of precipitation estimates from PRISM for 

the 1961–90 and 1971–2000 data sets, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5291, 

26 p.

Kalin, R.M., 2000, Radiocarbon dating of groundwater systems, chap. 4 of Cook, P.G., and Herczeg A.L., eds., Environmental tracers in subsurface hydrology: Boston, Kluwer 

Academic Publishers, p. 111–144.

Keith, M.L., and Weber, J.N., 1964, Carbon and oxygen isotopic composition of selected limestones and fossils: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 28, p. 1787–1816.

Kendall, Carol, and Caldwell, E.A., 1998, Fundamentals 

of isotope geochemistry, chap. 2 of Kendall, Carol, and 

McDonnell, J.J., eds., Isotope tracers in catchment hydrology: Amsterdam, Elsevier Science Publishers.

Kipfer, Rolf, Aeschbach-Hertig, Werner, Peeters, Frank, and 

Stute, Marvin, 2002, Noble gases in lakes and ground 

waters, in Porcelli, D., Ballentine, C.J., and Wieler, R., eds., 

Reviews in mineralogy and geochemistry, v. 47, Noble 

gases in geochemistry and cosmochemistry: Chantilly, Virginia, Mineralogical Society of America, p. 615–700.

Leavesley, G.H., Lichty, R.W., Troutman, B.M., and Saindon, 

L.G., 1983, Precipitation-runoff modeling system—User’s 

manual: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 83–4238, 207 p.

Manning, A.H., 2009, Ground-water temperature, noble gas, 

and carbon isotope data from the Española Basin, New 

Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2008–5200, 69 p. 

Manning, A.H., 2011, Mountain-block recharge, present and 

past, in the eastern Española Basin, New Mexico, USA: 

Hydrogeology Journal, v. 19, p. 379–397.

Manning, A.H., and Solomon, D.K., 2003, Using noble gases 

to investigate mountain-front recharge: Journal of Hydrology, v. 275, p. 194–207.

Masbruch, M.D., Chapman, D.S., and Solomon, D.K., 2012, 

Air, ground, and groundwater recharge temperatures in 

an alpine setting, Brighton Basin, Utah: Water Resources 

Research, v. 48, W10530, doi:10.1029/2012WR012100.

Masbruch, M.D., Heilweil, V.M., Buto, S.G., Brooks, L.E., 

Susong, D.D., Flint, A.L., Flint, L.E., and Gardner, P.M., 

2011, Estimated groundwater budgets, chap. D of Heilweil, 

V.M., and Brooks, L.E., eds., Conceptual model of the Great 

Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5193, 

p. 73–125.

Maxey, G.B., and Eakin, T.E., 1949, Ground water in 

White River Valley, White Pine, Nye, and Lincoln Counties, Nevada: Nevada Office of the State Engineer Water 

Resources Bulletin no. 8, 59 p.

Mazor, E., 1991, Applied chemical and isotopic groundwater 

hydrology: New York, Halsted Press, 273 p.

Mazor, E., and Bosch, A., 1992, Helium as a semi-quantitative 

tool for groundwater dating in the range of 104

 to 108 years, 

in Isotopes of noble gases as tracers in environmental studies: Proceedings of a consultants meeting on isotopes of 

noble gases as tracers in environmental studies organized by 

the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, May 29 to 

June 2, 1989, Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency, 

p. 163–178.

Medina, R.L., 2005, 1:1,000,000-scale areas of evapotranspiration in the Great Basin: U.S. Geological Survey vector 

digital data, accessed March 2007, at http://water.usgs.gov/

GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML/ha694c_et1000gb_p.xml.
References Cited 49

Michel, R.L., 1989, Tritium deposition over the continental 

United States, 1953–1983, in Atmospheric deposition: International Association of Hydrological Sciences, p. 109–115.

Moreo, M.T., Laczniak, R.J., and Stannard, D.I., 2007, 

Evapotranspiration rate measurements of vegetation typical 

of ground-water discharge areas in the Basin and Range 

carbonate-rock aquifer system, Nevada and Utah, September 2005–August 2006: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2007-5078, 37 p.

Nichols, W.D., 2000, Determining ground-water evapotranspiration from phreatophyte shrubs and grasses as a function of plant cover or depth to ground water, Great Basin, 

Nevada and eastern California, chap. A of Nichols, W.D., 

ed., Regional ground-water evapotranspiration and groundwater budgets, Great Basin, Nevada: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1628, p. A1–A14.

Parkhurst, D.L., and Plummer, L.N., 1983, Geochemical 

models, chap. 9 of Alley, W.M., ed., Regional groundwater 

quality: New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 634 p.

Pearson, F.J., and White, D.E., 1967, Carbon14 ages and flow 

rates of water in Carrizo Sand, Atascosa County, Texas: 

Water Resources Research, v. 3, p. 251–261.

Plummer, L.N., Busby, J.F., Lee, R.W., and Hanshaw, B.B., 

1990, Geochemical modeling of the Madison aquifer in 

parts of Montana, Wyoming, and South Dakota: Water 

Resources Research v. 26, p. 1981–2014.

Plummer, L.N., Prestemon, E.C., and Parkhurst, D.L., 1994, 

An interactive code (NETPATH) for modeling net geochemical reactions along a flow path, version 2.0: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94–4169, 

130 p.

Plummer, L.N., and Sprinkle, C.L., 2001, Radiocarbon dating 

of dissolved inorganic carbon in groundwater from confined 

parts of the Upper Floridan aquifer, Florida, USA: Hydrogeology Journal, v. 9, p. 127–150.

Prudic, D.E., and Glancy, P.A., 2009, Geochemical investigation of source water to Cave Springs, Great Basin National 

Park, White Pine County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5073, 28 p.

Prudic, D.E., Harrill, J.R., and Burbey, T.J., 1995, Conceptual 

evaluation of regional ground-water flow in the carbonaterock province of the Great Basin, Nevada, Utah, and 

adjacent states: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1409-D, 102 p.

Reiner, S.R., Laczniak, R.J., DeMeo, G.A., Smith, J.L., Elliott, 

P.E., Nylund, W.E., and Fridrich, C.J., 2002, Ground-water 

discharge determined from measurements of evapotranspiration, other available hydrologic components, and shallow 

water-level changes, Oasis Valley, Nye County, Nevada: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 01-4239, 65 p.

Sanford, W.E., Shropshire, R.G., and Solomon, D.K., 1996, 

Dissolved gas tracers in groundwater—Simplified injection, 

sampling, and analysis: Water Resources Research, v. 32, 

p. 1635–1642.

San Juan, C.A., Belcher, W.R., Laczniak, R.J., and Putnam, 

H.M., 2010, Hydrologic components for model development, chap. C of Belcher, W.R., and Sweetkind, D.S., eds., 

Death Valley regional groundwater flow system, Nevada 

and California—Hydrogeologic framework and transient 

groundwater flow model: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1711, p. 99–132.

Scott, B.R., Smales, T.J., Rush, F.E., and Van Denburgh, A.S., 

1971, Water for Nevada: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Water Planning Report No. 3, 

87 p.

Smith, G.I., Friedman, Irving, Veronda, Guida, and Johnson, 

C.A., 2002, Stable isotope compositions of waters in the 

Great Basin, United States, 3. Comparison of groundwaters with modern precipitation: Journal of Geophysical 

Research, v. 107, p. ACL16.1–ACL16.15.

Solomon, D.K., 2000, 4

He in groundwater, chap. 14 of Cook, 

P.G., and Herczeg A.L., eds., Environmental tracers in subsurface hydrology: Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 

p. 425–440.

Solomon, D.K., and Cook, P.G., 2000, 3H and 3He, chap. 13 of

Cook, P.G., and Herczeg A.L., eds., Environmental tracers 

in subsurface hydrology: Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 397–424.

Stonestrom, D.A., Prudic, D.E., Laczniak, R.J., Akstin, K.C., 

Boyd, R.A., and Henkelman, K.K., 2003, Estimates of 

deep percolation beneath native vegetation, irrigated fields, 

and the Amargosa River channel, Amargosa Desert, Nye 

County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

03-104, 88 p.

Stute, Marvin, and Schlosser, Peter, 2000, Atmospheric noble 

gases, chap. 11 of Cook, P.G., and Herczeg, A.L., eds., 

Environmental tracers in subsurface hydrology: Boston, 

Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 349–377.

Susong, D.D., 1995, Water budget and simulation of onedimensional unsaturated flow for a flood- and sprinklerirrigated field near Milford, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4072, 32 p.
50 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

Sweetkind, D.S., Cederberg, J.R., Masbruch, M.D., and 

Buto, S.G., 2011a, Hydrogeologic framework, chap. B of

Heilweil, V.M., and Brooks, L.E., eds., Conceptual model 

of the Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2010-5193, 188 p.

Sweetkind, D.S., Masbruch, M.D., Heilweil, V.M., and Buto, 

S.G., 2011b, Groundwater flow, chap. C of Heilweil, V.M., 

and Brooks, L.E., eds., Conceptual model of the Great 

Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5193, 

p. 51–72.

Tamers, M.A., 1975, Validity of radiocarbon dates on groundwater: Geophysical Surveys, v. 2, p. 217–239.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, Census 2000 Summary File 1 

(SF 1), accessed June 11, 2014, at http://www.census.gov/

census2000/sumfile1.html.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2006, National Agricultural 

Imagery Program (NAIP), Compressed County Mosaics 

(CCM) for Utah, accessed January 20, 2011, at http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007, Southwest 

Regional Gap Analysis Program (SWReGAP) for Nevada, 

Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona— Project status: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research 

and Development, Las Vegas, Nevada, accessed May 10, 

2009, at http://www.epa.gov/esd/land-sci/gap-status.htm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014, Drinking water 

contaminants: Accessed September 2014, at http://water.

epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm#mcls.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1991, National water summary, 

1988–89: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

2375, 591 p.

Utah Department of Natural Resources, 2004, Downloadable 

GIS land use data: Accessed April 2006, at http://www.

water.utah.gov/gisdata.htm.

Utah Department of Natural Resources, 2014, Utah Geological Survey’s West Desert ground-water monitoring network 

webpage: Accessed September 2014, at http://geology.utah.

gov/resources/data-databases/groundwater-monitoring.

Utah State University, 1994, Consumptive use of irrigated 

crops in Utah: Utah Agricultural Experiment Station 

Research Report 145: Logan, Utah State University, 361 p.

Welch, A.H., Bright, D.J., and Knochenmus, L.A., eds., 2007, 

Water resources of the Basin and Range carbonate-rock 

aquifer system, White Pine County, Nevada, and adjacent 

areas in Nevada and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5261, 96 p.

Welch, A.H., and Preissler, A.M., 1986, Aqueous geochemistry of the Bradys Hot Springs geothermal area, Churchill 

County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply 

Paper 2290, p. 17–36. 

Wilde, F.D., and Radtke, D.B., 1998, Field measurements: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 9, chap. A6 [variously paged].

Wilkowske, C.D., Kenney, T.A., and Wright, S.J., 2008, Methods for estimating monthly and annual streamflow statistics 

at ungaged sites in Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2008-5230, 63 p.
Appendix 1. Data Tables 51

Appendix 1. Data Tables

Table A1-1. Selected attributes of wells and water levels measured in wells used in constructing the water-level surface map for Deep 

Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah and Nevada.

[Data, except where indicated, is from the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water Information System (NWIS) database. Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North 

American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Abbreviations: USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; —, no information; >, greater than; <, less than]

USGS site number USGS site name Latitude 

(decimal degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal degrees)

Well depth 

(feet)

Altitude of 

land 

surface 

(feet)

Measurement 

date

Depth to water 

below or above 

(-) land surface 

(feet)

Water-level 

altitude 

(feet)

400003114025901 193 N25 E70 34ACCC1 40.00094444 -114.04975000 90 5,453 3/6/2012 15.12 5,438

395815114043401 193 N24 E70 09CBAB1 39.97072222 -114.07605556 — 5,541 3/6/2012 -4.78 5,546

400831113591001 (C- 8-19) 9dad- 1 40.14361111 -113.98341667 306 5,134 3/11/2010 -8.25 5,142

400329113593601 (C- 9-19) 9caa- 1 40.05816667 -113.99319444 540 5,233 3/8/2012 42.84 5,190

395608113583301 (C-10-19)22cdc- 1 39.93549420 -113.97666740 506 5,726 3/14/2012 122.39 5,604

395620113584001 (C-10-19)22cbd- 1 39.93869444 -113.97869444 300 5,689 8/22/2002 87 5,602

395633113584301 (C-10-19)22bcd- 1 39.94243856 -113.97944540 130 5,672 3/30/2000 66.84 5,605

400201113583801 (C- 9-19)22bac- 1 40.03344444 -113.97738889 100 5,315 3/5/2012 13.30 5,302

400219113591901 (C- 9-19)16dca- 2 40.03863889 -113.98863889 — 5,272 3/6/2012 7.05 5,265

— 1

(C- 9-19)16ddd- 1 40.03750000 -113.98555556 — 5,282 9/15/1995 10 5,272

400210113585701 (C- 9-19)22bbb- 1 40.03604846 -113.98333600 — 5,289 3/26/1990 10.5 5,279

400135113591001 (C- 9-19)21dac- 1 40.02725000 -113.98647222 50 5,300 3/8/2012 1.17 5,299

400125113592501 (C- 9-19)28aba- 1 40.02088889 -113.99050000 70 5,320 3/8/2012 10.50 5,310

400024113582701 (C- 9-19)34baa- 1 40.00650000 -113.97627778 147 5,380 8/1/1960 -19 5,399

400056113582701 (C- 9-19)27caa- 1 40.01394444 -113.97425000 45 5,367 3/5/2012 17.41 5,350

395929113584901 (C-10-19) 3bbd- 1 39.99147222 -113.98033333 — 5,469 3/5/2012 12.65 5,456

395952113584101 (C- 9-19)34cac- 1 39.99780556 -113.97800000 — 5,440 3/5/2012 4.87 5,435

400543114145101 186A N26 E68 25ACCC1 USBLM 

BLACK HILLS WELL 40.09533333 -114.26408333 592 5,886 11/6/1985 497 5,389

400110114154101 185 N25 E68 26B 1 USBLM 40.01697222 -114.26925000 448 5,906 3/7/2012 378.03 5,528

395106114150601 185 N23 E68 23DDBB1 USBLM 39.85169444 -114.24986111 — 5,787 3/5/2012 >268.5, Dry >5,518

395433114173701 185 N23 E68 04B 1 USBLM 39.90400000 -114.30108333 175 5,673 10/22/1969 115.18 5,558

395245114125901 185 N23 E69 07DCBD1 GOSHUTE 

RESERVATION 39.87899720 -114.21811390 — 5,804 7/19/2005 275.09 5,529

395607114095201 193 N24 E69 27 1 G NE 39.93525000 -114.16488889 260 5,784 3/5/2012 254.45 5,530

395302114084401 193 N23 E69 11 1 G E END 39.88388889 -114.13516667 <500 5,965 2/7/2012 397.20 5,568

395608114123601 185 N24 E69 19DDCD1 Goshute 

Reservation 39.93572222 -114.21280556 252 5,741 3/5/2012 212.23 5,529

394422114205201 185 N22 E67 36DBAC1 USBLM 39.72950000 -114.34405556 350 5,840 3/7/2012 306.18 5,534

392703114230501 184 N18 E67 01CCAA1 39.44966386 -114.39056130 42 5,587 3/6/2012 40.35 5,547

393211114320701 184 N19 E66 11B 1 39.53080556 -114.51727778 400 5,698 2/14/2012 37.61 5,661

393059114221501 184 N19 E67 13AAAC1 39.51799688 -114.37806200 53 5,614 3/6/2012 48.56 5,565

393442114231801 184 N20 E67 26ABBD1 USBLM 39.57632936 -114.40028630 130 5,705 3/6/2012 122.35 5,583

393729114265401 184 N20 E67 09AABD1 DOUTRE 39.62016667 -114.43555560 280 5,787 3/6/2012 178.25 5,609

393617114295001 184 N20 E66 13BADA1 39.60475000 -114.49727778 296 5,775 2/15/2012 124.03 5,651

393544114320301 184 N20 E66 15DCBC1 39.59547800 -114.53410300 420 5,960 9/4/2009 315 5,645

— Willow Spring Well1 39.69700300 -114.50609400 35 5,990 5/5/2010 8 5,982

394407114320401 184 N21 E66 04B 1 39.72715975 -114.52446060 — 6,070 7/16/1964 21.4 6,049

392700114300901 184A N18 E66 01CCAA1 KEEGAN 

SPRING 39.45002778 -114.50252778 22 5,625 5/8/2010 1.5 5,624

395750114113201 185 N24 E69 17 1 G NW 39.96388889 -114.19222220 340 5,850 3/5/2012 319.62 5,530

400303113590301 (C- 9-19)16aaa- 1 40.05083333 -113.98402778 — 5,236 3/8/2012 7.07 5,229

395814113594101 (C-10-19) 9caa- 1 39.97052778 -113.99477778 — 5,551 3/6/2012 10.65 5,540

395935113584501 (C- 9-19)34ccd- 1 39.99444444 -113.97950000 80 5,453 3/6/2012 4.89 5,448

395937114031301 193 N25 E70 34DCD1 39.99372222 -114.05363889 — 5,479 3/6/2012 3.47 5,476

1

Not in the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water Information System (NWIS) database.
52 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

Table A1-2. Selected attributes of groundwater sites sampled during the spring of 2012 in Deep Creek Valley and adjacent areas, Utah 

and Nevada.

[Site ID: see figure 17 for locations. Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Abbreviations: USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; 

UBFAU, upper basin-fill aquifer unit; LBFAU, lower basin-fill aquifer unit; LCAU, lower carbonate aquifer unit; NCCU, non-carbonate confining unit; —, no information]

Site ID USGS site number USGS site name Site type

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Well 

depth 

(feet)

Depth to top 

and bottom 

of openings 

(feet)

Altitude of 

land 

surface 

(feet)

Hydrogeologic unitSample 

date

1 400543114145101 186A N26 E68 25ACCC1 Stock well 40.09533333 -114.26408333 590 550–580 5,988 LBFAU1 5/16/2012

2 400216113591701 (C- 9-19)16ddc- 2 Domestic well 40.03786100 -113.98797200 216 186–216 5,280 UBFAU1 5/18/2012

3 394554114003501 (C-12-19)20aac-S1 Spring 39.76494400 -114.00969400 — — 7,560 NCCU 5/14/2012

4 395112114014501 (C-11-19)19cad-S1 Spring 39.85333300 -114.02919400 — — 6,335 LCAU 5/14/2012

5 400024113582701 (C- 9-19)34baa- 1 Unused flowing 

well 40.00650000 -113.97627778 147 112–147 5,380 UBFAU1 5/17/2012

6 394149114302201 184 N21 E66 15DBDD1 Spring 39.69672200 -114.50697200 — — 5,980 UBFAU 5/15/2012

7 395815114043401 193 N24 E70 09CBAB1 Unused flowing 

well 39.97072200 -114.07605600 — — 5,540 UBFAU1 5/17/2012

8 395237114222501 185 N23 E67 14BA 2 Spring 39.87694400 -114.37352800 — — 6,240 LCAU 5/16/2012

9 400831113591001 (C- 8-19) 9dad- 1 Unused flowing 

well 40.14363300 -113.98342800 306 — 5,134 UBFAU1 5/17/2012

10 394422114205201 185 N22 E67 36DBAC1 Stock well 39.73938400 -114.34862100 350 295–350 5,775 UBFAU1 5/15/2012

1

Not determined from driller’s log but rather assumed based on location or depth.
Appendix 2. Groundwater Budget Uncertainty 53

Appendix 2. Groundwater Budget Uncertainty

The groundwater budget values in table 4 are estimates 

based on models, assumptions, correlations, or regressions 

that are fundamentally derived from representative measurements often made at only a few points in time. As a result, 

these estimates have an associated uncertainty that is difficult 

to quantify but important to acknowledge. An attempt has 

been made in the current study to quantify these uncertainties. 

Each of the groundwater budget components in table 4, along 

with the total recharge and discharge, are presented with an 

uncertainty value (expressed as a percentage of the component 

value) that is intended to convey the possible range that the 

actual value might vary. Often, budget components are derived 

from several variables, and the uncertainty reported in table 4 

is that of the variable with the largest contribution to the total 

uncertainty. The list that follows briefly explains how each of 

the uncertainties was derived.

Recharge Components

(1) The uncertainty in the infiltration of precipitation is based 

on a sensitivity analysis of the Basin Characterization Model 

in-place recharge by the authors of the model and documented 

in Flint and others (2011) and Masbruch and others (2011).

(2) The uncertainty in the subsurface inflow estimates is 

unknown because the methods by which these estimates were 

made were not documented in the reports from which these 

estimates were taken.

Discharge Components

(1) The uncertainty in the evapotranspiration of groundwater is based on an error analysis that assumes that the range 

of evapotranspiration rates are either (i) the high and low 

measured rates for different vegetation types reported in recent 

literature (Nichols, 2000; Berger and others, 2001; Reiner and 

others, 2002; Cooper and others, 2006; Moreo and others, 

2007; Welch and others, 2007), or (ii) plus or minus 1 standard 

deviation for rates reported as consumptive use of irrigated 

crops (Utah State University, 1994). This analysis also takes 

into account that the uncertainty in precipitation that is subtracted from total evapotranspiration to obtain the estimate of 

groundwater evapotranspiration is plus or minus 15 percent 

(Jeton and others, 2006).

(2) The uncertainty in the discharge to mountain springs and 

stream base flow is the assumed measurement error.

(3) The uncertainty in the well discharge estimate is unknown.

(4) The uncertainty in the subsurface outflow estimate is 

unknown because the methods by which these estimates were 

made were not documented in the reports from which these 

estimates were taken.
54 Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas 

Gardner and Masbruch —Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Characterization of Groundwater Resources in Deep Creek Valley and Adjacent Areas, Juab and 

Tooele Counties, Utah, and Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada—SIR 2015–5097

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155097 

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)